The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Foggy]

I watched The Social Network

Watched at the theatre, loved it, watched it at home, loved it even more.

It's just such and intresting tangle of a story, filled with coding jargon, sex, partying and animal abuse Who could of thunk a film about Facebook could actually be so cool.

One of the only times I can think of pushing a movie up a notch in it's rating

10/10

PQ - 9/10
AQ - 8.5/10

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Evra

The King's Speech (2010)

[Show spoiler]While it would be easy to dismiss The King's Speech as a British ho-hum drama cum Oscar-bait, rest assured as The King Speech is sublimely entertaining. It tells an uplifting tale of a King who overcomes his weakness of public speaking with the aid of a therapist and his loving wife and it would be fit to stand alongside some of the great Cameron Crowe 'feel-good' films that tell tales of friendship, loyalty, love and triumph of the human spirit. The film contains many funny moments but it is done in a manner that never distorts the overall tone of the film.

The film's strong point lies in the performances of the three main actors (L to R in picture: Helena Bonham Carter, Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush). Helena Bonham Carter may have played some mean-spirited characters in the past (Harry Potter, Fight Club and Alice in Wonderland) but here, she delivers a wonderful performance as Queen Elizabeth in this film filled with tenderness, wit, humanity and devotion to her husband's cause. There are two scenes in the film, each eliciting different sorts emotions; one in the opening sequence when her husband stutters through an opening paragraph and another when she finds out her husband could read Shakespeare beautifully where you feel a full range of emotions flowing through your body, all credit to the subtle changes in facial expressions throughout those two scenes.

I have never really been a fan of Colin Firth as from what I have seen of him in romantic comedies, I have felt that the less of him I see, the better it is for me. However in the past two years, we have really seen Firth taking up complex and challenging roles, each showcasing the tremendous depth of talent that he possesses, proving that he is indeed one of the great actors in Hollywood. As King George VI, Firth not only captures the torturous struggles of a debilitating stutter but he also manages to humanize the monarch as a man whom is forced to bear extraordinary responsibilities and overcome his inner demons when his self-esteem was robbed from him since childhood. Alongside Colin Firth is Geoffrey Rush who delivers one of his best career performances as Lionel Logue, King George VI's speech therapist. The chemistry between Firth and Rush is electric with both actors pitch-perfect in acting out their characters' dynamic relationship culminating in the film's climax when King George VI addresses his people in a radio address in a small room with Logue by his side.

If there is a negative to the film, it is the fact that Firth and Rush are so good together on screen that when they are not on it, my attention tended to wander until both the two actors were back on screen. Scenes depicting King George V's death and King Edward VIII's personal turmoil ended up being nothing more than a forced necessity to move the story forwards. In this regard, I have to say that I would rather have some of those scenes trimmed.

The ever dubious MPAA has awarded The King's Speech with an R rating for language, believing that the film has used the word 'f***' one time too many and forgive me for saying this but that decision by the MPAA is one big f**king joke. The Social Network contains two-and-a-half 'f***s', scenes depicting drug usage and sexual content and the film gets away with a PG-13. While The King's Speech uses the 'f***' word more than is permitted for a PG-13 film but use of the 'f***' word here is perfectly justifiable for the progression of the film and its characters. It is such a shame that such a great film will not be able to be seen by a wider audience, all for one particular scene that uses the word 'f***' ten or more times for necessary effect. Shame on you, MPAA and the respective countries' counterparts for following similar rating systems.

The King's Speech is a classic case of how a simple story acted remarkably well could become a great film. While it may be a performance-driven film, it would be naive to overlook the production values, the cinematography, the screenplay and the direction. The King's Speech is one of those rare British period dramas where it isn't a mere protocol when the main character triumphs but we will be genuinely happy for the title character when he overcomes his fear of speaking in public. While I am not sure that The King's Speech is 2010's best film, I am convinced it is the best acted film of 2010.

4/5

Great review
I scored it similarly with a 4.25/5.

I agree about the MPAA. In this instance the language wasn't used to be profane or anything, it was simply a tool that he used to not stammer (not to mention the scene was hilarious). That should have been taken into consideration for the rating.

[Show spoiler]"...and tits."

[AKORIS]

The King's Speech is a classic case of how a simple story acted remarkably well could become a great film. While it may be a performance-driven film, it would be naive to overlook the production values, the cinematography, the screenplay and the direction. The King's Speech is one of those rare British period dramas where it isn't a mere protocol when the main character triumphs but we will be genuinely happy for the title character when he overcomes his fear of speaking in public. While I am not sure that The King's Speech is 2010's best film, I am convinced it is the best acted film of 2010.
4/5[/QUOTE]



agree 100%

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Mirrors

[Show spoiler]This was picked as our movie to watch tonight (I didn't vote for it).


I was fine with Jack Bauer's...um...Keifer Sutherland's () story and set up (even though after that first night you wouldn't have gotten me back in that building). It wasn't good, but it wasn't really bad, just "blah". But the

[Show spoiler]demon monkey...because that's what the bloody thing seemed to act like to me

at the end was stupid and, sadly, predictable. I would have preferred they have Keifer find some sort of way to

[Show spoiler]destroy all of the mirrors and not had the little girl turned nun come in to help save the day

(by the way,

[Show spoiler]he convinced her REALLY fast to come and help because after years of knowing about the thing and even telling him no she changed her mind right away

). What exactly would I have had them do? I don't know, I've only been thinking about it for about 10 minutes

Also, besides one or two times the loud surges in the score/quick cuts actually got me, the film was not frightening at all. Where was the sense of tension and fear? No where to be found. Even the deaths were over the top enough that they were just...lame is the best word I can come up with. I like things in a movie like this to be left to the imagination...not have everything shown to me and spelled out in precise bloody detail. Sometimes imagining the details for yourself makes for a much more experience (for example,

[Show spoiler]show the sister after she's dead but not while she's dying; let us imagine for ourselves exactly how she came to look like that

and then you have me going .

The movie does get a few points by

[Show spoiler]having him lose in the end and being 'behind the mirror'.

I thought we got

[Show spoiler]a happy ending

at first and was disappointed, but then when that happened I was


Sutherland was fine in his role...he still seemed very Jack Bauer-y to me. Especially when he yells
He had a little bit of interesting stuff to do...

[Show spoiler]like barging in and discarding and painting over all of the mirrors

But that was about it unfortunately, as the movie around him is not very well written or executed.

Anyone else in the movie was completely forgettable from the moment the credits went on screen. It doesn't help that not a single one of the other character was interesting in the slightest.


I say....skip it. Unless you want to see Jack Bauer vs a

[Show spoiler]evil monkey thing

.

Rating - 1.5/5

Haha, I thought the same thing. Awful waste of time... and not by choice

[AKORIS]

[I agree about the MPAA. In this instance the language wasn't used to be profane or anything, it was simply a tool that he used to not stammer (not to mention the scene was hilarious). That should have been taken into consideration for the rating.

[Show spoiler]"...and tits."

[/QUOTE]



you know, I think the R rating was intentional to make it for adult audiences--
while I loved the film, I would think that younger children would be bored to tears....

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

You and Diesel seem to think this was fun. I like the cast too, so I am going to give it a rent.

Looking forward to this as well, I'm diggin the cast. Malkovich looks awesome, as usual.

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Have you seen Dan in Real Life? He is very good in that and the movie is good too.

Love this one! Definitely give it a shot bearcat, I bet you'll love it.

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

It's absolutely worth a blind-buy and don't let anyone tell you differently! It's undoubtedly one of the best films of the 80s. I consider it De Niro's second best performance, behind Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver. I do, however, consider it Scorsese's best directing job. I wouldn't say it has an incredible amount of replay value, in terms of watching it very often, but owning one of the preeminent films in American cinema isn't a bad thing. Considering Scorsese is your favorite director, this is a no brainer.

I'm with Squid in that I can't quite recommend a blind buy. Excellent film but didn't have too much replay value for me.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by tbizzle

Haha, I thought the same thing. Awful waste of time... and not by choice

So you feel my pain?

Originally Posted by AKORIS

you know, I think the R rating was intentional to make it for adult audiences--
while I loved the film, I would think that younger children would be bored to tears....

While it is likely that most younger viewers probably would be bored...there are those that would enjoy it. At 19 I'm not exactly an old coot and I really enjoyed it.

Originally Posted by tbizzle

Looking forward to this as well, I'm diggin the cast. Malkovich looks awesome, as usual.

He is beyond awesome in this one

[Evra]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Great review
I scored it similarly with a 4.25/5.

I agree about the MPAA. In this instance the language wasn't used to be profane or anything, it was simply a tool that he used to not stammer (not to mention the scene was hilarious). That should have been taken into consideration for the rating.

[Show spoiler]"...and tits."

Originally Posted by AKORIS

The King's Speech is a classic case of how a simple story acted remarkably well could become a great film. While it may be a performance-driven film, it would be naive to overlook the production values, the cinematography, the screenplay and the direction. The King's Speech is one of those rare British period dramas where it isn't a mere protocol when the main character triumphs but we will be genuinely happy for the title character when he overcomes his fear of speaking in public. While I am not sure that The King's Speech is 2010's best film, I am convinced it is the best acted film of 2010.
4/5

Thanks guys. I was tempted to give it a 4.5/5 as well but the fact that I had no doubt in my mind that the film isn't perfect which explains why I gave it a 4/5 but on a better day, I would have had little hesitation to give it a 4.5/5.

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

It really is though. The same thing happened to me with Fernando Meirelles. I consider both City of God and The Constant Gardener to be two of the most excellent films... and Blindness is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It made my bottom 10.

Haha ouch. Still haven't seen City of God or Constant Gardener. Just bumped City of God towards the top in my queue

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by Diesel

So you feel my pain?

Indeed

He is beyond awesome in this one

Sweet, I'm stoked.

[AKORIS]

While it is likely that most younger viewers probably would be bored...there are those that would enjoy it. At 19 I'm not exactly an old coot and I really enjoyed it.

my 18 year old niece loved it as well-- so I hear ya--

I'm basically referring to kids under the age of 13 or so....

[jvince]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I agree with you about TPatF, but I disagree about Tangled. I thought the songs were fantastic and the characters were delightful. The song in the tavern was catchy as heck....I was sad when it ended because it was so much fun.

The songs didn't work for me, sadly. I did like the

[Show spoiler]lantern scene

though and the

[Show spoiler]reunion

was quite touching.

Originally Posted by Darth Anakin

4/5 is also an odd score for jvince to give the movie if the only thing it seems he liked about it WAS Rapunzel. Can't believe I have to wait 43 days for this to come out on blu-ray.

The review was for The Princess and the Frog, which I gave 4/5. I was just comparing it to Disney's most recent musical, Tangled, which -- although is enjoyable -- isn't as great as TPatF, imo.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Evra

Thanks guys. I was tempted to give it a 4.5/5 as well but the fact that I had no doubt in my mind that the film isn't perfect which explains why I gave it a 4/5 but on a better day, I would have had little hesitation to give it a 4.5/5.

When I came out of the theater I thought 4.5/5, but I thought about it more and decided to slightly lower the score to the current 4.25.

Originally Posted by tbizzle

Indeed



Sweet, I'm stoked.

Without ruining a thing, there is one part (at least one) in the movie where because of him you will literally go ""

Originally Posted by AKORIS

my 18 year old niece loved it as well-- so I hear ya--

I'm basically referring to kids under the age of 13 or so....

That's why it would be PG-13

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by tbizzle

Haha ouch. Still haven't seen City of God or Constant Gardener. Just bumped City of God towards the top in my queue

Great! You should also rent The Constant Gardener. It's the only Alliance release I own (Hey, it was between that and the DVD ).

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Diesel

When I came out of the theater I thought 4.5/5, but I thought about it more and decided to slightly lower the score to the current 4.25.

Quarter point increments FTW.

They are SO useful and appropriate.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Quarter point increments FTW.

They are SO useful and appropriate.

I don't know how I lived without them



Watching Apollo 13 soon. Will report with my thoughts later.

[Al_The_Strange]

Next greatest blind-buy: “Ong Bak 3.” Yep, I decided to watch it after all; the movie from which the great Tony Jaa was apparently brought back to life to star in!

The good news is that the fight scenes still rock. The fights are fast and intense.

But, I wouldn’t say any of them are 100% memorable. The first film was practically nonstop action, and the second film had a lot of unique sequences (like doing a backwards flip off of an elephant’s trunk…ahhh yeah… ). In this film…more fast-paced punching, kicking, etc., but without any unique set pieces or variants, it doesn’t really provide anything new to the table.

Even worse though, there are only a few fight scenes. The rest of the movie is padded with story development (which is weak), character development (weaker still), and thematic development (which is…dare I say…pretentious! ).

As expected, the story is not terribly great. The second film really wasn’t either; it worked on a fundamental level due to the sequencing of events, and the fact that it was a pretty standard rebel-vs-forces-of-oppression story with a love interest thrown in. #3 is much the same, only even more convoluted and dumb. Dialogue is limited and not very great, and without exposition the movie seems to jump all over the place. It worked fine and dandy in the last movie, but not so much here. And truth be told, I think the last film had stronger character development too (which really says something).

In the end, I’m left wondering…what was the point? As a film, #3 presents some overbearing themes of spirituality; the main character spends the whole movie endeavoring to meditate and learn to let go of all sinful behavior…so he can kick some more butt, massacre more people, and gain God-like powers. Oooooookkkaaayyyy… As a series, these movies don’t really connect that well. #2 and #3 go together, obviously, but they don’t really connect with #1 at all. What is the story arc here exactly? Are they saying that the character in the sequel/prequel becomes the spiritual leader whose statue is stolen in #1? Is this all meant to instill some form of Thai national pride? Or is it some kind of Buddhist thing? Or heck, maybe it’s just three really fun martial arts movies. I don’t know!!!

There is more good news though; the film looks gorgeous with a high production value and strong photography. Some imagery is darn near gorgeous! Acting is…what it is. English dubbing is very laughable at times, and some performances are to. The original Thai track would be better recommended. Sets, props, costumes, special effects, etc are all very slick and cool-looking. Music is not bad. It’s a slick and cool film overall…just a little light on the substance.

3/5 (entertainment: 3/5, story: 2/5, film: 4/5) Worst of the series imo.

Recommendation: Rent it if you’re interested. Especially if you’re an “Ong Bak” or martial arts fan.

The Blu-Ray is cool. Picture quality is definitely sharp and detailed. Grain structure is intact. There are some tiny specks and one or two film scratches, but otherwise looks quite clean. Colors are strong, contrast is okay for the most part. Sound quality is good.

PQ: 4/5, AQ: 4/5

[dallywhitty]

Ah, I may as well share the review I wrote for Film Studies homework several months ago. Here be spoilers.

David Fincher's Se7en (1997)

The thriller genre has existed on celluloid for decades, in various different forms and interpretations. Perhaps some of the more famous examples include work by Alfred “The Master of Suspense” Hitchcock – most notably classics such as Rear Window and Vertigo. It’s no secret that the thriller genre has more in common with its horror cousin than any other sort and it was only a matter of time before audiences were exposed to films that walked the line between the two. Horror has certainly evolved from the “so-bad-it’s-good” B-movie stereotype that was often associated with it, but even today, horror films are often a source of mockery from modern critics. In 1991, the Award-winning adaptation of Thomas Harris’ crime novel The Silence of the Lambs was released to high acclaim, often labelled as a “thriller” film, overlooking a sinister performance courtesy of Sir Anthony Hopkins and a subject matter that continues to unnerve viewers to this day.

Four years later, young filmmaker David Fincher, whose reputation was already tarnished by his grim and grey contribution to the Alien series would prove he had talent with the release of Se7en. Morgan Freeman plays William Somerset, a cop whose growing closer to retirement. However, he has one last assignment to do: find the man responsible for a series of grisly crimes based on the Seven Deadly Sins. Joined alongside a young and naive Detective David Mills (Brad Pitt), it seems matters can only get worse. The case tests both men to extremes they never thought imaginable as they pursue a man who is not only dangerous, but a brilliant genius with a trick up his sleeve.

Similar to William Friedkin’s classic horror film The Exorcist, Se7en concerns itself with two men who battle their own inner-demons as they confront an evil figure with destruction on its mind. In one scene, Somerset states that he cannot “continue to live in a place that embraces and nurtures apathy as if it were a virtue.” He is a man burdened with the experience of his job and the soul-destroying city in which he lives. It is a credit to Freeman’s performance that he delivers his dialogue in such a natural manner and allows us to engage with him in a way that makes his character’s struggles and principals all the more convincing. One of the film’s many strengths is the chemistry between Freeman and Pitt. Initially, the older cop disapproves of his younger partner (conveyed largely through Freeman’s acting as opposed to dialogue) and understandably so; Mills is often cocky and crude early in the film, all of which is handled with subtle charm by Pitt so that his character’s portrayal does not become over-the-top. Their relationship is strengthened considerably with a dinner that occurs at Mills’ home, organised by his wife Tracy (played by Gwyneth Paltrow.) Mills and his wife have only recently moved to the city, and although Tracy appears happy on the surface, she confides in Somerset later when she discovers that she is pregnant but repulsed by the idea of raising a child in such horrendous conditions.

One would be inclined to agree with Tracy’s view of the city. Immediately arresting is the film’s appearance. Fincher worked together with cinematographer Darius Khondji to create a distinctive blanket of brooding darkness over the visuals via a process called bleach bypass. The silver in the film stock remains intact, resulting in intense blacks and shadow detail. The duo may well have been inspired by classic film noirs, which relied heavily on the use of shadows and dark settings to create a bleak atmosphere. If only one word could be used to describe Se7en, it would be ‘moody.’ As is to be expected of a film dealing with such heavy themes, it does not comfort the audience. Any humour is kept to a minimum and simply establishes a sense of friendship amongst the characters. Even when we’re not subjected to graphic crime images, we are held in a constant sense of unease because the film is set within a world that emphasises the ugly qualities of our own. It’s likely that the production designer looked to Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner and its gloomy depiction of a dystopian future. Rarely is a film so compelling and so disturbing at once.

Typical of any film that masters suspense and mystery to a professional level, the intent behind the murders and the identity of the killer drives the film forward and keeps one hooked. When Mills finally encounters the man he’s after and is held at gun-point, wounded, we are treated to a brilliant image in which the figure is obscured and out-of-focus, both heightening the level of mystique that surrounds him and enhancing an already impeccably-shot scene. Kevin Spacey wisely opted to have his name removed from the opening credits and any marketing to seal the identity of the killer (John Doe) up until the point that he reveals himself to Somerset and Mills. In one of the film’s strongest scenes, Doe explains why he commits such crimes. It demonstrates the brilliance of the writing and the passion in Spacey’s performance in that the scene is extremely thought-provoking. Mills is quick to reject Doe’s beliefs, but Doe’s frustration with society’s tolerance of sin does make one question themselves. Is it possible that Somerset and Doe are two sides of the same coin? They would both appear to share the same negative view of the world; that it is a dark and grimy place, filled with people who simply do not care. However, it is their actions that separate them. Somerset chooses to fight from the side of the law, whereas Doe, in a vastly twisted sense of self-righteousness, tortures those he considers to be wrongdoers. Somerset reads from a journal in one scene, in which Doe recalls developing a migraine when forced to endure the drivel of the stranger beside him before finally vomiting all over him, bursting into a fit of laughter. Spacey plays Doe with a bizarre calmness for much of his screen time, making his presence all the more disturbing. Se7en’s famous finale still maintains the power to shock today. Even with repeat viewings, the ending remains intense and makes the scenes that precede it even more dreadful, because it’s apparent what horrors Doe has in mind as he taunts Mills in the back seat of the police car.

Like Fincher’s later Fight Club, Se7en has already sealed its reputation as a modern classic and one that will be remembered in years to come as an important and bold piece of work. The film is a masterpiece of mood in that, for better or worse, it immerses the viewer completely in its world. It’s not so distant from our reality that it becomes fantasy, but different enough that we can’t possibly look away. Se7en has a pessimistic outlook on society and seems to present human beings as selfish and violent people – even Mills reinforces this in the end - but the film’s ability to disturb the audience more successfully than most gore-filled horror films is a testament to its greatness. One may not like the film, but it would be hard to find a film aficionado who could argue against its artistic merit.

Se7en has most definitely influenced later productions; its fusion of stylized chaos and gritty reality would inspire Saw and PlayStation 3 game Heavy Rain. It’s currently placed at 28 on iMDB’s user-generated list of the 250 greatest films ever made, sandwiched in between The Matrix and Memento. The film showed Fincher in a new light, brimming with creativity and technique that would be expanded upon in his later films. The man is possibly one of the best film directors in Hollywood today. It should be a crime that the film wasn’t nominated for various much-deserved Oscars, but thankfully the film is still very well-regarded against audiences and critics. Se7en is one of the most rewarding films of the nineties and a film that any serious film buff should experience as soon as possible.

10/10