The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

See, what your friend hated, I loved. They could have done 90 minutes of Wall:E just cruising around solo making beeps and squeeks and I would have loved it.

I dont need no stinkin' humans.

I Lol'd.

I love Wall-e as well, he's the sh!t.

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I return to a 1/5 for Psycho, a 2.5/5 for Atonement, and not even a rating for Last Year at Marienbad??? I'm leaving again...

Your posts are so colorful and warm... they give me hope for humanity.

[Show spoiler]

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

SUPERBAD (115 minutes)

[Show spoiler]Film #16

Year: 2007
Director: Greg Mottola
Starring: Michael Cera, Jonah Hill, Seth Rogen, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and Bill Hader
Genre: Comedy

What Made Me Want to See This? Looked super funny.

I’ve reviewed it at great length before so I’ll keep it short(er) because I’m lazy, tired and don’t really care to do a whole big wacky crazy review.

Superbad is super funny (bad pun) and contains about a bazillion lines of classic dialogue.

The BD looks and sounds damn good!

Emma Stone is in it? Instant +1 to overall score

Usually comedies can make me laugh and be badly made films. Superbad isn’t such a film. Superbad has great replay value, is well made, and all the characters are consistently funny. If I had to make a list of “this type” of raunchy comedies starring these guys (The 40 Year-Old Virgin, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Knocked Up and probably a million more I can’t think of right now) Superbad would wind up near the top of the list, if not at the number 1 position.

Very funny. Always enjoyable. A worthy addition to the collection.

Recommendation: Very High. Even though the entire world has seen it I'm sure.

PQ: 4/5
AQ: 4/5

Technical Score: 3.5/5
Enjoyment Level Score: 5/5 “really like it”

Final Verdict: 4.5/5

(out of breath) - "He's a freak. He's the fastest kid alive."

I lol at that line every time. Also,

[Show spoiler]McMuffin!!

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Recommend a blind-buy? Not sure which is greater. My love for Natalie Portman or my hatred for Julia Roberts. They will probably balance out into a Netflix rental.

[Show spoiler]Funny note... My girlfriend's comment on the news of Portman's pregnancy: "Looks like you're stuck with me!"

I think we have pretty similar taste in film, and I'd definitely recommend a blind buy. I love it. It definitely isn't a typical role for Roberts, so hopefully she'll be bearable for you

Originally Posted by Steve46

If you like movies with lots of dialogue that are clearly adapted from plays, it's worth a blind buy.

Roberts has the smallest role of the four. Portman doesn't wear much in a few of the scenes if that's the clincher

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

+100
i loved the film BEFORE those scenes, but once they arrived, i was definitely sold

Haha, agreed. Portman has always been a favorite.

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

i've been meaning to see this for years now, keep forgetting about it

Definitely check it out, it's pretty good.

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Oh my. Remember, the fight has to be FAIR. No dirty stuff.

Classic. I need to quit stalling and get this!

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by Steve46

Last Year at Marienbad

Directed by Alain Resnais
Starring Giorgo Albertazzi, Delphine Seyrig
94 minutes
French language

[Show spoiler]Last Year at Marienbad earned an Oscar nomination in 1963 for best writing, story and screenplay.

A man meets a woman and they have a conversation in which he tries to convince her they met the previous year at Marienbad. She doesn't remember, so he keeps adding details to try and prove he's telling the truth. We then see flashbacks of these events.

Is it a romance? Is it a drama? It's certainly a mystery.

I bought this in the hope that it would be a complicated mystery. My favorite film is Mulholland Drive because of the ambiguity between what's real, what's imagined and what's part of a dream. From all the descriptions, Marienbad sounded similar.

It isn't at all.

To be fully invested in a story, I need to care about the characters, the setting, the outcome or something at least. I didn't care about a single thing in this. I like complex films and consider myself intelligent. That wasn't the problem. I just didn't care at any stage about anything. I don't think I even want to give it a second chance. I'll just trade it for something I like.

At 94 minutes, this still seemed long to me. It lost my interest after 30 minutes.

I won't give it a score because I know many people rate it highly and I don't want to put anyone off seeing it if they are interested. But it just didn't work for me on any level.

Same here. I wanted to like it, but I just didn't care... AT ALL. I wanted to care, but nothing pulled me and and I was constantly fighting to stay awake. I will definitely give it another shot someday, especially now that I have a better grasp on what was going on the film. During my first viewing, I was totally in the dark

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Viggo

Haha, well played

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Shooter

[Show spoiler]

• 2007 | R | 124 Minutes
  
  
• Director: Antoine Fuqua
  
  
• Starring: Mark Wahlberg
  
  
• Action | Crime | Mystery

Wahlberg plays an ex-Marine sniper who was got screwed by his superiors in Africa. Three years later (it really bugged me that it said 36 Months instead of 3 years...why? I don't know, that stuff just bugs me) he's recruited to help stop an assassination on the President. Things don't go well.

I'm glad the movie wasn't any longer than it was because I was really starting to lose interest there towards the end. I didn't care that much to begin with and by the end I didn't care at all...well besides

[Show spoiler]wanting them to be taken out since they killed his dog. You do NOT kill a man's dog

Up until

[Show spoiler]he got patched up by Kate Mara's character

was 3.5/5 (above average) material for me, but then after that a lot of it was just :

And why did the

[Show spoiler]sniper not go for the kill shot since they thought it was Wahlberg at the end on that mountain? They've been trying to kill him this entire movie, but instead you shoot him in the side, where he may or may not die instead of going for a head shot where he will definitely die? I mean, I get the "henchmen are stupid" thing that is usually used, but come on.

Wahlberg was okay at best. A couple times I had to go back and put the subtitles on because I honestly had no idea what he had just said. What's with the mumbling? Speak up so we can hear you dude.
He does

[Show spoiler]walk away from an explosion

though, so I guess he gets some cool points

Danny Glover...well I was glad

[Show spoiler]Wahlberg shot him

. Really did not like him in this movie.


An okay movie in general that almost over stayed its welcome with me. Though, it fails horribly at being an exciting action movie.

This is only the second time I've given the following rating (The Phantom Menace):

Rating - 2.75/5

I found two aspects of the film interesting.

1. How funny it is to watch Wahlberg's character describe the complicated physics calculations for pulling off a perfect, long range shot with a high powered rifle, and then watch the horrendously unrealistic shooting that happens throughout the film

2. Kate Mara

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Blood Diamond

[Show spoiler]

• 2006 | R | 143 Minutes
  
  
• Director: Edward Zwick
  
  
• Stars: Leonardo DiCaprio, Djimon Hounsou
  
  
• Adventure | Drama

I went into this movie hoping to really like it...I came out, well, not.

It wasn't a bad film really, I just never got into it. It never hooked me in.

The only character and actor I cared about was Djimon. He was great in this
I didn't care about his family (of course we didn't see them for more than a few minutes at most, so that may be why mostly), but I cared to watch the entire movie to find out

[Show spoiler]if he was reunited with them or not.

DiCaprio annoyed me throughout this movie. It wasn't a bad performance, it just irked me.
Maybe I didn't think the accent fit him, maybe it was because I didn't like the character. I don't know, he was just annoying to me


I didn't care for the story of the film. I can honestly say that I was bored for the majority of the film; which was quite a shock to me considering the events of the movie.


And that's really all I have to say, a very non-review inspiring movie for me.

Do I think its a crappy film? No, not really; I can perfectly understand people really liking this movie. It just didn't jive with me at all outside of Djimon. I didn't hate it by any means, but I was also far from really liking it.

Rating - 2.5/5

Originally Posted by Diesel

Mystic River

[Show spoiler]

• 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

Bummer, I thought that you would like both of these a lot more, especially Mystic River, which is fantastic imo. I find it a bit confusing that you put the solid performance of Ken Wanatabe in front of 2 amazing performances because you enjoyed it more.

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Nice. I liked this movie a lot too. The tension between the brothers felt real. I never understood the poor critical reception it got.

I need to see this one again, but I remember liking it a lot. I thought the two worked well together. I'm glad to see Liev is staying busy, he's also coming out with a new film directed by Brad Anderson that sounds interesting. Have you seen Taking Woodstock? He's pretty funny in that

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Shooter

• 2007 | R | 124 Minutes
  
• Director: Antoine Fuqua
  
• Starring: Mark Wahlberg
  
• Action | Crime | Mystery

[Show spoiler]Wahlberg plays an ex-Marine sniper who was got screwed by his superiors in Africa. Three years later (it really bugged me that it said 36 Months instead of 3 years...why? I don't know, that stuff just bugs me) he's recruited to help stop an assassination on the President. Things don't go well.

I'm glad the movie wasn't any longer than it was because I was really starting to lose interest there towards the end. I didn't care that much to begin with and by the end I didn't care at all...well besides

[Show spoiler]wanting them to be taken out since they killed his dog. You do NOT kill a man's dog

Up until

[Show spoiler]he got patched up by Kate Mara's character

was 3.5/5 (above average) material for me, but then after that a lot of it was just :

And why did the

[Show spoiler]sniper not go for the kill shot since they thought it was Wahlberg at the end on that mountain? They've been trying to kill him this entire movie, but instead you shoot him in the side, where he may or may not die instead of going for a head shot where he will definitely die? I mean, I get the "henchmen are stupid" thing that is usually used, but come on.

Wahlberg was okay at best. A couple times I had to go back and put the subtitles on because I honestly had no idea what he had just said. What's with the mumbling? Speak up so we can hear you dude.
He does

[Show spoiler]walk away from an explosion

though, so I guess he gets some cool points

Danny Glover...well I was glad

[Show spoiler]Wahlberg shot him

. Really did not like him in this movie.


An okay movie in general that almost over stayed its welcome with me. Though, it fails horribly at being an exciting action movie.

This is only the second time I've given the following rating (The Phantom Menace):

Rating - 2.75/5

shucks too bad you didn't enjoy it more. even me, the "action hater" of our group enjoyed this one

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

They could have done 90 minutes of Wall:E just cruising around solo making beeps and squeeks and I would have loved it.

I dont need no stinkin' humans.

correct. i wish they would have done this as a special feature or something/

Originally Posted by Diesel

You guys can go find Surf together

correct.

Originally Posted by killowertz

I own it and like it, so of course I'd give your review a thumbs down.

As for your spoilers, I'm not really sure about the sniper one as I don't remember how the whole end played out since it's been well over a year since I've seen it.

Just chalk it up to yet another movie we don't agree on I guess.

i liked this as well. we agree again...

Originally Posted by tbizzle

(out of breath) - "He's a freak. He's the fastest kid alive."

I lol at that line every time. Also,

[Show spoiler]McMuffin!!

haha same! i LOVE that

[Show spoiler]McMuffin

line

Originally Posted by tbizzle

Haha, agreed. Portman has always been a favorite.

correct. gorgeous, but like, "real" gorgeous.

Originally Posted by tbizzle

Definitely check it out, it's pretty good.

will do. wish it wasn't $28 right now on amazon

[Lepidopterous]

Ghost in the Shell (1995)

Mamoru Oshii's Ghost in the Shell is a science fiction anime film that raised the bar for Japanese animation. Its complex woven narrative is set in a society where being a full-flesh human is no longer the norm. Is humanity losing its existence or is it loosely defined? Cyborgs are part human, part machine, and a continuation of a previously "whole" human entity. Major Motoko Kusanagi, a full-replacement cyborg in the national security division Section 9, is investigating a mysterious hacker who goes by the name "The Puppet Master." It may be apparent throughout the film that many of its aspects and ideas have been borrowed for other films such as The Matrix (source code; plugging into the network) and Inception (diving into another's conscious).

Ghost in the Shell's portrayal of the significant role of networking in society appears strange and exaggerated to us but carries with it a strong familiarity and subtle message. Our reliance on networking is similarly demonstrated in The Matrix, but GITS takes it beyond questioning the basis of reality by turning to the self. The dualistic nature of mankind's existence is so prominently explored that it is reflected by the film's title itself. Physical vs. metaphysical… mind vs. body… the ghost vs. the shell. Cartesian dualism is a theory that the mind and body interact yet remain distinct from one another. Major Kusanagi contemplates what determines the identity of an individual. What defines life? Almost entirely artificially constructed, she questions her own existence. Is the ghost distinct from the shell? When someone is ghost hacked, they no longer have memories. So is the ghost (a loose metaphor for mind) what defines the self? Her resolution is reached

[Show spoiler]as she merges with the Puppet Master, who suggests that life is simply a component of the network of all things. After the merge, the major and hacker share one entity with a blueprint for regeneration and become an integral part of the network by achieving a higher consciousness.

The chief of Section 6 refers to the Puppet Master as a self-preserving program to which the hacker objects that by that logic, the human genome is no different. The Puppet Master claims to be a ghost born "within the flow of information" and goes on to define life from a person's memories.

Ghost in the Shell manages to mix seamlessly integrated CGI and hand drawn animation, a complex but fitting plot, a resonant score, intermittent action sequences (complete with thermoptic camouflage!), and heavy philosophy (without being preachy) into an 82 minute runtime to make for a profound experience with loads of replay value.

5/5

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

i liked this as well. we agree again... hnoes

I think the world is about to come to an end. I better go find the hottest girl I can and sleep with her before it's all over.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by killowertz

I think the world is about to come to an end. I better go find the hottest girl I can and sleep with her before it's all over.

you do that and i'll try and convince Emma Stone to waste 90 seconds of her life with me!

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

you do that and i'll try and convince Emma Stone to waste 90 seconds of her life with me!

On second thought...

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

"300," "10000 BC," "1 Million BC"...

Originally Posted by Gandalf Stormcrow

It's a super marathon that I do every year once the Cowboys season ends, from the #ered movies to Z, usually takes about 4 months, then I watch all my TV shows and by that time, the pre-season has rolled around.

It only takes you 4 months to watch almost 500 movies

Originally Posted by killowertz

I own it and like it, so of course I'd give your review a thumbs down.

As for your spoilers, I'm not really sure about the sniper one as I don't remember how the whole end played out since it's been well over a year since I've seen it.

Just chalk it up to yet another movie we don't agree on I guess.

There seems to be a growing number of movies like that

Originally Posted by tbizzle

I found two aspects of the film interesting.

1. How funny it is to watch Wahlberg's character describe the complicated physics calculations for pulling off a perfect, long range shot with a high powered rifle, and then watch the horrendously unrealistic shooting that happens throughout the film

2. Kate Mara

Originally Posted by tbizzle

Bummer, I thought that you would like both of these a lot more, especially Mystic River, which is fantastic imo.

I had hoped so as well

At least I did like Mystic River though.

I find it a bit confusing that you put the solid performance of Ken Wanatabe in front of 2 amazing performances because you enjoyed it more.

I enjoyed it more AND thought it was better.

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

shucks too bad you didn't enjoy it more. even me, the "action hater" of our group enjoyed this one

But you enjoyed it because there was hardly any action whatsoever and the action they had wasn't exciting/interesting for the most part

[Diesel]

Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief

• 2010 | PG | 118 Minutes
  
  
• Director: Chris Columbus
  
  
• Starring: Logan Lerman, Brandon Jackson, Alexandra Daddario
  
  
• Adventure | Family | Fantasy

I've been meaning to see this one for a while since the trailer looked entertaining (but not enough to go to the theater) and a few of my friends said they enjoyed it. It played on HBO Saturday night and my buddy DVR'd it and a few of us watched it tonight.


Percy is the son of Poseidon (but he doesn't know that) and some mythological folks think that he stole Zeus' lightning bolt. Hades doesn't believe him and tells him he needs to bring him the bolt to save someone he loves.

The synopsis for the movie says its about him trying to solve the war between the gods that will ensue if the bolt isn't returned, but really, it's not at all. It SHOULD have been about that but all Percy is worried about is

[Show spoiler]saving his mom from Hades

. Not even about both things; just that. Him trying to do both things would have made for a better movie instead of him only

[Show spoiler]finding the bolt and then trying to stop the war by sheer accident

near the end.

The story and pacing of the movie felt clunky to me. He was introduced in full and fully coped with this new world way too quickly. He learned to control his powers WAY too quickly. The stuff with the gods was way too little to even make anyone care. Some parts of their "quest" took too long (Medusa/Vegas) and some were too quick (Hades). They tried to squeeze too much into a less than two hour movie and even with that run time it could have went more smoothly than it did. I would say it needed to be longer, but with the decisions that were made (whether they stem from the book or not is irrelevant) that might have just made the movie worse. Hell with the two hours they had they didn't even tell us how the bolt was stolen as far as I know.

Which all that is a shame really, because the movie still proved to be mildly entertaining, so it could have actually been pretty good.

Also, I like the idea of the modern set Greek god story, but not the way we got it in this movie that much. But I can't blame that on the movie since its based on a book. I did think it was hilarious that

[Show spoiler]the entrance to Hades was through Hollywood

And why are some of these creatures are alive if Greek Mythology was true? I read that it is explained in the book, but this is a movie not a book. They should have explained that.

And then there was Hades being NOTHING like it was supposed to be...
The Christianized it. It's a movie about Greek mythology characters, please stick to it as much as possible.

The

[Show spoiler]Hydra is NOT a fire dragon

....
And what happens in the book sounds much more interesting:
"the Chimera and Echidna attack Percy alone"

Hades wife should not have been in the Underworld at that time (though the book apparently got that right).

I'll stop there as I could probably find more problems with it regarding philosophy



The acting isn't anything really worth writing about at all, but that is to be expected I guess.

Everyone handles the comedy stuff pretty well most of the time especially Brandon Jackson; he had me a few times.

Sean Bean as Zeus is a good idea, even though we only get to see him for like 3 minutes. Sean Bean is naturally awesome. Even when I don't really care for his character (Boromir) he's still awesome.


Oh, and it had Lady Gaga and Ke$ha music in it


Overall, even with all the issues I had with it, it was still entertaining enough to not be a waste of time. Just not something I would ever feel the urge to watch again and that I wished had been (and really could have been) better.


Rating - 2.75/5

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Diesel

[Show spoiler]Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief

• 2010 | PG | 118 Minutes
  
  
• Director: Chris Columbus
  
  
• Starring: Logan Lerman, Brandon Jackson, Alexandra Daddario
  
  
• Adventure | Family | Fantasy

I've been meaning to see this one for a while since the trailer looked entertaining (but not enough to go to the theater) and a few of my friends said they enjoyed it. It played on HBO Saturday night and my buddy DVR'd it and a few of us watched it tonight.


Percy is the son of Poseidon (but he doesn't know that) and some mythological folks think that he stole Zeus' lightning bolt. Hades doesn't believe him and tells him he needs to bring him the bolt to save someone he loves.

The synopsis for the movie says its about him trying to solve the war between the gods that will ensue if the bolt isn't returned, but really, it's not at all. It SHOULD have been about that but all Percy is worried about is

[Show spoiler]saving his mom from Hades

. Not even about both things; just that. Him trying to do both things would have made for a better movie instead of him only

[Show spoiler]finding the bolt and then trying to stop the war by sheer accident

near the end.

The story and pacing of the movie felt clunky to me. He was introduced in full and fully coped with this new world way too quickly. He learned to control his powers WAY too quickly. The stuff with the gods was way too little to even make anyone care. Some parts of their "quest" took too long (Medusa/Vegas) and some were too quick (Hades). They tried to squeeze too much into a less than two hour movie and even with that run time it could have went more smoothly than it did. I would say it needed to be longer, but with the decisions that were made (whether they stem from the book or not is irrelevant) that might have just made the movie worse.

Which all that is a shame really, because the movie still proved to be mildly entertaining, so it could have actually been pretty good.

Also, I like the idea of the modern set Greek god story, but not the way we got it in this movie that much. But I can't blame that on the movie since its based on a book. I did think it was hilarious that

[Show spoiler]the entrance to Hades was through Hollywood

And why are some of these creatures are alive if Greek Mythology was true? I read that it is explained in the book, but this is a movie not a book. They should have explained that.


The acting isn't anything really worth writing about at all, but that is to be expected I guess.

Everyone handles the comedy stuff pretty well most of the time especially Brandon Jackson; he had me a few times.

Sean Bean as Zeus is a good idea, even though we only get to see him for like 3 minutes. Sean Bean is naturally awesome. Even when I don't really care for his character (Boromir) he's still awesome.


Oh, and it had Lady Gaga and Ke$ha music in it


Overall, even with all the issues I had with it, it was still entertaining enough to not be a waste of time. Just not something I would ever feel the urge to watch again and that I wished had been (and really could have been) better.


Rating - 3/5

So add it to Diesel's one and done collection. I can see my entire collection in about 4 months because it's really only about 3-4 movies a day, which is totally doable for someone like me.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Stormcrow

So add it to Diesel's one and done collection. I can see my entire collection in about 4 months because it's really only about 3-4 movies a day, which is totally doable for someone like me.

Yep, very much in the One and Done.