The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Hep

I like to think of it more as a survival strategy - not for me but for M. Night. If it wasn't intentional he would be dead to me .

Excellent logic. It works for both parties.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Damn, you got me.

CZAR would be proud


___


In other news, Mystic River is on the slate for me tonight. Don't know anything about it but the synopsis:

With a childhood tragedy that overshadowed their lives, three men are reunited by circumstance when one loses a daughter

[jhiggy23]

The Kids Are All Right

Film: 3 stars (out of 4)

A good film that will get a best picture nod, but only because of the ridiculous 10 nominations. Benning was good and although a lot of ppl think she'll win best actress, her performance is nowhere near as good or as demanding as Portman's. Julianne Moore was surprisingly good and I'm not a fan of her. Overall, the film is missing something and seems too simple like Winter's Bone.

___________________________________

Prince of Persia

Film: 2 1/2 stars (out of 4)

Entertaining enough, but nothing more.


_________________________________

Going the Distance

Film: 3 1/2 (out of 4)

Very funny and very realistic. The only downfall is that Drew B. seems a bit off here. A good rom-com.

[vega2K]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

The Kids Are All Right

Film: 3 stars (out of 4)

A good film that will get a best picture nod, but only because of the ridiculous 10 nominations. Benning was good and although a lot of ppl think she'll win best actress, her performance is nowhere near as good or as demanding as Portman's. Julianne Moore was surprisingly good and I'm not a fan of her. Overall, the film is missing something and seems too simple like Winter's Bone.

I had a similar reaction to the movie. I posted a review back in November HERE. Not sure what people saw that was so award worthy in the acting? I thought it was just okay and I have seen much better from all the main actors.
I also agree with your comparison to Winter's Bone - which was another "meh" movie IMO.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

for who? you? good. he's a hell of a lot better than Fincher imo. Aronofsky is #2 on my list behind Paul Thomas Anderson.
no idea who #3 or so on would be lol.

have you seen The Fountain? Requiem for a Dream? some great Aronofsky films.

my order, so far, of his work would be:

The Wrestler (5/5)
Requiem for a Dream (5/5) - his magnum opus
The Fountain (4.5/5 - gave it 5/5 on first viewing, but i don't know if it'll stay there, gotta revisit sometime this week)
Pi (4/5)

of course, anxious to see Black Swan. but waiting for the BD since i hate the theater.
very worried about The Wolverine. super hero films are not something i enjoy very much. and Aronofsky is just directing, not writing, so if the screenplay sucks, then i'm gonna be pissed. will still see it of course, and i have all the faith in the world Aronofsky will do a great job, but overall i don't know how it's gonna be...

Yeah I've seen Requiem for a Dream. Just gotta see PI, The Fountain (Which i just ordered) and Black Swan. Im not interested in his shorts right now. If those movies are good im putting him over Fincher. Love his work but this Director is shocking.

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

i wouldn't say that's a requirement for success.
not all superhero's / comic books are meant to be super real or super serious. Batman (comic wise) almost always has been, i don't know if Wolverine is the same way. much like how Iron Man isn't a film that feels real, if that's not what Wolverine is supposed to feel like, Aronofksy isn't gonna force it.

much like how Iron Man shouldn't try to be dark and moody, because it doesn't fit the character / story.

Of course it isn't. Im just curious and seeing how he will do it thats all.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

THE WRESTLER (105 minutes)

[Show spoiler]
Film #15

Year: 2009
Director: Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Mickey Rourke, Marisa Tomei, and Evan Rachel Wood
Genre: Drama

What Made Me Want to See This? Darren Aronofsky and Mickey Rourke! Duh!

Late last night was my second viewing of The Wrestler, the terrific kind of bio-pic of professional wrestling, and focusing on, Randy the Ram (played brilliantly by Mickey Rourke, who deserved the Oscar for Best Actor) an aging wrestler who just cannot give up wrestling, because it’s really the only thing he knows.

First time through I didn’t expect the film to be so sad, and on so many levels. It was sad enough to see Randy go through matches in gyms and lower level arenas, so far away from the once bright lights of the main event, big time stage, but also his

[Show spoiler]interactions with his daughter and their defunct relationship

were very crushing. I can admit I teared up numerous times during the film and even just thinking about it kind of devastates me. Few films have that kind of impact and ability. However, while it came off as "sad" to me that Randy was wrestling in such 'lackluster' areas, he loved it. As did all the wrestlers, because much like anyone, if you're doing what you love, you don't care where you're doing it, as long as you are i fact, doing what you love.

I love the odd relationship between Randy and Cassidy (Marisa Tomei in a terrific performance), and I missed it the first time, but it’s strange and unique how both characters make their living by using their bodies. Cassidy being a stripper, and Randy being a wrestler. Both past their primes, but both don’t know how to do anything else, can’t and won’t give it up and know little else outside of this.

Out of the “only” 15 films I’ve seen, it’s probably gonna jump to #1 on that list. Emotional, touching, personal, and devastating, the film is brilliantly executed on all levels.

EDIT! after looking at my first 15 films, The Wrestler is not #1, it is #2 behind Lost in Translation. here is the list of the first 15 films i've "seen":

[Show spoiler]Lost in Translation
The Wrestler
The Box
Brothers
The Town
Psycho
Easy A
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
The Hurt Locker
Salt
Funny People
Inception
The Lovely Bones
Ghost in the Shell
Scott Pilgrim vs the World

Major +1 for the “behind the shoulder” directing style that Aronofsky uses.

[Show spoiler]The film feels less like a film and more like a documentary on the sport and on one man’s life and his refusal to let go of his love. I almost felt at times like I shouldn’t be watching this because it was too intimate. Never had that happen before. An easy addition to the collection and one that will easily stay in my top 50 (once a top 50 is necessary) for quite some time, if not for all time.

Recommendation: Very High.

PQ: 4.5/5
AQ: 4.5/5

Technical Score: 5/5
Enjoyment Level Score: 5/5 “love it”

Final Verdict: 5/5

Yes that made the movie feel so real. People don't understand how much camera work gets you into a film. That and the score. I cant wait to see Days of Heaven.......... Oh back to your review spot on. I loved it!!!!!

[Marcus Wright]

Fight Club

Movie - 4.75/5
This is my third time viewing it, but the first time enjoying it to the fullest.
First time I hated it, second time I didnt get anything, and third time I became a big fan of these movie.

I do consider this one of the most unique, yet at the same time excellently made movies ever.
There is lots of interesting ideas thrown into these movies and these ideas are shown evolve excellently on the screen.
Both Norton and Pitt are outstanding in their role.

There are so many ways I can associate what I feel/see in my own life to this movie. No wonder it is by many people considered the ultimate "guy" movie.

This movie, being revolutionary in its nature, revolutionized me in some ways as well.

Recommeded to all guys.

PQ: - 4/5
Nothing to showcase your screen by (due to limited colour palette of the movie), but pretty good. Very true to its source material and cinematic overall.

AQ - 5/5
Referance soundtrack hands down. This is a blast on blu-ray. Both intense scenes (like airplane clash) and normal scenes (like outdoors) are mixed to perfection. prepeare to be completely immersed into this movie due to this soundtrack.

Overall - 4.5/5
This comes as a definite recommendation for anyone. Disk is also referance quality all around.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

Yes that made the movie feel so real. People don't understand how much camera work gets you into a film. That and the score. I cant wait to see Days of Heaven.......... Oh back to your review spot on. I loved it!!!!!

are you pulling a Gandalf?

[QuasidodoJr]

Big Fan
First Independent Pictures/88 min./R/2009

Patton Oswalt stars as the titular character in first-time director, Robert D. Siegel's, Big Fan. Oswalt plays parking lot attendant Paul Aufiero, a collosal Giants fan who lives at home with his mother on Staten Island. Paul lives and breathes Sunday football and routinely puts the Giants ahead of his own personal life. His team dedication is put to the test when he follows his favorite player, Quantrell Bishop (Jonathan Hamm), to a high-class strip club and is nearly beaten to death by his beloved #54. After the incident, Paul has to decide which is more important - getting justice - or Quantrell Bishop's value to the Giants team.

Although this film is billed as a Comedy, I honestly didn't muster a single laugh throughout its entire 88 minutes of running time. It's more of a character study, and that character leads a very sad and lonely existence. There are moments in the film where you're "supposed" to laugh, such as when he's calling into his favorite overnight sports talk radio show and his mother picks up the phone and tells him to go to bed with a live audience listening, but, more often than not, I just felt sorry for the guy.

Oswalt does an outstanding job portraying the down-on-his-luck character. Feelings of isolation, jealousy and embarrassment run rampant, and Oswalt delivers those emotions with panache. The supporting cast is natural and believable, but this is more or less Oswalt's movie.

Without ruining the ending, I'll just say that Paul makes some odd choices. If you're a die-hard sports fan, you may be able to slightly relate to his misgivings, but to anyone else, Paul will come across as a sad, lonely nut job.

Score: 3 out of 5 - Worth a watch on Netflix streaming.

[Diesel]

Mystic River

• 2003 | R | 138 Minutes
  
  
• Director: Clint Eastwood
  
  
• Starring: Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Kevin Bacon
  
  
• Crime | Drama | Mystery

Like I mentioned earlier, this was another one that I didn't know anything about going in aside from the synopsis. I didn't even know Eastwood directed it.

I came away enjoying it, but not all that much. I'm all for

[Show spoiler]a "twist" at the end where the guy you think did it didn't do it...but not when you are basically beat over the head with the notion that he did throughout the film. When its harped on that much, most of the time you know, "Okay, well he didn't do it and there's going to be a surprise reveal about who did". And this one comes through exactly on that front.

I thought it was just too much; needed to be pulled back.

I wasn't really a big fan of the stories of the characters (besides Bacon's) at all really. They weren't bad or anything, just not very interesting to me

Bacon's character I did enjoy. Trying to do his job and

[Show spoiler]solve the murder case of one friend, while also dealing with the fact that his other friend may have done it and on top of that he has his own issues with his wife leaving him and not even knowing the name of his baby that she took.

Jimmy's story,

Dave's story,


As far as performances go, Bacon was my favorite again. That also helped to increase my enjoyment of his story.

Penn was good but I honestly didn't think he was anything fantastic; I saw he won the Oscar for his performance. The only other performance I saw that was nominated for that year is Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow. Guess which one I prefer?
But, my favorite performance of that year for a lead is definitely Viggo Mortensen in Return of the King.

Then Tim Robbins won the Oscar for his supporting role as well. I actually didn't care for his performance in the movie. Again, it wasn't bad by any means, I just didn't like it He was good enough but that's it I thought; the only other nominee that I saw that year is Ken Watanabe in Last Samurai, now that performance I HIGHLY enjoyed. I'd put Watanabe way out in front between those two.
Perhaps you see why I put zero stock into who has a little gold man on their shelf and who doesn't?


Even at 138 minutes for a movie that I only thought was more than okay and had two out of three main stories that I really didn't care about, it never really felt like it drug on, so I give it credit for that. I just wish that 138 minutes had given me something I enjoyed more.


Rating - 3.5/5

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by Diesel

CZAR would be proud

Got Em!!

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Prince of Persia

Film: 2 1/2 stars (out of 4)

Entertaining enough, but nothing more.

Yea this film was a pleasant surprise as I thought it was gonna be trash! Turned out to be a cool entertaining film with good replay value. Got Em!!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

Yeah I've seen Requiem for a Dream. Just gotta see PI, The Fountain (Which i just ordered) and Black Swan. Im not interested in his shorts right now. If those movies are good im putting him over Fincher. Love his work but this Director is shocking.

Do I understand correctly, you have not seen The Fountain?

[Al_The_Strange]

Yesterday I showed these off to my folks:

“Pitch Black.”

It’s a pretty straightforward story, but one filled with interesting and original ideas. The setting (a desert planet with three suns filled with nocturnal monsters) is something clever and unique in itself. The characters are even more interesting; Riddick is pretty decently wicked, and the rest are interesting in their own ways.

With this set-up, the film has its fair share of action and special effects, especially in the last half. I’ve always felt that the first half of the film drags a little, but it’s necessary to establish the settings, story, characters, etc. I got to admit too, the film’s style is very flashy and vivid, and the color schemes are very strong.

The film has plenty of interesting photography, but some of it can be very shaky, and the editing can be very fast-paced. As erratic as some scenes are, I consider it a little much. But, the acting is pretty good, the production value is not bad, the SFX are cool (but are starting to show their age). Music is alright.

3.5/5 (entertainment: 3/5, story: 4/5, film: 3.5/5)

This Blu-Ray seemed a little iffy at first glance, but looking at it now I gotta say it’s pretty solid. The picture quality is quite sharp and detailed. Some scenes show a lot of noise and other scenes seem okay. Color and contrast are okay, all things considering. Sound quality is okay; most of the sound effects are great, but dialogue tends to be overly soft in some scenes (I think it’s always been that way for this film).

PQ: 4/5, AQ: 4/5



“The Chronicles of Riddick.”

Now this is more like it! This movie has tons more action, way bigger and better SFX, lots of weird groovy set-pieces, props, and visuals, and a totally more wicked attitude overall! While the first film felt a little too much like half-and-half, this one is practically nonstop action. Ah yeah…

Story-wise, it’s not quite as original or strong as the first film. It does have a typical good-vs-evil (or rather, evil-vs-evil) structure, not really that much different from a myriad of other good sci-fi films (like “Star Wars,” “Dune,” etc). But it does serve as a brilliant way to showcase the expanded Riddick universe and all its interesting oddities, details, and characters. Characters remain about as strong here as they did in the first film (and if anything, I think they’re a little more distinctive).

The film is solid. It still has a lot of shaky rapid-fire editing techniques; it used to bother me somewhat, but this time around it didn’t seem so bad. Acting is not bad; Vin Diesel is still the man, and Colm Feore makes a good bad guy. Production value is very high, production designs for all the locations, ships, weapons, costumes, etc are pretty darn awesome. Music is alright.

4/5 (entertainment: 4.5/5, story: 3.5/5, film: 4/5)

This Blu-Ray is good. Picture quality is sharp, clean, clear, and highly detailed. Color and contrast are not bad. Sound quality is good.

PQ: 4.5/5, AQ: 4.5/5

In the end, I think dad liked them. Mom thought they were awful.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Yesterday I showed these off to my folks:

“Pitch Black.”

[Show spoiler]It’s a pretty straightforward story, but one filled with interesting and original ideas. The setting (a desert planet with three suns filled with nocturnal monsters) is something clever and unique in itself. The characters are even more interesting; Riddick is pretty decently wicked, and the rest are interesting in their own ways.

With this set-up, the film has its fair share of action and special effects, especially in the last half. I’ve always felt that the first half of the film drags a little, but it’s necessary to establish the settings, story, characters, etc. I got to admit too, the film’s style is very flashy and vivid, and the color schemes are very strong.

The film has plenty of interesting photography, but some of it can be very shaky, and the editing can be very fast-paced. As erratic as some scenes are, I consider it a little much. But, the acting is pretty good, the production value is not bad, the SFX are cool (but are starting to show their age). Music is alright.

3.5/5 (entertainment: 3/5, story: 4/5, film: 3.5/5)

[Show spoiler]This Blu-Ray seemed a little iffy at first glance, but looking at it now I gotta say it’s pretty solid. The picture quality is quite sharp and detailed. Some scenes show a lot of noise and other scenes seem okay. Color and contrast are okay, all things considering. Sound quality is okay; most of the sound effects are great, but dialogue tends to be overly soft in some scenes (I think it’s always been that way for this film).

PQ: 4/5, AQ: 4/5



“The Chronicles of Riddick.”

[Show spoiler]Now this is more like it! This movie has tons more action, way bigger and better SFX, lots of weird groovy set-pieces, props, and visuals, and a totally more wicked attitude overall! While the first film felt a little too much like half-and-half, this one is practically nonstop action. Ah yeah…

Story-wise, it’s not quite as original or strong as the first film. It does have a typical good-vs-evil (or rather, evil-vs-evil) structure, not really that much different from a myriad of other good sci-fi films (like “Star Wars,” “Dune,” etc). But it does serve as a brilliant way to showcase the expanded Riddick universe and all its interesting oddities, details, and characters. Characters remain about as strong here as they did in the first film (and if anything, I think they’re a little more distinctive).

The film is solid. It still has a lot of shaky rapid-fire editing techniques; it used to bother me somewhat, but this time around it didn’t seem so bad. Acting is not bad; Vin Diesel is still the man, and Colm Feore makes a good bad guy. Production value is very high, production designs for all the locations, ships, weapons, costumes, etc are pretty darn awesome. Music is alright.

4/5 (entertainment: 4.5/5, story: 3.5/5, film: 4/5)

This Blu-Ray is good. Picture quality is sharp, clean, clear, and highly detailed. Color and contrast are not bad. Sound quality is good.

PQ: 4.5/5, AQ: 4.5/5

In the end, I think dad liked them. Mom thought they were awful.

Ha ha ha.

I love the audio in Pitch Black during the opening crash landing scene. You can feel the ship being torn apart.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Yesterday I showed these off to my folks:

“Pitch Black.”

It’s a pretty straightforward story, but one filled with interesting and original ideas. The setting (a desert planet with three suns filled with nocturnal monsters) is something clever and unique in itself. The characters are even more interesting; Riddick is pretty decently wicked, and the rest are interesting in their own ways.

With this set-up, the film has its fair share of action and special effects, especially in the last half. I’ve always felt that the first half of the film drags a little, but it’s necessary to establish the settings, story, characters, etc. I got to admit too, the film’s style is very flashy and vivid, and the color schemes are very strong.

The film has plenty of interesting photography, but some of it can be very shaky, and the editing can be very fast-paced. As erratic as some scenes are, I consider it a little much. But, the acting is pretty good, the production value is not bad, the SFX are cool (but are starting to show their age). Music is alright.

3.5/5 (entertainment: 3/5, story: 4/5, film: 3.5/5)

This Blu-Ray seemed a little iffy at first glance, but looking at it now I gotta say it’s pretty solid. The picture quality is quite sharp and detailed. Some scenes show a lot of noise and other scenes seem okay. Color and contrast are okay, all things considering. Sound quality is okay; most of the sound effects are great, but dialogue tends to be overly soft in some scenes (I think it’s always been that way for this film).

PQ: 4/5, AQ: 4/5

Seeing as I sent my payment check off to Squid's business fellow today.....

Close enough

4/5 for me.

“The Chronicles of Riddick.”

Now this is more like it! This movie has tons more action, way bigger and better SFX, lots of weird groovy set-pieces, props, and visuals, and a totally more wicked attitude overall! While the first film felt a little too much like half-and-half, this one is practically nonstop action. Ah yeah…

Story-wise, it’s not quite as original or strong as the first film. It does have a typical good-vs-evil (or rather, evil-vs-evil) structure, not really that much different from a myriad of other good sci-fi films (like “Star Wars,” “Dune,” etc). But it does serve as a brilliant way to showcase the expanded Riddick universe and all its interesting oddities, details, and characters. Characters remain about as strong here as they did in the first film (and if anything, I think they’re a little more distinctive).

The film is solid. It still has a lot of shaky rapid-fire editing techniques; it used to bother me somewhat, but this time around it didn’t seem so bad. Acting is not bad; Vin Diesel is still the man, and Colm Feore makes a good bad guy. Production value is very high, production designs for all the locations, ships, weapons, costumes, etc are pretty darn awesome. Music is alright.

4/5 (entertainment: 4.5/5, story: 3.5/5, film: 4/5)

This Blu-Ray is good. Picture quality is sharp, clean, clear, and highly detailed. Color and contrast are not bad. Sound quality is good.

PQ: 4.5/5, AQ: 4.5/5

Once again...close enough

4.25/5 for me.


Theatrical or Unrated?

In the end, I think dad liked them. Mom thought they were awful.

Typical

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Ha ha ha.

I love the audio in Pitch Black during the opening crash landing scene. You can feel the ship being torn apart.

That was a cool scene audio-wise. I thought the Hellion Prime battle scene in "Riddick" was awesome too!

Good thing my folks have a good audio set-up.

Originally Posted by Diesel

Close enough

4/5 for me.



Once again...close enough

4.25/5 for me.

Theatrical or Unrated?

Typical

Right on!

It was the Theatrical Cut this time. Yeah, it is a little better. I remember liking the DC for the added prison scene, but most of everything else is pretty frivilous. I know you dislike the Furian heritage stuff (it never fully bothered me; the chick in B&W is kinda cool ), but one thing that I hate the most is that they changed Judi Dench's line ("chances are good, that you'll see the underverse soon," as opposed to "chances are good that Riddick is still alive." To me, the latter one is better ).

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by QuasidodoJr

Big Fan
First Independent Pictures/88 min./R/2009

[Show spoiler]Patton Oswalt stars as the titular character in first-time director, Robert D. Siegel's, Big Fan. Oswalt plays parking lot attendant Paul Aufiero, a collosal Giants fan who lives at home with his mother on Staten Island. Paul lives and breathes Sunday football and routinely puts the Giants ahead of his own personal life. His team dedication is put to the test when he follows his favorite player, Quantrell Bishop (Jonathan Hamm), to a high-class strip club and is nearly beaten to death by his beloved #54. After the incident, Paul has to decide which is more important - getting justice - or Quantrell Bishop's value to the Giants team.

Although this film is billed as a Comedy, I honestly didn't muster a single laugh throughout its entire 88 minutes of running time. It's more of a character study, and that character leads a very sad and lonely existence. There are moments in the film where you're "supposed" to laugh, such as when he's calling into his favorite overnight sports talk radio show and his mother picks up the phone and tells him to go to bed with a live audience listening, but, more often than not, I just felt sorry for the guy.

Oswalt does an outstanding job portraying the down-on-his-luck character. Feelings of isolation, jealousy and embarrassment run rampant, and Oswalt delivers those emotions with panache. The supporting cast is natural and believable, but this is more or less Oswalt's movie.

Without ruining the ending, I'll just say that Paul makes some odd choices. If you're a die-hard sports fan, you may be able to slightly relate to his misgivings, but to anyone else, Paul will come across as a sad, lonely nut job.

Score: 3 out of 5 - Worth a watch on Netflix streaming.

hmm... interesting. great review!
i saw stumbled across it on netflix, and while i'm a pretty big Patton Oswald fan, i thought it was gonna be a generic, awful dumb comedy. but your review makes it sound much darker than that, and i wonder if it's actually supposed to be a comedy? or like you said, a character study about someone who takes something maybe too seriously?

i will definitely have to check this out some day

[Batman1980]

Easy A - 3.5/5
PQ and AQ 4/5
BttF 1 2/5
PQ and AQ 5/5

[Show spoiler]Real score for first BttF - 5/5 all around

[Al_The_Strange]

Next greatest random selection: “Children of Men.”

Watching this movie is like a spit in the face and a punch to the gut. In a totally good way. Because I am masochistic that way.

...what?

Anyway, this very old review I wrote still applies. The scores are:

5/5 (entertainment: 4.5/5, story: 4.5/5, film: 5/5)

PQ: 4.5/5, AQ: 4.5/5

Loosely based on PD James' novel "Children of Men," this movie takes the original premise (a world where everybody has become infertile) and takes it to its most extreme, most depressing, most unsettling conclusion. It is an apocalyptic vision that is so brutal and bitter that it highlights just how cruel and malicious the human race really is. The whole thing is a downward spiral, and I found it to be one of the most depressing movies ever made (second to "The Passion").

But it is not all doom and gloom; the ending does provide some hope. And the ending comes pretty fast, for the plotline moves at a brisk pace. There are a lot of incredible action scenes, many of which were shot with hardly any cuts; the choreography and logistics of each shot is impressive. Thus, the photography is really excellent as well. Special effects are used so effectively, I couldn't even tell what was an effect and what wasn't (the birth scene made me wonder "how did they do that?"). Production design (sets, props, costumes) is excellent. Music is good.

The disc has decent video quality for the most part; it is a bit grainy, but still sharp, clean, and highly detailed. Sound quality is perfect. Includes the same extras as the DVD, plus some picture-in-picture and U-control content.

Recommendation: If you think you can handle it…

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Next greatest random selection: “Children of Men.”

Watching this movie is like a spit in the face and a punch to the gut. In a totally good way. Because I am masochistic that way.

...what?

Anyway, this very old review I wrote still applies. The scores are:

5/5 (entertainment: 4.5/5, story: 4.5/5, film: 5/5)

PQ: 4.5/5, AQ: 4.5/5

Recommendation: If you think you can handle it…

saw this for the first time a few months ago. gave it a 4/5, but didn't really have any issues with it. just didn't love it. which of course, is hard to do for such a film with bleak tones, but i really did enjoy it. would love to see it on blu-ray and will pick it up when it hits... i think i put my price tracker at $9? ... i loved the atmosphere more than anything. so creepy and grimy feeling. loved that!