The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

pleaaaase...don't lump me in with those two yoko's...at least I can keep my points brief and single-posted

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Great review!!

As far as this part -- what if her "mental illness" could be viewed from a theological/biblical perspective? Where women are viewed as flawed/evil/sinful/etc? To support this: Didn't her paper she was reading/writing did discuss that women

[Show spoiler]deserve to be abused/etc? In other words: enforced a mental illness of hate/gulit of one's own gender?

. Also wasn't the film in "Eden", where Genesis (i.e. theological perspective) says that

[Show spoiler](1) God told Adam/Eve not to pick fruit from Tree of Knowledge, (2) Serpent tempted Eve (translation: women effed up), (3) Eve took fruit, gave some to Adam, (4) Adam and Eve ate fruit (5) God kicked Adam and Eve (i.e., humanity) out of Eden, and forbid them from Tree of Life (from a life free of sin/pain), all because momma bear effed up From that standpoint, it seems reasonable that the director is suggesting (1) "She" feels guilty about her son's death, and her guilt/mental illness is based on/fueled by (2) a theological perspective of women being the source of evil/sin/etc in our world. I think the director may be trying to show us how effed up this Biblical/Genesis perspective is (from which Western culture is based, being Judeo-Christian). So he just shows us the extremes of a mental illness which is consistent with it.

The point where I get fuzzy is: if the theological perspecitve/GEnesis (that women are the source of sin/evil in the world) is bad, then what is the film saying instead? that we actually live in a God-absent world where everyone is effed, instead of before (with God) where only "bad" humans (that succommed to the female-originated sin) were effed?

I know...need to watch it again.

Everything you said was 100% accurate IMO. Loved the spouse-counselor analysis! Great insight there. Also, regarding her

[Show spoiler]illness/guilt

, its true that she was doing whatever she could to avoid it, like you said.

Here you agree with me....

Originally Posted by surfdude12

I guess this is where we'll differ = context. Watching this as a literal work (a.k.a. "it is what it is") seems to be off, IMO. And I don't think this has anything to do with seeking themes. It merely has to do with finding the right lens through which to watch the film, before any themes are determined.

It seems as though you've chosen a physical/literal/rational/scientific/psychological context. Within that context, I think all of your analysis is very thorough and accurate. Heck, I may choose that context on my next viewing But for now, on my first viewing, I went with a different one.

However, in my initial viewing (I haven't watched the extras or watched any interviews) I can't imagine that this is the intended context, and instead that a metaphysical/intuitive/spiritual/theological context was intended. THere are just way too many intentional roadblocks preventing any other context, such that if your context was intended, this was the biggest directional misdirection of intent in the history of cinema. I won't go into them all here as they've been discussed ad nauseum (Title of film, Eden, "he" and "she" = intentional omission of names, study of women being inherently evil, imagery, etc). The likelihood of a non-literal context far outweighs a literal context, IMO.



Excuse me??

True. Within your chosen context. But "the title is wrong"? what do you mean "is wrong"? If by "is wrong" you mean it does not lend itself to interpretation within your chosen context, then I'd have to disagree with the context, not the title. The title has to have meaning!! Like I said, I need to watch this again, but within the context the title has meaning in which

[Show spoiler]"she" represents an anti-christ - which is defined (oxford) as a false Christ who will come resembling Christ and spread evil on the world. She was sacrificed (burned) as Christ, in a martyr like ceremony at the end. But unlike Christ, who brought an end to sin for mankind, she is the opposite: was sacrified and brought a beginning of sin on mankind, in a (satan-ruled) world where sin is the goal of every person, rather than in our world (where avoidance of sin is the goal)

Is this explicitly in the script? No. However, the "not depicted in the film" standard flows both ways, and I don't see anything depicted in the film about 2 central things that you argue: that (1) she had this

[Show spoiler]"problem" before she read up on the gender-hate stuff, and the gender/theological stuff just made an existing problem worse, and (2) the film is only about one man and one woman. (1) To the contrary: the only "pre-incident" stuff I saw was when she was (a) at Eden, (b) with the Son, (c) writing her PhD dissertation on the gender-hate topic, and (d) putting his shoes on backwards, which arguably caused his fall. What was depicted in the film that she had issues prior to her PhD dissertation? I didn't see any. If it was implied/inferred, I get it, but then we're going beyond the script. regarding #(2): the intentional lack of any character names alone, "He" and "She" by itself makes it more likely that the film is about more than the two human beings on the screen. Again, I don't see anything explicitly stating otherwise? Just weighing the two?

agreed, within your chosen context. also agreed regarding the

[Show spoiler]"before teh loss of teh child"

, but this was contemporaneous with

[Show spoiler]her PhD study/research of women being evil, so the problem was arguably caused by this

again, agree 100% within the literal/rational/psychological context. within the metaphysical/intuitive/spiritual/theological context, the whole issue of "helping her" is itself the problem, regardless of who is doing it.

[Show spoiler]"help her" = she has a "problem" = she is a problem = reinforces her gender self-hate = accelerate her incarnation into the ANtichrist = sin leashed on the world = Satan's world flourishes.

Again, agree with your context. Here is my bottom line: I'd agree with this context if the film was titled "Camp Guilt", took place at a setting near Lake Erie, and didn't have the theological references. Otherwise, I'd be all about a secular context.



Yes, within that context. However, within the spiritual context,

[Show spoiler]she is asking for "help", but that "help" involves being sacrificed. To be burned, smacked, etc., all reinforces her negative gender self-image, and hence (sick as it seems) is being sought out by her, by trying to illicit violent reactions in him against her. Thus she becomes the sacrificed Antichrist in a Satan world where sin is rewarded, and absence from sin is scorned, a 180 from our world. "He" may feel like crap after killing her. He may feel guilt, etc. But that's the point! This is a world where sin is the goal. He gets an A+

And here I am all wrong?

Make up yer mind sailor.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by tbizzle

Pi - 4/5

I really liked the look and feel of this film, and the score complimented it very well. I was diggin the camera movement and the constant use of interesting angles, at times providing a clostrophobic, itchy, chaotic feel. The acting was fine, but I was mainly concentrating on the style. The pacing was kinda slow but overall I enjoyed it, but it's gonna be a while before I see it again. Definitely recommend this one, it's a trippy film.

So far, I like/love everything Aronofsky has touched. He's my "director to watch".

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by two40

Inception (2010)

[Show spoiler]Not one to be left out of my social circle, I made it a priority to watch Inception. Like wow. It blew my mind. I'm not sure what happened exactly but it was awesome. There were these dreams and people were stealing them. Lots of action for the family. At least like 50 people die which is a bit low but still good. And there were all these layers, like in a cake. Oh, speaking of cakes, I've been learning to cook recently. Experimenting with food is so much fun. One of the tastiest cakes is Tiramisu. If you haven't tried it before, please do yourself a favour and add these ingredients to your shopping list:

3/4 cup Baileys Irish Cream
1½ cup of strongly brewed espresso
500g mascarpone cheese
4 tablespoon of icing or superfine castor sugar
½ teaspoon of vanilla extract or essence
½ cup of lightly whipped cream
260g of savoiardi (thin sponge finger biscuits)
20g of cocoa powder

The cheese is very important so make sure you get mascarpone. Once you have all of the above, just dive in. Don't be afraid. Cooking is very easy and oh so satisfying when you taste something that you've created. Baking is a bit harder than other types of cooking but don't let that put you off. It just means you have to pay closer attention to the instructions and follow them accurately. So let's start shall we?

Combine ½ cup of the baileys irish cream and the expresso in a shallow dish. Set aside.

Mix the mascarpone, sugar, vanilla and the remaining Baileys irish cream, until it's well combined and smooth. Then fold in the lightly whipped cream until combined. Cover and refrigerate.

Dip half the sponge fingers biscuit into the coffee and irish cream mixture and place them in a single layer on the bottom of a 2 litre ceramic dish.

Spread half the mascarpone mixture over the biscuits and dust with cocoa powder. Dip the remaining biscuits in the coffee and Irish cream mixture. Then lay it on top. Then spread the remaing mascapone mixture on top of the biscuits. Dust with cocoa powder and refrigerate. For best results refrigerate for at least 5 hours.

Decorate with whipped cream, strawberries and wafer biscuits. With any remaining coffee and irish cream mixture, add it to a glass full of ice.

Easy no? Give it a go and you'll open up a world of taste sensations with no end of experimentation. It will turn in to a life passion and you will ultimately eat better, impress friends and family and experience tastes unlike anything you can find in a microwave dinner.

Oh, the movie was pretty good too.

3/5

Last year we had a "Yummy things to do with Nutella" discussion that lasted a few pages.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

With a meager 3/5 rating, I get the feeling that this cake is all sweetness and cheese...

Dang it, you're like the third or fourth person on here who's been dissapointed with the highly-rated "Inception." Maybe I should cancel my blind-order...

Rent it. I was very undewhelmed by the "complexity". Be safe, if you love it you can still buy it later...and probably a little cheaper.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by CZAR

Batman: Under the Red Hood - Man I was slightly disappointed as I am so used to these new Pixar & Dreamwork films with that great new CGI and this film had that cartoon look instead. I didnt realize thats how it was goin into it. The movie and story was fine but I had to get used to watching a cartoon again. Not sure if thats my thing anymore. I think I am spoiled by watching films like Toy Story 3 & HTTYD so when I watch a film like Batman and it doesnt have that CGI look I feel cheated.

Now I have some thinking to do when films like The Lion King & Aladdin come to blu as they are also of that cartoon look and not sure if I would be into it as mush as the Pixar look. Oh well. All in all it was still a decent film but the look was disappointing although it was very clear. Got Em!!

Film Rating - 3 stars (out of 5)

I also prefer super detailed animation. I like intense shading and shadows and wicked tones.... like this...

[Show spoiler]

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Rent it. I was very undewhelmed by the "complexity". Be safe, if you love it you can still buy it later...and probably a little cheaper.

Ah, especially with that $40 suitcase edition...

Sounds like a rental is in order.

[Al_The_Strange]

I’ve been waiting for this movie for like a year now, holding out for the perfect edition. It finally came.

“Avatar.”

This movie is definitely up my alley. James Cameron’s films have never disappointed me yet; they provide some of the best combinations of entertainment value, story telling, and cinematic competence. And with a rather unique premise, a lot of awesome-looking sci-fi hardware, plenty of action and eye-candy, this film stands pretty strongly among my other favorites (whether that be “Star Wars,” “LOTR,” any “Star Trek” film, etc). Like those films, “Avatar” presents a very vivid and detailed universe, loaded with detail and environments that gives it a life of its own. Planet Pandora is truly a sight to behold, and is the perfect setting for, heck, any sci-fi film. The spectacle is through-the-roof, and the film maintains even pacing to keep it all fresh and interesting. I think it’s a blast all the way through (even at three hours).

I believe that this film is very competently made. Cameramanship is solid; production design is very strong, and the production value is very high. I know a lot of folks say the writing/acting is terrible, but frankly I don’t think it’s any worse than “Aliens” or any other Cameron film. The music score has its moments.

But if there’s any point of contention (as it is with everybody else), it’s with the story. I went into it believing it’s an adaptation of “Pocahontas,” and in that context I believe it’s a great adaptation. But in the context of originality, “Avatar” is hardly original, as it does take after “Dances with the Wolves,” “The Last Samurai,” and any number of other films. I honestly did find the story very predictable (not to mention that the themes are very opaque).

My dad said that if this film was unpredictable, he wouldn’t have liked it. And therein resides the story’s inherent strength, and possibly the reason why it’s so popular. It is a timeless story that could apply to any era or genre (whether you consider it tacky and unoriginal or not ). Not to mention, how would it have been if the bad guys won in the end? Who would condone a downbeat depressing ending after so much upbeat adventure? This is pure escapism and a heck of a popcorn movie; it provides an adventure that is very audience-friendly and appeals to the masses. Movies of this kind are rarely original (come on, “Star Wars” is a rip off and we all know it . Pure originality is hard to achieve anywhere). So I don’t personally hold it against this film or against Cameron.

The one thing I do find negative about this film (almost annoyingly so) are the characters. Heck, I suppose the characters in Cameron’s films have never been standouts. But, I do believe that his treatments for Sarah Connor and Ellen Ripley have been phenomenal; they are exceptional heroines with a decent amount of depth and development. In “Avatar,” disappointingly, we see very little of this development. On the other hand, it’s the actions of Cameron’s characters that speak louder than words; I think seeing Jake Sully going from a wheel-chair-bound washout to a hopping blue warrior dude says plenty. It’s the other characters I’m more troubled by; the entire supporting cast is very one-dimensional and stereotypical, to the point of becoming unreasonable and annoying. There’s a snobby corporate jerk, there’s a gung-ho trigger-happy military commander, there’s a tree-hugging scientist, there’s a jealous native…the list goes on! And they all represent very distinctive viewpoints and themes that can get rather preachy (this film is very anti-war and pro-nature…could it be a typical Hollywood-ish left-wing liberal view on the world today, or what? ). With a film this long and with its massive scope, perhaps there’s not enough room to squeeze any more characterization in there, much less any room to make the themes more sublime. Be that as it may, I might have appreciated the characters better otherwise (especially the super-evil military commander; I would have been interested to see some background and see why he is the way he is…but nooooo ).

There is one theme/motif in the film I like that propels the story to a slightly above-average fare: on a more subtle level, the film is about dreams. Because every time Jakes goes into his avatar, he goes to sleep, and his experience as a Na’vi is like a psychedelic dream that eventually becomes a full-blown reality. And when he’s awake, everything’s cold, gray, metallic, ugly. Jake even says outright “everything is backwards now: out there is the true world, and in here is the dream.” It gets to the point where the dream becomes the idealized world that Jake fights for and wants everybody else to partake in, while rejecting the old industrialized human world. Maybe that’s a little too in-your-face too, but I think it’s interesting.

So there you have it: "Avatar," super-duper popcorn flick, or terrible as a piece of art...you be the judge.

4/5 (entertainment: 4.5/5, story: 3/5, film: 4.5/5, intellectual impact: 2/5) Score might improve with repeated viewings, since with each viewing I find its flaws more forgivable.

Recommendation: Yep. I have yet to meet a person outside of this forum who hates the movie, and it’s pretty clear that the majority enjoys it very well. I can say though that if you are a viewer looking for pure cinematic art and a 100% original story, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

This Blu-Ray looks and sounds darn near perfect!

PQ: 5/5, AQ: 5/5



Some notes about the Extended Edition (16+ extra minutes, longest runtime ever)

• This cut is about as essential as the “LOTR” EEs, the “Star Wars” SEs, or the alternate editions of “T2.”
• The first two times I saw this in the theater, I missed out on the first 10-20 minutes. I still don’t know how the Theatrical Cut opens. But I can tell already that I love the alternate opening better. I think it adds plenty to the main character; I always thought it was important to know where he comes from initially and what kind of person he is before the big adventure thing starts. I can’t imagine going into this film not seeing him like this in the beginning; without this scene, his growth becomes a little more stunted. Not to mention, the scummy-looking Earth stuff correlates very well with the pro-nature themes of the movie (for better or for worse), and the neon lights accentuate the dream themes I described above (I think it’s a cool motif).
• They brought out Jake’s dead brother
  [Show spoiler] in a cardboard box?! Really?!!! I don’t know whether to laugh or cry
  .
• Added scenes with Grace are quite helpful for her character. But, hearing about
  [Show spoiler]the death of Neytiri’s sister doesn’t seem to flow right with Neytiri’s character. After all, if her sister is dead, shouldn’t she be somber and more enraged at the humans, much less Jake?
  This scene is a little too out-of-context in that respect.
• Okay, I don’t remember this stampede/hunting scene in the original cut. It’s awesome.
• Hmm…Na’vi sex scene… nothing particularly erotic or raunchy, but it is rather touching.
• Na’vi attack on some bulldozers…don’t remember if this was in the TC or not, but it looks cool.

Sorry for the long review (especially for a movie everybody seems to hate ). Have I beaten beatcat yet?

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I’ve been waiting for this movie for like a year now, holding out for the perfect edition. It finally came.

“Avatar.”

[Show spoiler]This movie is definitely up my alley. James Cameron’s films have never disappointed me yet; they provide some of the best combinations of entertainment value, story telling, and cinematic competence. And with a rather unique premise, a lot of awesome-looking sci-fi hardware, plenty of action and eye-candy, this film stands pretty strongly among my other favorites (whether that be “Star Wars,” “LOTR,” any “Star Trek” film, etc). Like those films, “Avatar” presents a very vivid and detailed environment, loaded with detail and environments that gives it a life of its own. Planet Pandora is truly a sight to behold, and is the perfect setting for, heck, any sci-fi film. The spectacle is through-the-roof, and the film maintains even pacing to keep it all fresh and interesting. I think it’s a blast all the way through (even at three hours).

I believe that this film is very competently made. Cameramanship is solid; production design is very strong, and the production value is very high. I know a lot of folks say the writing/acting is terrible, but frankly I don’t think it’s any worse than “Aliens” or any other Cameron film. The music score has its moments.

But if there’s any point of contention (as it is with everybody else), it’s with the story. I went into it believing it’s an adaptation of “Pocahontas,” and in that context I believe it’s a great adaptation. But in the context of originality, “Avatar” is hardly original, as it does take after “Dances with the Wolves,” “The Last Samurai,” and any number of other films. I honestly did find the story very predictable (not to mention that the themes are very opaque).

My dad said that if this film was unpredictable, he wouldn’t have liked it. And therein resides the story’s inherent strength, and possibly the reason why it’s so popular. It is a timeless story that could apply to any era or genre (whether you consider it tacky and unoriginal or not ). Not to mention, how would it have been if the bad guys won in the end? Who would condone a downbeat depressing ending after so much upbeat adventure? This is pure escapism and a heck of a popcorn movie; it provides an adventure that is very audience-friendly and appeals to the masses. Movies of this kind are rarely original (come on, “Star Wars” is a rip off and we all know it . Pure originality is hard to achieve anywhere). So I don’t personally hold it against this film or against Cameron.

The one thing I do find negative about this film (almost annoyingly so) are the characters. Heck, I suppose the characters in Cameron’s films have never been standouts. But, I do believe that his treatments for Sarah Connor and Ellen Ripley have been phenomenal; they are exceptional heroines with a decent amount of depth and development. In “Avatar,” disappointingly, we see very little of this development. On the other hand, it’s the actions of Cameron’s characters that speak louder than words; I think seeing Jake Sully going from a wheel-chair-bound washout to a hopping blue warrior dude says plenty. It’s the other characters I’m more troubled by; the entire supporting cast is very one-dimensional and stereotypical, to the point of becoming unreasonable and annoying. There’s a snobby corporate jerk, there’s a gung-ho trigger-happy military commander, there’s a tree-hugging scientist, there’s a jealous native…the list goes on! And they all represent very distinctive viewpoints and themes that can get rather preachy (this film is very anti-war and pro-nature…could it be a typical Hollywood-ish left-wing liberal view on the world today, or what? ). With a film this long and with its massive scope, perhaps there’s not enough room to squeeze any more characterization in there, much less any room to make the themes more sublime. Be that as it may, I might have appreciated the characters better otherwise (especially the super-evil military commander; I would have been interested to see some background and see why he is the way he is…but nooooo ).

There is one theme/motif in the film I like that propels the story to a slightly above-average fare: on a more subtle level, the film is about dreams. Because every time Jakes goes into his avatar, he goes to sleep, and his experience as a Na’vi is like a psychedelic dream that eventually becomes a full-blown reality. And when he’s awake, everything’s cold, gray, metallic, ugly. Jake even says outright “everything is backwards now: out there is the true world, and in here is the dream.” It gets to the point where the dream becomes the idealized world that Jake fights for and wants everybody else to partake in, while rejecting the old industrialized human world. Maybe that’s a little too in-your-face too, but I think it’s interesting.

So there you have it: "Avatar," super-duper popcorn flick, or terrible as a piece of art...you be the judge.

4/5 (entertainment: 4.5/5, story: 3/5, film: 4.5/5, intellectual impact: 2/5) Score might improve with repeated viewings, since with each viewing I find its flaws more forgivable.

Recommendation: Yep. I have yet to meet a person outside of this forum who hates the movie, and it’s pretty clear that the majority enjoys it very well. I can say though that if you are a viewer looking for pure cinematic art and a 100% original story, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

This Blu-Ray looks and sounds darn near perfect!

PQ: 5/5, AQ: 5/5


Some notes about the Extended Edition (16+ extra minutes, longest runtime ever)

• This cut is about as essential as the “LOTR” EEs, the “Star Wars” SEs, or the alternate editions of “T2.”
• The first two times I saw this in the theater, I missed out on the first 10-20 minutes. I still don’t know how the Theatrical Cut opens. But I can tell already that I love the alternate opening better. I think it adds plenty to the main character; I always thought it was important to know where he comes from initially and what kind of person he is before the big adventure thing starts. I can’t imagine going into this film not seeing him like this in the beginning; without this scene, his growth becomes a little more stunted. Not to mention, the scummy-looking Earth stuff correlates very well with the pro-nature themes of the movie (for better or for worse), and the neon lights accentuate the dream themes I described above (I think it’s a cool motif).
• They brought out Jake’s dead brother
  [Show spoiler] in a cardboard box?! Really?!!! I don’t know whether to laugh or cry
  .
• Added scenes with Grace are quite helpful for her character. But, hearing about
  [Show spoiler]the death of Neytiri’s sister doesn’t seem to flow right with Neytiri’s character. After all, if her sister is dead, shouldn’t she be somber and more enraged at the humans, much less Jake?
  This scene is a little too out-of-context in that respect.
• Okay, I don’t remember this stampede/hunting scene in the original cut. It’s awesome.
• Hmm…Na’vi sex scene… nothing particularly erotic or raunchy, but it is rather touching.
• Na’vi attack on some bulldozers…don’t remember if this was in the TC or not, but it looks cool.

Sorry for the long review (especially for a movie everybody seems to hate ). Have I beaten beatcat yet?

Not everybody
Very good review

[Diesel]

Rocky Balboa

It ain't about how hard you can hit, it's about how hard you can GET hit and keep moving forward


After the mostly disappointment that was Rocky V everyone thought that was it for the Italian Stallion. But it wasn't meant to be it would seem. 16 years later, we got Rocky Balboa; a MUCH more quality ending to the story and character.

I've made no secret that I absolutely love the character of Balboa in my reviews of the previous films. He's probably one of my ten favorite movie characters. And Stallone is back in top form to portray that character in this last go around. The character on the surface is a very simple, slightly slow guy, but underneath the character is actually a pretty deep and somewhat philosophic one even. Stallone's acting and writing for the character this time around is fantastic; where he went back in essence to the character from the first two movies with Rocky V, this time around its even more the character that everyone loved from that original movie. At times the things he says is hilarious ("Jamaica...European) and at other times the things he says are very poignant (his speech to the licensing committee and to his son). Just a huge return to form and a character you can sympathize with more than ever and root for as the film goes on, not in just the fight, but in his life in general. When he is

[Show spoiler]doing the tour of the places he went with Adrian

and when he

[Show spoiler]is talking to Paulie about how life wasn't supposed to be as hard as it has been

, I get all . Great stuff.

I like the guy who plays his grown son a lot. The actor and the character itself is so much better than the one in Rocky V. I didn't really care about the little punk kid in Rocky V; but in this one I like the character and his story.

[Show spoiler]Struggling to fit in on his own merit out of his father's shadow and worrying about what people think of him and doing what people think he should do until Rocky talks some sense into him and he realizes how wrong he's been about stuff and gets back to being close with his father.

The rest of the supporting cast hold their own, no one else is stand out good or stand out bad, the fighter this time is so much better than the Tommy Gunn guy even though he's just ok. But that's enough; he doesn't detract from the film with bad acting, no one does, so it's fine.

Clearly I also like the story of the film, Rocky

[Show spoiler]going on with his life after his wife has passed years ago, but never moving on; still feeling like there is something he needs to do.

Unlike Rocky V, the execution of that story is nicely done this time around and doesn't feature none of the huge issues that Rocky V had like wonky characters, bad writing, ill-chosen music (this one thankfully returns to the old music of the early films ), etc. The film has call backs to the previous movies but never over does it, it has just enough to remind you where this guy came from and what made his world what it is today. The rest of the film is all about moving the character and story forward and not dwelling in the past the entire time, which I am thankful for and love.

The fight is handled very well

[Show spoiler]when they have Dixon break his hand and give Rocky the opportunity to chop him down considerably in the next 3 rounds to eat away at the disadvantage he has so the fight isn't incredibly implausible. I'm also glad, out of the two endings they chose, that they picked the one where Rocky loses by split decision instead of winning. It would have been to implausible for them to give him the win in a decision; the character held his own, finished the fight, got some great blows in and really beat up on the champ but it definitely didn't look like a fight that would be scored his way from what they showed us. They accomplished exactly what the character needed in the film, he gave it everything he had and didn't go down and never gave up and walked out with his head held high and to the cheers of the crowd (both in the movie and the ones watching it ) because he emptied the basement like he was there to do and wrapped everything up.

I said when I reviewed Rocky III that it was either my #3 or #2 film up against this one with the original being my favorite, but after watching this one again, I've decided that THIS one is my favorite and not the original Rocky. It's just such a great movie in my opinion, I really love this film


Rating - 4.75/5

[two40]

Originally Posted by vega2K

[Show spoiler]

Storyline (IMDb):
Nic and Jules are in a long term, committed, loving but by no means perfect relationship. Nic, a physician, needs to wield what she believes is control, whereas Jules, under that control, is less self-assured. During their relationship, Jules has floundered in her "nine to five" life, sometimes trying to start a business - always unsuccessfully - or being the stay at home mom. She is currently trying to start a landscape design business. They have two teen-aged children, Joni and Laser, Nic who is Joni's biological mother, and Jules who is Laser's biological mother. Although not exact replicas, each offspring does more closely resemble his/her biological mother in temperament. Joni and Laser are also half-siblings, having the same unknown ***** donor father. Shortly after Joni's eighteenth birthday and shortly before she plans to leave the house and head off to college, Laser, only fifteen and underage to do so...
Stars: Annette Bening, Julianne Moore and Mark Ruffalo


My Take:
Not sure what I expected from this Lesbian family drama starring some fantastic actors. Family dramas are not my cup of tea, but I gave it a chance since it was a new release on blu-ray. The acting was okay, nothing earth-shattering. The story was okay too. You are taken into the privacy of a lesbian family and are shown that they go through the same kind of crap that anyone else goes through. I must say there are some intimate moments which surprised me

[Show spoiler]mainly Julianne and Mark going at it, I counted at least three positions which were not very hidden at all. I was also educated that according to this movie, lesbians get-off watching guy on guy porn and we get to see a bit of it on their TV - Not my cup of tea again.

. But aside from the same-sex thing, the kid's story was interesting with one of them going to college and, in general, the issues they had to go through. On a side note, I am looking forward to the new gay movie coming out "I Love You Phillip Morris" where we get to see Jim Carrey on Ewan McGregor action.

I say wait for it to come on DirecTV or rent it, when you can't find anything else or until it becomes a Non-New release at Blockbuster.

AQ: 3/5 (not much audio other than dialogue)
PQ: 4/5

Movie: 3/5 ( I added a 0.5 because of the new Hulk, Mark Ruffalo, is in it )

I'm looking forward to The Kids Are All Right simply because it's from Focus Features. I'll watch anything they put their mark on. That's not to say that all of their films are spectacular. I just like their 'grown up' themes.

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Rocky Balboa

It ain't about how hard you can hit, it's about how hard you can GET hit and keep moving forward


After the mostly disappointment that was Rocky V everyone thought that was it for the Italian Stallion. But it wasn't meant to be it would seem. 16 years later, we got Rocky Balboa; a MUCH more quality ending to the story and character.

I've made no secret that I absolutely love the character of Balboa in my reviews of the previous films. He's probably one of my ten favorite movie characters. And Stallone is back in top form to portray that character in this last go around. The character on the surface is a very simple, slightly slow guy, but underneath the character is actually a pretty deep and somewhat philosophic one even. Stallone's acting and writing for the character this time around is fantastic; where he went back in essence to the character from the first two movies with Rocky V, this time around its even more the character that everyone loved from that original movie. At times the things he says is hilarious ("Jamaica...European) and at other times the things he says are very poignant (his speech to the licensing committee and to his son). Just a huge return to form and a character you can sympathize with more than ever and root for as the film goes on, not in just the fight, but in his life in general. When he is

[Show spoiler]doing the tour of the places he went with Adrian

and when he

[Show spoiler]is talking to Paulie about how life wasn't supposed to be as hard as it has been

, I get all . Great stuff.

I like the guy who plays his grown son a lot. The actor and the character itself is so much better than the one in Rocky V. I didn't really care about the little punk kid in Rocky V; but in this one I like the character and his story.

[Show spoiler]Struggling to fit in on his own merit out of his father's shadow and worrying about what people think of him and doing what people think he should do until Rocky talks some sense into him and he realizes how wrong he's been about stuff and gets back to being close with his father.

The rest of the supporting cast hold their own, no one else is stand out good or stand out bad, the fighter this time is so much better than the Tommy Gunn guy even though he's just ok. But that's enough; he doesn't detract from the film with bad acting, no one does, so it's fine.

Clearly I also like the story of the film, Rocky

[Show spoiler]going on with his life after his wife has passed years ago, but never moving on; still feeling like there is something he needs to do.

Unlike Rocky V, the execution of that story is nicely done this time around and doesn't feature none of the huge issues that Rocky V had like wonky characters, bad writing, ill-chosen music (this one thankfully returns to the old music of the early films ), etc. The film has call backs to the previous movies but never over does it, it has just enough to remind you where this guy came from and what made his world what it is today. The rest of the film is all about moving the character and story forward and not dwelling in the past the entire time, which I am thankful for and love.

The fight is handled very well

[Show spoiler]when they have Dixon break his hand and give Rocky the opportunity to chop him down considerably in the next 3 rounds to eat away at the disadvantage he has so the fight isn't incredibly implausible. I'm also glad, out of the two endings they chose, that they picked the one where Rocky loses by split decision instead of winning. It would have been to implausible for them to give him the win in a decision; the character held his own, finished the fight, got some great blows in and really beat up on the champ but it definitely didn't look like a fight that would be scored his way from what they showed us. They accomplished exactly what the character needed in the film, he gave it everything he had and didn't go down and never gave up and walked out with his head held high and to the cheers of the crowd (both in the movie and the ones watching it ) because he emptied the basement like he was there to do and wrapped everything up.

I said when I reviewed Rocky III that it was either my #3 or #2 film up against this one with the original being my favorite, but after watching this one again, I've decided that THIS one is my favorite and not the original Rocky. It's just such a great movie in my opinion, I really love this film


Rating - 4.75/5

+1 I have to admit that this is my favorite ROCKY film as well--

Stallone really surprised and shocked a lot of people I think, I remember
how everybody was laughing about this when he signed on to do it--

he also managed to make another RAMBO film that was at the very least
as good as the others

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Sorry for the long review (especially for a movie everybody seems to hate ). Have I beaten bearcat yet?

this may have tied with many of mine

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by two40

I'm looking forward to The Kids Are All Right simply because it's from Focus Features. I'll watch anything they put their mark on. That's not to say that all of their films are spectacular. I just like their 'grown up' themes.

same! i've enjoyed most of the films with their label on it. more so than Criterion's for me

i'm actually gonna see if wikipedia has a list of films from Focus Features.
if not, i'll make one myself since i love lists

EDIT: wikipedia does have a list. i had no idea there were so many!

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

hmm... definitely gonna keep it in the queue then!
seems like a lot of people enjoy it - and even prefer it over Pitch Black! so i'll give it a shot

and i may have seen a scene or two here or there.
i had an old gf who only owned Chronicles, The Mummy, Aladdin and Failure to Launch, so she would connnnnnnnstantly play these four in an endless cycle. i didn't really watch Chronicles because i knew it was a sequel, but i remember some scenes in a ship - and a lot of orange and black for the color.

My quote was included, but I actually haven't seen Chronicles of Riddick yet. I think I'll enjoy it more than Pitch Black because it's more my kind of movie.

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I also prefer super detailed animation. I like intense shading and shadows and wicked tones.... like this...

[Show spoiler]

What about? Got Em!!

[Show spoiler]

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by killowertz

My quote was included, but I actually haven't seen Chronicles of Riddick yet. I think I'll enjoy it more than Pitch Black because it's more my kind of movie.

this is what puzzles me, because i have no idea what type of film Chronicles is. i figured it was the same type but i guess i'll find out soon enough once i netflix in a few weeks.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

this is what puzzles me, because i have no idea what type of film Chronicles is. i figured it was the same type but i guess i'll find out soon enough once i netflix in a few weeks.

No, Chronicles of Riddick is an action/sci-fi movie, while Pitch Black is a sci-fi/horror movie. Basically, Chronicles is an action movie and Pitch Black isn't.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by killowertz

No, Chronicles of Riddick is an action/sci-fi movie, while Pitch Black was a sci-fi/horror movie. Basically, Chronicles is an action movie and Pitch Black isn't.

ohhhh, gotcha. thanks!

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

ohhhh, gotcha. thanks!

No problem. I hope you enjoy it. I hope I do too.

[Diesel]

Which means Bearcat will hate it even more

Would it help if I told you Paul Walker has a cameo in it?

[Show spoiler]He doesn't