The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Q?]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Hotel Rwanda

DVD

Man, something was lost on me here. For a film about such heavy subject matter, I never felt the rage I anticipated experiencing. I am not sure what the deal was, but It just never grabbed me. Everything seemed very "average" about the movie, especially Cheadles performance. I know I am in the minority here, so please dont kill me. It almost felt like a 1970's "Made for TV movie". Some of the dialogue seemed really odd and goofy too, especially what was written for Noltes character.

I was never bored, and I enjoyed it, but it didnt provide the emotional impact that I anticipated.

3.5/5

I always thought it would be an emotional hard movie to watch.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Hotel Rwanda

DVD

Man, something was lost on me here. For a film about such heavy subject matter, I never felt the rage I anticipated experiencing. I am not sure what the deal was, but It just never grabbed me. Everything seemed very "average" about the movie, especially Cheadles performance. I know I am in the minority here, so please dont kill me. It almost felt like a 1970's "Made for TV movie". Some of the dialogue seemed really odd and goofy too, especially what was written for Noltes character.

I was never bored, and I enjoyed it, but it didnt provide the emotional impact that I anticipated.

3.5/5

Cheadle's performance average? No emotional connection or outrage? Eek.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Q?

I always thought it would be an emotional hard movie to watch.

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Cheadle's performance average? No emotional connection or outrage? Eek.

Yeah. I was ready to be p!ssed off at the failure of the world, but it didnt happen. The film depicted all the needed events, but it just didnt make me feel it. Cant really put my finger on what was missing.

I usually like him, but I thought Cheadle was weak at demonstrating strong emotions. His breakdown/crying scene looked really fake and his "fear and worried" look was plastic. When he was being a husband and the hotel manager he was darn good, but any strong emotional display was a chink in his armor.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Hotel Rwanda

DVD

Man, something was lost on me here. For a film about such heavy subject matter, I never felt the rage I anticipated experiencing. I am not sure what the deal was, but It just never grabbed me. Everything seemed very "average" about the movie, especially Cheadles performance. I know I am in the minority here, so please dont kill me. It almost felt like a 1970's "Made for TV movie". Some of the dialogue seemed really odd and goofy too, especially what was written for Noltes character.

I was never bored, and I enjoyed it, but it didnt provide the emotional impact that I anticipated.

3.5/5

I think I gave it 4.5/5 a few weeks ago, but I do agree with you.

One thing I really disliked was how the film portrayed the U.S. as selfish and egotistical in that they wouldn't come help in Rwanda, when in reality, I didn't ever think they should. So I disliked how the film constantly reminded us how "alone" the people were.

Not to turn this into a political deal-o, but I always hate when the U.S. Throws itself into other countries issues for whatever "reasons" they state. It sets a bad precedent and wastes our time and money and soldiers. And then if suddenly we don't help? Then it looks even worse. So the film didn't work for me as a sympathy plea or sorrowful tale.

That said, I still like it. Even if it doesn't sound like it lol

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

I think I gave it 4.5/5 a few weeks ago, but I do agree with you.

One thing I really disliked was how the film portrayed the U.S. as selfish and egotistical in that they wouldn't come help in Rwanda, when in reality, I didn't ever think they should. So I disliked how the film constantly reminded us how "alone" the people were.

Not to turn this into a political deal-o, but I always hate when the U.S. Throws itself into other countries issues for whatever "reasons" they state. It sets a bad precedent and wastes our time and money and soldiers. And then if suddenly we don't help? Then it looks even worse. So the film didn't work for me as a sympathy plea or sorrowful tale.

That said, I still like it. Even if it doesn't sound like it lol

Thats the one thing I liked the most. Fance, USA, UK, etc all abandoned them, and should feel shame. They were people in need of help, similar to the Jews during WWII. I feel strongly about the subject and was hoping to get more riled up. I wish the film would have poked a hotter rod at the crappy way the situation was dealt with.

I am not a fan of the USA sticking our noses where it doesnt belong either, but aiding in the prevention of genocide is one place where we should stick it....with both barrels blazing.

[iam1bearcat]

Network

Year: 1975
Director: Sidney Lumet
Starring: Robert Duvall, Faye Dunaway, William Holden and Peter Finch

Sidney Lumet, you are 2 for 2!

Fyi: writing this from my blackberry since my internet is out.

1. I was shocked by how witty, funny and satire Network is. I knew almost nothing of the film before blind buying it today, but I was expecting a serious drama, but this is a great, cruel and hilariously depressing (selfish) look at the cutthroat world of evening news and tv stations in the 70's. Sound boring? It's definitely not.

2. As a huge fan of PTA I can easily see some of his techniques used here three decades earlier bybLumet. Does that make me think any less of PTA? No way! But it's amazing how much this feels like a PTA film: dialogue, character driven piece with dark humor and great directing. Fans of Boogie Nights or Magnolia should really enjoy Network

3. Addicting. Very addicting. I was never once bored, but then again I love dialogue heavy films.

4. Fantastic performances across the board. And a great film as a whole. And this seems like a very underrated film since I never hear it mention with "best films of the 70's" and it definitely should be. An awesome film and a definite winner for me as another blind buy.

Any recommendation would be to those who are interested in the story of a lowly network station making ratings by portraying one of their anchors as a psychotic who wants to kill himself on live television instead of getting him help. Cruel? Yes. Darkly funny? Damn right. Also any fan of PTA would more than likely enjoy it.

Also: if you've seen those annoying "its my money and I need it now!" commercials and why the hell those people yell out there windows at no one in particular, Network contains a scene that will make you understand that commercial

4.5/5

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Thats the one thing I liked the most. Fance, USA, UK, etc all abandoned them, and should feel shame. They were people in need of help, similar to the Jews during WWII. I feel strongly about the subject and was hoping to get more riled up. I wish the film would have poked a hotter rod at the crappy way the situation was dealt with.

I am not a fan of the USA sticking our noses where it doesnt belong either, but aiding in the prevention of genocide is one place where we should stick it....with both barrels blazing.

Agree completely. No idea how you could dislike that aspect of the film considering it's REALITY and that's what really happened--they were abandoned by the world.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I think the Diabolique cover is pretty average by Criterion standards, but it doesn't bother me. I think the Solaris cover is well-done as a piece of art, but I don't think it's as applicable to the movie as it should be. What I mean is that by showing the female, it conveys almost a love story connection. The Soderbergh version is the love story version, the book is the scientific version, and the Tarkovsky version is the metaphysical, philosophical version. But, I do like it a lot. Can't wait for it.

Good point. And yes, I would have rather they kept the DVD art for Diabolique. But I'm happy with it.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Hotel Rwanda

DVD

Man, something was lost on me here. For a film about such heavy subject matter, I never felt the rage I anticipated experiencing. I am not sure what the deal was, but It just never grabbed me. Everything seemed very "average" about the movie, especially Cheadles performance. I know I am in the minority here, so please dont kill me. It almost felt like a 1970's "Made for TV movie". Some of the dialogue seemed really odd and goofy too, especially what was written for Noltes character.

I was never bored, and I enjoyed it, but it didnt provide the emotional impact that I anticipated.

3.5/5

How effective a film is on its audience will definitely always vary. I haven't seen it in quite a while but I thought it was pretty moving. You're just trying to get jhiggy back for Pi. I'm convinced.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Paths of Glory

1957 NR 87 minutes

DVD

I liked this a lot.

The cinematography was very cool. Acting was top notch. Briskly paced. The trenches were well designed and looked nice and gritty.

My only beef would be that I'd like to have seen a more complete finish regarding the future/outcome for Douglas' character. A minor quabble though.

4/5

I enjoyed the trenches too and would have loved to see more Douglas. Maybe it would have been better with a longer running time.

[Q?]

Alright guys, I just watched Resident Evil: Afterlife, don't ask why...

2 minutes in, I was pretty sure everybody involved didn't even try to make a good movie at the time, just for the paycheck and nothing else. I'm listening to the commentary right now because it got me curious. It sounds like Paul W.S. Anderson is serious about this movie!

This movie was very obviously shot for 3D, things coming at you in slowmotion, which 30% of the movie consists of. 3D is nothing but a gimmick and this proves it even more for me, even though I saw it in 2D.

I'm beginning to loose a little faith in humanity, the movie has a 5.9 rating on IMDb and on Rottentomatoes 54% of the audience liked it. Really? REALLY?!?!?!?

0/10 absolutely worthless.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Network

Year: 1975
Director: Sidney Lumet
Starring: Robert Duvall, Faye Dunaway, William Holden and Peter Finch

Sidney Lumet, you are 2 for 2!

[Show spoiler]Fyi: writing this from my blackberry since my internet is out.

1. I was shocked by how witty, funny and satire Network is. I knew almost nothing of the film before blind buying it today, but I was expecting a serious drama, but this is a great, cruel and hilariously depressing (selfish) look at the cutthroat world of evening news and tv stations in the 70's. Sound boring? It's definitely not.

2. As a huge fan of PTA I can easily see some of his techniques used here three decades earlier bybLumet. Does that make me think any less of PTA? No way! But it's amazing how much this feels like a PTA film: dialogue, character driven piece with dark humor and great directing. Fans of Boogie Nights or Magnolia should really enjoy Network

3. Addicting. Very addicting. I was never once bored, but then again I love dialogue heavy films.

4. Fantastic performances across the board. And a great film as a whole. And this seems like a very underrated film since I never hear it mention with "best films of the 70's" and it definitely should be. An awesome film and a definite winner for me as another blind buy.

Any recommendation would be to those who are interested in the story of a lowly network station making ratings by portraying one of their anchors as a psychotic who wants to kill himself on live television instead of getting him help. Cruel? Yes. Darkly funny? Damn right. Also any fan of PTA would more than likely enjoy it.

Also: if you've seen those annoying "its my money and I need it now!" commercials and why the hell those people yell out there windows at no one in particular, Network contains a scene that will make you understand that commercial

4.5/5

What do you mean Sidney Lumet 2 for 2? Is this 12 Angry Men's Sidney Lumet?

Really want to check this out. I think my brother has the DVD.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Q?

Alright guys, I just watched Resident Evil: Afterlife, don't ask why...

2 minutes in, I was pretty sure everybody involved didn't even try to make a good movie at the time, just for the paycheck and nothing else. I'm listening to the commentary right now because it got me curious. It sounds like Paul W.S. Anderson is serious about this movie!

This movie was very obviously shot for 3D, things coming at you in slowmotion, which 30% of the movie consists of. 3D is nothing but a gimmick and this proves it even more for me, even though I saw it in 2D.

I'm beginning to loose a little faith in humanity, the movie has a 5.9 rating on IMDb and on Rottentomatoes 54% of the audience liked it. Really? REALLY?!?!?!?

0/10 absolutely worthless.

+1. It is still the worst 2010 release I have seen. So bland and uninspired. Everyone is thinking about money during the film. The actors of their paycheck and the audience of the money they wasted.

I think I've mentioned this before but Paul W.S. Anderson used to be my favorite B-movie director but after this, I nearly lost all respect for him. Now there is pre-Afterlife Paul and post-Afterlife Paul as far as I'm concerned.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by Q?

Alright guys, I just watched Resident Evil: Afterlife, don't ask why...

2 minutes in, I was pretty sure everybody involved didn't even try to make a good movie at the time, just for the paycheck and nothing else. I'm listening to the commentary right now because it got me curious. It sounds like Paul W.S. Anderson is serious about this movie!

This movie was very obviously shot for 3D, things coming at you in slowmotion, which 30% of the movie consists of. 3D is nothing but a gimmick and this proves it even more for me, even though I saw it in 2D.

I'm beginning to loose a little faith in humanity, the movie has a 5.9 rating on IMDb and on Rottentomatoes 54% of the audience liked it. Really? REALLY?!?!?!?

0/10 absolutely worthless.

Best review ever!

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

What do you mean Sidney Lumet 2 for 2? Is this 12 Angry Men's Sidney Lumet?

Really want to check this out. I think my brother has the DVD.

2 for 2 means that two films of Lumet's I have seen I have loved

Both Dog Day Afternoon and now Network.

Very curious to see what else he has done.

[Diesel]

You fellas need to get with the times and re-upload your avatars so they can be larger since its not Mod-only now


Bearcat - You are a big fan of Michael Clayton correct? I have it set to DVR....sometime. I don't remember when exactly.

I also found Armageddon playing on the schedule after I said I wanted to see it

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Very curious to see what else he has done.

12 Angry Men

[Q?]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

+1. It is still the worst 2010 release I have seen. So bland and uninspired. Everyone is thinking about money during the film. The actors of their paycheck and the audience of the money they wasted.

I think I've mentioned this before but Paul W.S. Anderson used to be my favorite B-movie director but after this, I nearly lost all respect for him. Now there is pre-Afterlife Paul and post-Afterlife Paul as far as I'm concerned.

I kinda liked Resident Evil and Mortal Kombat back then, now I just can't tolerate his movies anymore.

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Best review ever!

Haha thanks dude.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by Diesel

You fellas need to get with the times and re-upload your avatars so they can be larger since its not Mod-only now


Bearcat - You are a big fan of Michael Clayton correct? I have it set to DVR....sometime. I don't remember when exactly.

I also found Armageddon playing on the schedule after I said I wanted to see it

Yes I am! Love it. One of my absolute favs. And yet another one that I can't see you enjoying a whole lot, but if the characters and story interest you, then you should love it. Within the first 20 minutes you should know pretty well if you'll enjoy it a lot or not.

12 Angry Men

Yeah.... About that... I think I'll save that for last

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Hotel Rwanda

DVD

Man, something was lost on me here. For a film about such heavy subject matter, I never felt the rage I anticipated experiencing. I am not sure what the deal was, but It just never grabbed me. Everything seemed very "average" about the movie, especially Cheadles performance. I know I am in the minority here, so please dont kill me. It almost felt like a 1970's "Made for TV movie". Some of the dialogue seemed really odd and goofy too, especially what was written for Noltes character.

I was never bored, and I enjoyed it, but it didnt provide the emotional impact that I anticipated.

3.5/5

You might like this better: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472562/

[jvince]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

2 for 2 means that two films of Lumet's I have seen I have loved

Both Dog Day Afternoon and now Network.

Very curious to see what else he has done.

Originally Posted by Diesel

12 Angry Men

You'll love this. One of my favorite b&w films of all-time and one of the very best dialogue-driven stories ever captured.