The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Stormcrow

Starting to wonder why Iam1bearcat even watches movies since he seems to dislike so many of them.

He's just going through a phase right now but he will open his mind eventually. He's already expanded his tastes tremendously over the summer and past few months.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

He's just going through a phase right now but he will open his mind eventually. He's already expanded his tastes tremendously over the summer and past few months.

yeah, but there's some things that just don't make me eager to see them

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Some of these I know your reason for, but why Casablanca and Citizen Kane? I ask simply because I don't remember having that discussion with you.

You know, I should take Casablanca off that list. I dont hate it. There are some aspects of the film that I thought were VERY lazy in terms of filmmaking, and the story is a little ho-hum for me. But I should, and will acknowledge that there a many good points too. If I were at a friends house and they wanted to watch it, I'd say "Sure, pop it in".

Now Kane, I hate. Yes, like Breathless, I am able to see what each director did that "was never done before". I say "Great, I'll geve you credit for that, now let's talk about the mess of a movie you have made". For me, Kane is all over the place. It rubs me the wrong way because it doesnt feel like it knows what it wants to be. It contains almost Musical type scenes that felt horrifically out of place to me. It's pacing is inconsistent to the point of fatigue. And dont get me started on the acting...YIKES. Now some folks say the acting styles were a sign of the times, but I can buy that, not for a moment. When I look at older pictures like Of Mice and Men, 12 Angry Men, Sunset Blvd and Judgement at Nuremberg, I say "Now THAT is realsim in portraying a character, THAT is acting". I dont know how I would feel if I could go back in time to watch it, but in present day mode I feel like it takes itslef way too seriously for how *good* it is.

Maybe I am just NSE to "get" it. But when I line it up against so many other classic films from that era, I honestly cant understand the praise.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

My girlfriend and I are going to Cirque du Soleil and Disney for the weekend. Why do I mention this? Because while I'm there, I'm going to take a side trip to see if surfdude is still alive since he lives in Orlando.

Thanks. Let us know. Oh....and... Lucky bastard on the weekend festivities.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

how so?

Well the Coens are unique. And by your good scores for a few of their films, you obviously "Get" them, which is required in order to enjoy them. You gave some of the movies bad scores, and thats cool too. What I find is that you know they have a special quirky way of making films that, when it works, it really works. So I am dumbfounded that you wouldnt want to explore more of their work, in search of another gem.

It's like Jhiggy and Malick. I assume that no matter what the subject matter, Jhiggy will always give the next Malick fim a shot. He believes (I assume) that Malick can make anything entertaining and interesting. I am the same way with Aronofsky. He could make a film about janitors and I would see it.

When the Coens nail it, they really nail it. Thats why I am confused that you have no interest in exploring their other films.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by steve46

i admire nolan's work. He treats the audience as if it has some intelligence.

If we're talking about favorites though:

David lynch and quentin tarantino are way above everyone else.

I have huge respect for hitchcock and love many of his films. So prolific too.

There are others who have produced a couple of gems, but need a bigger body of work. Darabont springs to mind.

The coens have produced a ton of stuff i like and a few things i absoltely love (fargo, no country).

Fincher's done good work.

Kubrick has some greats (2001, the shining, lolita, dr. Strangelove) and i couple i didn't care for (a clockwork orange, barry lyncon) with the rest falling in the middle.

Jeunet has done a couple that i love.

I love the four krzysztof kieslowski films that i have seen.

Clint eastwood is a decent actor and a much better director. I like how he tackles things.

Scorsese has a few greats.

Hayao miyazaki's work moves me massively. I would probably cry just reading a review of them (seriously).

i'm forgetting lots of major ones i'm sure.

Aronofsky!!!!!!!!!

[Marcus Wright]

A couple of ratings just throw in for the sake of it.

Inception - 4.5/5
Iron Man 2 - 5/5
Memento - 4/5
Commando - 5/5
One Flew Over Coocko's Nest - 5/5

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Well the Coens are unique. And by your good scores for a few of their films, you obviously "Get" them, which is required in order to enjoy them. You gave some of the movies bad scores, and thats cool too. What I find is that you know they have a special quirky way of making films that, when it works, it really works. So I am dumbfounded that you wouldnt want to explore more of their work, in search of another gem.

It's like Jhiggy and Malick. I assume that no matter what the subject matter, Jhiggy will always give the next Malick fim a shot. He believes (I assume) that Malick can make anything entertaining and interesting. I am the same way with Aronofsky. He could make a film about janitors and I would see it.

When the Coens nail it, they really nail it. Thats why I am confused that you have no interest in exploring their other films.

see, that's the thing. the Coens haven't "won me over" enough to give them a fair shot at whatever they create. they seem to be generally "yeah!" (2 films) or "meh" (whatever else i've seen) and most of their films, the story / plot themselves seem highly uninteresting to me. so no matter how much i may "get" them, if it doesn't interest me, i'm not gonna sit through it in hopes it will be a success.

now, if we're talking PTA, then yes, i would see whatever he makes. but he may be the only one (maybe Aronfosky, although i'm not interested at all in The Wolverine) and the Coens are nowhere near making this very short list.

look at my Fincher list. he used to be my favorite director because of Fight Club and Zodiac, but the rest of his work (aside from Social Network which i haven't seen but want to) has been, well, crap. the reason i saw The Game? because it's Fincher. the reason i saw Panic Room? Fincher. the reason for Boring Buttons? Fincher. and all "sucked" to varying degrees.

so aside from PTA right now, i don't care who the director is, if the story doesn't intrigue me, they don't get anymore free passes.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Well the Coens are unique. And by your good scores for a few of their films, you obviously "Get" them, which is required in order to enjoy them. You gave some of the movies bad scores, and thats cool too. What I find is that you know they have a special quirky way of making films that, when it works, it really works. So I am dumbfounded that you wouldnt want to explore more of their work, in search of another gem.

It's like Jhiggy and Malick. I assume that no matter what the subject matter, Jhiggy will always give the next Malick fim a shot. He believes (I assume) that Malick can make anything entertaining and interesting. I am the same way with Aronofsky. He could make a film about janitors and I would see it.

When the Coens nail it, they really nail it. Thats why I am confused that you have no interest in exploring their other films.

You're absolutely right. No matter what type of film Malick is making (which admittedly will not vary as much as someone like a Kubrick or Aronofsky), I'm gonna see it. His track record speaks for itself and it's one of the benefits of him only having made four films, with two widely considered among the best of the 70s and another widely considered one of the best war films ever. His track record gives him a sense of credibility that most other directors don't have. Of course, him being my favorite director plays a major part.

It's like Kubrick. His track record speaks for itself. I still have to see his two early films and Barry Lyndon, but I've never been hesitant to see his films (despite hating Clockwork), because his resume has earned my respect.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

so no matter how much i may "get" them, if it doesn't interest me, i'm not gonna sit through it in hopes it will be a success.

.

Ah, OK. I guess thats where we differ then. And not just the Coens. I am willing to watch a film in hopes that its the next pleasant surprise. I am always looking for "my" next greatest movie. I figure the more I see, the better my odds.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Ah, OK. I guess thats where we differ then. And not just the Coens. I am willing to watch a film in hopes that its the next pleasant surprise. I am always looking for "my" next greatest movie. I figure the more I see, the better my odds.

Check out Once and the Three Colors trilogy

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

You're absolutely right. No matter what type of film Malick is making (which admittedly will not vary as much as someone like a Kubrick or Aronofsky), I'm gonna see it. His track record speaks for itself and it's one of the benefits of him only having made four films, with two widely considered among the best of the 70s and another widely considered one of the best war films ever. His track record gives him a sense of credibility that most other directors don't have. Of course, him being my favorite director plays a major part.

It's like Kubrick. His track record speaks for itself. I still have to see his two early films and Barry Lyndon, but I've never been hesitant to see his films (despite hating Clockwork), because his resume has earned my respect.

Exactly my point.

If someone CAN and HAS made a great film, I ignore the duds and remain open to the possibility thet the next one is the one that blows me away.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Steve46

Check out Once and the Three Colors trilogy

Once is right next to my Blu-ray player because of your review.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Once is right next to my Blu-ray player because of your review.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

look at my Fincher list. he used to be my favorite director because of Fight Club and Zodiac, but the rest of his work (aside from Social Network which i haven't seen but want to) has been, well, crap. the reason i saw The Game? because it's Fincher. the reason i saw Panic Room? Fincher. the reason for Boring Buttons? Fincher. and all "sucked" to varying degrees.

.

Another thought, and I am not trying to be arguementative here.

What if you had seen Panic Room, The Game and then Benjamin Button first? Then you MIGHT have passed on Fight Club and Zodiac, and in the process missed your true gems.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Exactly my point.

If someone CAN and HAS made a great film, I ignore the duds and remain open to the possibility thet the next one is the one that blows me away.

yeah, i just don't have that patience anymore

as the weeks have gone on, i find myself less and less enthused about film as a whole. i know i've only seen a very small selection of all overall films that can be seen, but the number that interests me drops ridiculously as the days go on. sure, i'm maybe missing out on some films that would become instant favorites or well beloved in my eyes, but the search of finding those just isn't as fun as it used to be.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Steve46

I have a good feeling about it.

You mentioned ones ability to be deeply moved by music. Done deal right there.

The simple cello work in Departures had me collapsing from emotion.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Batman Begins (3/5) sometimes i've rated it 3.5/5, first time was 1.5/5 it's just very bring and uninteresting

The Prestige - no interest in seeing it

The Dark Knight (4.5/5) has no real replay value for me. i've seen it 4 times? and while entertaining it's an horribly made film

it also doesn't help he had Christian Bale in three of his films, and i cannot stand that guy

Here's where I was going to ask, "horribly made? How?" but you answered that later, so...

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I do. IF they are saying that its "special."

If 90% of critics say its "good", I may or may not see it. But if 80% of critics say this film "changes the way you think" or other really extreme accolades, then I want to see what thats all about.

An example for me would be There Will be Blood. I was like "OK, a film about an oil guy in the old days? So? What the heck could that be about and why will I care?" But because most critics were describing it as pretty heavy duty, I gave it a whirl.

I can definitely understand that, but it just isn't how Santa Diesel rolls

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I could whip together a few morsels...

[SPOILER]All spaghetti westerns. Period.

LotRs

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

(see spoiler)

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

So now my Nolan list looks like this:

"Following" 3/5 (subject to re-review)
"Insomnia" NA (didn't finish, wasn't really interested)
"Memento" 5/5
"The Prestige" 4.5/5
"Batman Begins" 4.5/5
"The Dark Knight" 5/5
"Inception" 4.5/5

That's more like it

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

i don't know, they just didn't get my boat to float

what a stupid non-analogy that is

done poorly in TDK? lots!

- plot holes
- structure
- directing was average
- score was awful
- Batman's constipated voice (hated it )
- illogical actions of many characters
- writing was bland
- and more stuff i could remember the whole movie right now lol

Yea...I disagree with that list completely

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

haha I just posted a little bit about TDK. The editing/directing is embarassing at times. Case in point? The infamous party scene where the Joker just miraculously decides to leave the party after Batman falls out the window. Nice guy, that Joker. There are several other egregious problems. However, technically, the film is well-made in many respects.

There was nothing else for him left to do there that was part of his plan. A crazy person probably would have gunned down everyone there, but he isn't crazy...and a crazy person also wouldn't have an intricate plan

He was there for Dent. Dent wasn't there (as far as he knew). He got Batman instead. Batman fell out of a window. Move on to next part of the plan (the guys they find in the apartment).

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

or how Batman and whats-her-face are perfectly fine after landing on the top of a cab after falling over 100+ feet and then walking away as they are perfectly fine didn't know they were both also new versions of Terminators

at least have them limp away or say "ow!" "most realistic superhero film ever" my @ss!

He opened his cape on the way down which slowed them down.

It's not the real world, its "based" in reality
At the end of the day its still a movie about a guy who dresses up as a freaking Bat and hunts down bad guys.





Now I'm off to watch Underworld: Rise of the Lycans

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

yeah, i just don't have that patience anymore

as the weeks have gone on, i find myself less and less enthused about film as a whole. i know i've only seen a very small selection of all overall films that can be seen, but the number that interests me drops ridiculously as the days go on. sure, i'm maybe missing out on some films that would become instant favorites or well beloved in my eyes, but the search of finding those just isn't as fun as it used to be.

Sorry to hear that.

You need a jumpstart and I know just the ticket. Get started on your Hitchcock list.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Another thought, and I am not trying to be arguementative here.

What if you had seen Panic Room, The Game and then Benjamin Button first? Then you MIGHT have passed on Fight Club and Zodiac, and in the process missed your true gems.

oh, i know you're not. i actually very much like this discussion we are having, i personally think it's great

that is a possibility. however, the story of both Fight Club and Zodiac interested me, so i still would have probably seen them, just maybe not as quickly as if i had not seen the three you mentioned first. but the specific reason i saw The Game, Panic Room and Boring Buttons was BECAUSE of Fincher's name attached to them, not the stories / plots themselves.

that makes sense right?

like, if i'm reading the paper and someone says, "hey, they're making a movie about the infamous California killer the Zodiac, and it's not a horror movie, it's a drama that follows the police as they try and capture and figure out who he is" i would say, "that sounds awesome. i'm gonna see it"

BUT

if i'm reading the paper and someone says, "hey, they're making a movie about some guy who is born looking like an 80 year old and he ages backwards" i' say (which i did) "wtf? that sounds weird. maybe some day i'll see that".

the only reason i saw it faster than expected was because it was a Fincher film. whereas, even if someone (director wise) makes a ton of bad films, if their latest project sounds interesting, then chances are i'll see it ahead of the next Aronofsky film, if that particular film's story doesn't interest me.

for me, it's all about the story / concept, not the name attached.