CHANGSTAR: Audiophile Headphone Reviews and Early 90s Style BBS

Non-Audio Stuff => The Geek Cave: Home Theatre, Computers, and More! => Topic started by: rhythmdevils on May 08, 2012, 03:15:37 AM

Title: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on May 08, 2012, 03:15:37 AM
Due Date - 6/10

Pretty stupid in every way.  But I really like Zach Galifinkinafakasophikas, I don't think he can go wrong.  Not as interesting a role for him as The Hangover or It's Kind of a Funny Story.  But he plays the same character here pretty much.  The rest is generic.  It's worth it if you like Zach's quirky proud to be weird character, but otherwise it's meh.  Most of it is just a long string of action comedy cliches.  And Robert Downey is kind of annoying, he's Iron Man without the super powers.  So just an arrogant prick. 

I've got It's Kind of a Funny Story coming in the mail next, haven't seen it in a while and it's hazy enough in my memory to see again. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on May 08, 2012, 03:26:27 AM
What movies are you excited about this summer? 

I'm looking forward to the new Aliens movie of course.  And there's another alien vs earth type movie that got bad reviews, but I generally like those unless they are really terrible and cast Keanu Reaves.  ;)   I think that's the one genre that I have lower standards for than most critics.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: ocswing on May 08, 2012, 03:53:19 AM
Haven't been to the theaters for a while, but really interested in the Avengers movie. I still need to see Thor beforehand though. Prometheus looks awesome, and looking forward to Batman as well.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Questhate on May 08, 2012, 11:20:20 PM
Yes! I'm definitely excited for Prometheus and Dark Knight Rises as well.

Went to see The Avengers over the weekend. First time I've been to the movies in a while, since there seemed to be an extremely long dry spell for decent movies. I'm generally not too thrilled with comic book superhero movies, with the exception of Ironman and the Dark Knight. But The Avengers hit all the right notes for a summer blockbuster as far as I'm concerned. I truly wasn't expecting much, but I was pleasantly surprised by what a fun ride it was.

Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurkumspect on May 08, 2012, 11:54:41 PM
there's another alien vs earth type movie that got bad reviews, but I generally like those unless they are really terrible and cast Keanu Reaves.  ;)   I think that's the one genre that I have lower standards for than most critics.

Asylum Films has managed to apply its special approach to filmmaking to quite a few movies in the aliens versus earth genre.  Not that I'd expect you to be excited for those titles of theirs, but for the record I will end up watching them all at some point.

Hell of a first post here, and not in the good way.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: RexAeterna on May 09, 2012, 08:57:19 AM
Prometheus looks awesome.

cause it's made by ancient aliens,duh! lol, yea but supposedly it's based on the ancient astronaut theory and the guy who produces Ancient Aliens series was the one who worked on it as well. i'm interested in it as well but i'm not keeping my hopes high for it though.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: RexAeterna on May 09, 2012, 08:59:57 AM
I'm looking forward to the new Aliens movie of course. 

what the...when did that happen?! dang...i need to start paying attention to tv more or something. hope it turns out good.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on May 18, 2012, 07:48:05 AM
I saw Lost is on Netflix and I started watching it a second time through.  I thought it would just be the first episode, but I've made it though quite a bit of the whole first season.  I actually think the show is better if you know the premise.  It's still kind of annoying though.  And yet so hard to stop watching....
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurkumspect on May 18, 2012, 06:25:31 PM
I saw Lost is on Netflix and I started watching it a second time through.  I thought it would just be the first episode, but I've made it though quite a bit of the whole first season.  I actually think the show is better if you know the premise.  It's still kind of annoying though.  And yet so hard to stop watching....

I think if I knew enough of the premise as far into it as the fourth season or so because people don't announce Spoiler Alert before yapping in a fucking elevator, I would not have even started to watch.

Fortunately that was not the case.  I loved the show from the first episode to the last (though it was downhill for the last half, for me anyway).  Not sure I would appreciate a second viewing, unless I had the patience to look for easter eggs, if there even are any.

What I find really annoying about Lost are some of the more dedicated fans.  I mean really, they need to remove their genitals from the TV once in a while.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on June 14, 2012, 01:01:18 AM
God the new Sherlock Holmes movie is terrible.  40 minutes in, and so far nothing has made any sense.  It's all a bunch of idiotic banter trying to be witty but amounting to nonsense.  Not sure I'll be able to finish it.  The sets and the look is awesome.  But the script.... 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus. on June 14, 2012, 06:55:28 AM
God I hated Lost.  After the Fog monster I said fuck it.  Of course I was told the writers lied and never did resolve/explain a damn thing which was not surprising.  Perfect name for the show and the audience IMO.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on June 14, 2012, 07:27:10 AM
Yeah they play the audience for fools and it gets old quick unless you want that.  I like the first season but mostly because I like thinking about what it would be like to be stuck on an island.  But then as random-weird-suspenseful-shit starts building up with no reason or explanation it gets tiring. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on June 16, 2012, 03:41:34 AM
Wow I was just reading some reviews for John Carter on Rotten tomatoes.  People seem to be pretty up in arms about the negative reviews it got.  I can't tell if it's just a few crazy fanboys or what, but I want to see it now. 

Anyone else see it?  Should I read the books first?  I never really got Elijah Wood's face out of my head when I read Lord of the Rings. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus. on June 16, 2012, 04:49:25 AM
A guy walks into a movie theater.  Sees a film based on an old fairy tale starring the gorgeous Charlize Theron, Thor and some Twilight slut.  Another based on a 'true story' of a revolutionary hero and period in Mexican history done by Andy Garcia.  Yet another based on a Hasbro boardgame. 

Which of the three is best?


I had mixed feelings about John Carter.  Things I really liked about it, other things just felt 'wrong'.  They expected too much from the audience and I think they rushed, forced too much on the unfamiliar, unsuspecting movie goers to fast, too soon.  Should have been done as a 2-3 parter.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: n3rdling on June 16, 2012, 10:26:05 AM
Just watched Immortal Beloved.  Surprisingly good despite some huge historical inaccuracies.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: anetode on June 18, 2012, 08:24:45 AM
"The FP" - a B-movie based on gang wars through Dance Dance Revolution, with nods to early 80s cheese like "Warriors", "Breakin'", "Rocky".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojQrhqW4hX0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojQrhqW4hX0)

Get a case/bottle of the cheapest booze you can tolerate and watch it with some friends.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Questhate on June 19, 2012, 05:44:57 AM
Finally saw Prometheus tonight. Fantastic sense of atmosphere throughout the movie. Scott really shows his mastery as a director in how he creates tension and draws you into every scene. It's very immersive. The screenplay wasn't quite as fantastic as the direction, and some themes seemed half-assed. But overall recommended!

Oh, and it's awesome from a visual standpoint. I wish I saw it on IMAX.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: LFF on June 25, 2012, 11:31:27 PM
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter was awesome! I really, really enjoyed it.  :)
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on June 25, 2012, 11:48:50 PM
That's quite the movie title! 

I was kind of disappointed with 2 recent DVD releases.  Wanderlust was just not very clever.  And what's with the full on frontal [redickted] shot, and then blurring out the boobies?  WTF?  Judd Apatow seems to have a thing for the [redickted] shots. 

I was expecting Big Miracle to be pretty good even if kind of sappy, and I hardly made it through.  It made me, a tree hugger who doesn't even kill mosqitos wonder why everyone cared so much about the whales.  Reduced everything and everyone into 2 dimensional cardboard cutouts.  Although the shots of the whales underwater with rays of light shining through from the hole in the ice were beautiful. 

I'm watching the more recent Pride and Prejudice again and I love it.  The music and gorgeous sets and cinematography create such a rich background for it all.  I just love the feel of the movie. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Questhate on June 26, 2012, 12:02:59 AM
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter was awesome! I really, really enjoyed it.  :)

Haha. Good to hear. I remember seeing the book and thinking it seems like an interesting/funny concept.

I saw Moonrise Kingdom over the weekend. Fans of Wes Anderson would feel right at home with this new one as it's stylistically very similar to all of his other movies. It's very quaint and whimsical, with a dry and quirky sense of humor throughout. A lot of awesome scenes with long shots and impeccable staging/framing. I wouldn't put it quite on the same level as Rushmore/Royal Tenanbaums but I liked it more than Life Aquatic and Darjeeling Limited.

People who think his films are pretentious hogwash should stay away. I liked it a lot though.  ;D
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: MuppetFace on June 26, 2012, 09:28:19 PM
I need to check Moonrise Kingdom out. Bottle Rocket and Life Aquatic are still my personal favorites of Wes Anderson's work.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on June 26, 2012, 10:37:05 PM
People who think his films are pretentious hogwash should stay away. I liked it a lot though.  ;D

I will never be able to understand how people can think this about his films.   Life Aquatic is my favorite, but they're all good.  Only one I was a bit disappointed in was Darjeeling Limited, but that's partly because I spent a lot of time in India and felt he could have done more to take advantage of the quirks of that culture.  So I'd say I had high expectations, but it was still good. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: melomaniac on June 26, 2012, 11:30:47 PM
Just narrowly avoided Moonrise Kingdom last night - discussion with other punters at the box office made four people switch to Headhunters. This is a Norwegian thriller and I highly recommend it.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus. on June 27, 2012, 04:26:58 AM
Okay, liked Prometheus quite a bit for what it was.  A few issues here and there but overall it gave me what I was looking for and then some.  A lot/tons of homages to various sci-fi masters,  franchises and movies.  I'll need to check out the internetz to see if there's anything I missed.  If you are expecting jigsaw puzzle perfect and virgin anal you should stay home and wait for the blu-ray or streaming.  Btw, this movie begs for Blu-ray and HD/THX.  It's freaking gorgeous.


Liked Abe Lincoln Vamp slayer too.  I had some issues w/ how the movie shifted gears between acts but pretty nifty idea.  There were a few things that could have been better for sure but good popcorn stuff w/ enough substance to make you think and feel a little at times.  Not enough movies do that anymore.


Rock of Ages was a pretty unmitigated disaster.  Saving grace was the music which was unfortunately too busy being massacred by Julian Hough and the rest of the karaoke cast.  The occasional original tracks were a relief similar to finally reaching the porcelain gods to drop a load.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on June 27, 2012, 06:41:24 AM
The occasional original tracks were a relief similar to finally reaching the porcelain gods to drop a load.

You have a way with words Mike  :-*
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on July 03, 2012, 11:39:49 PM
I just watched London River on netflix instant.  I loved it.  A simple, quality movie like you don't see to often.  No tricks or hooks or shortcuts, just a well written script, solid vision, good acting.  Made me think about the fact that a good movie can be made about anything. 

I loved the tension and question they build as you experience wondering about the missing people with their parents.  It has a real draw and holding power to it for how slow it is paced.  It also had a good feel, wasn't really a downer at all despite the fairly dark subject matter it remained kind of light. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on July 03, 2012, 11:44:27 PM
Pineapple Express was better than I remembered.  I thought the first half was awesome.  The action ending was annoying.  Would have rather the movie just follow the stoners around without all the slapstick violence.  Just the two of them interacting with each other was the funniest part, the big cliche plot twists were unfortunate IMO.  Seth Rogen is kind of annoying, but I thought James Franco was amazing, along with Danny McBride.  Watching the 3 of them shows you how important delivery is to comedy, because Seth Rogen's lines fell flat a lot of the time and seemed kind of contrived. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Questhate on July 04, 2012, 12:13:21 AM
I saw Cronenberg's A Dangerous Method over the weekend -- a film about the relationships between Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud and Sabina Spielrein. I really wanted to like this movie, but it fell flat. A lot of the character development and significant plot points were just glossed over, while less-important scenes seemed to drag. The pacing suffered as a result, not to mention the extremely anti-climatic conclusion. I hoped it would get deep into how some of the core beliefs of Jung and Freud came about, but it only provided a very superficial glance at their ideas. Honestly, I don't know what the point of this movie was.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on July 04, 2012, 12:19:53 AM
I felt the same way.  Only thing I really liked was the production value, cinematography, and Keira Knightley sex scene.  But it was a chore getting through the rest.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus. on July 04, 2012, 12:34:38 AM
x3


btw Ted was funny.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: ocswing on July 04, 2012, 12:59:09 AM
btw Ted was funny.

I really enjoyed it, but I was also drunk. And the thought of one of my childhood toys growing up with me sounds amazing!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Questhate on July 04, 2012, 05:00:10 AM
I felt the same way.  Only thing I really liked was the production value, cinematography, and Keira Knightley sex scene.  But it was a chore getting through the rest.

Oh yes! How could I forget to mention titty sighting!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: DaveBSC on July 05, 2012, 06:00:42 AM
I enjoyed The Secret World of Arrietty. It's definitely not on the same level as Spirited Away, but still a very good movie.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Hands on July 05, 2012, 07:24:29 PM
For anyone looking for a so-bad-it's-amazing movie, check out Hercules in New York. It's Arnold Schwarzenegger's first feature film, and it's up there with some of the worst movies ever made. Make sure you watch it with Arnold's original voice, because they dubbed over it for the theatrical release!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Questhate on July 21, 2012, 08:26:30 PM
Saw Dark Knight Rises last night and made it home safe and sound.

I thought it was pretty good. A clear step behind The Dark Knight but I really loved The Dark Knight, which (on top of being a great action movie) was great at blurring the lines of morality. This one didn't quite have that special sauce.

-A disappointed in Bane as a villain. He was great at being big, burly and scary. But he's also supposed to be a master tactician which didn't come through well in the movie.

-Anne Hathaway did not suck as much as I expected. I actually liked her overall. The Catwoman character wasn't particular well-written though (no real depth to her).

-Although I LOVE Christopher Nolan, one of my minor gripes is that I have trouble with his pacing sometimes (ie. I would've cut about 40 minutes off Inception). This one has a similar stretch in the second half of the movie. Would elaborate, but don't wanna spoil anything for now.

-Overall, a very fun movie.

Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anathallo on July 22, 2012, 02:26:00 AM
I saw it this afternoon - agree with most of your points, although I actually kind of liked bane's character, I just didn't like how they pumped the volume up on his mic so you could understand him (even then it was tough sometime).

I also wasn't a huge fan of the overarching "problem" in the movie - no spoilers, but I didn't like the thing that had to be resolved.  It felt out of place.


Saw Dark Knight Rises last night and made it home safe and sound.

I thought it was pretty good. A clear step behind The Dark Knight but I really loved The Dark Knight, which (on top of being a great action movie) was great at blurring the lines of morality. This one didn't quite have that special sauce.

-A disappointed in Bane as a villain. He was great at being big, burly and scary. But he's also supposed to be a master tactician which didn't come through well in the movie.

-Anne Hathaway did not suck as much as I expected. I actually liked her overall. The Catwoman character wasn't particular well-written though (no real depth to her).

-Although I LOVE Christopher Nolan, one of my minor gripes is that I have trouble with his pacing sometimes (ie. I would've cut about 40 minutes off Inception). This one has a similar stretch in the second half of the movie. Would elaborate, but don't wanna spoil anything for now.

-Overall, a very fun movie.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: MuppetFace on July 22, 2012, 09:00:01 AM
Currently watching Bela Tarr's The Turin Horse. Finally.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1316540/

Good God, I'm saddened to know that this will supposedly be Tarr's final film. Truly one of the greatest filmmakers of all time.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Questhate on July 23, 2012, 06:14:13 PM

I also wasn't a huge fan of the overarching "problem" in the movie - no spoilers, but I didn't like the thing that had to be resolved.  It felt out of place.


Yeah, I agree. It came off a bit contrived. The fact that I hold Christopher Nolan movies to a higher standard is part of it. I could live with it if I thought of this as just another "superhero movie".

Currently watching Bela Tarr's The Turin Horse. Finally.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1316540/

Good God, I'm saddened to know that this will supposedly be Tarr's final film. Truly one of the greatest filmmakers of all time.

Ashamed to say I'm not very familiar with his movies. Any particular one I should start with?
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: MuppetFace on July 23, 2012, 07:17:41 PM
Ashamed to say I'm not very familiar with his movies. Any particular one I should start with?

Start with Werckmeister Harmonies.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0249241/?fr=c2M9MXxsbT01MDB8ZmI9dXx0dD0xfG14PTIwfGh0bWw9MXxjaD0xfGNvPTF8cG49MHxmdD0xfGt3PTF8cXM9d2VyY2ttZWlzdGVyIGhhcm1vbmllc3xzaXRlPWFrYXxxPXdlcmNrbWVpc3RlciBoYXJtb25pZXN8bm09MQ__;fc=1;ft=13

Just as a bit of background, Tarr comes from the Hungarian school of cinema like Miklos Jancso, which is characterized by long takes and pan shots and requires a lot of patience. The most extreme example is his film Satantango, which is seven hours long and consists of maybe 40-something shots total. Each scene lasts a long time and you have to get into the rhythm of it, almost meditatively. In a way the style is similar to Andrei Tarkovsky's and Theo Angelopoulos', but Angelopoulos' films are basically Greek theater put to film and Tarkovsky's emphasis is on elevating the mundane to transcendant levels (like showing puddles of water as mirrors for clouds), whereas Tarr will do the opposite and compress everything down to the same level.

Tarr is also big on repetition and aimlessness, and in some of the essays I've written on him (I used to do a fair bit of film criticism in college), I focus on how he uses this to convey his vision of hell. Sort of like the phrase "in hell, the devil walks in circles." The entire structure of Satantango for example is set up like an aimless dance (literally "Satan's Tango") that ultimately cycles back unto itself and is never able to truly progress, just like the characters and their situation within his films.

I also recommend checking out the written works of Laszlo Krasznahorkai on which many of Bela Tarr's films are based. In particular "The Melancholy of Resistance."
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on July 24, 2012, 02:37:58 AM
Terri and Salmon Fishing in Yemen are both movies I would recommend. 

Terri is a really simple character study.  Wonderful character, really brings you into his world.  Very honest movie.  Only thing I didn't like was a kind of unneeded or just overlong scene with drugs and sexy time but it wasn't too bad. 

Salmon Fishing was pretty good I think, though I was a bit distracted hanging out with someone when i watched it.  A romantic comedy wihtout cheeziness or cliches that many guys would probably like.   
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on July 30, 2012, 04:13:30 AM
Date Night

Ok, maybe 6/10.  I love the chemistry between Steve Carrel and Tina Fey, they're amazing together.  I'd love to see a movie the explores their tired marriage woes without all the action comedy stuff which was really unnecessary.  All the good moments in this movie were them interacting.  Worth watching if you like Stevsie and don't mind rolling your eyes at some stupid action comedy. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus. on August 07, 2012, 11:21:57 PM
Can't wait for this!  Hopefully Stevey doesn't turn it into a Disney Melodrama and goes back to his Schindler roots.


http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/daniel-day-lewis-called-mr-president-spielberg-lincoln-192139553.html (http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/daniel-day-lewis-called-mr-president-spielberg-lincoln-192139553.html)
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: LFF on August 17, 2012, 07:26:53 PM
Can't wait for this!  Hopefully Stevey doesn't turn it into a Disney Melodrama and goes back to his Schindler roots.


http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/daniel-day-lewis-called-mr-president-spielberg-lincoln-192139553.html (http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/daniel-day-lewis-called-mr-president-spielberg-lincoln-192139553.html)

Really looking forward to that one as well!  :-DD
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: omegakitty on August 17, 2012, 11:23:40 PM
DDL needs to do a pirate film  :)p12
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on November 01, 2012, 06:15:02 AM
Couple movies I've seen recently:

Prometheus- WTF.  A pretty disaster.  Plot doesn't even make sense.  It's like a rough draft was handed to a gifted visual artist.  So sad.  I saw it twice and the second time I picked up more that he was trying to do.... but I'd still say it was like a shitty remake of Mission to Mars...which was already a flawed movie (but way better IMO)

the orginal Alien movies- pretty good.  Got a bit sick of the repetitive and simplistic reasons for someone to go wandering down a hallway alone without a plan to get picked off by the alien, but still good.  Sigourney Weaver gives me the heebey geebies.  I will always see her as posessed by an alien space dog. 

The Descendents - loved it.  Was better the second time though.  Amazed at George Clooney's range.  I think it's hard to do a story like this well.  The last scene is beautiful. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: gurubhai on November 01, 2012, 07:22:46 AM
The Descendents - loved it.  Was better the second time though.  Amazed at George Clooney's range.  I think it's hard to do a story like this well.  The last scene is beautiful.
I watched it a few weeks back & loved it too.

Another Year (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1431181/) - A very down to earth portrayal of lives of few everyday people adjusting with the fact that they are no longer young. I enjoyed it immensely but its the kind of movie that leaves you feeling a bit depressed, so you have been warned!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: TMRaven on November 01, 2012, 02:40:42 PM
I got around to watching Cloud Atlas.  Being directed/written by the Wachowski Brothers Siblings, I expected it to be somewhat weird.  I remember it took me a good couple tries of Matrix to finally not make it seem weird.  V for Vendetta was actually not too weird, but still a bit unusual.

Anyways, long story short, I went in to the movie and progressed through the movie overthinking things, and expecting an ending that would ultimately tie the six stories the movie was juggling.  I was wrong.  I think what it all comes down to is the movie's just an elaborate story-teller, and only a mediocre one at that.  The movie carries some big-shot actors, and a couple scenes of impressive CG, but other than that it just struck me as mediocre at best.  It was nevertheless funny to see Hugo Weaving acting as a largely grotesque female nurse.

6/10.

Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on November 03, 2012, 08:35:02 PM
The Descendents - loved it.  Was better the second time though.  Amazed at George Clooney's range.  I think it's hard to do a story like this well.  The last scene is beautiful.
I watched it a few weeks back & loved it too.

Another Year (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1431181/) - A very down to earth portrayal of lives of few everyday people adjusting with the fact that they are no longer young. I enjoyed it immensely but its the kind of movie that leaves you feeling a bit depressed, so you have been warned!

I havne't seen that yet.  Maybe that's why I stayed away from it.  I'd also like to see Vera Drake, esp since it's on Netflix instant now. 

Take This Waltz was really well done, parts of it blew me away.  There is some gorgeous and sometimes profound imagery in this movie.  The slow motion shots on the amusement ride for example.  I might agree with one review i read that the main female actress was too likeable and the story would have been better suited for someone who was a little less adorable.  But I don't know, she's a great actress.

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World - I liked it actually and expected it to be much worse from the 55% tomato rating.  Kind of failed to deliver the real punch that it could have given the premise and the way it was setup.  It kept a kind of removed and dry tone.  Which worked for most of the movie, but I would have liked it to break free and let it all out at a few key moments, like the end, which also felt restrained.  But the movie was well done in many ways.  I also just think the premise is interesting and like both the main actors. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: fishski13 on November 04, 2012, 01:03:44 AM
stumbled on this blog the other day - http://thepinksmoke.com/index.htm  (http://thepinksmoke.com/index.htm).  look at "200 movies and 200 days".  lots of interesting movies and commentary.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: olor1n on November 04, 2012, 01:15:09 AM
Couple movies I've seen recently:

Prometheus- WTF.  A pretty disaster.  Plot doesn't even make sense.  It's like a rough draft was handed to a gifted visual artist.  So sad.  I saw it twice and the second time I picked up more that he was trying to do.... but I'd still say it was like a shitty remake of Mission to Mars...which was already a flawed movie (but way better IMO)

the orginal Alien movies- pretty good.  Got a bit sick of the repetitive and simplistic reasons for someone to go wandering down a hallway alone without a plan to get picked off by the alien, but still good.  Sigourney Weaver gives me the heebey geebies.  I will always see her as posessed by an alien space dog. 

The Descendents - loved it.  Was better the second time though.  Amazed at George Clooney's range.  I think it's hard to do a story like this well.  The last scene is beautiful.


Prometheus is a turd. The visuals couldn't redeem it for me. Disappointed on first viewing, but absolutely hated it on the second.

I loved The Descendants as well. So understated but with great heart. Cool soundtrack too.

Saw The Amazing Spider-Man recently and was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. Gwen was horribly miscast though.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on November 04, 2012, 01:29:11 AM
I take it you're not losing sleep anticipating Prometheus 2?
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: jerg on November 04, 2012, 01:51:36 AM
Prometheus was ok for me in a way...the story never developed or matured, but it felt fantastic at least in terms of visuals, composition, and concept design. I have always been more into visual arts than story though (as evident by the inclination to draw unique forum avatar images for different forums), so that might be the source of bias.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: fishski13 on November 04, 2012, 03:58:15 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_School_Confidential_(film)  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_School_Confidential_(film))

meh...art imitating art ad nauseum and not imitating life...yawn.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: gurubhai on November 04, 2012, 04:20:34 AM
Seeking a Friend for the End of the World - I liked it actually and expected it to be much worse from the 55% tomato rating.  Kind of failed to deliver the real punch that it could have given the premise and the way it was setup.  It kept a kind of removed and dry tone.  Which worked for most of the movie, but I would have liked it to break free and let it all out at a few key moments, like the end, which also felt restrained.  But the movie was well done in many ways.  I also just think the premise is interesting and like both the main actors.
I had the exact opposite experience! Hadn't read the reviews but I like both the lead stars & thought the premise had promise, went in with high hopes & came out a touch disappointed. I agree with you almost completely on your impressions the movie itself though ! :P
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on November 04, 2012, 04:40:57 AM
I have a pretty big crush on both Keira and Stevesie, and like end of the world scenarios, and the movie was well done in many ways I mean it was an honest attempt, it was fairly well written and wasn't insultingly stupid or anything.  Compared to something like Independence Day which amounts to nothing more than Go America kill'em dead
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Questhate on November 04, 2012, 05:29:25 AM
+1 on all the Descendents love. That movie is SO well done. Understated is a great way to describe it. The directing isn't flashy, but so effective.

I saw Argo a couple of weeks ago. I liked it overall. It's kind of crazy how Ben Affleck has become a legitimate director now. I've liked all three movies that he put out. My only nitpick would be some of the manufactured suspense scenes were a bit contrived.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: itshot on November 04, 2012, 06:07:16 AM
I'm down to watch Skyfall when it comes out... but I hope that it doesn't have as little plot progress as Quantum of Solace did.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus. on November 04, 2012, 06:49:13 AM
Heard good things about Skyfall making up for Quantum of FAIL. 

In digital projection Prometheus was absolutely gorgeous.  I personally loved all the homages to the great sci-fi directors and movies placed throughout the film like easter eggs.  Kubrick's cinematography, redemption for the Asian guy from Boyle's 'Sunshine', etc, etc.  Plot holes galore, and the alien at the end was weaksauce.  I thought the overall plot/intent made sense in general terms but the gaps were massive.  I also didn't like how they resolved Charlize's character which was too cheap and easy.  Loved the surgical scene, I literally gripped the armrest and almost sheered it off.

War of Arrows - Sucks.  The first ten minutes of epic fail sets up the rest of the movie.  Not surprised a giant tiger saves the highly skilled, yet intellectually inept protagonist from certain death at the hands of a gang of Machus.

Frontline - Great Korean war film.  Does well at capturing chaos and insanity of war.  Some typical Korean film minor contrivances for the sake of the pretentious, syrupy movie goer but it passes quickly.

Armadillo - Better than Restrepo, 'nuff said.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: ocswing on November 09, 2012, 08:27:02 PM
I liked Argo. Fairly simple, but pretty engaging and interesting. Better than a lot of stuff that's been out.

Looking forward to Skyfall, and still want to see Perks of Being a Wallflower.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: shipsupt on November 23, 2012, 11:58:57 PM
For the most part I really enjoyed Skyfall.  The first chase scene into the opening credits was really good.  Good enough that I felt let down for a little while until the movie picked up the pace again...  but in general I enjoyed the down and dirty Bond.  Surprisingly I didn't miss the gadgets. 

And the best part of the movie was that I watched it while my wife watched that teen vampire thing!  Woot!

Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: itshot on November 24, 2012, 12:24:19 AM
What happened to the Quantum peoples/organization? Skyfall was good, but I wished it had continued that little story arc they had going.  :)p17
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus. on November 24, 2012, 06:21:11 AM
Red Dawn (remake) 3/10 - Ugh, better than I thought it was going to be which should tell you a lot.  Original was 7.5/10 for me.

Life of Pi 7.75/10 - A tad light for my tastes.  Found the mids recessed.  Visually stunning.  Must be seen in digital 3D.

Silver Lining Playbook 8.375/10 - Well done.  A few moments or pre-ordination and interminability ding it.  Always takes a while for me to warm up to Bradley Cooper, if ever.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: gurubhai on November 24, 2012, 06:54:09 AM
Safety Not Guaranteed : Liked this one & while it stayed on a fairly predictable course, the performances were great & heartfelt.

Vamps : Nice, easy comedy. Nothing substantial but enjoyable fluff nonetheless.

Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kirosia on November 24, 2012, 02:46:00 PM
I'm halfway through the BBC miniseries, Ultraviolet (1998). Stars Idris Elbas, Jack Davenport, and Stephen Moyer appears in the first episode. Bout vamps, is not bad.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on November 25, 2012, 12:12:37 AM
I'm trying really hard to watch Expendables 2 right now.  So far I've refreshed all my tabs 10 times
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: olor1n on November 25, 2012, 12:32:51 AM
Skyfall - 6.5/10

Enjoyed it at the time. Thought the Bardem villain was overcooked and the biggest disappointment. Craig's washed up and less pouty Bond was good, and Fiennes was cool as always. Some memorable scenes and outstanding cinematography in parts. I still yearn for a Bond film akin to Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kirosia on November 25, 2012, 12:45:15 AM
Never cared for the Expendables, first one at least. Thought "The Losers" and "A-Team" were much better tongue-in-cheek action films.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus. on November 25, 2012, 01:26:47 AM
I still yearn for a Bond film akin to Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.

We both know that'll never happen.  You're closest bet was the Jack Ryan stuff which ended w/ Admiral Greer's demise.

Bardem's character was lame but he played it well, if that makes any sense.  Polishing a turd.   :D
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: CEE TEE on November 25, 2012, 07:08:24 PM
Nobody has seen Lincoln yet?  Well, I'll report back later...will get to see it today.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on November 26, 2012, 02:28:31 AM
Expendables 2 was so bad.  I only watched it because it got a decent RT rating.  There are times I can enjoy a dumb action movie, but if it has no plot or originality or acting or romance or sex or anything else, it's at least got to have good action.  This was some of the most boring action I've seen.  Just guys standing there shooting at other guys.  Not even trying to dodge bullets or anything.  Then the hero and his nemesis meet at the end, and as some screenwriting class probably teaches, the good guy starts off kicking the bad guys ass, but then the bad guy starts winning and almost kills the good guy before he gets out just in the nick of time and wins. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus. on November 26, 2012, 03:15:04 AM
Nobody has seen Lincoln yet?  Well, I'll report back later...will get to see it today.

Lincoln was good.  DD Lewis is getting another gold statue.  My only criticism was a typical over idealized and romanticized Spielberg projection at times but it sits around a 9/10 for me.  The trailers don't do it justice. 

Seems to be a slight trend of some trailers being worse than the actual movies all of a sudden. 


@RD  If 2 was that bad, I hope you didn't see the first.  One of the worst things I've witnessed.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on November 26, 2012, 03:32:16 AM
I imagine your military background would make these kind of "magic bad guy hating bullet" action movies unbearable. 

I watched it all the way through over the course of a couple days.  So I guess there are worse action movies, but shit they pulled Chuck out of his mansion for this?  He should have stayed at home with his red neck bitches. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: CEE TEE on November 26, 2012, 04:54:02 AM
Nobody has seen Lincoln yet?  Well, I'll report back later...will get to see it today.

Lincoln was good.  DD Lewis is getting another gold statue.  My only criticism was a typical over idealized and romanticized Spielberg projection at times but it sits around a 9/10 for me.  The trailers don't do it justice. 

Seems to be a slight trend of some trailers being worse than the actual movies all of a sudden. 


^Agree with you, Anax...

Wow.  Did not seem like ~2.5 hours. 


I know how things end and yet it still seemed so improbable...Daniel Day Lewis was <great>.


Reminds you of what leadership can be and how hard it was to get here.  A good wake-up call and reminder.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: olor1n on November 26, 2012, 07:41:24 AM
End of Watch - 8.5/10

Not what I anticipated. This one resonated as I actually cared for the characters in the end. Yes, it does play to certain stereotypes,  but this isn't exactly a cop show in the mold of The Wire. The dramatic elements are well done though, and adds to the immense tension that builds as the film reaches crescendo. Enjoyed the soundtrack as well.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: shipsupt on November 26, 2012, 01:38:09 PM
Good to hear... this one has been on my watch list!   popcorn

While I am here... I'll add a rant.   :)p2  Why don't they have butter for popcorn in the UK?  One of the decadent delights of going to a movie in the theatre is getting a bucket of movie popcorn WITH BUTTER!  Yeah, sure it might cost $10, but it's so worth it.  Now here in the UK you can popcorn with salt, or sweet popcorn.  The wife has made peace with the sweet stuff, but it's not doing it for me.  I need to figure out how to bring along some melted butter when I head to the movies!  Rant complete. 


End of Watch - 8.5/10

Not what I anticipated. This one resonated as I actually cared for the characters in the end. Yes, it does play to certain stereotypes,  but this isn't exactly a cop show in the mold of The Wire. The dramatic elements are well done though, and adds to the immense tension that builds as the film reaches crescendo. Enjoyed the soundtrack as well.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus. on November 26, 2012, 06:15:37 PM
@RD

Meh, yes and no.  it's more a problem when they are trying to be 'real' and not quite cutting it.  If they don't have any pretense and just flat out don't even try it's no biggie.  There's even some minor license taken for obvious reasons in the movie 'Acts of Valor'.

What did get ruined for me was FPS games.  Once you actually clear a house or walk a patrol, the inability to shoot someone running directly infront of you 5 yards away because your reticle is zoomed out from firing on the move, it's a pass.

@ ship

(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQBlpH8WCWR2iTyTeGryXE0Sp_J2hslcYPep06uc7Il3XA8KbpJAg)
(http://www.american-trading.com/food/images/snacks/kernel_seasons.jpg)
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: ader on November 28, 2012, 08:13:51 PM
Wreck it Ralph was a much more solid film than I thought it'd be and the video game references were tastefully done.  Was kind of surprised to see a seemingly unlicensed Star Craft 2 cameo take up so much screen time and contribute as many characters as it did. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Questhate on November 29, 2012, 05:48:27 PM
Wreck it Ralph was a much more solid film than I thought it'd be and the video game references were tastefully done.  Was kind of surprised to see a seemingly unlicensed Star Craft 2 cameo take up so much screen time and contribute as many characters as it did.

I absolutely loved Wreck It Ralph! I had no idea what to expect from it, but only went because my nephews were in town for Thanksgiving and wanted to see it. The video game references pushed all my nerdy nostalgia buttons. Well-done movie all around.

Saw Skyfall as well. It was pretty good for what it is, but I don't foresee myself watching it again. I agree with Anax, in that the villain wasn't a great character, but Bardem played the hell out of it. He stole every scene he was in.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on December 19, 2012, 10:06:45 PM
Is Johnny Depp an alien?  He hasn't aged at all.  I just watched What's Eating Gilbert Grape, a film made in the early 90's and he looks exactly the same as he does now.  In fact, in some ways he looked older in that movie than in the recent Pirate movies. 

90's
(http://i2.listal.com/image/3685053/600full-what%27s-eating-gilbert-grape%3F-screenshot.jpg)

Now
(http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120710121147/disney/images/3/3b/Johnny-depp-pirates-of-the-caribbean-4.jpg)
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus. on December 20, 2012, 07:02:17 AM
Speaking of Aliens, an explanation of Prometheus for those who were lost.  I don't agree w/ his shallow overall conclusion wrt creation but the rest suffices.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7CChfYoO_I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7CChfYoO_I)
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on December 20, 2012, 07:34:18 AM
I like what he says about asking questions and I agree, but in order to ask a question, you have to communicate a question.  If you ask someone a question in a language they don't understand, it's not a question, it's just a vague, uncommunicated idea that flops.  Maybe I will eat my words, but I watched this movie twice and I didn't feel like it was successful at communicating using the language of film.  It was just vague and obscured.  To me, that's not genius it's just lazy.  You could say that this reviewer was challenged to figure out a complex movie, or you could say he was piecing together plot points that were not communicated or developed.  Which is how I felt watching it, like I was watching the most beautiful rough draft ever made.  Or a film that was butchered by producers wanting to keep it short. 

Cool to see, his analysis seems like it was pretty close to the intent of the film.  Maybe we'll see a better director's cut at some point.

I did enjoy the movie in the end though just for the production value, cinematography, set design, etc.  It looked incredible. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: ader on December 20, 2012, 03:52:23 PM
I really don't understand why people were so upset about the creation thing or why they'd expect any character in the film to actually have such info presented to them in a tidy form.  Some friends I show good science fiction movies to just ask me questions all the time and it's maddening, like they have no imagination or interpretative ability.  And most of the questions are answered if you just keep watching the movie. 

I mostly agree with RD on the grounds that it just doesn't build any real pathos (for me at least), but was still worth checking out.  Like, I wasn't really confused by anything except maybe David giving the goo to whatshisname (firefox recognizes that as a word...), but nothing there and accessible felt interesting or consequential because I hated most of the characters and David (the only interesting one) felt underutilized.  I mean, I get that the Wayland corporation doesn't give a fuck and would probably hire disposable jackasses, but they didn't literally have to be Bulk and Skull, nor did almost everyone else have to be cardboard cutouts... and the monster designs sucked.  I can't even imagine what was going through their heads when they decided to have that dude turn into a generic tumor zombie in a franchise known for its creatures.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: gurubhai on December 20, 2012, 07:47:55 PM
Rock of Ages : 6/10. Enjoyable watch. Great music & cast.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus. on December 21, 2012, 05:14:18 AM
I agree the film did not communicate a sense of inquiry apart from the alien in the beginning.  However, I think the inquiry and dialogue was established w/ the first Alien movie.  Perhaps for some who have always been pondering, 'wtf?' from the very beginning had much less an issue w/ Prometheus.


Personally, I think his overall conclusion was a lazy answer, that they did it because they could.  I couldn't disagree more.  From the ritual suicide at the beginning, to the monolitihic faces, there is very definitely a religiously cultural component to the motivations of the aliens, at least in the beginning.  Seems like they made us to better understand themselves.  It's almost verging on BSG, "This has happened before and will happen again", let's honor the gods sort of thing.  My 2 cents. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: olor1n on December 22, 2012, 12:21:58 AM
Johnny Depp is a lucky SoB -

(http://www.smashinghdwallpapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Amber-Heard-In-Pool-1024x576.jpg)
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus. on December 22, 2012, 12:34:33 AM
Oh god yes, Amber Heard!  Droool...  She even comes w/ a girlfriend.  p;)  And all the French girls scream, "Zut Alors!"

You might want to watch 'The Informers'.  Just ignore the movie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11lHeI6fq_0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11lHeI6fq_0)

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Lmc-5comLT4/Td9OL6C3QoI/AAAAAAAABec/18p0DAhpfO8/s400/Amber+Heard.jpg) (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UXhwxM9705Q/Td9OMcrjrqI/AAAAAAAABeg/GZPS7jkiJtc/s400/amber.jpg)
 (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sgfNaLEhktY/Td9ONERf5dI/AAAAAAAABek/8S5rigzwlaE/s400/amber_heard.jpg) (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-o6UAoO3uXZ4/Td9OKw25_1I/AAAAAAAABeY/UARAL295KfI/s400/AmberHeard.jpg)
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kirosia on December 23, 2012, 03:03:10 AM
Just watched Blue Velvet, after holding off for so long. The subject matter pushed me away superficially, but ended up enjoying it quite a bit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbxsmcT7GOk
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: olor1n on December 27, 2012, 01:45:27 PM
I've soured on the LoTR movies over time. While it was great to see Middle Earth realised on screen, the liberties taken, poor pacing, and Jackson's overbearing direction makes those films virtually unwatchable now. I want to cleanse my memory of it, to remove the stain that mires the actual literary work.

I went in to The Hobbit expecting the same self indulgent Jackson shenanigans. I walked away impressed. It's not absolutely faithful to the material but I was swept along and very few things detracted from the engagement.

The film is gorgeous. I saw the standard 3D version (not HFR) and was engrossed by every frame. I'm not a fan of 3D but this may just be the best demonstration of it to date.

I loved the rendition of the dwarves. The depiction of their Kingdom at its peak, its demise and their trials to reclaim what was lost. Thorin Oakenshield is a bad ass.

The editing is also tighter than the other LoTR films, though some fat could have been trimmed.

Really enjoyed this one.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: shipsupt on December 27, 2012, 10:01:18 PM
We saw Jack Reacher last night.  It was "middle of the road" good.  I enjoyed it even with a few stretches that dragged.  There were a few good action sequences including some decent old school car chases.  The biggest struggle I had was believing Cruise in the Reacher role.  He pulled it off, sort of, but not well enough to get me REALLY into the movie. 

Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus. on December 28, 2012, 03:16:24 AM
Agreed on the Hobbit!  Saw it in 3D w/ HFR.

I hated LOTR stuff.  Don't even care for the story/books.  I came in expecting to hate the Hobbit, especially with it's kiddie centric trailers.  I only wanted to see HFR and leave tbh.

I got sucked in and swept away as you put it.  One of the best things I've ever seen put up on a big screen.  Makes me realize how much worse the LOTR movies actually were than I thought.  Hell if I won't being seeing the next two!

Django was awesome btw!

First ten minutes of Les Mis were quite poorly done IMO and everytime Crowe showed up thereafter was quite distracting.  Got much better and Anne Hathaway was unfreaking believable!!  She made the whole row I was in cry and snifle like wimpering babies.  That was awesome.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: ader on December 29, 2012, 12:15:53 AM
I thought the Hobbit's 3D effect was good, but some of the CGI and effects themselves looked like they came out of a video game.  It seemed like a lot of the CGI surfaces were under textured.  Or perhaps they were up to par, but my brain had a harder time suspending disbelief with twice as many frames going into it.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus. on December 29, 2012, 07:16:53 AM
It's just adjustment from the norm.  The first time people talked on screen and a movie was shown in color probably freaked out a lot of people.  It's all for the better.   ;)
 popcorn


I actually like a lot of game cinematics, some of which are better than film productions many times.  Go back and watch Star Wars 1 + 2.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on January 05, 2013, 03:10:23 AM
Road to Perdition

I remember thinking it was shite the first time around when it was released probably because I was expecting too much after American Beauty.  But I found it pretty interesting this time.  It's proof that you can carry a movie with cinematography alone.  Almost every shot is just gorgeous.  Some really creative compositions and camera movements.  And the lighting of course.  One of my favorite shots was a dark room with streetlight pouring into a window with rain water running down it, so all the light is filtered and shifting.  I can't think of many films as beautiful. 

May have actually been too beautiful for the subject matter.  But the rest of the movie was overly restrained, and overly simple with almost no character development.  I realized at the end that I didn't care about any of the characters.  You could see all the developments coming long before, and there weren't many.  I'm not sure why Sam Mendes chose this story to embellish with these visuals, but maybe he just hired a great cinematographer because he could, and that was that.  I wish the music was a bit less heavy handed though.  Because the music wanted it to be a sweeping epic oscar winner like Sam's previous movie, which it wasn't.  Too much pulling at heart strings without anything to back that up. 

Worth seeing for the look of it alone.  I wound up thinking of it as sort of a moving photograph, or tone piece and really enjoyed it.  Actually got kind of giddy at some of the shots. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on January 06, 2013, 11:39:29 PM
I was just puzzling at the terrible user reviews on itunes store for the movie Cosmopolis.  Seems the critics didn't love it but thought it was decent, and it is Cronenberg.  I haven't seen it yet, but I can't believe it's that bad.  Kind of sad considering how many terrible movies have nothing but 5 star reviews there.  Then I realized that all the Twihards were watching this because Patinson is in it.  Aha...
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: catscratch on January 07, 2013, 05:57:34 AM
The Hobbit was OK. Banal, popcorn munching entertainment and a pretty good spectacle. The fact that it's based on a book of serious subtle sophistication is, well... Jackson will do what Jackson does, which is to take literary works to the lowest common denominator and make dumb mass-market blockbusters out of them, and that's what we get here. There were a few quality scenes that stood out though - the riddle scene and the party scene in particular.

Had no issues with the 3D aside from some poor synching of the left/right channels, especially when you tilt and otherwise move your head. I didn't notice the high frame rate either to be honest.

I outright hated the LotR movies - not because I'm a Tolkien fan looking for a literal interpretation, but simply because I though they weren't very good movies, aside from parts of the first one. This one was better, but still has quite some room to go.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus. on January 07, 2013, 06:34:09 AM
Road to Perdition is one of my faves.  Like just about everything about it.  There's more to the cinematography than just doing it because he could.  There's a fatalistic beauty to it that mirrors Jude Laws penchant for photography.  I personally don't have to connect to a character to appreciate the story being told.  I loved Grapes of Wrath but never felt like I lost a blood relative or something.  I guess it's enough for me to appreciate a character's plight or situation without having to experience what made them who they are.  I have friends that hated Winter's Bone and Gomorrah because they could give a rat's ass about hicks in West Virginia or kids slumming in Naples.  I for one, connected quite well to the scenarios. 


You never know what people will or won't connect with.  Especially stuff they watch at home while half sleeping on a sofa or typing on their laptop or checking texts and emails.  I just spent 20 minutes arguing with a friend over Ann Hathaway's performance in Les Miserable a few days ago.  Told him how brilliant she was and the whole theatre flooded with tears pouring from the audience.  He bitched about her performance not being anything special, not having enough lung power to sustain notes and being out of tune.  I was like, wtf are you talking about?  After 20 minutes of arguing, turned out he didn't even see the movie but Youtubed the single from the soundtrack which wasn't even the same singing performance in the movie let alone a proper theatrical experience.


Makes me not want to recommend anything to people.   
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus. on January 07, 2013, 06:34:27 AM
Did you see the HFR version?  48fps seemed pretty hard to ignore to myself and others.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: catscratch on January 07, 2013, 04:03:11 PM
Yeah, I saw the HFR version. I think it's because my TV upsamples the framerate so hard that I'm used to it and didn't really notice it. I don't go to the movies much either.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Questhate on January 07, 2013, 05:42:21 PM
Saw a few movies lately:

Django Unchained -- Awesome, but I'm an unabashed QT fan (most of the time, at least). He's developed such fine control in direction and writing the past two movies. I felt this one was a half-notch below Inglorious Bastards, but most of the scenes in Django weren't about slowing building tension to the point of suffocation as IB was. The final 20 minutes kinda trailed off in Django, in comparison to the masterfully drawn first half of the movie. Christoph Waltz has SUCH control of every scene.

The Hobbit -- Was better than the LOTR movies, but I felt there was a lot of fat that could have been trimmed. Some scenes were excessive that disrupted the flow of the movie, IMO. I'm already dreading an Extended Edition. I thought I'd get acclimated to the HFR within half an hour, but found it pretty distracting for the whole movie really. Still found it enjoyable overall, and I'll be watching the next two.

This is 40 -- Not much of a reaction to this movie, a few funny scenes, but really just... blah overall. Maybe I'm getting older, but Judd Apatow's schtick is wearing thin on me.

Pitch Perfect -- Just no...
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus. on January 08, 2013, 01:24:27 AM
Yeah, 40 was kind of disappointing.


Watching Scarface right now, much better.   :)p17   Chainsaw is coming soon!   :)p3
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: tdockweiler on January 12, 2013, 05:04:21 AM
I had the flu for the past few days so I mostly watched movies.

The Black Book - 9.25/10

This was a big surprise and I won't question it's historical accuracy.
It's about a woman who becomes a spy for the resistance during WWII and gets into the gestapo HQ. Felt there was tons of good stuff in here to think about. Kind of wore out it's welcome a bit towards the end and one or two scenes were kind of overdone (one involving poo).

If you haven't seen it, watch it along with "Army of Shadows". If you watch that one, make sure you stick with it because it's fairly slow at first.

In Which We Serve - 5/10

Couldn't get into this old British movie from the 40's.

Casablanca - 8.5/10

First time I saw this. Felt like every women in this movie rubbed onions in their eyes for each scene.

Lbs - 7.5/10

Low budget movie and it's free on Amazon Prime. Not many people are willing to make a movie like this. It's about an overweight food addict who moves out to the middle of nowhere and lives in a camping trailer with a goal of losing weight. I'm surprised I actually finished this and kind of liked it. The characters were a bit weird. Sometimes it took itself way too serious.

Run Silent, Run Deep - 8/10

Old submarine WWII movie with Burt Lancaster and Clark Gable. I prefer "Destination Tokyo" despite it's racist nonsense.

If you like WWII movies check out "Dam Busters". I need to buy that..

Before these my last two 9.5 and over movies have been the Japanese film "I Wish" and the documentary "Jiro Dreams of Sushi". Note: both are free on prime.

Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: olor1n on January 12, 2013, 11:58:09 PM
Django - Awesome. Fine performances throughout, particularly from SLJ (lol) and Leo.

Argo - I was expecting a tension filled thriller akin to Munich and was somewhat dissapointed at the lighter tone. Still enjoyed it though and it reaffirmed Affleck as one of my favourite directors.

Zero Dark Thirty - Loved it... up until the film's closing frames. Not sure why the female lead is getting Oscar buzz though.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on January 14, 2013, 09:25:30 AM
This is pretty awesome news. 

http://geektyrant.com/news/2012/10/19/hbo-wants-a-new-world-war-ii-series-and-they-got-david-finch.html

I'm glad they're continuing these series.  I think they're important, esp if they're done (fairly) accurately.  I love Band of Brothers and The Pacific.  I'd like to see many more, it's a great format for the subject and there's so many stories to tell.  Hopefully they don't try to do too much as in Pacific. 

I had previously read that HBO wasn't going to be making these super expensive series anymore, but this must mean they are still lucrative which can only mean moar.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: shipsupt on January 14, 2013, 10:29:15 AM
Hoping to see more too!  Band of Brothers was fantastic.  The Pacific got a little to into the back/love story for me at times, in fact I'm not sure I ever watched the last episode which was post war wrap up.  Good stuff!  :)p7
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus. on January 14, 2013, 05:46:00 PM
I hope the action and dialogue is realistic like the Pacific and not sanitized and cartoony like Band of Brothers.  I have yet to be able to finish a single episode after trying three times.

Thematically the Pacific theater is tough due to the island hopping.  Might be a carrier based squadron like the Enterprise rather than something like Black sheep squadron.

Someone should do Anzio since most people don't know we were never able to defeat the Germans in Italy.  Or how about the Spielberg crew move out of WW2 into the more complex and pertinent Korean War and do the Frozen Chosin.   
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on January 14, 2013, 07:58:41 PM
I'm not sure I get what you mean about the action in BOB.  I get why you'd say The Pacific is more realistic in the dialogue and action, but a lot of the action in BOB seemed pretty well done to me, even if not quite as gritty as the Pacific.  I'm guessing it's the sentimental plot lines that are combined into the action in BOB.  I mean what about the shelling scenes in Bastogne? 

Despite that, I think BOB had a more well constructed story line.  I get why The Pacific would be challenging because of the island hopping, but they should have kept it to Sledge and the sports writer (forget his name) and they should have left out Basilone and the love story and all that.  Would have been better not to jump around that much and give Sledge and the writer more time and more story.  Episodes of them on the ships between islands, or on another island would have been better than a third character.  Or an episode about them on the islands cleaning up after the war.  Part of what is good about the miniseries format is having so much more time to tell a story and develop characters, and breaking it up into that many stories kind of defeats that advantage IMO. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus. on January 14, 2013, 08:57:18 PM
It's an overall ambiance thing that I simply can't connect with.  There's a slight Disneyesque/Warhorse kind of sheen to it.  Something like of the sum of a bunch of little things messing up the overall effect of sincerity.  As far as a sense of genuineness Private Ryan had it, Pacific had it, Das Boot had it, City of Life and Death had it, Hurt Locker had it (for the most part).  I'd have to try to sit through it again and do a point by point analysis.  I found the dialogue and interactions between characters in BoB pretty shallow and often forced tbh.  I was much more drawn into every character in Private Ryan w/ the development that took place in about an hour compared to all the time BoB spent on their character development.  In a way, let's just say BoB was neutral, had low distortion but also weaker dynamic range and lacked holographic imaging for me.

John Basilone is one of the most famous Marines in history along with Chesty Puller so it would be hard to do a Pacific story w/o him.  Especially what he/they did on Guadalcanal.  Since the story was based on the diaries of the actual men maybe they should have tried telling each story as an individual chapter/short story rather than splicing stuff together.  Or keep it separate until Iwo.

Edit - See I call massive BS on scenes like this.  They need orders to seek cover?  Advance in plain view and stand around out in the open talking about shit?  Germans say 'Fire!' in English?  What??  Germans flee into isolated and enclosed buildings w/ no way out so they can get grenaded together w/o possibility of returning fire?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6da9U6Xjd8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6da9U6Xjd8)
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on January 14, 2013, 10:04:26 PM
We're looking at it from very different perspectives since i have no combat experience.  But it's definitely something different than War Horse because I couldn't stand that movie as you know. 

Wasn't Dike telling them to stop and fall back?  It looks like they all take cover where they can given his orders.  I thought the same thing about the Germans running into the hut haha.  yeah...   And I didn't consciously notice the German saying "fire" though I had an odd feeling about that shot, always struck me as out of place. 

Also agree that it doesn't go as deep as you'd hope given it's length.  Other movies convey much more in an hour than BOB. 

I'm not sure I think fame means Basilone has to be included if the intent is to tell the bigger story and sense of what it was like for many soldiers.    But maybe the problem wasn't the number of stories, but the way they did it. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus. on January 14, 2013, 11:59:29 PM
Definitely not Warhorse bad, only like 10% of that on the Disney meter.  Reminds me of something I think nikongod said about multi BAs once.  Most people don't notice multi driver incoherency, but once you hear it you'll laser right in on it from then on.

I get BoB storyline, it is phenomenal in it's epic character deployment and using the real vets was well done.  They couldn't do that in the Pacific since they had already died.

I didn't mean to say 'fame' was critical to his inclusion but what he did was essential as was what the Marines did at Guadalcanal was even though they were surrounded on land and sea by the Japanese. http://www.basiloneparade.com/citation-guad.htm (http://www.basiloneparade.com/citation-guad.htm) That was core to the plot and history of the conflict.  I wish they had somehow worked in the Tarawa landing to set the stage from the outset.  Imagine the underwater scenes from Private Ryan at Normandy but with a shallow coral reef (3 feet deep) extending over 500s yard from the beaches landing zone with Marines strung out all over taking fire.  Freaks me out thinking about it.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tarawa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tarawa)

When you advance, you use cover if it's there, you don't need an order to keep from someone blowing your head off.  It happens a few times, like a scene where a mass of Airborne are huddled up on a road into an enemy town and they decide to charge down the road straight in, even though the outer perimeter has tons of tall grass and buildings to use as natural cover.  Their camouflage is green, not asphalt colored.  Infantry would never charge down the middle of town road, that's called 'channeling' and is exactly what you want if you are a defender. That's how the 300 Spartans punished Xerxes for so long by using the Hot Gates.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on January 15, 2013, 12:35:22 AM
Funny, I had the same thought about that road attack as well. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus. on January 27, 2013, 10:16:37 AM
Okay, I'm getting sick of the 'deleted scenes' BS.  Just make a supplemental Extended/Director's Cut!  Don't these people realize many us buy the Blu-Ray because we already love the freaking film?!  Thus, we want to see more of a good thing, not snippets segregated from the main body w/o any cohesiveness.  Makes me want to re-edit all my choice Blu-Rays myself.

Watching 'Sunshine' btw.  Putting the Oppo through it's paces.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: RexAeterna on February 26, 2013, 04:38:39 AM
i watched life of pi recently and a western called Blueberry.

life of pi i really liked. the visuals were very euphoric and  pi made me smile all the time when he went on somewhat i guess call it ''soul searching'' questioning and participating in all the religions in his country. also liked the connection he was obtaining with richard parker(the tiger) and overall journey he experienced. it seemed boring at times cause it was long movie but i liked the overall story. it kinda had a deep meaning to it to me.

Blueberry i found out bout couple days ago cause i was looking up more information on ayawasca and a scene where he goes on to discover the secret power of the native tribe he grew up with was. first time i ever seen the sacred brew done in anything other then documentaries. never a movie. the cgi looked really cool on his little spiritual trip. it wasn't that one particular scene though that struck my interest in the movie. i watched the trailer and it seemed interesting. also i was surprised of the cast members who played in it.

the movie itself was pretty cool. the camera angles were nice especially on action scenes. story seemed kinda bland but the characters in the movie manage to keep my interest. i loved billy and the old guy. he was mad cool. broken nose's friend too(runi) had a cool ritual outfit. it had Quincy written all over it lol. i wanted it. it was overall pretty interesting and did enjoy it a bit. didn't feel as long in duration as it is as well.

Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: shipsupt on March 01, 2013, 09:50:36 PM
We saw Hansel and Gretel tonight.  Well, if you don't go in expecting too much you can almost get through this one... Actually no, you can't.  It's pretty bad. 

It's mildly entertaining at best.  The characters are basic, the character relationships are odd and undeveloped.  It just doesn't do anything all that well. 

My 14 year old thought it was pretty good, so it must have some appeal, but for me it's a rent only.

EDIT: The only thing this movie has going for it is Gemma Arterton in leather, which is something to seriously consider.



Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus. on March 02, 2013, 02:26:28 AM
Gemma Arterton in leather. No appeal?
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: shipsupt on March 02, 2013, 01:47:15 PM
Gemma Arterton in leather. No appeal?

Sh_t!  Now I have to re-do my review!  See above, edited.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: anetode on March 28, 2013, 04:35:58 PM
Not a theatrical release, but BBC butchered its 90-minute Feynman/Challenger investigation film. Like hit every bad connotation that comes to mind when you see those stark and sober "based on a true story" disclaimers. So sad that even with the plethora of fine accounts, including Feynman's book, they have to dress it up into a NASA-is-evil melodrama, starring a regular schmoe as a scientist fighting corrupt managers and gagged engineers, helped only by a bromance with a general. At least they sort-of acknowledge Sally Ride's role.

The movie about Lincoln delivering a monologue every five minutes was neat though. Spielberg/Kushner know how to pull off melodrama.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on March 31, 2013, 07:00:10 AM
Killing them softly.  A good movie. Very well done. But Im tired of all these dry, dense super violent movies lately. Im just bored with it. Seems like ever since Drive everyone wants slow motion blood and brains spewing everywhere.  Id honestly rather have less graphic viloence and see some other aspect of the story or hunanity explored and rendered in a beautiful way.  Its just not that interesting beyond shock value and I think its really easy.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus. on April 01, 2013, 06:53:38 AM
Have you seen 'HEAT' RD?
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: rhythmdevils on April 01, 2013, 09:04:35 AM
Yes i know I liked it but cant remember more atm.
 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: shipsupt on April 01, 2013, 11:32:23 AM
After Valentin's recommendation I caught "Searching for Sugar Man" on a recent flight.  Simply, a brilliant film.  It left me sad and inspired at the same time. 

I just grabbed his albums, hopefully he's finally seeing some royalties.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: olor1n on April 01, 2013, 12:08:04 PM
I still need to see Searching for Sugar Man. I have the OST though and it's been in heavy rotation. Love it.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: grev on April 02, 2013, 03:59:37 AM
I've downloaded lots of movies while I was in Hong Kong last year, also they would be the critically acclaimed ones, also since I barely watch any movies, I only use them when my girlfriend wants to watch a movie.

So, I watched Oldboy (Korean movie) which was pretty good, watched Eternal Sunshine of the spotless mind first and after finishing both of the movies I asked her which one she liked better, she said Oldboy because of the action stuff...

I guess I better not show her A Space Odyssey: 2001...
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Deep Funk on June 14, 2013, 07:57:53 AM
Has anyone seen the recent The Great Gatsby? I saw it in the cinema in 3D and I was somewhat pleasantly surprised.

A good film, occasionally let down by the soundtrack and rushed story line in the beginning.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on December 27, 2013, 05:30:47 PM
1 fuckin hour of digging to find this thread. I somehow managed to not see the "Random Thoughts" section of this forum for a long time... Why doesn't Cinema have it's own section anyway?

Copy paste from my head-fi post_

Life of Pi - 8/10

The fascinating story of a boy that survives 225 days on board of a little boat adrift in the ocean with the company of a tiger.
Visually stunning and very well directed.
A beautifull film.


The Hurt Locker - 8/10

A film that portrays the precarious existence of a little Explosive Ordnance Disposal team in the Iraq war.
Very well directed, excelent acting. Intelligent, thrilling and very raw (in all aspects) from beginning to end.
It manages, in an interesting way, to lay bare how insignificant and vain can be the motivations that lead someone to submit itself to the distress of warfare. I'll have to watch this movie again as I feel that it has a lot more to absorb than I got in just 1 view, will probably rate it higher then. This and Kathryn Bigelow's most recent work, Zero Dark Thirty which I'd rate at least 9.5, share the same cinematic tissue, very raw and intelligent portray of real events, but they have a lot more under the surface, a lot more than a literal interpretation of what happens on the screen can unravel.


Avatar - 9/10

This movie is not particularly intelligent and has some lackluster acting performances but it still managed to cause a great impression on me. The visual delight, the rich variety of fauna and flora in James Cameron world and the technological competence to animated it ( I consider the CGI Na'vi characters much more interesting than the human characters from an acting perspective, which is a lot of praise for the quality of the animation here) are certainly the factors that most contributed for the impact of the film. This is the kind of cinema to experience through the senses and emotions and not so much to analize. It's one of the most marking cinematic experiences I've ever had, although I've seen it only in 2D. The type of movie I'd wish to watch as a child. I feel like seeing it again...


Wall-E - 9.8/10

A nearly perfect movie in my humble opinion, very well developped and intelligent and an excellent experience for little ones and grown ups. I don't really know why I don't give it a perfect score... As usual with Pixar stuff animation quality here is top noch, it doesn't reach the hyper-realistic and immersiveness heights of Avatar but this comparison is probably not fair because I'm comparing films with different cinematographic principles. Despite not providing the sheer sensorial immersiveness that Avatar provides and as consequence submitting itself more openly to intelectual scrutiny, Wall-E leaves nothing to be desired and manages to have as much emotional impact in me as Avatar which makes it all the more brilliant. I've seen it 2 times and I want to see it again. It deserves to be considered a classic of animation cinema!
 

Drive (2011) - 9/10 (last I watched)

Beautifull movie, beautifull cinematography, competent directing and acting, superb sound design (about time someone uses some brains in sound as well!). Far cry from the typical crime movie with lots of nonsense violence and lacking brains (this movie as some pretty gore violent scenes though!). Drive is, instead, a full-fledged stylistic reverie with great taste and almost flawless technical execution. In some rare moments this wander is taken a bit to far IMO, almost to the point of what I'd consider maniac but nothing too detrimental. A unique and very interesting cinematic experience, this is clearly captivating for my tastes. I'm definitelly going to watch it again.

Other movies I've seen recently:
Oblivion - 6/10
Pleasing audiovisual experience and manages to be better than Prometheus (not a difficult task)...
but meh...

Prometheus - 3/10
Supreme cinematography, special effects (some of the absolute best I've seen), competent sound design and acting (specially Fassbender). But all this waisted with one of the dumbest scrpits I've ever seen.
After watching it, I wondered if this was a joke of some sort... an insult to inteligence regardless of whether one is an "Alien" fan or not. I honestly felt both offended and amused (literally laughed at some scenes) by it's stupidity.
I don't look forward to the sequel of this even if it's meant to answer any of the questions raised...

Pacific Rim - 7/10
It does what it's meant to do, to provide entertaining kickass mecka vs kaijo action. Basic story and ocasionally dumb (and specially enerving by those 2 freak scientists) acting, cool special effects and creatures. It's a dumb movie but it rocks the way it's suposed to rock.

Inception - 8/10
I liked it, nice scifi concept, it's competent at a technical level and has the distinct charm inputed by Nolan directing that I also sense in The Dark Knight Rises. I may watch it again but ultimatelly I'm affraid that it can pass as forgetable to me.

The Dark Knight Rises - 8/10
Same as above but relating to action hero genre not scifi.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: MuppetFace on December 29, 2013, 01:39:09 PM
Some holiday related film impressions from yours truly:

HOUSE aka HAUSU
http://www.head-fi.org/t/626954/the-diary-entries-of-a-little-girl-in-her-30s-part-2/19305#post_9940895

File under: crazy-ass 70s low budget art film about a haunted house that eats young virgin girls. Includes scenes of a girl getting eaten by a piano and rafting down a river of blood on a mattress.

BLACK CHRISTMAS
http://www.head-fi.org/t/626954/the-diary-entries-of-a-little-girl-in-her-30s-part-2/20175#post_10096962

File under: proto-slasher film, predating Halloween and IMHO better. Lunatic manchild stalks girls in a sorority house during the winter break. Psychological elements and surprisingly well-done and disturbing. Also was the first time a very well known horror cliche was used.


Next up, as per my New Year's tradition, I'm watching Mikey and Nicky.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: olor1n on December 30, 2013, 02:52:02 AM
Saw Desolation of Smaug. I enjoyed AUJ overall, with its lighter, whimsical tone compared to the LoTR trilogy. DoS is much darker, more action packed. It's in line with the epic end of days crescendo of Return of the King, except here you are left with no resolution, just a predictable cliffhanger that reeks of money grab.

In isolation, DoS is an entertaining movie. The famous barrel sequence mid way through is a riot. Pacing is much improved over previous PJ movies. I didn't mind the Tauriel character but the love angle employed is beyond retarded. Seeing an older Bloom playing a more grim and menacing Legolas was also jarring. I like what they've done with Bard though.

The last instalment will undoubtedly be balls to the wall. It'll be a spectacle but one I suspect will be packed with filler out of necessity. The Hobbit adaptation could've been wrapped up in 5 hours. Would've been glorious, rather than just entertaining.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Marvey on December 30, 2013, 03:43:55 AM
I liked the first Hobbit movie bettar. I know people / critics bitched it was too slow moving and thought the dwarves singing part was too ghey, but I thought it was nicely paced and well done. Even both of my kids liked the first one better. (We saw the first one again, and the kids didn't even blink a wink despite the long running time.)


I don't give my kids ADD medication either. Hitting them in the head when they lose focus seems much more effective than any medication.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Hands on December 30, 2013, 04:36:59 AM
I haven't seen the 2nd, but the 1st Hobbit movie really could have done without the white orc. I didn't remember that character in the book, so I wondered if they got him from other resources and looked it up. Turns out the orc character is real but did actually die in the battle the movie referred to...or something like that. I felt all of those scenes containing the white orc were completely useless and that otherwise the movie was pretty darn good. I REALLY liked that the 1st movie started alluding to events that took place during LOtR. I felt that was a good way to flesh out the tale.

I think a lot of critics bitched because they saw it in HFR 3D. I read that they watched 2D version this time around for reviews. Doesn't surprise me one bit.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on December 30, 2013, 09:53:29 PM

HOUSE aka HAUSU
http://www.head-fi.org/t/626954/the-diary-entries-of-a-little-girl-in-her-30s-part-2/19305#post_9940895

File under: crazy-ass 70s low budget art film about a haunted house that eats young virgin girls. Includes scenes of a girl getting eaten by a piano and rafting down a river of blood on a mattress.


Thanks for looking up this thread MuppetFace.
Hausu seems interesting to me, I may try to snatch an HD rip of it.

Another movie impression: copy paste from Head-fi post.

Sin City (Extended Edition) - 7,5

4 little stories (one of them being a mini story) in the Neo-noir atmosphere of Sin City.
I have mixed feelings about this movie. Not regarding the moral paradigma behind the stories of course, but about some cinematic aspects.. I really like the Neo-noir concept recreated here and there's a lot to apprecciate in this movie - the intelligent monologues of the protagonists, the noir atmosphere carved by the unique and interesting cinematography and color treatment, the smart and mastertfull way how the several plots develop, etc...

But... this is the sort of cinema that ideally transports the viewer into a different world, a fantasy, a dreamlike experience and this movie fails to do so (with me) on a consistent level and as a result it falls short of what I'd consider deserving of reverence.
As I watched the movie I often found myself distracted and annoyed by an apparent amateurish nature and/or lack of skill in some technical aspects. I'm talking primarilly about some of the acting and sound work, things here could had been a lot more polished. For example, several characters didn't leave up to the demands of the movie, it seemed like some actors and actresses didn't give enough commitment or that they simply lacked the acting skills for their roles, they looked fake, forced, not authentic at all. The sound design and editing also lacked, in my opinion, as it often failed to immerse me into the Neo-noir atmosphere of the movie, I feel that this aspect was overlooked.
Being a multi-plot movie, these shortcomings affected each story by different degrees and I felt that "The Big Fat Kill" was the worse case. It was by far the one I least cared for, pretty boring and little of interest, I often couldn't help but gaze away and sigh due to the lack of polishment in the aforementioned and several other aspects. The plot itself was also the least interestingly developed and the end was... well, uneventful and boring despite what it was... I just didn't feel like I was watching the same movie as the other stories at all... the character played by Benicio Del Toro was probably the only one remotelly interesting to observe in "The Big Fat Kill".
"The Hard Goodbye" is a complete 180º turn though. I really liked this one, it was my favorite and if I had to score it alone, it'd be a solid 9. The main character is a brutal and amazeballs badass monster guy expertly played by Mickey Rourke, great work here! most of the acting in this story is pretty competent and the plot masterfully develops at the right pace and the sound design didn't let me down too much. This was the definitelly the immersive and dreamlike Neo-noir experience Sin City movie was supposed to be. The only oddity in my opinion was the character played by Elijah Wood... cmon man really?? so pathetic and amateurish looking!, it could had spoiled it all, but fortunatelly the overall work in "The Hard Goodbye" was solid and high quality so this nuissance didn't detract my enjoyment so much, but still it's the only stronger reason why I wouldn't give this single story a 10 if I had to.

On a general note special effects also looked excessivelly weird and unpolished a bit to often, it's just a small detail but nonetheless still has it's detracting influence on the screen .

I feel that the consistency of Sin City is damaged by the lack of consistency between the several stories that form the whole movie, but maybe it's unrealistic to expect the same quality standard throughout so many different plots and such big cast with a "mere" 40 million USD budget...
Laying my thoughts on the available resources and the technical challenges present in the creation of this work I can see how this film may have been too ambitious for it's own good...
I ansiously look forward to the next Sin City film and I hope it doesn't disappoint it's own aspirations.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: jerg on December 30, 2013, 10:25:14 PM
I haven't seen the 2nd, but the 1st Hobbit movie really could have done without the white orc. I didn't remember that character in the book, so I wondered if they got him from other resources and looked it up. Turns out the orc character is real but did actually die in the battle the movie referred to...or something like that. I felt all of those scenes containing the white orc were completely useless and that otherwise the movie was pretty darn good. I REALLY liked that the 1st movie started alluding to events that took place during LOtR. I felt that was a good way to flesh out the tale.

I think a lot of critics bitched because they saw it in HFR 3D. I read that they watched 2D version this time around for reviews. Doesn't surprise me one bit.

A villain that stays alive until the end of a storyline seems to be a forced thing nowadays, obviously there's Sauron in LOTR trilogy, but in the Hobbit storyline in the book there really wasn't any one thing, so Peter J had to retcon Azog for this role.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: OJneg on December 31, 2013, 12:13:01 AM
Did you guys see DoS in 3D? I avoided it because AUJ made my brain hurt.

Possible Spoilers

Anyway, I thought DoS was a step above the previous film. At this point I've been numbed to PJ adding so much extra crap to satisfy consumers. Tauriel is awful, shouldn't exist. Beorn was totally wrong too. Wasn't bothered by the extra Lake Town stuff actually. Giving Bard some extra development was a necessary move. Gandalf stuff is well placed too. Smaug sequence was awesome until they started having a Scooby Doo chase around Erebor. WTF was that shit? The Tolkein universe is big, but moments and actions are simple and to the point. PJ has the compulsive need to do smother everything in his technical abilities. It gets tiring for me. Ultimately fans will be able to look back and be satisfied with this new trilogy, but as of now it's back to hurting my head.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on December 31, 2013, 01:38:28 AM
I saw it in 3D HFR and it was much better done this time than the last.  The motion stutter in action scenes was largely gone this time around so that was welcome.  I thought the opening and transition from the first film was non-existent, incoherent and terrible.  To me the movie didn't even start until the barrel scene.  Wrt the story, I thought the first one was much more coherent and well paced.  Better range of tempo.  The last scene w/ the Scooby Doo chase and the ending was just plain awful.

American Hustle- 9/10.  Fans of Amy Adams will love this movie.  She's just supremely delicious in this one.  One of the best movies this year I thought.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: shipsupt on December 31, 2013, 10:25:59 AM
47 Ronin

This film could not have been released at a better time to actually get me to a theatre to see it.  Knowing it starred K. Reeves would normally be enough to keep me away, but with vacation time on hand and the other worthwhile movies already consumed I found myself agreeing to sit through this one.  Hey, I love the movie popcorn, so it couldn't be all bad... or could it?

Destined for late night insomnia viewing only, the story has massive potential never quite met.  The huge budget created some spectacular effects lost to actors who never seem to come together in a single story that draws you in.  Keanu couldn't even convince me that there was any depth to his love interest in this one... he's a cold fish as usual.

Save this one for when you're extremely bored and have little other choice.

Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on December 31, 2013, 02:10:57 PM
Another movie impression: copy paste from Head-fi post.

Sin City (Extended Edition) - 7,5

4 little stories (one of them being a mini story) in the Neo-noir atmosphere of Sin City.
I have mixed feelings about this movie. Not regarding the moral paradigma behind the stories of course, but about some cinematic aspects.. I really like the Neo-noir concept recreated here and there's a lot to apprecciate in this movie - the intelligent monologues of the protagonists, the noir atmosphere carved by the unique and interesting cinematography and color treatment, the smart and mastertfull way how the several plots develop, etc...

But... this is the sort of cinema that ideally transports the viewer into a different world, a fantasy, a dreamlike experience and this movie fails to do so (with me) on a consistent level and as a result it falls short of what I'd consider deserving of reverence.
As I watched the movie I often found myself distracted and annoyed by an apparent amateurish nature and/or lack of skill in some technical aspects. I'm talking primarilly about some of the acting and sound work, things here could had been a lot more polished. For example, several characters didn't leave up to the demands of the movie, it seemed like some actors and actresses didn't give enough commitment or that they simply lacked the acting skills for their roles, they looked fake, forced, not authentic at all. The sound design and editing also lacked, in my opinion, as it often failed to immerse me into the Neo-noir atmosphere of the movie, I feel that this aspect was overlooked.
Being a multi-plot movie, these shortcomings affected each story by different degrees and I felt that "The Big Fat Kill" was the worse case. It was by far the one I least cared for, pretty boring and little of interest, I often couldn't help but gaze away and sigh due to the lack of polishment in the aforementioned and several other aspects. The plot itself was also the least interestingly developed and the end was... well, uneventful and boring despite what it was... I just didn't feel like I was watching the same movie as the other stories at all... the character played by Benicio Del Toro was probably the only one remotelly interesting to observe in "The Big Fat Kill".
"The Hard Goodbye" is a complete 180º turn though. I really liked this one, it was my favorite and if I had to score it alone, it'd be a solid 9. The main character is a brutal and amazeballs badass monster guy expertly played by Mickey Rourke, great work here! most of the acting in this story is pretty competent and the plot masterfully develops at the right pace and the sound design didn't let me down too much. This was the definitelly the immersive and dreamlike Neo-noir experience Sin City movie was supposed to be. The only oddity in my opinion was the character played by Elijah Wood... cmon man really?? so pathetic and amateurish looking!, it could had spoiled it all, but fortunatelly the overall work in "The Hard Goodbye" was solid and high quality so this nuissance didn't detract my enjoyment so much, but still it's the only stronger reason why I wouldn't give this single story a 10 if I had to.

On a general note special effects also looked excessivelly weird and unpolished a bit to often, it's just a small detail but nonetheless still has it's detracting influence on the screen .

I feel that the consistency of Sin City is damaged by the lack of consistency between the several stories that form the whole movie, but maybe it's unrealistic to expect the same quality standard throughout so many different plots and such big cast with a "mere" 40 million USD budget...
Laying my thoughts on the available resources and the technical challenges present in the creation of this work I can see how this film may have been too ambitious for it's own good...
I ansiously look forward to the next Sin City film and I hope it doesn't disappoint it's own aspirations.

Just saw this movie again and I feel I didn't give it fair credit. I revise the rating to 8,5 and take back my negative words on the sound work. The sound work is actually remarkable, what the hell was in my head when I wrote the previous comments I don't know... I guess I didn't fully understand the movie at first...
"The Yellow Bastard " story is the most polished work, it's beautifull, but my favourite is still "The Hard Goodbye". Unfortunatelly my view towards "The Big Fat Kill" haven't changed much, actually most of the things that I negativelly criticise are confined to this part.
I wish they hadn't included this story in the film because it really detracts from the overall positive impression I have of the movie. This would easilly become one of my favorite films of all time if they hadn't screw it up with "The Big Fat Kill".
It's still a beautifull movie!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on December 31, 2013, 11:51:16 PM
47 Ronin

This film could not have been released at a better time to actually get me to a theatre to see it.  Knowing it starred K. Reeves would normally be enough to keep me away, but with vacation time on hand and the other worthwhile movies already consumed I found myself agreeing to sit through this one.  Hey, I love the movie popcorn, so it couldn't be all bad... or could it?

Destined for late night insomnia viewing only, the story has massive potential never quite met.  The huge budget created some spectacular effects lost to actors who never seem to come together in a single story that draws you in.  Keanu couldn't even convince me that there was any depth to his love interest in this one... he's a cold fish as usual.

Save this one for when you're extremely bored and have little other choice.



Seconded.  The single most boring movie with Samurai in it I can recall.  Probably the only people who could execute (no pun intended) that ending properly on screen would be Kurosawa, Kobayashi, Miike or Speilberg. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: zerodeefex on January 01, 2014, 06:31:11 AM
Don't laugh: the animation and cinematography of Frozen was pretty darn amazing. The movie was cute, the sidekick was stomachable, and it feels like a good continuation of the direction Disney started taking with Tangled in terms of modernizing their princess line of films. I'd recommend it to anyone who could sit through Tangled.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: ultrabike on January 01, 2014, 07:23:37 AM
I took the kids to see Frozen a few weeks ago. I also thought it was pretty darn good. It's sort of a musical approach, but it was well executed. The comedy aspect was surprisingly good too. My 3 & 6 year olds loved it. And so did I. Recommended.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyline on January 01, 2014, 04:13:42 PM
I took my little girl to see Frozen.  It was her first trip to a movie theater and it went wonderfully.

Very good movie, although the music was atrocious.  It made the songs from Beauty and the Beast feel about as cutting edge as NIN.  Still, we will absolutely add it to our collection once it's released.  It looked amazing.

As for the newest Hobbit offering...I've simply decided to exist that this trilogy doesn't exist.  I'm going to throw it into the same trash heap as three latest Star Wars flicks.  It has some positive elements to it, but I just see it as such a wasted opportunity.   It's like Peter Jackson just wanted to throw every cinematic trick he could at a wall just to see what would stick.  Unfortunately, not much of it did. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on January 02, 2014, 10:59:13 PM
2001: A Space Odyssey - 9,8

I've lost track on the number of times I've watched this reference work.
This is an imenselly vast and ambitious film and although I already loved it since early age, I was only able to comprehend it's full magnitude after seeing it numerous times across the span of several years. This film requires trained and cultivated eyes and ears to be fully apprecciated.
This work is greater than the sum of it's parts, it's an essay about numerous philosophical themes expressed through some of the most masterful use of cinematic expression.
Intemporal stuff and I love how it managed to evoke in me feelings of awe and fascination towards the unknown like no other motion picture did.
Mandatory stuff!

I see lot's of people giving too much attention to the special effects and unfairly judging the movie without really understanding it.
Special effects ought to be given little attention here, in fact it's not what's literally on the screen that matters, it's what it evokes/suggests.
This movie is not about eye candy, (although it has some) this is a conceptually complex work that requires serious intelectual commitment to be trully apprecciated.

My only niggle is that some acting looks slightly artificial, it becomes distracting sometimes, something I've come to notice throughout several Kubrick works.
To me this film would be absolutelly perfect with just a bit more naturalistic acting performances.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on January 03, 2014, 08:22:18 PM
Black Swan - 8

Good movie.
Great acting by Natalie Portman, competent directing....
I was expecting more from this movie but can't point any flaw, I feel that a slightly different and more interesting route could had been followed...
It's fully exploited by a literal interpretation of moving pictures, does not lead to deeper thinking, no second meaning.
It tries to grab the attention of the viewer and pull off some emotional reactions here and there in a simple and linear manner... does what's supposed to do I guess....
Entertaining while it lasted and managed to take a few emotional reactions from me but in the end I feel there's nothing special here and I'll eventually forget it.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: olor1n on January 04, 2014, 03:30:11 AM
Watched Rush. Loved it.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: olor1n on January 04, 2014, 03:16:38 PM
Not gonna lie. Watched About Time and freakin loved it. Loved the sincerity, the feels, the soundtrack. Rachel McAdams. Yeah, she's the one. Damn.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on January 06, 2014, 09:18:03 PM
The Hunt (Jagten) - 9,5

Very Good.
Disturbing and convincing movie that shows how an innocent miscommunication or lie from a child can absolutelly destroy another persons life.
It displays the ambiguity of human relations and the fragility of the foundations of a social construct where, no matter what happens, our past always hunts us.
This movie compels us to reflection and does it well!
All thanks to the excelent acting and directing.
Thomas Vinterberg didn't forge this work strictly through the formal rules of "Dogma 95", but the film still manages to fulfill extremelly well the primary premisse behind the manifesto:
to make itself worth only by the acting and storytelling merits while saving on techological resources and production artificialisms, all this to bring the viewer closer to the core of the movie. It worked with me for sure.
This picture has a realistic and fleshed out style and powerfull impact thanks to intelligent directing, minimalism of resources and almost immaculate acting.
Very touching to observe the unfair suffering of the main character.
Praise must be given to the little girl who played apparently disturbed Klara, very convincing!, great acting skills from such a young child!
Great film!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on January 06, 2014, 09:49:38 PM
The Hunt (Jagten) - 9,5

Very Good.
Disturbing and convincing movie that shows how an innocent miscommunication or lie from a child can absolutelly destroy another persons life.
It displays the ambiguity of human relations and the fragility of the foundations of a social construct where, no matter what happens, our past always hunts us.
This movie compels us to reflection and does it well!
All thanks to the excelent acting and directing.
Thomas Vinterberg didn't forge this work strictly through the formal rules of "Dogma 95", but the film still manages to fulfill extremelly well the primary premisse behind the manifesto:
to make itself worth only by the acting and storytelling merits while saving on techological resources and production artificialisms, all this to bring the viewer closer to the core of the movie. It worked with me for sure.
This picture has a realistic and fleshed out style and powerfull impact thanks to intelligent directing, minimalism of resources and almost immaculate acting.
Very touching to observe the unfair suffering of the main character.
Praise must be given to the little girl who played apparently disturbed Klara, very convincing!, great acting skills from such a young child!
Great film!

Seconded!  Very believable story and performances.

Inside Llewynn Davis - 9/10 if you get it, 5/10 if you don't.  The beginning and end are a big hint.  The Coen brothers are fantastic craftsman of their art.  The camerawork is so polished and coherent.

Her - 8.5/10 if you get it and appreciate the difficulty in making such a film on many levels.  2/10 if you don't.

Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on January 07, 2014, 07:27:21 PM
Eraserhead - 10

Go to your basement alone, make sure it's completelly dark and silent then playback this movie and let yourself go.
This is David Lynch cinematic language in all it's surreal and bizarre magnificence.
To me this movie defines a whole new category of it's own.
I know it for a long time but I'm never fully done with it, no matter how many times replayed I cannot free myself from the need to watch Eraserhead again.
No other movie is able to make me feel like I'm daydreaming, as if Lynch had extracted a dream from my head and made it a movie.
Maybe that's why I'm not able to find anything less than perfect with it and to give it a more imparcial score, seems like every single technical aspect of this movie was literally sculpted to it's last detail to induce me into dreaming, everything here works for the experience, perfection of a singular work.
I love this movie fuck all the rest!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on January 09, 2014, 08:28:22 PM
A Separation - 8

Within the high censorship context of Iran and the very limited resources available I can see how this movie might be notable.
It's competent on most technical aspects and it's well written.
But I fail to see anything special about it...
While the argument is interesting and relevant in the islamic context, it seemed to me the developments were too much akin to what can be seen in soap opera stuff, or Telenovelas...
I'm not saying this work is such a thing, however, for a family drama movie it left me wanting on cinematic and emocional nuance, I found little of it.

The lack of physical tenderness in transgender relations, for example, has taken away some depth and nuance in human relations I would expect to encounter in a family drama, here I suppose the islamic context is to blame with all it's omnipresence even in creative circles.
So praise must be given to Asghar Farhadi for still being able to make a movie with some emotional power and, in fact, he might have used this sort of peculiarities to his advantage as depicted in the only scene where there's an act of physical tenderness between a man (senile grandpa) and a woman (young granddaughter):
here the viewer is only able to see part of the womans body while the act itself (kiss or hug the question remains) is
covered in a very interesting way, I found this one of the rare interesting cinematic nuances of the whole movie.
These sort of peculiarities give this work a potentially educational value to anyone who doesn't know the daily life in Iran.
I feel that the greatest value of this work are the difficult moral and social questions it arises as a challenge to the viewer which compel to reflection.

The very first scene of the movie promissed a lot (brilliant!), but in pretty much the whole rest of it I failed to see anything that could demark this work from all other alike dramas that abound so much nowadays, the islamic context added it's own quirks and peculiarities to the social, moral and religious paradigmas depicted here but cinematically it contributed little to nothing, in fact I would say that it subtracted some nuance and depth in human relations... but maybe this was preciselly the intent of the director in order to most realistically portray the true social paradigma of the country... honestly I got the feeling it was more of a limitation than deliberate choice of Asghar Farhadi, in any case, he surelly has tried to use it to his own benefit... within possibilities...

The thing is, the main complain I have of this movie is that it is emotionally dry and very plain as I perceive it...
Those are preciselly the words that first show up in my head to describe it - very realistic but dry and plain in almost every level... and boring to watch despite a few thrills and curiosities here and there...
I actually forced myself to see it a second time to try to figure out what I was missing before writting my thoughts, but no, this is not the sort of movie that keps me interested for more, actually it went down on my estimation in the second view, it wasn't entertaining at all.

In the end I fail to see what's so special about it and hardly understand the high praise from critics.
I don't think it's a bad movie, I think it's a good movie but not excepcional in any way to deserve so much love and kiss.
If not for the few rare interesting scenes and the external factors limiting it's production, I would willingly rate it lower.
I'm curious to see what this director can do in a more open environment, but if The Past is just more of the same I'm affraid I'm not interested.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on January 10, 2014, 04:27:21 PM
Eyes Without a Face - 7

A mask wearing young woman, brutally disfigured in a car accident.
The father, a surgeon who attempts to give new beauty to his beloved daughter by kidnapping and cirurgically stealing the faces of other beautiful young women.
An horror movie from 1960, exploring the fine layer between beauty and grotesque.
I found very interesting the way how this movie manages to turn beautiful into horrendous and vice-versa.
Pleasently surprised by it's apparent seriousness, it didn't fall for the mistake of comical skittishness as I'd expect for such a movie, pretty sober stuff.
It never really spooked the hell out of my and it was somewhat predictable, but I really apprecciated how it handled the goriest and spookier moments, nothing to obvious, the director was smart enough to play with subtlety, suggestion and expectation.
And yet, some viewers might be surprised with the level of gore detail present in this 1960 movie.
An horror movie it might be, but odd as it may sound, the greatest impression I came out of it was of it's aesthetical appeal and beauty... there's a certain enchantment here mostly thanks to the great sensibility of the director, camera and photography work.
This made the movie worth to me, despite the mindless script.
I say mindless script because I never felt there was a true purpose or intent behind the majority of the happenings in the movie, a simple succession of events determined by basic and cliché writing, but beautifully carved to enhance the visual appeal of it.
This movie is an interesting stylistic exercise in the horror genre.
I liked it and highly recommend it to lovers of classic black and white cinema.
I may watch it again and revise my rating.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: MuppetFace on January 11, 2014, 02:46:08 AM
Eyes Without A Face is wonderful. One of my favorite classic surgical horror films, along with Mad Love starring Peter Lorre.

The original Solaris is on at 3 AM here. Tempted to stay up and watch it despite feeling like shit.



Taken from my diary thread on HF:




MF On Flicks

.  -  ~  -  .  .  -  ~  -  .

Boy
(Oshima,1969)

.  -  ~  -  .

Of all the major names in Japanese cinema, Nagisa Oshima is perhaps the one with whom I'm least familiar. Critics have dubbed him "Japan's Godard," owing to his style's definite New Wave character and a willingness to broach socially uncomfortable topics, though from what I've seen of his output thus far I'm inclined to think of him as "Japan's Truffaut" instead. There's a distinct humanism at work as opposed to Godard's more cosmic philosophical scale, though Oshima's characters maintain a certain impersonal distance and never quite warm the cockles of one's heart quite like Truffaut's. Instead one feels pity for most of them.

Boy tells the story of a family of con artists living in Japan, the incidents of which are based largely on an actual case: a couple and their children eeking out an existence by staging automobile accidents. More specifically, a down-and-out war veteran uses his current girlfriend and his son from a previous relationship to purposefully get hit by cars, faking severe injury in order to pressure drivers into settling without involving the police. It's a risky con both because of the ever-present threat of actual police involvement but also because of the genuine physical harm the woman and young boy face. Of course, the mastermind can't get involved himself because of a supposed and oft cited war injury; it's a cowardly and base arrangement that makes skin crawl, especially given how impressionable the young boy is and how he wants to please his guardians. The performances get more and more daring, the payout bigger and bigger as the family continues to press their luck. Eventually that luck runs dry. A motorist calls them on their bluff by bringing police into the picture, and now---having been seen by local authorities---the fakers get spooked and decide to lay low for a while. During this time, long-simmering turmoil between family members starts to come to a boil, and the rift between the boy's father and his father's girlfriend widens day by day. She wants the stability that, to her mind, settling down and raising a family promises to afford; she sees the cons as a means to an end. For the boy's father a life of crime is itself an end.

Caught up in the middle of this dysfunction is the young boy. Retreating into his inner world, he fantasizes about science fiction heros and advanced civilizations adrift in the far reaches of outer space. His little brother, still a toddler, seems fascinated by these stories and serves as an audience, always asking his older sibling about the aliens. It's a motif that certainly speaks to Japanese kitsch of that era. Scenes of a store display with its human-sized robot and cosmic crusaders advertising hats and other sundries brings to mind the film Giants and Toys (Masumura, 1958) which captures that period of gleeful insanity. I can't help but make parallels between the boy's drawing comfort from such things and the larger cultural landscape using monsters and aliens to cope with the horrors of the atomic age. The boy asks for a yellow hat being advertised by the Lost In Space-style robot, an object that ends up symbolizing his imagination. Later on the film will contrast this with another 'found' item: a rupture in the form of a red boot. Before this however, the hat is trampled on and discarded by the boy's guardians. The world of adults is harsh and impatient. I suppose there's irony to be found in the fact that the father's scheme is itself a fantasy, both in its unlikeliness to succeed in the long-run but also because of the faking involved. There's no tolerance for child's play because it takes away from the playacting that is the boy's 'job' in the eyes of his father. This play---the staging of automobile accidents---begins to mutate into a fixation on injury and death, and the natural childhood drive to test boundaries is corrupted into a sepia toned confrontation between the boy and his own mortality.

The film seemingly hints at the possibility of death as a means of escape. Certainly, when mental diversions are no longer sufficient on their own, the boy is compelled to take action in the physical world. He initially tries running away via Japan's extensive public transport system. Ultimately the plan is ill conceived and doesn't last; it brings to mind Truffaut's 400 Blows, only as an abortive and far more banal rendition. The boy remains stuck in purgatory. Over time however he begins to forge an alliance with his father's girlfriend whom he regards more and more as a mother figure; she too clings to fantasy in the hope of eventually settling down and devoting herself to a more traditional family life. Even this has unfortunate consequences though as it drives a bigger wedge between the two and the father who suspects a conspiracy. In his world, this newfound connection between his son and his girlfriend could only mean they're planning to cheat him or even cut him out of the picture entirely. The girlfriend's ideal family life is simply incompatible with his plans. Perhaps the ultimate expression of this is found in the father's pressuring her to have an abortion. Mortality appears throughout the film, and its relationship to one's hopes and dreams is a centerpiece of sorts. In the beginning for example the boy would amuse himself for hours on end with his daydreams, abandoned and neglected, while pacing in circles around a conical funeral monument. It's an orbit whose revolutions clock the passage of time on an individual level. Death is always there, drawing closer with each pass, but it remains 'fantastic' as an incomprehensible abstract. There is only the suffocating singularity of 'now' for the boy as he sings a traditional folk song; the past, much like a future of aliens and space travel, is for him a trajectory for the imagination. Death itself becomes the subject of fantasy as well.

Later on in the film the boy witnesses a tragic event. It's caused by his impressionable younger brother for whom there is no bluff or reason to flinch from oncoming traffic, for whom there is no playacting, only child's play. The parents flee in horror with the toddler, leaving the older boy behind to confront the aftermath all by himself. Death is now an immediate reality. It now has a face. It remains largely incomprehensible however, and like all trauma it ruptures any semblance of order in one's life. The boy does not flee from it. In what is the first of two extremely moving scenes, he stays at the scene until the authorities arrive. Curiously enough though he's practically invisible with no one so much as stopping to question him. In the silence following their departure, he plucks a single red boot from the wreckage and keeps it on his person. For me this boot is less an overt symbol and more a remainder. When the boy's guardians try to get him to throw it out like the hat before it, the sentiment is not one of intolerance toward the dreams of others, but rather a fundamental incompatibility, like a pin to a bubble. The boot resists integration into the order of fantasy.

The climax of the film occurs, for me, when the boy takes the boot and runs off vowing to never return. His little brother tags along despite his insistence against it, and the two end up in a snowy field. As the toddler watches from some distance, the boy constructs a strange little geometric mound out of snow, setting the boot into it as a centerpiece. He proceeds to explain the significance of the thing to his little brother and to himself. It's an alien from Andromeda. In fact it's the principle alien around whom his fantasies center. With growing intensity of emotion, the boy details the alien's history; the alien is brave because it can live alone without feeling pain. This is the boy's last ditch, pitiful attempt to bring his fantasies to fruition. Confronted by his own inadequacy the boy attacks his creation, and it's at this point that the alien becomes a gravestone of sorts, mirroring the burial mound's conical shape from earlier in the film. The grave is perhaps part monument to the deceased and part monument to the ultimate futility of retreating into childhood fantasy. The boy not only comes face to face with death, but he also must confront the reality of his own painful existence. Unlike his alien hero, he is largely powerless. Yet in some sense the geometric construction remains irreducible and can neither be a solution nor dismissed outright. There is a very real element to it as fantasy just as there is a frightening reality to the exterior surfaces we assume we hide behind. What really dwells beneath? Is the real fantasy not this something behind the fantasy?

After this episode in the snow, the boy recounts how everything worked out in the end. He describes their going to church and celebrating Christmas. They end up moving into a big house. Only we later see them in cramped living conditions as the police arrive. They've been caught. Even to the bitter end though the boy continues the family's ruse in pathetic futility, covering for them with a weary indifference during questioning. Things end in a rather neo-realist way as the family is shown riding together in a railcar surrounded by police. The silence here speaks volumes, as it conveys the seemingly infinite distance that can exist between persons even when they're sitting right next to one another.

The musical score for Boy is appropriately uncertain and cold. It stayed with me for quite a while afterward with its sparsely plucked, angular strings and clinking percussion.

What strikes me as most noteworthy about this film's production is the casting of the boy for whom the film is named. Everything hinges on this role, and the director decided to use an unknown orphan to play the part. His understated performance is carried out with touching sincerity.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on January 12, 2014, 04:11:55 PM
I should be getting a glimpse of Solaris soon.

Caché - 7

A normal couple watches bewildered to the contents of a VHS cassete tape left at their house, it's origin is a mystery.
The video consists on a simple recording of the exterior of their house from a fixed point in frontal position with unclear exact location, in the video the wife and the husband of the couple can be seen leaving the house to go on their usual duties...
Anonymous phone calls, small postcards with suggestive messages and several other VHS tapes follow and soon it's clear that the couple is under the unwelcome vigilance of a stranger who knows the man of the couple... or so it seems...
As the stalking manifestations continue and efforts are made to find out who is behind them, the dark past of the man of the couple is unveiled little by little.
The argument suggests a thriller but the ascetic cinematics can either improve, worsen or confuse the experience of the beholder.
The movie eventually takes the mold of a psychological study of a man tormented by guilt.
This work by Michael Haneke develops in a realistic, sober, cold, raw and analytical style, not given to sentimentality or artificiality of expression and has no soundtrack.
I felt that the austerity of the cinematic style also translated into the acting of the main characters, which hampered their authenticity and the impact this film could have.
It also didn't get quite clear in my mind what was the real premisse behind this movie: was it to do a psychological essay about a character suffering with guilt? was it to do a thriller exploring an ascetic aesthetic and see how it works out? was the premisse to do a phylosophical essay about observation and guilt? was it all of these things?
And the fact that the origin of the stalking is never unveiled gives this movie a surreal aura and makes it inconclusive on various thematic aspects.
I think this was a particularly interesting cinematic and aesthetic experiment in the thriller genre, I found it to be a fascinating concept and wished that the result could be fully accomplished, but it didn't seem quite there yet.
It's hard for me to rate this work, I think it's a very interesting movie, it has no major technical flaws (assuming that the unsolved mistery of the origin of the stalking is intentional) and it has some trully brilliant moments to behold, but it's premisse is not very clear and several things are just left in blank, seemed inconclusive to me.
I'm left with the impression of an experimental asceticism and an inconclusive plot from which only Hitchcock could forge a masterpiece, but I still think it is worth to be seen.

 

This is one of the most interesting auteur films I've seen in the last years from contemporary european cinema.
As usual with auteur cinema this movie is not particularly generous with it intelligibility and requires some commitment from the viewer.
To me it was an unique experience and left lots of things open to interpretation.
The main character guilt was one of the few certainties I came out with.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: MuppetFace on January 12, 2014, 08:19:44 PM
Cache is great, as are most of Michael Haneke's films. The inconclusiveness of it is actually the crux of its entire point and ties directly into his fixation on the perception of "outsiders" (immigrants, lower class, etc.) and other themes he's explored in earlier works like the ambiguity of surveillance footage, the effects of violence, etc. I highly recommend seeing his next film White Ribbon for another even better example of his ambiguity. I think it's a more likable film, personally. If anything it's his most gorgeously shot work.

My favorite though is The Seventh Continent. Unlike Funny Games which I felt to be excessively cruel in a non-justifiable way (his original version, not the US adaptation --- though I suppose it would apply in either sense), there is some truly powerful intensity in Seventh Continent. It made me really uncomfortable, but as a means to an end rather than just an end in itself.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on January 12, 2014, 09:28:51 PM
I've read an interview from Haneke where he clearly states that his Caché is intended to raise questions on the viewer's mind mostly about the subject of guilt and foreign observation and it's not meant to be read in a literal way.
It's congruent with what you say.
I was aware of this when I wrote the above impressions, but I didn't find the way how he tried to convey his ideas in this movie very proficient and I tried to elaborate on that.
The biggest difficulty for me in this film was the fact that all the scenes of the movie are or were real events in the story, there are pratically no sugestive or simbolic imagery here, no apparent second meaning just until that singular ending of the movie where I realise that the inconclusiveness will remain and is probably the whole point.
This is pretty much the only clue of the philosophical nature of the movie, until here all seemed to fit the psychological thriller genre quite well. But as Haneke already said this is no thriller, it's just camuflaged as such.

My problem was misinterpretation due to ignorance, for someone who doesn't know much of his past ouvre, like me, Caché can get quite confusing so I wrote my impressions and rated the movie from this perspective, as if I had seen the movie for the first time and didn't educate myself about Haneke's intent.
I could and may rate it higher if I choose to reflect my improved understanding of the movie instead, but I'll leave as it is for now, until I'm sure that my current view of the movie has really changed for the better... probably after I see more of his works, to better understand him.

I saw The White Ribbon once long time ago, I liked the movie, seemed to me like a very interesting essay on violence and other things.
Same austere cinematic aesthetics, but I liked the black and white picture quite a lot.
I definitelly have an interest to watch more of his ouvre.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on January 13, 2014, 05:37:46 PM
Shadow of a Doubt (1943) - 8

Fine movie from Hitchcock and perfect showcase of the charm and enchantment present in Classic Cinema apparently lost today.
The pub scene, in particular, with Young Charlie and Uncle Charlie and the waitress in the middle really deserves to be seen and lived in all it's Bluray quality splendor, I wish I was there.
Contemporary sensibilities might find the acting very... theatrical, but this was the style of the time and didn't detract from my enjoyment, I was grabbed by the movie from start to finish.
First of several movies from the "Master of Suspense" I'll be watching in the coming times.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Original_Ken on January 14, 2014, 01:45:50 AM
Eraserhead - 10

Go to your basement alone, make sure it's completelly dark and silent then playback this movie and let yourself go.
This is David Lynch cinematic language in all it's surreal and bizarre magnificence.
To me this movie defines a whole new category of it's own.
I know it for a long time but I'm never fully done with it, no matter how many times replayed I cannot free myself from the need to watch Eraserhead again.
No other movie is able to make me feel like I'm daydreaming, as if Lynch had extracted a dream from my head and made it a movie.
Maybe that's why I'm not able to find anything less than perfect with it and to give it a more imparcial score, seems like every single technical aspect of this movie was literally sculpted to it's last detail to induce me into dreaming, everything here works for the experience, perfection of a singular work.
I love this movie fuck all the rest!
I have to entirely agree - this is definitely on my Top 10 list.

I find it scarier than any horror movie - there are nightmare scenes that are so "realistic" (in that convoluted logic that a dream sequence could be such a perfect reproduction of what a dream is like, and thereby be "realistic").

Other films in my Top 10 (actually 12):

Aguirre: Wrath of God (1972, Werner Herzog)
The Wizard of Oz (1939, Victor Fleming)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968, Stanley Kubrick)
Forbidden Planet (1956, Fred M. Wilcox)
The Philadelphia Story (1940, George Cukor)
The Fifth Element (1997, Luc Besson)
Blade Runner (1982, Ridley Scott) [probably the most influential movie of the past three decades]
The Matrix (1999, Wachowski brothers) [best depiction of Eastern philosophy]
Seven Samurai (1954, Akira Kurosawa) [probably the most remade movie of all time]
The Truman Show (1998, Peter Weir) [the most accurate depiction of the future ever]
Monty Python & the Holy Grail (1975, Terry Gilliam) [the most classic comedy film of all time]

it looks like a lot of sci-fi, but that is because that is where you can discuss real philosophy

Personal Favorites:

This Is Spinal Tap (classic satire of rock music world)
Zardoz  (flawed by nutty wardrobe design & intensely philosophical script beyond the average audience member)
Altered States (the most accurate depiction of them)
The 6th Day (perfect demonstration of why cloning or mind copying does not help anyone)
Almost Famous (amazingly biographical for moi)
Scanners ("I have friends - I don't want them, but I have them.")
La Vallee (The Valley Obscured by Clouds)
Pleasantville (Brilliant allegory for the 1960s changes)
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Enter the Dragon
A Clockwork Orange (1971, Stanley Kubrick)
Conan the Barbarian (original 1980s version)
Flash Gordon (1980s version)
Brazil (probably should be in the top list)
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: M3NTAL on January 14, 2014, 03:00:55 AM
Nice list Ken. I'll have to check out a couple of those that I haven't seen.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Original_Ken on January 14, 2014, 03:07:08 AM
Nice list Ken. I'll have to check out a couple of those that I haven't seen.
Okay, just to be clear, the Personal Favorites are ones that appeal to my personal tastes and that I think are excellent in some way, while the Top 12 are ones that are acknowledged as excellent by a more significant group (for example "Aguirre" is also in Roger Ebert's Top 10-20).  But I expect that any one person is going to dislike one/some/all of the Personal Favorites, and one/some of the Top 12... so, maybe check out reviews first. :)
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: M3NTAL on January 14, 2014, 04:08:32 AM
I gathered that. I appreciate your explanations too.  All solid choices for different reasons.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: MuppetFace on January 14, 2014, 04:27:24 AM
I totally second Aguirre. Really an incredible film. The score by Popol Vuh is definitely worth checking out too (as is their Nosferatu score).


Here's my cinematic top 30 in no particular order.

Sansho the Bailiff (Kengi Mizoguchi)
Charulatta (Satyajit Ray)
The Decalogue (Krzysztof Kieslowski)
Wild Strawberries (Ingmar Bergman)
Ordet (Carl Theodor Dreyer)
Stalker (Andrei Tarkovsky)
Night of the Hunter (Charles Laughton)
The Red Desert (Michelangelo Antonioni)
Contempt (Jean Luc Godard)
Satantango (Bela Tarr)
The Weeping Meadow (Theo Angelopoulos)
Sans Soleil (Chris Marker)
The Last Laugh (F. W. Murnau)
Careful (Guy Maddin)
News From Home (Chantal Akerman)
In The Mood For Love (Wong Kar Wai)
Black Cat White Cat (Emir Kusturica)
Stroszek (Werner Herzog)
Mulholland Drive (David Lynch)
Faces (John Casavettes)
Jubilee (Derek Jarman)
Ugetsu (Kenji Mizoguchi)
In a Year With 13 Moons (R.W. Fassbinder)
Tokyo Story (Yasujiro Ozu)
The Color of Pomegranates (Sergei Parajanov)
A Face In The Crowd (Elia Kazan)
Close-Up (Abbas Kiarostami)
The Apu Trilogy (Satyajit Ray)
Viridiana (Luis Bunel)
Cocksucker Blues (Robert Frank)
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Original_Ken on January 14, 2014, 05:04:41 AM
I've seen some of those, and some are films by directors I like (so I will look for those).

I thought I would mention to casual readers of the thread that "Cocksucker Blues" is a documentary of a Rolling Stones tour in the USA in (IIRC) 1972.   It is "fly on the wall" style.   The band know that they are being filmed, but don't care (for multiple reasons).   The result is that you get huge insight into the real life of rock stars, their groupies, their road crew, etc.

The previously mentioned "Almost Famous" is a year 2000 recreation of a rock group touring in the same early 70s time period, and I can personally testify as to the amazing realism of the detail - there are tacky couches that I could swear I have sat on. :)
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on January 14, 2014, 01:50:08 PM
Ugetsu Monogatari is a beautiful movie, I'm interested in more stuff from Mizoguchi since first time I saw it.
I've been hunting for an high quality HD rip of The Red Desert (Antonioni) for ages, but no luck yet...

Today I expect to see Stranger Than Paradise from Jim Jarmusch.

The Seventh Seal - 9,8

I haven't seen an Ingmar Bergman movie in a long time, oh how I missed it!
I highly apprecciate the cinema produced by the swedish director, philosophical themes, poetic and human sensibility, intelligence and captivating characters - on this last point, one of the things I specially like about his cinema is the way how he seemed to give attention to women feelings and thoughts, I feel he knew how to express the feminine psyche like very few others, but I don't know for sure if any woman would agree with me.
This is not so much the case in The Seventh Seal, but one can see here the direction that Bergman wants to follow in several aspects.
I admire this work since the first time I saw it, it always gives me the funny feeling that I'm watching a theatrical play maybe because The Seventh Seal is actually based on a theatrical play written by Bergman himself), it has great poetic and human quality, the whole story is a metaphor for life and focuses on applying an existentialist scrutiny on numerous themes, Death, Faith in God, Destiny and Art itself. It culminates by proposing an optimist view on Art.
Bergman is able to essay about complex philosophical subjects through a poetic and human cinematic language, to me this is what demarks him from other directors. I mean that his flms are intelectual but not cold nor devoid of feeling, emotion or humour.
Bergman Cinema thrives with tenderness.
The Seventh Seal plays with my emotions, it's a bittersweet movie, one of the rare kind that manages to break my heart and break me up (laughing genuinelly).
The obvious technical limitations in it's production can be slightly distracting, that's the only reason why I don't rate it higher, but it doesn't matter, this work transcends the sum of it's parts... cliché statement but it's true for The Seventh Seal IMO.
Beautiful movie from one of the greatest masters of Cinéma d'auteur.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on January 14, 2014, 02:46:15 PM

I find it scarier than any horror movie - there are nightmare scenes that are so "realistic" (in that convoluted logic that a dream sequence could be such a perfect reproduction of what a dream is like, and thereby be "realistic").


I understand what you are saying but I wouldn't use the word realistic in any way to describe the quality of Eraserhead.
I can't say it realistically portrays the messed up logic of my dreams which can be all very different.
What attracts me to it is the surreal aspect itself, it's the way how it seems to transport and immerse me into another different and still coherent reality as if I was dreaming. It's the (almost sensorial) experience itself.
I compared it to dreams just because it's a reminiscent experience, I didn't intend to imply that Eraserhead realistically mimics a dream, nor that this was the intent at all.
I could probably compare it to some drug like experience as well, as if I were high on drugs...
David Lynch cinema is not concern about realism in any way, but I often have the feeling that Lynch likes to play with archetypes or even collective memory.
I usually use the concept of dream to describe the quality of a movie to transport me into it's own universe.
Eraserhead can do it like no other movie with me.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Original_Ken on January 14, 2014, 06:17:37 PM
In my case, it's exactly like some of my dreams.   The scene where he tries to get out the suitcase and it won't come... that seems right out of one of my dreams (although there has never specifically been a suitcase).
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on January 15, 2014, 04:26:23 PM
Memento - 6,5

I watched this movie last night after Stranger than Paradise, but I'll review it first because it's much easier.
Interesting editing work, colored scenes display the plot backwards and monochromatic scenes in normal cronology, in the end we see the middle of the story... I can't see what's so special about this, it wasn't particularly difficult for me to make sense of the story with just 1 view and I didn't find that it added anything apprecciable to the cinematic experience... it merely entertained while it lasted...
The story itself is nothing of the other world and is not very believable.
A man who with anterograde amnesia is wrongly convinced that some guy raped and murdered his wife and spends most of his time hunting for that man, but due to his condition he mostly wanders in the dark and will do some erratic killing here and there and forget about it. The true is that he killed his wife himself and can't remember it.
Now, how exactly has the amnesiac able to survive in such an hostile environment?
How exactly did he arrive at the point he was in the beginning of the story?
There are several characters in the plot whose intentions or motivations lack clarification, not saying it doesn't make any sense but it's easy to see how it was all forced and manipulated to suit the far fetched story.
If this was supposed to be a satirical comedy I could have another apprecciation and maybe rate it higher.
Not being the case I wonder if 6,5 is not to high for what I experienced, I would gladly rate this lower, only reason I don't is because at a purely technical level, particularly the editing work, this is a good... cheating it's way up among the dumb critics I'd say.
If a movie can get so much love and kiss simply due to some unconventional narrative structure or some other purelly technical aspect while neglecting real depth of story, meaning or cinematography then something is awfully wrong.
Guy Pearce acting is another good point as well, the only thing that I found remotely interesting he managed to actually make his unlikely character believable.
As soon as plot is cronologically ordered and the amnesiac condition is understood, it's apparent how basic and shallow this movie really is.
Pathetically overrated IMO, forgetable experiment.

This movie has an educational value about anterograde amnesia, it's worth fot that.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: shipsupt on January 15, 2014, 06:12:50 PM
Memento - 6,5
 cheating it's way up among the dumb critics I'd say.

You're tough KK!  It's been a long time since I've seen this movie, but I recall it being a solid 6, if not a 7. I guess I'm among the dumb critics!  :)p13  I'll have to go back and watch this one again...
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Original_Ken on January 15, 2014, 08:05:09 PM
Memento - 6,5
 cheating it's way up among the dumb critics I'd say.

You're tough KK!  It's been a long time since I've seen this movie, but I recall it being a solid 6, if not a 7. I guess I'm among the dumb critics!  :)p13  I'll have to go back and watch this one again...

He is using the numbering system where "," indicated the start of the fractional portion.

So, I believe his rating is halfway between 6 and 7, which is exactly what you thought.

BTW, I agree entirely with the review.

There is a very big bias amongst movie viewers and critics for movies with a twist "The Sixth Sense", "The Usual Suspects", "Momento", etc.   It's Box Office and Critical Gold if you reveal at the end that something is entirely different than what you thought for 2 hours.  I am not sure why people love that...

Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on January 15, 2014, 11:43:50 PM
I think it's a fair rating.  I am now looking forward to his review of 'Inception'.  If Memento is a 6, Misconception is around a 3 in my book.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on January 16, 2014, 12:00:18 AM
Actually I have already reviewed Inception here, I believe it's in page 11, I gave it an 8 just like The Dark Knight Rises.
I do think that these 2 movies are cinematically much more accomplished than Memento, I'm not talking only about story, I just find that Nolan definitelly grew up and matured in his later works.

I don't find Memento necessarily a bad movie, I can perfectly understand how someone could enjoy and love it, I could rate it maybe 7,5 if I were condescendent and forgive about it's limitations, but I find it so overrated by critics putting it in their "Best off lists" that I don't see the need to be sympathetic.
I didn't enjoy it very much.

Stranger than Paradise, on the other hand, is brilliant in it's minimalism.

Stranger than Paradise - 8

Beautiful minimalist film from Jim Jarmusch, it kind off blew my expectations.
It has a simplistic plot and yet it provides an immensely more gratifying cinematic experience than Memento, no comparison IMO.
All the movie was filmed and edited in minimalistic way, pretty much all the scenes were filmed in single long shots and the transition between them is always filled up by a blackout of few seconds.
What makes this work special to me, is the sensible and insightful way how it manages to express it's mood and atmosphere and transport the viewer into it's own low-key and alienated world through excelent camera work, iconic low-fi Black & White cinematography, intelligent sound work and acting that, while not being particularly accomplished, fitted perfectly well within the film's premisse.
The plot is what can be expected from the 3 main characters, disillusioned youths in their 20's with no major ambitions but still naive and not corrupted by any sense of proportionality of the world they live in. Apparently alienated, they simply try to "live the moment" as long as they have their own destinies in their hands.
The title Stranger than Paradise is a pretty accurate description of the world they find themselves in.
In other words, not much happens, this movie is not going to please anyone looking for lots of action or something cheerfully orchestrated.
It can come accross as a major boredom and uninteresting, totally understandable.
I think this is a great lesson on how to make good cinema in the simplest way possible and with minimal resources.
This is somewhat reminiscent, and probably influenced, by what could be seen in the 60/70's "New Cinema", "Nouvelle Vague", etc, avantgarde movements all around the world.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on January 16, 2014, 12:21:10 AM
Actually I have already reviewed Inception here, I believe it's in page 11, I gave it an 8 just like The Dark Knight Rises.
I do think that these 2 movies are cinematically much more accomplished than Memento, I'm not talking only about story, I just find that Nolan definitelly grew up and matured in his later works.

I read your review of Memento as being largely a critique of the story it seemed to me.  If anything Inception is far more manipulative and contrived w/ an uber gimmicky ending.  No question those later works are more refined productions.  A lot of that is also a result of all the $$ and opportunity that Memento opened up for him.

How would rate the Machinist versus Memento?  Another one of my faves which is similar but different is The Life Before Her Eyes.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on January 16, 2014, 01:09:24 PM
My main issue with Memento is the way how they used a purelly film editing gimmick to forge most of the appeal of the movie and possibly to cover up other limitations from the viewers scrutiny.
They neglected other aspects that contribute for an accomplished cinematic experience, IMO.
It has an interesting story but it's not very well developed, things could had been much more interesting with a more thoughtfull direction.
Inception story is manipulative sure, possibly more than Memento, but I found it more coherently developed even if it has an higher degree of gimmick, this is science fiction anyway.
Bigger production resources contributed for better and more elaborate production of course, but at least they didn't rely on a purelly technical gimmick to forge all the source of interest of the movie, Inception has competent special effects but has a linear narrative structure.
More importantly, the acting direction is fundamental in Nolan movies and I think it's clearly better in Inception and The Dark Knight Rises than Memento, the characters are also more interesting and throughly developed which gives more credibility to the plot.
Between these 3 movies, I find The Dark Knight Rises to be Nolan's best work, but ultimately I find all his movies forgettable, I've been thinking about lowering Inception rating to 7,5 for a while...

Haven't seen the Machinist nor The Life Before Her Eyes unfortunatelly.

A movie which totally relies on reverse chronology is Irréversible, from Gaspar Noé.
It can come accross as a sort of Memento ripoff, it's story is also a rape and revenge tale and it was released 2 years after, but I find it to be cinematically more interesting.
The context of the events is quite different, it deals with controversial themes and can be quite shocking due to it's graphical violence.
Long time since I saw it, can't remember quite well how it worked out for me in the end, but I remember there were some moments of interesting cinematic insight.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: gurubhai on January 16, 2014, 04:42:12 PM
Personally, I think that Nolan as a Director has a rather limited range. He is repetitive with his plot devices and into too much gimmickary like anax mentioned.
I suppose that people are bound to be more tolerant of whichever Nolan movie they saw first and would find that he has nothing new to offer after seeing a couple of his movies.
I rate Memento a bit higher than some of his later works because when it came out it was a genuine novelty, no one else had attempted the non-linear narrative in that manner. Among his movies I like 'Batman Begins' the best and 'Prestige' was okay too, its been all downhill since then.
Didn't care about the TDKR and I actually dozed of for a bit while watching Inception and didn't bother to catch up later.

P.S. Didn't care for the 'Irreversible' either since I can't think of a single reason why that movie should have been narrated in reverse choronology except ofc to copy 'memento'.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on January 16, 2014, 07:47:43 PM
The Ascent - 7,5

Second time I see this film directed by Larisa Sheptiko.
This is possibly the most singular war movie I've ever seen, mostly due to the contrast between the poetic beauty and enchantment it often displays and the cruel and harsh reality of the story.
Action is set during World War 2, a whacked and hungry group of soviet partisans wanders on a white frozen desert somewhere in Belarus. After escaping a german attack they lay down and rest on a forest. Two members of the group leave to search for food trying not to be spotted but end up captured by the germans and then taken to a small village under the enemy control for interrogation purposes and to have their fates sentenced.
This is a very brief resume of the story but this is not the most important aspect of this movie.
Larisa Sheptiko uses all the choreography of events to make her ideological message about Soviet Union come across to the viewer. Unfortunately she takes it a bit too far, up to the point where it does detract from what could had been a true masterpiece of soviet cinema.
The acting, the camera work, the Black & White cinematography and sound work are all fabulous and display the artistic merits of the director but her urge to express the ideological message results in some cheesy scenes that do no good for the cinematic experience, clear overkill, it's a pity.
The cinematography and camera work are jaw dropping, at times giving a surreal atmosphere, almost fairy tale like enchantment (reminds me some of Yuriy Norshteyn's animation work), and at times giving a very raw and dramatic display of the reality, the picture always displays great expressive momentum.
The acting is top noch and the characters have great human depth, which contributes to the emotional and intelectual power of the movie, but sometimes it can look a bit corny.
The Ascent will leave it's mark in the minds of a lot of first time viewers, it has great poetic beauty and enchantment but it depicts a cruel and heartbreaking reality.
Unforgettable dichotomy.

I just wish that Larisa Sheptiko had left the ideological aspirations out of it, or at least tried to make them more subtle or simply lend it a more suggestive nature, the film would benefit with greater reach and more integral cinematic experience.
Not that I have anything agaisnt her stance per se, it's not particularly bothering or uncomfortable to me, but it will inherently deprive the movie from a certain degree of artistic latitude and I did find some of the scenes, particularly towards the end, a bit too melodramatic as a consequence.

 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on January 16, 2014, 09:40:10 PM
Among his movies I like 'Batman Begins' the best and 'Prestige' was okay too, its been all downhill since then.
Didn't care about the TDK and I actually dozed of for a bit while watching Inception and didn't bother to catch up later.

Couldn't agree more on BB and Prestige.  I'll always be thankful to Nolan for saving the franchise from Tim Burton.  Now if he could only save it from Ben AFLAC.  TDKR was awesome to me because I thought introducing the Joker and using Heath Ledger to do it was mission impossible.  Turned out phenomenal. 

The other thing about Inception that drove me bonkers as pretty shit production value was the incessant monotone droning score that often times seemed to overpower the dialogue.  Alright, I get that this is a supposed to be a tense situation, now turn the effing music off, my ears and brain need some rest already or change up the pace a little for the love of all that is holy.

Also, I think you use Leonardo DiCaprio at your own risk.  He needs a strong director to contain him.  I would like to see Inception remade with DiCaprio and Marion Cotillard swapping places.  That would be an immensely more interesting movie to me and play to their acting strengths better giving the movie more balance and depth to match the plot.  I'm sure the odds of the studio box office agreeing to that would have been about zero.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Original_Ken on January 16, 2014, 10:17:10 PM
I'm cautiously optimistic about Nolan's upcoming "Interstellar" mainly because it was written by a Caltech physicist  (I think "Babylon 5" of the 90s was the last scientifically-possible sci-fi...).
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on January 16, 2014, 10:54:28 PM

TDKR was awesome to me because I thought introducing the Joker and using Heath Ledger to do it was mission impossible.  Turned out phenomenal. 


The villain in TDKR was Bane, the big guy with that stupid mask in his face. (I still haven't figured out how he eats but whatever... it's comics so I forgive it lol)
The Joker was in preceding The Dark Knight (2008), I also apprecciated Heath Ledger work here.
Don't remember much else of this movie, long time since I saw it.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on January 16, 2014, 11:18:56 PM
The villain in TDKR was Bane, the big guy with that stupid mask in his face. (I still haven't figured out how he eats but whatever... it's comics so I forgive it lol)
The Joker was in preceding The Dark Knight (2008), I also apprecciated Heath Ledger work here.
Don't remember much else of this movie, long time since I saw it.

Yeah, yeah, durrr...must be the flu medication.  My bad.  I imagine IV, straw or osmosis.  Gas masks in the military actually have little straw/snorkel adapters so you can outlast the gas.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: gurubhai on January 17, 2014, 07:05:01 AM
Ya,I loved TDK for Heath Ledger's portrayal of 'Joker' but I also felt that Nolan missed out on a great opportunity there. The part of Joker was the tough one which he presented brilliantly but the movie on the whole would have been served much better if we had a strong protagonist(Batman) too. There was no Batman-Joker faceoff and the entire movie, joker was one step ahead of the hero.
The biggest let down was the ending where I expected Batman to outwit joker with a cunning plan of his own ( He is supposed to be the only person brilliant enough to do that at least in the comics) but instead the day was saved by the inherent goodness in the hearts of citizens of Gotham.  ::)
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on January 17, 2014, 07:22:51 AM
Yeah, he was too busy getting Rachel BBQ'd.  That movie had a lot of moving parts (Gordo, Dent/Rachel, Rachel/Alfred, Mob, the Dim Sum waiter, the snitch, mass hysteria, etc), I guess I was pleased that it didn't come out worse for it.  But as you say, it was close enough to spot on that getting the DK that extra edge or strategic polish would have taken it to the next level.  Though I don't know how if that would have worked with the trauma of losing Dent and Rachel.  I see the argument for his emotional imbalance thus having to fall back on tech as the only thing he had left he could rely on at that point.  I have to say, the Bruce Wayne portrayed throughout the series has never been much on strategic thinking, but more tactical and full of heart.  Kind of falls in line with his deviation with the League and constant blindness to their tactics.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: shipsupt on January 17, 2014, 08:39:06 AM
Memento - 6,5
 cheating it's way up among the dumb critics I'd say.
You're tough KK!  It's been a long time since I've seen this movie, but I recall it being a solid 6, if not a 7. I guess I'm among the dumb critics!  :)p13  I'll have to go back and watch this one again...

He is using the numbering system where "," indicated the start of the fractional portion.

So, I believe his rating is halfway between 6 and 7, which is exactly what you thought.


Uh, no... I was referring to the part where he says he could rate it lower...
"Not being the case I wonder if 6,5 is not to high for what I experienced, I would gladly rate this lower, only reason I don't is because at a purely technical level, particularly the editing work, this is a good... cheating it's way up among the dumb critics I'd say."
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: gurubhai on January 17, 2014, 08:56:23 AM
Quote from: anaxilus
Yeah, he was too busy getting Rachel BBQ'd.  That movie had a lot of moving parts (Gordo, Dent/Rachel, Rachel/Alfred, Mob, the Dim Sum waiter, the snitch, mass hysteria, etc), I guess I was pleased that it didn't come out worse for it.  But as you say, it was close enough to spot on that getting the DK that extra edge or strategic polish would have taken it to the next level.  Though I don't know how if that would have worked with the trauma of losing Dent and Rachel.  I see the argument for his emotional imbalance thus having to fall back on tech as the only thing he had left he could rely on at that point.  I have to say, the Bruce Wayne portrayed throughout the series has never been much on strategic thinking, but more tactical and full of heart.  Kind of falls in line with his deviation with the League and constant blindness to their tactics.

Ya, I guess I would have preferred if he could have traded some of those moving parts with inter-personal dynamics between Batman and Joker and indeed its a credit to Nolan that it didn't come out worse for it.I think its a very good movie, could have been great though. ;)
Allowing myself to be a little more candid, I would admit that I loved the movie back when it came out but unlike 'BB' which has remained a favorite all these years; this one hasn't quite seemed to age that well for me.



Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: MuppetFace on January 17, 2014, 11:39:47 AM
but instead the day was saved by the inherent goodness in the hearts of citizens of Gotham.

But... that was sort of the whole point? The Joker was trying to prove that any notion of human virtue ultimately falls apart when enough chaos ensues. Batman could have defeated the Joker, sure, but the movie wanted to show his "true defeat" by having his plan fall apart.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: gurubhai on January 17, 2014, 12:59:58 PM
Yes and it would have been the perfect ending had it not been totally against the grain of what had happened earlier in the movie.
During the entire movie upto that point, Joker shows a remarkable understanding of people's psyche and especially of their reactions when confronted with overwhelming fear. He is able to manipulate ganglords,predict Batman's love interest, turn the people against batman, convince Dent to the dark side and suddenly we are supposed to believe that Joker had no concept/grasp of human nature.Dunno, I just found that a bit hard to swallow.



Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on January 17, 2014, 04:31:59 PM
Yes and it would have been the perfect ending had it not been totally against the grain of what had happened earlier in the movie.
During the entire movie upto that point, Joker shows a remarkable understanding of people's psyche and especially of their reactions when confronted with overwhelming fear. He is able to manipulate ganglords,predict Batman's love interest, turn the people against batman, convince Dent to the dark side and suddenly we are supposed to believe that Joker had no concept/grasp of human nature.Dunno, I just found that a bit hard to swallow.

I don't think that last scene shows that at all.  If anything, it showed he was still mostly right.  The beauty of that scene is that most on both boats wanted to hit the trigger, but it was leadership of a few that helped them find the better angels of their nature.  As brilliant as Joker was, he was ultimately arrogant and punch drunk with success.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: gurubhai on January 17, 2014, 05:09:27 PM
^okay, I don't remember this too well and feel free to correct me but I think batman says words to that effect during his final fist fight with joker. I bet that he uttered those words so that the audience can rest easy in the comfort that the Joker was just a deranged psycho and that they can conveniently ignore his disturbing thoughts.
Like you said though, the boat scene itself and the rest of the movie is all about Joker and his triumph. And that brings me back to my original point, that I would have preferred a stronger protagonist to represent the side of 'Good'. Here 'Evil' wins handsdown, despite the attempt to sugar-coat in the end.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on January 17, 2014, 05:29:48 PM
Yeah but it kind of has to setup for the next chapter.  Ultimately Gotham gets let more damaged and vulnerable as the lies and deceit pile on.  Their security at the end is just an illusion.  This is Act 2, the Empire Strikes Back.  Evil has to win to setup the ghey Ewoks.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on January 17, 2014, 05:53:52 PM
Rush - 7,5

Intense and emotional dramatization of one rivalry episode in F1 history.
It's competent, a bit less melodramatism and pointless drag here and there could make it a bit better, but wouldn't expect anything else from a movie aspiring popularity.
It is what it is, OK movie, not much to say...
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Deep Funk on January 17, 2014, 10:33:41 PM
Sword Of The Stranger - 2007

Pretty good anime film, a solid 7.5.

Mum & Dad - 2008

The first so called horror film I watched in ages. Very solid on the whole, 7.

Martyrs - 2008

I was too curious to pass this film up. Excellent film depending on your preferences and horror and graphic violence tolerance, 9.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on January 20, 2014, 06:45:47 PM
Les Diaboliques (1955) - 8

Henri-Georges Clouzot film that inspired Hitchcock to make Psycho.
As a movie intending to play with the viewer's nerves it's a much more accomplished than Psycho and has all the merit in the way it achieves so.
Very sagacious, it never runs into the error of predictability nor does it give too many clues contrary to Psycho, I even felt a guilty pleasure from it's genially diabolical final, lol, it left me with a grin on my face.
It's cinematic style, however, is a bit dated and less fleshed out than the beautiful Psycho, so it has less aesthetic appeal.
If it had the same fleshed out aesthetics as Psycho, it would be perfect.


Psycho (1960) - 8

It is not accomplished like Les Diabolique as an horror movie and to it's detriment is very popular already so has less power of persuasion.
But, it is a more pleasant cinematic experience because it's filmed in a trully wonderfull fashion.
Very fleshed out aesthetics, great photography, beautiful scenes, excelent music score (appart from the awfully excited parts) and all around acting.
The opening scene, for example, from a panoramic view of the city to the picking inside the lovers room through the window, culminating with Marion Crane lying in bed is one of the most beautiful I've ever seen and heard.
I get the feeling that Hitchcock knew how to take shots better than necessarily creating suspense or horror... at least in the few movies I've seen from him, some are filmed like true masterpieces of classic cinema... but all this beauty could prove to be counterproductive on a horror movie, dunno...
In Psycho, Hitchcock wanted to explore the psychological aspect of crimes and I think that Anthony Perkins acting was perfect to give credibility to the movie premisse.
Acting, in general, is pretty good, but once in a while some characters seem to force a certain mood or to give clues in an unnatural way. This is congruent with my acting impressions of most Hitchcock films I've seen, sometimes it's all too much denounced and given away, in my opinion this shouldn't be desirable nor is the best way to create suspense because it just makes the film more predictable.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Maxvla on January 22, 2014, 08:10:14 AM
So I finally just watched Hunger Games: Catching Fire. Been reluctant to watch it after the first one was so bad. I'd rate the first one a 4 at best. I reached near the bottom of my 'to watch' list and this was sitting there waiting for me. Thankfully this one was worlds better than the first. At 2.5 hrs I expected it to drag on forever, but when it reached the end I felt myself asking if it had really gone so fast. While the first one was an insult to the concept, the second took it in a new direction that felt creative and I look forward to the next iteration. I've never seen a sequel completely outclass the original as this one did. I'd rate Catching Fire at least a 7, perhaps 8.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Deep Funk on January 22, 2014, 04:27:14 PM
Did you feel the Hunger Games films were a Battle Royale rip off? I ask, because sometimes Hollywood action films have the A-Team effect on me: unrealistic violence, no blood, annoying soundtrack, protagonist is American and always wins in an overwhelming (and/or absurd) fashion.

Growing up with TV made me very critical of Hollywood and politically correct television. Dutch television programming was pretty weird and non-conventional in the nineties. In the 2000s I stopped watching television.

The Last Samurai - 2003

There is so much to love about this film but the end kills it - A-Team effect. There are more things that can be mentioned. The photography mostly impressed me, a 5. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Maxvla on January 22, 2014, 05:41:32 PM
Yes, the BR rip off killed it for me. HG was a really bad BR. Catching Fire was significantly better, and it is almost like they had to rip off BR just to set the stage for Catching Fire and the following sequels.

Last Samurai is one of my favorites. I don't mind the A-Team ending in this one. I mean... the story is that one survives, it just happens to be the American. The difference here is that if it had been a Japanese that survived, I don't think the ending would have happened at all. His actions at the end didn't fit what a Japanese would do in that time. I loved the ending.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: The Alchemist on January 22, 2014, 07:59:27 PM
A couple of my favorite movies are Donnie Brasco and The Truman Show. Even though the Truman Show was considered a "Comedy" I felt it was more of a drama. I like seeing Jim Carey in a more serious-type role.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyline on January 22, 2014, 08:02:01 PM
I like seeing Jim Carey in a more serious-type role.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

No clue why he doesn't do more like it.  Absolutely brilliant movie.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Deep Funk on January 22, 2014, 10:40:53 PM
"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" is one of the best films I watched. Fascinating and beautiful at the same time. 

Did you hear or read about the leaked Quentin Tarantino script?
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on January 23, 2014, 12:06:43 AM
Down to Earth - 5

1994 film directed by portuguese filmmaker Pedro Costa.
It didn't appear to be as polished as it could be, but it was a very interesting display of the minimalistic cinematic language Pedro Costa will refine in his later works.
Although I didn't like this movie very much, I have to say it has it's legitimate interest and I'll keep my eyes open for more stuff from this unique filmmaker of my country.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Original_Ken on January 23, 2014, 01:19:41 AM
A couple of my favorite movies are Donnie Brasco and The Truman Show. Even though the Truman Show was considered a "Comedy" I felt it was more of a drama. I like seeing Jim Carey in a more serious-type role.
Truman Show mentioned in my Top 12 list at http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,281.msg36455.html#msg36455 .

The film was based on a 1989 J. Michael Stracynski ("Babylon 5") story...
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on January 23, 2014, 10:03:20 PM
Psycho (1960) - 8.5 (revaluation)

Aesthetically it's the most attractive and fleshed out, it has the most contemporaneous style and I admire it's formal beauty and the more natural quality of the acting.


Rear Window (1954) - 8.5

Rear Window is the one that most literally places us in the voyeur position, this is a very present aspect in Hitchcock cinema.
It forces us to think about our relationship with the piece we're watching, smart stuff and the most thrilling of the 3 movies in my experience.


Vertigo (1958) - 9

To me Vertigo is the most fascinating and beautiful cinematic experience, I live this movie more than the other two.
When it ends I feel like I'm waking up from a dream where I experienced something big, beautiful and bittersweet.


3 movies from Hitchcock and all very different.
I liked them all, but Vertigo exerts more atraction on me because it moves me more.
I find it difficult to advance a definitive rating for the 3 movies, I can see fairly well what makes them great and beautiful works of cinema but the slightest flaws or awkwardness are highly distracting... I'm probably not being fair by penalising the ratings because of such, afterall these are movies from the 50/60's, a different and more naive mindset would be more appropriate to fully apprecciate these works... I might revise the rating in the near future...
I feel that Rear Window and Vertigo are a bit long... they have some superfluos scenes that could use a bit of cutting here and there... this is pretty much my only complain...
Soundtracks of Psycho and Vertigo are TO DIE FOR and they're so effective!, Bernard Herrmann was a crucial colaboration that cemented Hitchcock success without a doubt.
I still have to see North by Northwest and some others, but I can say right away that I have become a big admirer of Hitchcock cinema, great artist!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Original_Ken on January 24, 2014, 12:33:16 AM
I still have to see North by Northwest
Don't hesitate - it's a classic !

They did a great job of Digital Restoration on it - the opening city scenes look amazingly realistic, you will think you went back in a time machine.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Panda on January 25, 2014, 02:33:42 AM
Code Geass = Best Anime ever.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: anetode on January 25, 2014, 05:43:52 AM
The Wolf of Wall Street is scary. More like a parody of a black comedy, it is bitterly unfunny in parts. As you watch it you come to the realization that instead of detesting and feeling bad for the psychopathic leads that some people will choose to idolize them, just as they did with previous Scorsese mob scumbags. Halfway through I let go of that concern and settled for a weird maturely formulaic yet childish film.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: fishski13 on January 25, 2014, 06:39:49 AM
i picked up Spartacus the other day.  it's been probably been 20 years since i last watched it.  as good as i remember it.  the Crassus and Antoninus "oyster or snails" scene is classic.

i'm going to order up Ponyo for the kids, and Nausicaa and Metropolis (anime version) for myself tonight.   
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on January 25, 2014, 09:47:19 AM
The Wolf of Wall Street is scary. More like a parody of a black comedy, it is bitterly unfunny in parts. As you watch it you come to the realization that instead of detesting and feeling bad for the psychopathic leads that some people will choose to idolize them, just as they did with previous Scorsese mob scumbags. Halfway through I let go of that concern and settled for a weird maturely formulaic yet childish film.

I think it is perhaps the most base and vulgar Scorsese movie I can recall with very little artistic or cinematic value whatsoever.  The only tolerable aspect is watching Jonah Hill be stupid.  In which case, 'This is the End' is infinitely more rewarding and accomplished than Wolf by a factor of 1000.  Am I also the only one sick of watching DiCaprio be DiCaprio over and over again?
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on January 28, 2014, 11:10:06 PM
Psycho (1960) - 8.5
Rear Window (1954) - 8 (revaluation)
Vertigo (1958) - 9

North by Northwest (1959) - 8

A thriller revolving around a slightly eccentric and innocent advertising executive who is wrongly identified as a government secret agent (among other things throughout the movie) and eventually finds himself in epic imbroglio.
A silly movie, intentionally silly, very well done with a spice of lighthearted comedy with it's proper dose of intelligence.
I like this movie more than I would presume in light of it's apparently lighthearted premisse, mostly due to it's wonderfull cinematography (OH WHY?!! Why didn't Hitchcock shoot Vertigo like this? ARGGHHH!!!) and of course Hitchcock masterfull cinematic skills. At numerous moments of the film, Hitchcock really shows he knows how to move and place the camera like few others, like a genius. The famous cereal crop scene deserves all it's notoriety, I'll never forget it, I can only imagine how off guard people were caught by it when the film was release, fantastically accomplished.
Several others scenes got hardprinted in my memory just as well as Eva Marie Saint soothing eye magnet beauty!
Oh how I would love to be the reckless Roger Thornhill myself!


Don't hesitate - it's a classic !

They did a great job of Digital Restoration on it - the opening city scenes look amazingly realistic, you will think you went back in a time machine.

It has a wonderfull cinematography!
Too bad I got a bluray rip of dubious quality...
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: The Alchemist on January 28, 2014, 11:17:37 PM
The original Dracula with Bela Lugosi

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Bela_Lugosi_as_Dracula%2C_anonymous_photograph_from_1931%2C_Universal_Studios.jpg)
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on January 30, 2014, 07:36:49 PM
3 Women (1977) - 9

Willie, Millie, Pinky.
Willie is asocial and bitter, a misterious woman who runs a bar where Millie and Pinky hang out with cops. She spends most of her time alienated in her intriguing and unsettling mural paintings which seem to fascinate Pinky. Willie is pregnant.
Millie is a fullfilled young woman working at an health spa for the elderly and living in a small apartment rented to Willie. She is extremelly confident of her attractiveness towards men and is strangely outgoing and communicative despite the fact that others severely neglect her.
Pinky resembles a teenager, she displays almost childlike naivety and impulsiveness. Admitted as a new worker in the spa, she develops a very strong affection for Millie as the older employee guides Pinky through her new job. Pinky willingly  becomes Millie's roommate.
The roles and relationships between these three women will undergo a metamorphosis as the events unravel and a final hierarchy will be reached. Reality will change as well, a certain degree of abnormality is visible in human relations. Hilarious, heartbreaking and disturbing social dichotomies coexist with all naturality, things that hardly fit within the frame of a real and concrete world. The absurdist aura omnipresent since the beginning intensifies until the movie truly assumes it's dreamy or surrealist nature that leaves us perplexed in the end. The thing is, the relationship between the three women is the reality of the film.
The naturalist and bleak landscape of a small desert city somewhere in California can either morph into a poetically beautifull window or into a raw and crude stage of a surreal psychological Thriller/Drama of great emotional power.
Top notch (in large part improvised!) interpretations from Shelley Duvall (the director's muse) and Sissy Spacek, as good as the brilliant camera, photography and sound work.
This fascinating and misterious movie was literaly born from a Robert Altman dream and it shows the talent of this great master of cinema.
A beautiful cult film, I think it deserves more attention.
I loved it and highly recommend it!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: shipsupt on January 30, 2014, 08:46:28 PM
The original Dracula with Bela Lugosi

//www.youtube.com/embed/OKRJfIPiJGY?feature=player_detailpage
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on February 04, 2014, 01:53:46 AM
Aliens (1986) - 7,5

It doesn't fascinate me as it did long time ago, a child is easily impressed but won't be so for ever.
Now, seeing it again after so many years in limbo, I'm disillusioned and disappointed by it's obvious cinematc limitations.
Despite all the technical prowess used to erect this movie (special effects), I perceived mostly an amateurish work needy of a lot of polishing all around, especially needy of more intelligent directing and better acting.
James Cameron doesn't know what subtlety is nor does he practise particularly insightful filmmaking, not a guy deserving of my admiration, that's for sure.
He just turned into almost nonsense gun muscle action what should had been a true scify horror masterpiece.
Well Duh!!, yeah I know! Big and twisted expectations tend to result in disappointment... I guess the first Alien movie was better left alone and in peace, at least until a more talented someone else decided to try his/her luck with an unnecessary sequel.... then again James Cameron might have been just the right guy for it...
I have to give him credit for his ability to make a movie that can happen, in other words, it's not boring to watch and manages to immerse and entertain me despite all it's gut-wrenching cinematic limitations. It´s aftermath leaves me with the feeling of having watched something... though much slimmer than the epic extents of Avatar, of which I felt a kind of déjà vu at times...
What really grabbed me through the whole experience was Sigourney Weaver believable performance, good work from this actress here.
An interesting and eye opening aspect of this movie is the depiction of how a woman, practically alone, is able to face the most fearsome and mortal dangers the human race could ever encounter and still display, or rather, being propelled by her maternal and sentient side towards someone else, something worthy of reflection. It's not everyday we see a heroin display the most lovely attributes of women with such power and determination in this sort of movie.
This is probably one of the greatest endorsements of the female being in the history of cinema and deserves it's notoriety just for that. A pity that the rest of the movie didn't keep up with warrant officer Ellen Ripley.

Now I'll have to see the first Alien to come out happy (I hope so) or disillusioned (to be done with it once and for all) from this saga...
Let it be known already that I dislike the 3th and 4th prequels, so I won't be wasting my time with those.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: shipsupt on February 04, 2014, 11:50:29 AM
Lone Survivor - 36.5 out of 43.1

Good movie.  I was happy that I had done my research and reading about the events and persons portrayed to know when things drifted from reality, and make no mistake, this is a Hollywood movie not a documentary.  That said, it appears to offer glimpse into the intensity of the fire fight in spite of not being entirely accurate.  It offers a chance to take a hard reflection into the hard decisions that need to be made in war.  It pays proper respect to the strength and sacrifice of the men involved.


Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on February 04, 2014, 03:17:58 PM
^^ Around 75%?
You force us to do a bit of brain wrecking arithmetic gymnastics.
You're not very generous with your readers. :P

Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: shipsupt on February 04, 2014, 03:32:27 PM
Sorry about that, it's a special scale for reviewers wishing to be a pain in the a$$.   :)p13


I find myself looking forward to the new Captain America and 300: Rise of an Empire!

Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on February 05, 2014, 12:30:09 AM
Repulsion (1965) - 8,5

Carol Ledoux (played by Catherine Deneuve) is a beautiful young woman living in a rented apartment in London with her sister Helen, she works as manicure in a beauty salon.
Carol sometimes displays very bizarre behavior, she ocasionally disconnects from reality around her and has a very shy and laconic way of socializing with others, especially men for whom she seems to nurture physical repulsiveness or sexual repression.
These are some of the faint symptoms of her mental disorder that will get worse once Helen goes with her boyfriend for a trip to Italy leaving Carol alone in London for a few days.
During this period Carol's mental state will progressively deteriorate until the point when she completely looses her lucidity.
The schizophrenic nature of her mental disorder, hallucinations, madness and, possibly, repressed traumas will take over her mind and perception of the world culminating in some tragic and horrendous events in her own apartment.
The movie depicts her mental breakdown from her own perspective putting the viewer in the same distorted reality Carol perceives and lives in.
Psychological Horror/Thriller film from Roman Polanski, potentially unsettling and scary for those who see it for the first time, competent at a technical level, beautiful cinematography, very good acting and directing.
This movie explores the psychological background of murder, just like Hitchcock's Psycho, but Repulsion is much more direct and intense, it takes the perspective of the wicked itself and the traditional roles of oppressor and victim have an interesting twist here.
It managed to lightly scare me 1 or 2 times first time I saw it but what I really apprecciate in this movie is the claustrophobic and schizophrenic experience created by the cinematic style.
Singular cinematic experience, great film!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on February 06, 2014, 01:53:43 AM
Dallas Buyers Club - 8

In a wasteland of opportunity and standardized living, a mere urgent fight for survival can change our lives and lead us to do things we never dreamed of.
This was the case of AIDS patient Ron Woodroof in real life.
In his way he had to deal with homophobic bias, AIDS stigma, opposition from governmental institutions, legal obstacles, personal losses.
A biographical drama that depicts the herculean hurdles he fought which ended up enriching him as a person.
A story of survival and resistance that opens our eyes for some of the menacing quirks of society and capitalism and shows how things can be dealed with from another perspective.
A great lesson.
Impecable acting from Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto which fill this movie with life and authenticity.

 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on February 07, 2014, 10:01:35 PM
Alien (1979) - 9,5

Yep, indeed...
I haven't been this much humiliated by a movie in a long time.
And it's not just great scify horror, in my opinion it's one of the best films ever made.
To me there's just no comparison between Alien and Aliens, the first is a masterpiece and the second an unnecessary sequel.
I like Aliens but I can't leave anymore without Alien.
I'm too lazy to be wordy about a movie that compels me to write pages of dissertation, and I probably wouldn't add anything new to what has already been said.
I just say this: if you love good cinema and you have never seen Alien, or you haven't seen it in a long time and almost forgot it, and you hate/neglect the horror genre because most movies are crap, do yourself a favor and re/watch Alien alone with all your attention.
This classic doesn't get old and is a mandatory watch to any cinephile regardless of being a Scify Horror fan or not.
I'm not a fan but I see Alien itself as the definition.
I love it!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: shipsupt on February 08, 2014, 12:01:37 AM
Robocop - 6.3 out of 18.5

I really wanted a nice no thinking required action packed sci-fi thriller.  This thing just falls down all over the place.  Swing... and a miss!!   It's not horrible, but it's not very good either.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on February 11, 2014, 08:37:14 PM
No Country For Old Men (2007) - 9

This is the Coen brothers at the top of their game, accumulated years of experience from past works culminate in this superb film.
Something akin to a thriller with the contours of a western and everything it inherently brings as thematic substance and plot machinery, all wrapped in a cinematic style marked by sophisticated laconism of expression.
Money, opportunism and maniac whim propel men in this theater of events, the old-timers can nothing but critically contemplate the past, present and future state of a land that is still inhabited and has the stamp of the outlaws, gunfighters and bounty hunters particular ways of living and business affairs.
We contemplate, as well, how the amoral and nihilistic mindset of these men relates to their actions and has consequences in the world around them and in their fates.
Some of the themes essayed in No Contry For Old Men with great aesthetical artistry and sensibility, soberness with delicious moments of dark humor typical of the Coen duo, technically excellent.
Based on a novel from Cormac McCarthy, NCFOM doesn't reach the lenghts of Haneke's Caché in expressive austherity, but nonetheless this is one of the most accomplished and interesting works of contemporary cinema I've seen from the last years... just like Caché despite both being quite different outputs.
A beautiful movie.
I may revise the rating...
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on February 14, 2014, 03:22:51 PM
Breathless (1960) - 8

First feature film of irreverent Godard and one of the seminal works of the Nouvelle Vague movement in France.
In 1960, same year when Hitchcock reached his (and may I say whole Classical Hollywood Cinema) aesthetical apex with Psycho, Breathless was a bold experiment in visual style and editing, it became one of the most influential films ever made.
Quite an interesting exercise to contrast both cinematic paradigmas, Breathless makes Classical Cinema look dated, inflexible and of limited expressive range, Psycho makes most Nouvelle Vague statements look reckless, objectless and a mess all over the place.
Early result of the transgressive and reactionary agenda of the young elites of the 60's which eventually lead to the rise of post-modern paradigma in arts and society.
Being a seminal demonstration of post-modern cinema, Breathless still has a singular and contemporary visual identity.
The mix of existential mindset and humour driving the characters dialogues and actions, in the trivial plot, is the icing on the cake.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: shotgunshane on February 16, 2014, 06:44:55 PM
Dallas Buyers Club - 8

In a wasteland of opportunity and standardized living, a mere urgent fight for survival can change our lives and lead us to do things we never dreamed of.
This was the case of AIDS patient Ron Woodroof in real life.
In his way he had to deal with homophobic bias, AIDS stigma, opposition from governmental institutions, legal obstacles, personal losses.
A biographical drama that depicts the herculean hurdles he fought which ended up enriching him as a person.
A story of survival and resistance that opens our eyes for some of the menacing quirks of society and capitalism and shows how things can be dealed with from another perspective.
A great lesson.
Impecable acting from Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto which fill this movie with life and authenticity.

 

Matthew McConaughey's best acting job hands down. They should be tossing all sorts of awards at him for this role.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on February 18, 2014, 08:56:03 PM
^^  I haven't seen much from 2013, but I wouldn't disagree with you, would say the same for Leto whose work I liked even more.

The Third Man (1949) - 7,5

Carol Reed directed what is considered one of the finest archetypes of film noir.
I have to say, although I can't disagree, that I found the musical score to be one of the most anticlimatic pieces ever performed on a movie.
It is one of the most notable aspects of the movie but it just didn't work with me, very awkward and detracted too much from the experience.
For some reason I couldn't really connect with this movie, I don't think the score is the only thing to blame, but I still can't quite articulate exactly why or what it is... seems like there's some lack of cinematic nuance or stylistic identity, I dunno, it felt flat overall... also something very artificial about the way things develop on the screen, the acting (although generally very good) at moments seemed opaque, very theatrical not subtle, I know this was normal back then, but in Hitchcock movies it never felt so unnatural as in this movie...
A pity because this is an intelligent and complex work with great dialogue and humour, interesting camera work and cinematography (even if I was expecting a bit more quality here, but maybe the bluray rip I downloaded injured the true aspect of the picture...).
I liked specially those moments where Orson Welles showed up, his acting always seems great to me, I like him very much as an actor and director although I still have seen few of his directed movies.
Apparently ambiguous impressions of The Third Man... I wish I could be more clear but this film doesn't compel me to write much either...
The rating I give is not an expression of the imparted entertainment nor the affection I have for this work (low), but as an acknowledgement of it's cinematic and formal qualities.
I suspect it's my own fault I didn't enjoy it more...
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on February 19, 2014, 10:39:28 PM
Nebraska - 8

Simple and competent in execution, dense thematic substance.
To me it was a contemplative and bittersweet experience which made me reflect about several things, mostly about the burden of senility and father-son/son-father relationship.
Stranger Than Paradise from Jim Jarmusch comes to my memory... the slow pace, the black and white cinematography and reminiscent camera work, the mix of comedy with drama in a plot where nothing spectacularly memorable happens no matter the absurdness of the situations the protagonists live through are some of the elements shared by both works, but they are still very different in premisse, substance and qualities. If not for occasional superfluous directing decisions to add comical moments which distracted more than anything else and a few lackluster acting performances, I'd rate Nebraska higher but I can not judge Jarmusch movie the same way, for example.
I enjoyed this Alexander Payne work very much, I wish it was just a bit more polished.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on February 22, 2014, 05:54:47 PM
Yi Yi: A One and a Two (2000) - 9,5

First time I see this work from Edward Yang, one of the leading names of contemporary Cinema of Taiwan, whom I completely ignored until now.
It brought A Separation from Asghar Farhadi back to my memory, another movie which also depicts the everyday hurdles of a family and with reminiscent aesthetics although not as fleshed out and subtle... I felt that movie was trying to achieve something similar but in much lesser scale, and yet it failed to exert in me a positive impression like the charming Yi Yi.
The thing that lacked in the iranian movie was present in the taiwanese in just the right doses to add that touch of nuance so necessary for the authenticity of human relations: affection/tenderness between people of different genders.
You'd think this is a ridiculously basic thing to bi**h about, anyway to me any serious familiar drama must be able to depict the fundamental reason why families are formed: love between different gender people (assuming we're talking about hetero relationships, of course)... this can be shown in all sorts of subtle ways, but it was almost non-existant in A Separation, and at times women seemed to have a sort of manly manner to their way of being... very very weird and of putting to me...
This, among other things, very much limited the power of persuasion and the ability to touch me of the iranian work, I didn't connect, it felt flat and boring... I guess the fact that it was a familiar drama filmed almost as a sort of thriller didn't help... there's nothing thrilling in familiar quotidian life, it's mostly emotional, an aspect where it felt short for me...
All this just to say that contrary to A Separation, Yi Yi is pretty much a perfect family drama, but pointing out this mere evidence (in my eyes) is an insult to the taiwanese work, it's much! more than that.
I see Yi Yi as a bigger, better, easier to live through, a trully satisfying cinematic experience.

Yi Yi is an epic drama story, the focus of attention are the life probations of a family where kids, adults and an old lady are all main characters of life and they go through many eye opening experiences that touch us, amuse us, humiliate us, intrigue us, makes us think... life lessons.
It lasts for 3 hours and although this amount of time actually seems small for the thematic ambition of this work, Edward Yang manages to develop each theme, human relation, challenge with sensibility and intelligence, in a calm and confident pace and leave nothing left to say.
There's indeed no need to say anything more, the premisse is fully fullfilled, by the time the movie ends we are left with the feeling of having watched something as epic, deep and bittersweet as life itself with an extra alluring spell carved by the wonderful cinematic mastery of Yang.
The only thing I'd wish to be changed is the soundtrack, it's a bit too trivial... it almost cheapens the experience for me, but maybe I'm being excessively critical here, probably just a matter of taste, I dunno... fortunatelly it lasts little time and it's easy to forget...
That's the only complain, all other technical aspects are more than good enough, the acting is excelent all around.
What a wonderful movie, I highly recommend it!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on February 24, 2014, 06:44:44 PM
Stalker (1979) - 8,5


First Tarkovsky premiere in my short cinematic vocabulary.
Probably not the most acessible initiation but something tells me that previewing any other films from the russian director wouldn't make Stalker any easier to digest.
It's a difficult movie of very slow pace, sober camera work and a plot device apparently propelled by pure intellectual premisse.
The cinematic aesthetic is distinctively bleak, one of the bleakest I've ever seen, and yet the cinematography has a singular quality that fascinates me.
I look forward to the day Stalker receives Bluray treatment, watching a dubious quality DVD rip on an HD capable screen doesn't work it any favors... this was the main reason why I've been delaying the view of Stalker... and Come And See (this one's rip looks even worse, gah...).
Not easy to fully dissect what a first view unravels but I'll say it seemed to me an essay/allegory about faith, about the eternal search for the Truth and about the way how different thought paradigms deal with the task.
I liked the way how this last point was worked out.
3 characters: "Stalker", the one who guides the other 2 through "The Zone" seems to represent the religious or moral paradigm, the "Writer", the Art paradigm and the "Professor" represents Science. Each character, ie, each paradigm has it's own point of view and it's own reason to search for the Truth, the way how their interaction was developed seemed well judged and congruent to me. At the edge of the room where the Truth is to be finaly consumated, the 3 paradigms start fighting between each other and with their own reasons, naturally no one goes into the room because the Truth can only be aimed at from a distance, we still cannot touch it.
Hard to give a rating here, this is quite different from most cinema, it's a unique language or Tarkovsky simply masters it like no one else.
I feel like it makes no sense to rate it lower than 10, nor higher than 0 depending on the love hate camp we land at... hard for me to see this work in the same scale as most other films, a feeling I share with Eraserhead and The Tree of Life (saw this one a few weeks ago and still haven't decided).
I don't love it (close but not yet) nor hate it, but I highly respect it.
In one hand I enjoyed very much the dreamlike quality of the whole experience, the bleak and surreal atmosphere carved by the singular cinematography and camera work, the very interesting "intellectual plot" (I guess it's more accurate to just describe the whole work as an allegory), the excelent dialogues and something about the "Stalker" character that just doesn't go away from my head, his angular face is quite an unforgeteable view, seriously I can't think of anyone else to play his role (I know it sounds weird...), nice acting.
But on the other hand this film is almost turtuously slow at times, unnecessarily so, a few scenes could had been chopped a bit, but maybe compressing it all to a shorter work would take away some of the immersion factor and post-impression this film produces on it's viewers... I'm still digesting what I saw and I'm gonna lay my eyes on it at least one more time.
I think I will dream with Stalker one day some night...

Rating might get revised as I see more Tarkovsky works.
Solaris is next.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Deep Funk on February 25, 2014, 11:00:05 PM
The Wolf Of Wallstreet (2013) - 7

Today I watched the film in the cinema with a friend. I am not sure if I can give this film any score.

The film reminds me of the shameless eighties films with Rutger Hauer. This films seems to revolve around Leonardo DiCaprio's character and him alone. Leonardo DiCaprio convinces yet I am not sure if he was overacting or rushing everything. I find this film strangely unsatisfying and fascinating at the same time. This film is well produced and well written but something seems missing... 

Edit:a 7, it would be more if it would be less DiCaprio for me.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on February 27, 2014, 03:12:47 PM
Solaris (1972) - 8,5

What a surreal experience, almost like daydreaming!
The slow pace of the movie in certain moments can be a torture but it pays off to see it all, Tarkovsky sculpted a work that slowly modifies and persuades our state of mind and mood culminating in an unforgettable defiance of the logic of reality.
Perfect demonstration that our perception of reality is always relativistic and prone to misinterpretation.
Excelent thematic substance with some common points shared with Stalker (where they are worked more indepth), several philosophical and ethical problems are raised in this film:
Are Science mechanisms enough to extract all the knowledge we need from reality?
How much does subjective experience count into it?
How to deal with a previously existing human replica that appears almost out of nowhere?
What Are we? Do we love real beings or illusions? Among other things...
All this is developed in a plot where Tarkovsky wanted to emphasize the psychological condition of humans in a peculiar reality.
I think this movie like no other is able to remind me about the absurd and preciousness of human experience and consciousness in the universe. Not to say that we are alone as intelligent life form, but what are the chances that we find anything else like us? All other life forms can be so entirely different, we'll eventually be forced to ask ourselves if our definition of "Life" is incomplete or if it makes any sense at all, still an open debate.
The first 30/45 minutes progression was a bit boring, there was something unnatural, off-putting I can hardly identify, maybe I noticed the technical limitations more clearly in that period due to the slow pace. There's something strange about the sound, voices weren't recorded live and seem to be disproportionately louder than most other sounds, sound effects and score can be hardly heard at times... I don't know if this was a result of deliberate choice or just negligence... it distracted quite a bit in the first half of the movie, one of the major factors that augmented the awkwardness I felt, but curiously it seems to have contributed for the quality of the experience on the second half all the way to the end, the peculiar sound work improved the singular quality of Solaris, the same I say for Stalker...
The soundtrack is hauntigly beautiful and melancholic, the cinematography and camera work are unfortunately not as sophisticated as in Stalker, still competent though. The aesthetics of Solaris is therefore less singular, more vulgar and it's a conventional cinematic exercise, there's no intelectual plot here, apparently Stalker was the more ambicious work from Tarkovsky, linguistically speaking, but I've yet to see his other works. Still there is wonderful and evocative imagery to be seen in this scify movie and it has great emotional and intelectual depth, although the acting could be better overall.
I feel this movie is excessively slow at the begining, Tarkovsky seemed to not give a damn about the potentially racking nature of his movies on the viewers, he'll gladly torture us for a long period before gracing us with cinematic generosity towards the end, he's on his right to do whatever he want, it's his contribute to the art of cinema in his own way.
But I can't shake the feeling that the deliberate slow pace of his movies is more harmful than beneficial to the experience, it's very easy to shift attention away from the film and consequently be reminded that I'm just watching it, not living it. The immersion factor, so important to me, is rather delicate in Solaris and Stalker.
If not for this I'd rate his movies higher, I guess it's a simple matter of being in the right mood.
Anyway Solaris is a movie of great poetic beauty and a fascinating philosophical mindtrip that deeply touches our brains and hearts.
I highly recommend it!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on February 28, 2014, 03:15:15 PM
The Exorcist (1973) - 7

First time I see this horror classic.
Didn't impress, technically competent, good acting overall but the directing could be more interesting, could be more polished.
The horror potential I can see in this movie, the prospect of a mother witnessing the perverse transformation of her daughter with the high risk of loosing her, is all there is to it as far as I seriously care. Seems to me The Exorcist has more ability to break my heart than to be spooky just for the sake of it, more of an emotional drama for greater horror effect, a quality I do appreciate, but far from good enough to warrant it's current reputation.
This movie exemplifies very well the reason why I despise the horror genre, it's a challenge to make a frightening movie that is also a good cinematic experience, must stuff in this genre falls short of being a good cinematic experience for me, no matter how disturbing they are, I just can't be take them seriously because they're crap.
And the rare titles that happen to be good works of cinema are not frightening nor disturbing at all, it's hard to come up with something with just the right balance nowadays.
I can't understand how this film acquired the scariest label, much less how it is deemed one of the best ever made.
Maybe the spectrum of the demon or evil spirit does impress and frighten those who have religious beliefs or who actually believe that stuff, go figure...
Cinematically and horrifically it doesn't stand to the praise it has received in my opinion.
I find it a vulgar and somewhat dated work, not a particularly frightening nor interesting experience, overrated.
Technical competence and emotional power are the pluses in my book, as for the rest... meh...
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Deep Funk on March 02, 2014, 10:09:40 AM
KkL10, Mike Oldfield's soundtrack was partly responsible for the classic cult status. In 1973 listening to Tubular Bells in a darkened room and a lit screen showing you the evil side of the occult which is largely taboo does make for more than just watching-a-film experience.

In 1973 this film was a big deal due to its subject matter. You can call this film an occult thriller or a horror film but over the years the film did not age well. Some films sell on shock value and shock value films often do not age very well. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on March 02, 2014, 05:10:10 PM
www.avsforum.com/t/1197724/review-older-films-here-1979-and-earlier/1170#post_24421307
I discussed this movie here, there are a couple of very valid points of view there which I think dissect very well the major appeal of The Exorcist.
I was surprised to find this was the soundtrack of the movie, I didn't care much for it...
I think this was a smartly done movie when it came out but on absolute terms I see little of interest (enjoyable).


Gravity - 9

Gravity is a reference work on the technical aspect gifted with appreciable cinematic sensibility of Alfonso Cuarón.
As good as the best pure entertainment in cinema nowadays, it's a simple movie easily likable for the sheer sensorial experience, but with good conceptual nuance and wittiness.
An engaging, frenetic and thrilling dance in the tremendous abyss of space filled with metaphors and symbolisms for Life (which anyone takes seriously/interprets as judged).
Very good acting from Sandra Bullock, I enjoyed the character development of Ryan, some melodramatic moments seemed superfluous to me and distracted.
I watched in 2D and still felt immersed in the adventure and assimilated the premisses.
I have some doubts about the replay value, after the first view I didn't feel the impetus to re-watch, Gravity entertains while it lasts and it's very clear... maybe too clear, it lacks the mysterious or transcendental factor to addict me, probably it's markedly popular and accessible nature limits it in my eyes...
In any case, I think Gravity will become a classic of contemporary cinema because it's an hallmark of technical mastery and it's "... one hell of a ride" like nothing else.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on March 04, 2014, 12:38:27 AM
Down By Law (1986) - 7

A "neo-Beat noir comedy" by Jarmusch own words, I think it's an accurate description of this movie blessed with fabulous cinematography.
In Down By Law, Jarmusch shifts away from the minimalistic method employed in Stranger Than Paradise seeking to explore new ground of cinematic expression.
Despite some common aspects between both works, Down By Law has a different imprint to it's nature, the plot is given more emphasis, it's a bigger melting pot of ideas with high potential for a conceptually sophisticated and gratifying experience and it has more technical workmanship, especially in the editing department.
The cinematography dressed by German Expressionism is very polished and beautiful, numerous deliciously comical and admirable moments abound, the camera work is, at times, brilliant and even evocative of other films, but in general Down By Law didn't seem a technicaly coherent work, it seemed just an outline of what it could actually come to be in my opinion...
The cinematic heritage of Stranger Than Paradise is obvious: the deliberate choice of Black and White picture, the lame acting, the highlight of the comical side in human relations, the way music is employed... but while some technical aspects made a coherent qualitative shift (I say qualitative not in the sense of "better" but rather "more appropriate"), other aspects didn't follow suit and this distracted me quite a bit.

For example, the lame acting of the main characters which made so much sense in Stranger Than Paradise contrasts sharply with the relatively high level of workmanship of other technical aspects in Down By Law, I feel like it takes away from the potential of this movie.
It basically comes down to the cinematography, editing and camera work, this aspects are so worked out that they sort of enhance the lame nature of the acting in a bad and distracting way, it makes it all look very artificial and inorganic, precisely the opposite of what the low-fi cinematography and minimalistic approach of the previous film did.
It's as if Down By Law's mise en scéne is too good for it's own good, but I'd rather say it's the acting that doesn't fit well with the rest, it gives this movie an almost amateurish quality in my eyes. Roberto Benigni did pretty well in this movie, I'd say perfect, but Tom Waits and John Lurie seemed so dead and out of context in comparison... pretty bad because they're the other two main characters in a character-driven narrative. Seems like Jarmusch didn't care for this or even wanted it... well it didn't work for me, Lurie and specially Waits distracted too much and impoverished the experience.
Stranger Than Paradise works much better because it's simpler and more consistent, it's closer to what I'd call a finished work, it provides a more authentic and immersive experience to me, even though nothing happens... because it makes sense as a whole.
Bottom line being Down By Law is limited by it's own (not that big) complexity which Jim Jarmusch didn't manage as well as the marvelous simplicity of Stranger Than Paradise.
So even though both movies have different premisses, I think it's case to say less is more.

Despite all this I want to say that I like Down By Law very much, it's a beautiful and very funny movie capable of engaging and entertaining me despite all it's technical inconsistencies/awkwardness... then again this might contribute to the charm of the work for other viewers, I guess it depends on perspective...
I might revise the rating in the future since I have somewhat ambiguous feelings towards this work which can either slide for the better or the worst... I'll have to re-watch.
Despite all my qualms, I like this film and recommend it!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on March 06, 2014, 09:36:51 PM
Andrei Rublev (1966) - 9,5

Masterpiece from Tarkovsky.
Period film set in the Middle Age period loosely based on the life of the artist referenced by the title, one of the most important painters to ever live in Russia. This film is dense and quite nuanced, probably unfair for me to describe it's essence in few words because I feel I still haven't dissected all it's substance, I want to see it again soon. Very briefly, it seems an essay about the roles and relationship of Art and Faith in that particular socio-religious construct, about the character of a true artist and it's endurances to remain truthful to oneself no matter what happens in one's life, the implications and symbolisms can be extrapolated to a personal and universal scale. Unlike Solaris and Stalker, Andrei Rublev does never feel like it's dragging it's pace, there's always something happening worthy of attention so, fortunately, no unnecessary torture. Thank to this and the cinematic accomplishment I feel easily emerged in this film, the other 2 are somewaht delicate and fragile in this aspect...

There's just one thing that leaves me cold, I miss some emotional engagement, this aspect very much contributes to the charm and appeal of a work of cinema at least for me. But Tarkovsky works aren't gifted with appreciable degree of sentimentalism (probably judged unnecessary in light of the director premisses) there seems to be a barrier separating the viewer from the characters preventing us from predicting rich/profound emotional cores and relations, his films are relatively cold, emotionally austere and distant holding the viewer in a perspective where it's easier to critically analyse the events than to feel like one is part of that world and is experiencing the human interactions in first hand. The acting is competent but not very deep. Can't really critique but it's very apparent to me in Andrei Rublev, there are several opportunities for potential development of a character or group of characters emotional canvas, but just when this seems to happen or is about to, there's a shift of attention to another subject. Seems like this is inherent to Tarkovsky cinematic language and I noticed this on his previous 2 works as well, not distracting per se, just a particularity of Tarkovksy intelectual stance that affects me in his movies and can either bore or cause fascination or just make me feel emotionally unsatisfied, depending on the movie. Very noticeable when comparing Andrei Rublev and Bergman's The Seventh Seal, a film it shares substantial thematic gist with. Bergman has great generosity of feeling and emotion without becoming cheesy but Tarkovsky in contrast seems distant, almost inert...

This is one of those things that could leave a lot of people bored or unimpressed with Andrei Rublev, but paying attention to the intelectual nuance and great cinematic artistry at display the reward more than overcomes the lack of emotion and fully justifies the movie as it is. This russian director makes very personal cinema, he doesn't flash the juice in our face we have to look for it, otherwise it's hard to figure out what makes his movies singular.

Andrei Rublev is technically impeccable which is amazing considering the difficulty and complexity of moving forward all the logistical resource needed to lift a movie of this scale. Camera and cinematography work are top notch and I already have an idea of Tarkovsky style, the black levels are quite poor but I still like the picture very much, the sound work has the hallmark of Tarkovsky as well, the voices up in the mix to highlight the dialogues a peculiarity that requires just a bit of familiarization, the scenarios are commendable and contribute to the epic scale of the movie. Everything is so well crafted and directed that despite Tarkovsky tendency to put me in a distant and analytical position, I feel engaged in that believable and authentic world as if in a dream.
Without a doubt a major work of cinema.
I love it and highly recommend!

So much that I'm forced to revise some previous ratings in order to better express my subjective feeling towards each movie level of accomplishment.

Revaluations
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) - 9,5
The Seventh Seal (1957) - 9,5
Stalker (1979) - 9
Solaris (1972) - 9
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Deep Funk on March 09, 2014, 07:57:15 AM
Ghost In The Shell (1995) - 9

This film's plot has little to no explanation in the beginning which can be confusing and the story is basically a chase.

Apart from those two points this film proves that superbly done animation, excellent script writing, good voice acting and developed characters can make anime more than just some much appreciated trend.

The directing and editing of scenes in combination with the soundtrack are fantastic. 

The title says it all.

P.S. If the life adaptation is ever made I hope the studio does not Americanise the original story and soundtrack for Western audiences.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on March 09, 2014, 09:28:24 PM
Blue is the Warmest Colour - 5

A story unfolds, nothing happens.
Curiously I didn't notice the 3 hours running by, throughout the movie I felt in constant state of expectation, ie, I expected it to justify itself or at least to show any redeeming cinematic merit at any moment... I didn't see anything.
To me this is soap opera disguised as cinema with explicit sex scenes to spice up things a bit.
The nice cinematography and the good overall acting (not brilliant) are the only things I appreciated.
I think it's overrrated.

 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on March 11, 2014, 06:43:40 PM
Holy Motors (2012) - 7,5

Holy Motors has a main narrative line which becomes more and more apparent as time progresses, this narrative seems to consist in a sort of fantasy drama which is nothing more than a pretext for Leos Carax to freely express his unrestricted cinematic creativity.
This seemed a very interesting concept, a visual and conceptual composition with appreciable poetic value which compelled me to reflect about the craft of Cinema itself. I feel it could had gone much further in aesthetics and cinematography (more exploration, variety and depth) because since there's no need for things to make sense plot-wise and being this work nothing more than a conceptual and visual reverie where each "life" or "staging" of the main character is a world independent from the others with no need for explanation, I can't see the reason to confine it to a linear narrative with monochromatic aesthetics, and even less to make it it's pretext. A movie of such conceptual and allegorical substance doesn't need a linear context, this is limitative by nature. I feel this is what ultimately limits Holy Motors accomplishment in my eyes but it's still a singular experience with wonderful and brilliant moments of great cinema and introspection. References to Vertigo and Eyes without a Face (very funny), among other works, are notorious.
I think it could had been more polished.
Recommended!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on March 13, 2014, 10:10:32 PM
12 Years a Slave - 7

Strangely it was only the most brutal and heart-breaking moments that made up the rare glimpses of excellent or interesting cinematic execution and it seems to me they are the ones which most contribute to the emotional impact of this work. As for the rest, I didn't notice much substance worth retaining, the melodramatism ended up distracting and was counter-productive in the sense that it deprive this work of some power of persuasion. This dramatic language has been used and re-used many times in cinema, to the point where it has become insipid, now it is a glaring artificialism difficult to cover up if the work is not smartly done, the illusion that things flow naturally is to weak to prevail... To me this movie would be more interesting if the sentimentalism and urge to shock weren't so "in your face", or rather, predictable and higher prevalence was given to an analytical perspective. I also think that the contrast between free man and slave could had been more accentuated, I was a bit surprised to see how fast one situation turned into another, I expected more development of the main character as a free man to have time to know him more deeply and emotionally relate, this would had given more impact to the whole experience.
Technically it's excellent and has great emotional impact which aids to the reflection about slavery more throughly, but looking at the cinematic merits, I see little beyond a competent but vulgar film with little appeal to re-watch after the first view... nothing new here. I think the greatest merit of 12 Years a Slave is the emotional impact, which, according to each one's subjectivity, will dictate how accomplished or rewarding the overall experience is and whether or not this movie is elevated to something bigger than what it really is. I found the vulgarity of the cinematic paradigma to degrade the overall impact this movie made upon me. The most brutal scene in this movie (the poor girl is whiped to near-death) is what I'll retain in my memory for a longer time, I think it's a brilliantly made long shot and condenses the essence of this movie pretty well.
OK movie.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kirosia on March 15, 2014, 02:55:43 PM
Not sure if mentioned, but Netflix/El Rey has begun a series based off of the film, From Dusk 'Til Dawn. Well, a remake of sorts. Haven't watched the first episode yet, but reviews are middling. It's only the pilot, and I personally am not expecting too much over the long haul, just decent schlock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjKVOfFovQ8
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on March 16, 2014, 03:51:16 PM
Upstream colour (2013) - 7

Initially puzzling, probably a challenge to guess what is the real plot without a previous preparation, I won't make it easy won't say a thing, the pleasure of this kind of work is to understand and appreciate it the way it is. There is a linear storyline alright, but things are not going to be made particularly obvious in any way. Upstream colour wanders close to the fields of experimental cinema, displays a very promissing cinematic language still in embryonic stage. Technically convoluted, the editing and sound works seem to be mere attempts towards unrealized aesthetic goal but their direction allows to foresee what's coming in the future works of Shane Carruth. American director who reveals interesting cinematic sensibility in some divine shots and scenes of this movie. I hope Carruth keeps learning from the best and worst of his still small ouvre to keep polishing and improving his peculiar language. I highly recommend this movie to those who have a mindset for experimental or unconventional cinema, it might very well become one of the most memorable cinematic experiences of the latest times... not necessarily my case but there's a peculiarity (to me only) in Upstream colour that hinders my ability to imparcially evaluate it, a little confession... to laugh: for a moment I convinced myself that I was in love for the female main character played by Amy Seimetz... or at least I felt that I nurtured feelings for her... don't ask me why (she wasn't a special personality or anything like that), I'm not sure if it was the film persuasion power (don't think so, it's not that accomplished), or if it was just a moment of weakness of mine (seems like it)... Pathetic I know, but the truth is I saw this movie twice to make sure that I got it right and in both views Kris made me feel weak, very weak...
A considerable amount of polishment all around should win Upstream colour at least a nomination for Academy Award for Best Picture and/or Original Screenplay of 2013, but this is probably a long shot.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on March 18, 2014, 06:54:48 PM
American Hustle (2013) - 7,5 (Revaluated to 9,5)

A fiction told in flamboyant scenic style (highly influenced by Scorcese) based on real events. I do appreciate this narrative style but the acting and direction didn't keep up with the aspirations of this work in my opinion. I liked Jennifer Lawrence and always enjoy seeing Robert De Niro playing a badass Gangster, most other characters lacked some authenticity and the dialogues could had been more accomplished (felt like some actors/actresses weren't at ease with the reportedly improvised acting). I couldn't help but notice some rhythmical incoherence or inconsistence throughout this movie, it didn't flow or dance as smoothly as I'd like (and as it was trying to?) mostly due to lack of insight in the editing department and in the way how the narrative is conveyed in tone. American Hustle deserved more technical commitment and clairvoyance from the direction, I think the screenplay is perfect to be explored by this cinematic style. A bit more competence and a modern classic should had been born... for the better or for the worse. I enjoy it as pure entertainment, great soundtrack, exciting and comical moments to be lived... but a few fails as well...
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: DaveBSC on March 22, 2014, 05:22:52 AM
Metropolis (1927) - 9

A fascinating movie. As far as silent films go, they don't get better than this one. As a technical achievement, it was the Matrix and Avatar rolled into one. Nobody made a movie on this scale before Lang. Thanks to the discovery of some lost prints, the movie has been restored to almost all of its original glory. 

(http://capsib.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/metropolis-robot-res.jpg)
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on March 22, 2014, 11:52:15 PM
Thx for reminding me about this classic, have to put my eyes on it.
Can't remember ever seeing this film, shame on me!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on March 23, 2014, 05:47:31 AM
American Hustle (2013) - 7,5

A fiction told in flamboyant scenic style (highly influenced by Scorcese) based on real events. I do appreciate this narrative style but the acting and direction didn't keep up with the aspirations of this work in my opinion. I liked Jennifer Lawrence and always enjoy seeing Robert De Niro playing a badass Gangster, most other characters lacked some authenticity and the dialogues could had been more accomplished (felt like some actors/actresses weren't at ease with the reportedly improvised acting). I couldn't help but notice some rhythmical incoherence or inconsistence thoughout this movie, it didn't flow or dance as smoothly as I'd like (and as it was trying to?) mostly due to lack of insight in the editing department and in the way how the narrative is conveyed in tone. American Hustle deserved more technical commitment and clairvoyance from the direction, I think the screenplay is perfect to be explored by this cinematic style. A bit more competence and a modern classic should had been born... for the better or for the worse. I enjoy it as pure entertainment, great soundtrack, exciting and comical moments to be lived... but a few fails as well...

I'm going to offer a counterpoint to this interpretation here.  I feel based on the Oscar hype you may have been expecting something of a polished Coppola Godfather-esque production here, and I feel this approach would have been completely wrong for it.  The pacing and editing of AH works for me precisely as the main characters, their past, present and futures are inherently broken and the style helps to convey this mood.  Rather than a technical deficiency of production value, I found it a conscious stylistic choice.  Every main character is considerably fractured in their characters due to their historical pasts/experiences and through circumstances they are thrust together into a cinematic vinagrette where oil and water never quite mesh which also helps to convey the complexities of real life where nothing is ever as clean as is often presented in 'good cinema'.  I think this is a triumph of the film.  These are messed up, flawed individuals.  They are not professional members of a La Cosa Nostra culture with practices and traditions set in stone practiced for hundreds of years with the organizational, administrative and financial structure of a Multi-National Corporation.  They are messed up people from diverse backgrounds defined by their own personal histories seeking security from their own bubbles of chaos looking to make their own ways as nature continuously rebalances itself around them in ways they thought they could anticipate, but never possibly could.  Hence the style works for me.

While the acting of Bale, Adams and Cooper aren't offering legendary Thespianship here, the element of campiness helped retain the popcorn movie fun to help break and pace the mood of the movie without becoming too serious for it's own good to the point you end up asking why you even care about these people in the first place.  They were also not stupid/lame enough performances like the cast of Wolf of Wall Street to the point you wished they would all just die halfway through the movie.  For these reasons I give it a 8.5/10.  While low, it was still good enough to be considered one of the 3 best movies to come out of mainstream Hollywood all year (IMHO), sad as that may seem.  It was semi-thought provoking, Amy Adams and JLaw were hot, and it made me chuckle.  Good enough for me.

I'm using a contrast with The GF here not because you did so, but I think it will help to illustrate why AH is an accomplishment worthy of praise rather than being snubbed with mediocrity.  For the same reasons I applaud AH, I would critique the legendary cinematic perfection of The Godfather as antiquated, flawed perfection.  Contrasting the two movie styles reveals to me that AH presents more accurate humans for the audience to relate to while GF presents more robotic caricatures derived from a Verdi opera.  This is a direct result of the directors ability to convey nuanced aspects to each character in such a way that even Coppola could not, or didn't care to.  I mean does anyone really ever give a crap about any GF characters at all except young Vito in GF2 trying to escape Sicily with his life?  I sure didn't.  It's still a 9-9.25/10 for me due to other reasons.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on March 23, 2014, 04:55:19 PM

I feel based on the Oscar hype you may have been expecting something of a polished Coppola Godfather-esque production here, and I feel this approach would have been completely wrong for it.


Nope, not at all.
I see American Hustle has a very different style from Godfather, it doesn't resemble that movie at all for me.
Honestly I was a bit lazy to write more about AH, so my review didn't result in something particularly comprehensive and articulated, I did my best to express the gist of my feeling towards the movie in those few lines, but a lot more could had been said. I don't disagree with most of your view about AH... but let me clarify my stance a bit more:

Names that AH evoked in my mind were Scorcese, Paul Thomas Anderson and maybe Tarantino... to me it felt like Russel was trying to mix the most iconic scenical qualities of these directors to forge a something with a certain musical or dancing quality to it's nature. I see AH as the sort of movie that invites us (the viewers) for a lighthearted dance. By "dance" I mean a gracious and engaging flow of everything that is depicted in the movie - the way how the camera work emphasizes any particular aspect, the way how one scene switches into another, the way how the characters interact, the way how the music aids/evoques a mood, the way how any subject is treated, etc, etc.... Well, I may be a bit too critical here but AH just didn't flow smoothly or coherently enough for me, it's not that I didn't like the style (I love it) or found it inadequate, it just wasn't done well enough in my opinion. I got the feeling that it was still an attempt or a sketch rather than a fully accomplished work. I guess that each person will have a different perception of this... Note that I'm aware of the broken and imperfect lives of the characters you point out in your view, I may agree that the cinematic style congruently conveys this but this is not what I'm refering to...
About the acting, my qualm is not with it's nature per se, I do like the almost exagerated and caricatural ways of the characters it fits well in AH, it's just that I found some of the dialogues lacking more creativity, kind off monotonous at times and this distracted me only because of the contrast it made with the whole movie being so stylish, of course I wouldn't expect shakespearean inspired talk, just more authenticity to it... but there are some brilliant lines as well, it must be said.

I think of AH as an almost great movie. But unfortunately not good enough to transcend it's flaws/limitations and in cases like this I can come across as an hypercritical and bad-mouthing bitch (and I enjoy it!! :)p3). Don't bother trying to make sense from my rambling if you don't understand it at all, Logic has little to do with my aesthetical judgements  :P...
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: DaveBSC on March 23, 2014, 11:07:46 PM
Thx for reminding me about this classic, have to put my eyes on it.
Can't remember ever seeing this film, shame on me!

Now is a good time to see it. The production companies were uncomfortable with a lot of the themes and cut it drastically from its original 153 minutes to under 100, including idiocy like removing Hel because her name sounded like "hell." Seriously? Then there was the re-score with a bunch of '80s pop artists. The less said about that, the better. In 2010 it was restored to almost what it would've been in Berlin theaters in 1927, with the original score and title cards.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on March 23, 2014, 11:16:54 PM
Thief (1981) - 8,5

Very convincing depiction of a crucial moment in the life of a professional thief and organised crime in general. Very intelligent and well polished film, full of socio-cultural and psichological nuances that give it more depth than the apparently trivial plot might suggest. Beautiful neo-noir visuals, great camera work, the soundtrack consists of electronic music created by Tangerine Dream group enhancing the singular identity of this work from Michael Mann. Thief has a sober and very consistent style, a very solid linear progression, there's an apparent mindfullness for the little details and quirks of the major criminal acts (particularly Safe-cracking), I appreciated this aspect and I think it enriches Thief with educational value (not that this should be seen as an incentive to pratice the crimes here depicted, it's just an observation that aids the cinematic quality of this film in my opinion), but, for other viewers, this aspect could be boring and in turn the movie could come across as a bit empty or shallow... not the way I see it. The acting in general is very competent, I think James Cann did an excellent job playing the main character even if at times it didn't feel as natural as it could, but Jessie (played by Tuesday Weld) came across as an overly superficial person, the tears failed to appear in one crucial moment of the film, a bit more depth and accomplishment in her role would really help. Obviously wouldn't expect a woman who accepts an openly assumed criminal and rude man as an husband to be a particularly deep or smart person, but I feel that here was an opportunity to study the psyche of such kind of person more in depth which would contribute even more to the merits of this film and it would be congruent with it's cerebral nature anyway. The acting is pretty much my only qualm (besides some other minor details of no importance) but I feel that the overall quality of this movie is good enough that it transcends it's limitations, so I say without hesitation that I consider Thief to be a classic Crime Film, it's almost perfect, a model or archetype that is worth to be taken as a reference work (now I see where Drive (2011) from Nicolas Winding Refn got some of it's substance). I liked it very much and highly recommend it! Great stuff from Michael Mann! I might revise the rating.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on March 24, 2014, 04:17:23 AM
About the acting, my qualm is not with it's nature per se, I do like the almost exagerated and caricatural ways of the characters it fits well in AH, it's just that I found some of the dialogues lacking more creativity, kind off monotonous at times and this distracted me only because of the contrast it made with the whole movie being so stylish, of course I wouldn't expect shakespearean inspired talk, just more authenticity to it... but there are some brilliant lines as well, it must be said.

I see what your saying and it seems we are largely in agreement.  So the critique was more to do w/ the screenplay/script which I agree with completely.  In fact, one of the best scenes was JLaw kissing Amy Adams in the bathroom which was completely improvised by her and worked out perfectly.  The movie could have used a few more scenes of other actors stepping up like that.

I'll be sure to check out Thief as I love Michael Mann but he's been in a serious dry spell since Miami Vice the movie.  Yes, Refn/Drive is almost a total homage to Michael Mann clear to folks who watched Miami Vice the TV series and the movies Heat and Collateral.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on March 24, 2014, 10:02:04 PM
...this is the last moment I'd want to express this but I have to...

American Hustle (2013) - 7,5

A fiction told in flamboyant scenic style (highly influenced by Scorcese) based on real events. I do appreciate this narrative style but the acting and direction didn't keep up with the aspirations of this work in my opinion. I liked Jennifer Lawrence and always enjoy seeing Robert De Niro playing a badass Gangster, most other characters lacked some authenticity and the dialogues could had been more accomplished (felt like some actors/actresses weren't at ease with the reportedly improvised acting). I couldn't help but notice some rhythmical incoherence or inconsistence throughout this movie, it didn't flow or dance as smoothly as I'd like (and as it was trying to?) mostly due to lack of insight in the editing department and in the way how the narrative is conveyed in tone. American Hustle deserved more technical commitment and clairvoyance from the direction, I think the screenplay is perfect to be explored by this cinematic style. A bit more competence and a modern classic should had been born... for the better or for the worse. I enjoy it as pure entertainment, great soundtrack, exciting and comical moments to be lived... but a few fails as well...

^^^ Crap, that's all crap! I just re-watched American Hustle and now I wonder what the hell was I thinking when I wrote all that Bull***. Any critique I made concern only details of this master work. Hell, I love this movie so inteligent and so well done, it invites us to a wonderfull dance, an amazingly engaging emotional ride, seems like the very first time I saw it there was some Cognitive Dissonance going on or something... I take back all my negative commentaries about the incoherence, editing and tone, this is nothing less than a master work. Classic! Revaluating to 9,5.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on March 25, 2014, 05:26:27 AM
...this is the last moment I'd want to express this but I have to...

Love it!  I just gave you bonus karma for insightful reflection, integrity and brutal unedited honesty on the internet.  The world needs more of this from people.  Kudos, even if you change your mind tomorrow.

This reveals how difficult it is to evaluate films and even harder to recommend titles to people as their tastes, moods and preoccupations can change at a whim, especially when not forced to watch attentively in a theatre.  I try to avoid recommendations for people that I know will be watching at home that are subject to distractions and poor audio/video components.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: DaveBSC on March 25, 2014, 06:34:23 AM
^^^ Crap, that's all crap! I just re-watched American Hustle and now I wonder what the hell was I thinking when I wrote all that Bull***. Any critique I made concern only details of this master work. Hell, I love this movie so inteligent and so well done, it invites us to a wonderfull dance, an amazingly engaging emotional ride, seems like the very first time I saw it there was some Cognitive Dissonance going on or something... I take back all my negative commentaries about the incoherence, editing and tone, this is nothing less than a master work. Classic! Revaluating to 9,5.

It was very good. I'm not sure it matches Goodfellas or Casino when those movies were at their best, but it counters with tighter pacing. Casino in particular really feels as long as it is, whereas American Hustle is over before you know it. Also, as compelling as the characters are, the stakes for them never feel as high. You never really get the sense that anyone is in real danger, even when Bale has the bag over his head. Everything mostly works out for everybody.

Contrast that with Casino, where most of the major characters don't make it out alive.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on March 25, 2014, 08:04:05 AM
You never really get the sense that anyone is in real danger, even when Bale has the bag over his head. Everything mostly works out for everybody.

Contrast that with Casino, where most of the major characters don't make it out alive.

Well I felt sheik scene had some serious bad juju coming and Jlaw's boyfriend was ready to do some cleaning.  I didn't feel they were safe.

Mob characters dying at the end is pretty formulaic compared to the unknown waiting for the AH crew if you ask me.  It also doesn't work out for everybody and the bad guys still win the match even if they lose the game.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on March 25, 2014, 04:07:52 PM

It was very good. I'm not sure it matches Goodfellas or Casino when those movies were at their best, but it counters with tighter pacing. Casino in particular really feels as long as it is, whereas American Hustle is over before you know it. Also, as compelling as the characters are, the stakes for them never feel as high. You never really get the sense that anyone is in real danger, even when Bale has the bag over his head. Everything mostly works out for everybody.

Contrast that with Casino, where most of the major characters don't make it out alive.

I will have to checkout Goodfellas again, but I don't think my appreciation for American Hustle will go down after I acknowledge how much substance it inherited from Scorcese film, AH is a very well crafted sexy and charming movie. The Con artist couple were in a very precarious position in most of the movie, so there was this constant tension present most of the time and I think both characters managed to express it one way or another in particular situations. I experienced a real eminent danger premonition in the scene where the Sheik meets the Gangster, I loved how I could almost literally taste the tension/pressure in the air, the movie is packed with powerfull moments like this despite being of predominantly comical nature.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: DaveBSC on March 25, 2014, 08:41:05 PM
Well I felt sheik scene had some serious bad juju coming and Jlaw's boyfriend was ready to do some cleaning.  I didn't feel they were safe.

Mob characters dying at the end is pretty formulaic compared to the unknown waiting for the AH crew if you ask me.  It also doesn't work out for everybody and the bad guys still win the match even if they lose the game.

That was a great scene, but I didn't feel like if they were found out, that DeNiro was just going to kill them all. It was a really great movie no question, easily one of the best of the year. I'm just not sure that people are going to still be talking about it 30 years from now.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on March 26, 2014, 03:52:12 AM
I'm just not sure that people are going to still be talking about it 30 years from now.

That's how I felt after the first viewing which is why the 8.5.  Though I won't know until I watch it again.  It could end up being better or worse.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on March 26, 2014, 08:15:32 PM
Kumonosu-jō (Throne of Blood) (1957) - 8,5
 
Magical film from Akira Kurosawa. The japanese director made Macbeth, play by Shakespeare, the pseudo-script for this film temporally set in Sengoku period in Japan. Very inspired cinematic glance at the eternal tale about the thirst for power led to the limits of sanity and self-integrity of men. Throne of Blood easily transports me into a dreamlike, haunted world but there are a few dragging moments that distract a bit. The nature of the acting is ludicrously caricatural as was customary in this period, this brought good and bad things to my experience but in the end I always like it because everything has a way to flow coherently in old japanese cinema for which I've been lusting these times. Beautiful film, recommended!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on March 27, 2014, 05:38:59 AM
Kumonosu-jō (Throne of Blood) (1957) - 8,5
 
Magical film from Akira Kurosawa. The japanese director made Macbeth, play by Shakespeare, the pseudo-script for this film temporally set in Sengoku period in Japan. Very inspired cinematic glance at the eternal tale about the thirst for power led to the limits of sanity and self-integrity of men. Throne of Blood easily transports me into a dreamlike, haunted world but there are a few dragging moments that distract a bit. The nature of the acting is ludicrously caricatural as was customary in this period, this brought good and bad things to my experience but in the end I always like it because everything has a way to flow coherently in old japanese cinema for which I've been lusting these times. Beautiful film, recommended!

Oh man, that's possibly my favorite Kurosawa flick.  That last scene with the arrows was just amazing.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on March 27, 2014, 09:36:29 PM
Those were real arrows, the guy had good reason to look scared.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kirosia on March 29, 2014, 03:49:02 PM
Django Unchained/Desolation of Smaug/Lone Ranger/In Fear - Didn't suck. I found them mostly entertaining for what they were, with Django being notable for not boring me like some of Tarantino's other recent work. John Malkovich is good in anything.

I could never get into Pulp Fiction but did like Reservoir Dogs, does that make a bad person?
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Deep Funk on March 29, 2014, 05:01:52 PM
No, there is no accounting for taste.

I consider "Reservoir Dogs" my favourite Tarantino film. Even knowing "Pulp Fiction" is more revolutionary in its own way, the dry and subtle grimness of "Reservoir Dogs" with the tasteful soundtrack just make it more special for me.

"Jackie Brown" was also a very good film. It might be because I grew up with English detectives and Dutch cinema...
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on March 30, 2014, 02:35:58 AM
Noah - 5.5/10

Usually love Aronofsky but this was the Old Testament meets LoTR meets Al Gore.  Apparently the story of Noah is about global warming, carbon capture and veganism.  I had no idea that our canines were the work of the devil.  The perfectly tailored and stitched clothing made from old potato sacks really was a distraction that made no sense.

I wonder if I shouldn't rate it lower....
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: DaveBSC on March 30, 2014, 08:30:07 AM
Django Unchained/Desolation of Smaug/Lone Ranger/In Fear - Didn't suck. I found them mostly entertaining for what they were, with Django being notable for not boring me like some of Tarantino's other recent work. John Malkovich is good in anything.

I could never get into Pulp Fiction but did like Reservoir Dogs, does that make a bad person?

I thought Django was only slightly above average. It's impossible not to compare it with his other "re-imagining" of history - Basterds, and when you do that, Django just pales on every level. Waltz is good in both, but he's better in IB. What really makes IB so fantastic though is the way it builds tension to incredible levels. The movie theater setup is just incredible.

Django never gets anywhere close to that, the story just lurches from A > B > C. DiCaprio is just his usual yelly self, and is in no way believable as a plantation owner. Waltz and Foxx are after some guys and wouldn't you know it, they find them at the first place they look. The entire climax is brought on by Waltz refusing to shake DiCaprio's hand. Seriously? WTF? The "Django learns to read" scene is also absolutely cringe worthy. Jaime Foxx is normally a pretty good actor, but that looked like a high school drama student trying to do a scene where their character can't read.

Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kirosia on March 30, 2014, 02:41:42 PM
I forgot about Inglorious. I also enjoyed it, though I am partial to skinny blondes and watching Nazi's get theirs. True Romance was the best Tarantino film I saw recently. Alas, Christian Slater keeps starring in decent shows that get cancelled prematurely. My Own Worse Enemy was legit.

I agree, Django seemed a fairly formulaic popcorn film. Not particularly memorable, but sooo much better than Grindhouse/Death Proof. Though I didn't grow up with the Grindhouse stuff, so.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on March 30, 2014, 04:24:55 PM
Django is good  popcorn viewing, I enjoyed it for what it was.  My favorite IB scenes were the intro (absolutely classic and timeless), the bar w/ Fassbender, then Watlz making a deal with Pitt.

Hated Grindhouse and I did grow up with that stuff, I just think it missed the mark.  I loved Deathproof though.  If I ever have daughters that will become required viewing for them.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: DaveBSC on March 31, 2014, 05:20:19 AM
Deathproof was pretty enjoyable. Another instance of Tarantino in love with his own dialogue, but the ending more than makes up for it. The Rodriguez Planet Terror movie was horrible.

That bar scene was brilliant. Three glasses. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Deep Funk on March 31, 2014, 09:38:24 AM
Noah - 5.5/10

Usually love Aronofsky but this was the Old Testament meets LoTR meets Al Gore.  Apparently the story of Noah is about global warming, carbon capture and veganism.  I had no idea that our canines were the work of the devil.  The perfectly tailored and stitched clothing made from old potato sacks really was a distraction that made no sense.

I wonder if I shouldn't rate it lower....

The fact that you mention Al Gore is enough to skip the film completely. Years back my school let everyone watch "An Inconvenient Truth" and during it all I was waiting for Al Gore's compelling evidence. Nothing.

At least the director had some nice shots to play with. Actually the shots and angles were the only interesting bit...
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on March 31, 2014, 04:52:23 PM
Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring (2003) - 8

A small lake surrounded by huge hills covered in dense wild forest, on that lake a little one division house rests afloat, this house is a buddhist monastery. Two people inhabit this idyllic landscape secluded from civilization: a man and a little boy child. The man is a monk and the boy child is his young apprentice. We are guided through a life cicle and the handover of buddhist life heritage between generations. It's an almost meditative experience of great enchantment. In the end this film left me with a faint sensation of nostalgia, seems like I experienced something completely forged by some fundamental Truth, it was highly evocative of my most primordial feelings or memories which are buried in the furthest most inacessible corners of my consciousness and so I can't dissect what they really are... I'm citing here an excerpt of another critique which, in my opinion, describes the sort of transcendental quality I see in this work or at least why it has this quality: (note I'm only speaking for myself, by "transcendental" I don't mean anything relating to spiritual paradigma, I mean the ability this film has to be something greater than the sum of it's parts)

"Spare and contained, with a timeless quality that makes it seem less a product of an individual human imagination than a collective memory..."

Collective memory... I couldn't say it better, the cinematic and technical craftsmanship could be a bit more polished but this is still notable work from Kim Ki-duk South Korean director, this man created here a powerful film that could very well catalyse the adoption of the spiritual paradigma in the hearts of the irresolute or in dilema. Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring has great emotional power and children's tale enchantment yet it's not naïve, it's wise, presenting us a contemplative perspective of it's substance grounded on buddhist sapience. I think this is an excellent universal film for both children and adults, regardless of each one's creed. Wonderfull movie, highly recommended!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kirosia on April 01, 2014, 11:43:18 PM
Cloud Atlas/Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones - Didn't suck.

Cloud was very entertaining, though I'm partial to interwoven short stories. Needed more gingers.

Paranormal was better than some of the previous films, if only because it didn't do that stupid "security camera swaying back and forth" sh1t that took up half their runtime. Still similar otherwise.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Deep Funk on April 02, 2014, 10:14:18 PM
I Catch a Terrible Cat (2012) - 9

At the Cinemasia Event in Amsterdam this Japanese film was recommended. It is basically a tragic comedy, with a plot carried over awkward silences and tense situation. Relationships and love are central themes.

The ending is brilliant in its own way. The crucial fourth wall break is so well timed that it acts as a plot twist and a moment of comic relief. A great film with a sharp sense of humour.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on April 05, 2014, 07:31:49 PM
Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) - 8

I saw the Director's Cut version, where Peter Weir eliminated around 7 minutes of play from the original theatrical release. I read several opinions from people who deplored such move because they judged it harmful to the original quality of the movie, I don't know if this is why I failed to connect or to feel engaged in the experience... a shame. Shame because in retrospective I realise that Picnic at Hanging Rock was one of the most enriching cinematic experiences I ever had, I'll explain why in a bit.

Picnic at Hanging Rock reminds me of Caché from Michael Haneke and L'Aventura from Michelangelo Antonioni, 3 films where we are haunted by unsolved mysteries, but each one with a different premiss. The australian film seems to be the one that truly focuses in exploring the emotional and psychological effects that the elements of mystery and the inexplicable have upon the human subject and does it in a very sagacious manner. This movie plays an admittedly manipulative game with the viewer, the less attentive might be led to believe that the depicted events actually happened in real life (like me in the first view). The mystery is about the disappearance of 4 people, 3 young girls and 1 woman, in the whereabouts of a geological formation known as Hanging Rock and the movie depicts, up to a certain point, the efforts that the local community goes through to find the missing ones and the influence the tragedy exerts upon certain characters. But a more careful look reveals that we are in fact observing a work of pure fiction with possibly another layer of meaning underneath the main coating and there are even some prophetic revelations before the impossible disappearance phenomena. Right at the beginning the premiss of this work is conveyed through a voice over citing a beautiful phrase inspired by a poem from Edgar Allan Poe in which the keyword is "Dream", the gist is to make us experiment a surreal universe where the convoluted logic of the reality is reminiscent of dreams with everything it brings as emotional and psychological imprint. This is not done in a literal way à la David Lynch. Instead in a subtly evocative fashion because the bizarreness is not immediately obvious to the viewer, it is suggested and unraveled little by little while the depicted world never departs from its realistic and coherent appearance at the surface even if frustratingly hermetic for those expecting or hoping to see the mystery solved.

Until we arrive at the scene which, in my opinion, is the culmination of Picnic at Hanging Rock, it was this instance that made the "click" in my head where I really understood the premiss of this film - the out of nowhere and unexpected collective hysteria in the dance class demanding explanations to a key piece of the mystery that had been rescued alive but makes no attempt whatsoever to clarify about what happened. Seems like Peter Weir deliberately wanted to repress and frustrate our impetus to know the truth throughout the movie so that he could forge this brilliant scene where, in a way, he gives us what we really want to see after so much ceremony but where at the same time he truly assumes the exploitive and dreamlike nature of this work, it's clear to me because what happens here is highly unlikely in reality so there has to be a second meaning. I loved this cinematic execution because it was something new, I never experienced this before in cinema, at least not in this way so subliminally alluded by the plot itself. In this scene (which has made its way to my favorite scenes list and seems carved out of a Lynch masterpiece) the film becomes self-evident to me - here several key characters of the story are developed in ways that allude to the perspectives (role and intent) of the public (us viewers) and performer (director) through their actions and the way they are treated. This is where the film basically tells us that it is performing a perverse exploitation of our own feelings and attention, so it becomes self-evident. What impresses me is the amount of thought and craft put into it to work so well, it's genius. Perverse exploitation because the film makes it clear that it won't give us any satisfaction, this is a game where the director is in dominant position, it's his film so he dictates the rules. One might think that he "plays dirty" because he's only flirting with us and we remain in the blind (as if tied to a wall from where we cannot move) about the mystery leaving us all the more vexed... or not because it's now obvious that the movie is not at all about what happened to those vanishing girls. The game is practically over now, the film ends shortly after this scene. Not everyone will make the same reading as I do since this film is relatively open to interpretation and those who do might not go well along with this exploitive agenda and think that Weir is being unfair and arrogant, but not really because this movie is actually based on a novel and with such reaction one could fail to notice the extraordinary cinematic feat, in my opinion, from Peter Weir. I can't help but grin every time I watch this scene, it's so revealing and even hilarious that I can only contemplate in wonder.

There's one or two sub-plots whose significance or symbolism I don't feel comfortable discussing yet, but I believe all of it serves to support (or possibly illustrate) the movie's main perverse agenda. This movie has substantial thematic depth, nature is portrayed as an hermetic and potentially dangerous world to Men, the Hanging Rock, one of the main characters of the movie, is often presented in a sinister and haunting tone, animals are constant appearances even in the most improbable places and yet they are as much strange and oblivious to us as we are to them, plants can move, etc... It's apparent that the intent is to show nature as a world impossible to understand, not governed by the same rules as those of the world which humans have built for themselves to evoke the fear of the unknown and incomprehensible, specially around Hanging Rock. Maybe it could be said that Picnic at Hanging Rock is a Psychological Horror movie, and there are indeed a few creepy and disturbing moments, it has elements of Drama, Mystery and Horror. In my opinion, it's above all a self-evident manipulative endeavour intending to engulf us in a pseudo-dreamlike experience and doesn't reduce itself to any particular genre.

So why didn't I feel engaged in this movie? If I see it again (I saw it 2 times before writing these impression) maybe it will have a better grip on me but I doubt... It wasn't the pseudo-dreamlike experience it was supposed to be, I didn't find it boring to watch but I didn't enjoy it either... I think my main issue is with the overall style of the movie and lack of polishment in some acting subjects, it seriously distracts me sometimes. I never manage to extract anything appreciable, or beautiful, or interesting while I watch it (except for that brilliant scene and a few creepier moments), I've seen a lot of praise for the cinematography but I honestly didn't care. The notable soundtrack works to build the singular feel of the movie as much as it does to enervate and distract me often. I will certainly give it another go and try to tune into it, there's a lot to love and admire here and I want to have the complete package by fully engaging in the experience, but I will also search for the theatrical version which many say it's better.

Picnic at Hanging Rock is a singular work where Peter Weir performs, in my opinion, a sagacious exploitation of the viewer and for that I admire him. The merit is not all his alone though, this film is based on a novel of the same name authored by Joan Lindsay. This was such an enriching experience that I have included the book in my wishlist, it's the first movie ever to spice my interest for its source literature. I'm taking my chances with this novel hoping to get from literature what I got from this brilliant work of cinema. Picnic at Hanging Rock is mandatory watch for any cinephile!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on April 08, 2014, 03:08:51 PM
There Will Be Blood (2007) - 8

This film is largely enriched by the charismatic and distorted personality of the main character, but I feel it's a very big stage for just one man like Plainview. I felt lack of justification for his ways. I didn't see character development as much as I saw portrayal, sometimes almost sensationalistic, of a caricature. It leaves me wanting for something more fulfilling even if I try to appreciate it as is. Plainview didn't fill his stage as sapiently as Charles Foster Kane filled his, in my opinion. But maybe it's not fair to evaluate There Will Be Blood in such manner, there are other qualities in this work. The acting is pretty good all around, especially Daniel Day-Lewis who plays the oblique main character. I'd say There Will Be Blood could be seen as an allegory for the conflict between Capitalism and Morality on both personal and social levels. Fortunately, this is a very pleasing movie to watch, beautiful cinematography, fantastic camera work, singular soundtrack by Jonny Greenwood (although a few weird moments). I enjoyed this movie very much but I feel it could be more... sapient. I admire this work mostly for the aesthetical accomplishment.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on April 11, 2014, 05:20:21 PM
Kagemusha (1980) - 7,5

In the Sengoku period of Japan, Takeda Shingen, notable warlord and leader of the Takeda clan, is fatally injured in the battlefield, dying a few days later. Just before his death, the leader reunites with the hard core of the clan and whims that the news of the tragedy remain in secrecy from everything and everyone, even from all other soldiers and employees of his clan, for at least 3 years. They resort to a double of Shingen, a thief, to forge the illusion that the leader is still among them. To impersonate the great warrior is the mission at hand for the thief, a man spared from crucifixion and whose real identity is never known. With such honorable burden as the sole purpose of his life the thief will be carried away by the role and, eventually, share the same tragic fate as the great leader himself, even when it is not required from him anymore. He becomes the shadow of the warrior.

Fine work from actor Tatsuya Nakadai in this heartbreaking film where Akira Kurosawa casts a sensitive look at the interplay of impersonation, identity, status and loyalty. Sober and clean cinematic style with fits of grandiosity in the battle scenes following the trend of the late 70s and 80s to impart an epic tone to warfare. This latter aspect is, ultimately, the source of my problem with this movie - it was all going well until the last 20 minutes or so, where the massacre in the battle of Nagashino drags way too much... what for, I ask? I suppose Kurosawa was trying to convey a tangible sense of epicness here, but he ought to know when enough is enough. It harmed the pace of the movie and distracted me very much, some significant editing work would do wonders, in my opinion. It just didn't seem like a wise effort at all, oh well, I guess the Japanese director was rehearsing for what he would do latter in Ran. I also wish the soundtrack had less Western influenced Classical music and more proper Japanese, it would be more fitting I think. If not for this my overall experience would be much better, but Kagemusha is still a beautiful film worth to see, it has moments of great emotional power, nice humour and some scenes are simply perfect and cast great enchantment on us. This is also a must watch for those who crave for Japanese Classical theater, particularly the Noh (aka Nôgaku) form, I can't get enough of it, love it! Recommended!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on April 13, 2014, 06:59:10 PM
Tabu (2012) - 8

How to say ... two stories? Or a monumentally long prelude before the story? Regardless of perspective, I think there's good reason for us to dwell so much time in the quotidian of three ladies, to know Aurora. To know one of the links that connect the two halves of the narrative (or anti-narrative), this senile and insecure woman, prone to fits of delirium and eccentricity who has, as a vestige of past times, a black maid, Santa, that somehow manages to put up with Aurora. Maybe Santa puts up with Aurora because she feels for her a much higher degree of compassion than we do. But old age eventually reclaims Aurora's life, and so appears Gian-Luca Ventura, the other link, to chronicle the Paradise. The memoir of a sad love story, visceral, reckless and adventurous love between Aurora and Ventura held decades ago in the bleak landscape of a former Portuguese colony in Africa. A love story that, by its sheer turmoil, had the unfortunate consequence of triggering the Portuguese Colonial War. Paradise lends another depth and colour to Aurora's character and, in the end, it's impossible not to have the slightest compassion for her.

The slowness and monotony of the first half might discourage the least patient, but it pays off to endure to the end with Tabu. Miguel Gomes, Portuguese filmmaker, forged a movie gifted with cinematic beauty as ravishing as the love story itself, the clean, modern and direct nature of Paradise Lost contrasts with the dreamlike and nostalgic enchantment of Paradise, as if those were two completely different worlds (or films). The reward is immense both for the strokes of cinematic genius revealed by Miguel Gomes and for the feeling of having contemplated, over a lifetime, the memory or dream of someone. Amidst all this, the significance of Pilar's role, the other main character of Paradise Lost, becomes incognito to me. The prominent attention given to her persona seems inconsequent, all in all, she is little more than a spectator, just like us ... maybe the director actually wanted to allude us through Pilar, an intriguing reading which boosts even more my impetus to re-watch this film. This is a singular work in the context of Contemporary Cinema which pays tribute to the old B&W Classic Cinema. Wonderful art house film, highly recommended!

Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on April 15, 2014, 06:33:49 PM
L.A. Confidential (1997) - 8,5

Thrilling, funny, intelligent, powerful and a feast to the eyes, I only have praise to shout about the movie's ability to entertain. Haven't seen such an accomplished cop thriller in a long time, I'd say that in L.A. Confidential the formula was polished to near perfection. Money, corruption, personal interests, crime, moral struggles, sex, media, public opinion and even Hollywood, many of the traditional ingredients of the genre are explored, albeit vulgarly, in a sapiently dense script. This movie overflows with contagious charm stemming from the mixture of typical Hollywood narrative profile, well acted characters, wonderful cinematography that flirts neo-noir visual, scenic style reminiscent of David O. Russel and Scorcese, soundtrack that couldn't possibly complement the pictures in motion any better and a captivating plot with the necessary twists. Although there's nothing really new here, the cinematic accomplishment of this movie never fails to keep me engaged in the story, either at the edge of my seat or in indulgent contemplation. All in all, everything very well crafted in a movie that rides us through unexpected ordeals against organised crime in the City of Angels. Directed by Curtis Hanson, L.A. Confidential is the ideal popcorn movie for me, entertains like few others, nothing distracts from the experience, it's accessible yet smart ... and has a very happy ending so it doesn't hurt anyone's feelings (just in case...). Jokes aside, top-notch entertainment hands in hands with fine cinematic craft cannot go wrong. I enjoyed Kevin Spacey very much, such a great talented actor playing Jack Vincennes with humor and charm to spare. Great stuff, recommended!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on April 17, 2014, 07:57:06 PM
The Informer (1935) - 8,5

After many years I finally re-watch one of my most cherished films while I was studying in university and I'm happy to see it didn't lose any appeal. The plot takes us back to the backstage of Irish War of Independence pitting the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against the authorities of the United Kingdom around 1922. Gypo Nolan is the star of the show, expelled from IRA, he informs the enemy forces about the whereabouts of his friend and former IRA comrade, Frankie McPhillip, in exchange for a monetary reward. McPhillip is killed by the British as a result. Following Nolan after he committed an act of treason, this film is a powerful illustration of the devastating effects that the overwhelming feeling of guilt can stir on a man and it's particularly interesting to see it on a character like Gypo Nolan. A man endowed with imposing physique and superlative strength made all the more intimidating (but also potentially pathetic) by his strange naiveness and volatile temper. I very much enjoy the more or less accomplished interpretation that Victor McLaglen carves of this crude character who ostensibly resorts to alcohol to relieve the weight on his shoulders, he displays good range and even becomes the epicenter of some pretty hilarious situations I can hardly resist. The Informer is a balancing act between sin and redemption, love and patriotism.

Seen through today's eyes, the plot might seem slightly naive, but I am easily taken away by this film because it thrives with that sort of enchantment I worship in Classic B&W Cinema and it is a very well crafted work all around. The Informer was directed by John Ford and it demonstrates just how much cinematic and technical skill this North-American filmmaker possessed with black-and-white pictures, the cinematography and camera work are beautiful and highly expressive, the fog in the outer night scenery adds a layer of surreal claustrophobia to the atmosphere further reinforcing the perception that Nolan is living through a tenebrous situation, there are numerous memorable scenes and images where the contrast between light and dark reveals obvious influence of German Expressionism, the perfect chemistry between moving picture and music effectively builds up the movie's tone and emotional charge. The theatrical and exaggerated acting, typical of this time, fits perfectly in the fabric of this work and is very catchy. Moments of drama, action, romance and even comedy alternate fluently under the insightful conduct of Ford, never hindering the pace. In short, this is a very complete and coherent film where little or nothing distracts me from the wonderful cinematic experience at hand, one of my favorite movies from the 30s, though I still have much to see. The current silence and neglect around this John Ford masterpiece is disgraceful, it deserves much more attention in my opinion. I love it, highly recommended!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on April 23, 2014, 10:47:04 AM
Close-up (1990) - 8

Hossain Sabzian is a poor man indistinguishable from any other individual crossing the same streets he crosses, but he is a cinema lover. In a twist of fate he is approached by lady Ahankhah, on a bus, regarding the book he holds in his hands, The Cyclist, and Sabzian tells her that he is the author of the novel and of the movie of the same name. And so began the whimsical artifice that led this man to assume the identity of his idolized filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf and to make the house of the Ahankhah family his chosen pseudo-shooting location for a few weeks. Eventually his deceptive agenda is discovered, Sabzian is arrested by the authorities and in the following trial he has to justify his actions to the Ahankhah family and the judge. By staging and monitoring in real time this weird story with the real people involved, Abbas Kiarostami proposes us a reflection on the distinction between reality and fiction, between the true identity of a person and the mere representation of a role.

It's not easy to understand how striking this film really is without seeing it with our own eyes, there's no actors here, all the people we see are the real people involved in the staged (and non-staged) case, they represent themselves. The barrier that separates reality from fiction is smeared to the limit and while watching Close-up, one has the feeling of witnessing the real events as they happen which endows this work with another vitality of persuasion and expression. The lengthy trial is particularly striking to watch because that's real, not staged, and the way that Kiarostami outlines Sabzian argumentation to make his own message come across to us is brilliant. Given its legal and argumentative mechanics, the judgment scene evokes a reflection on the legitimacy and meaning, not only about what Sabzian made​​, but also about the role of art in people's lives.

Close-up is a fine example of what's called Docufiction, maybe the best I've ever seen because watching the film for the first time without the least idea of what it is, I was so engrossed in its ruse that in the end I was asking myself, perplexed, if what I just saw was real or not. This is one of those films that haunt me long days after the screening as much for its cinematographic cunning as for what it makes me think. In addition to the reflection it compels, this intelligent work from Kiarostami also shows that Cinema, ironically or not, can turn dreams into reality, or on the contrary, turn reality into a dream or a film when looked from another perspective. Despite the conceptual genius, Close-up is no eye candy, no significant aesthetical appeal to redeem itself, it is worth for the accomplishment as a docufiction experience. I appreciate the concept and I admire and respect this work for that, I think this is a reference work. I think Close-up is mandatory watch for any cinephile!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on April 23, 2014, 01:27:42 PM
Ran (1985) - 9

Once again Akira Kurosawa adapts a Shakespeare tragedy, King Lear, to the Sengoku period of Japan. Just like Throne of Blood, Ran easily engulfs me in a magical world of great enchantment, but this is a chaotic and cruel world. A world made of suffering where gods will not save Men from himself and where the thirst for power is the mirror of the natural struggle for survival, ethics and morality are subdued by the samurai conduct and interests of the powerful. Film of great symbolic significance, to watch Ran is like watching an epic and blazing Noh (form of Japanese classical theater) performance that reveals the true gist of human nature and existence. Tecnically superb work with countless memorable scenes, hauntingly beautiful soundtrack by Toru Takemitsu (whose work I highly appreciate), top-notch cinematography, camera work and acting, all in perfect harmony to create a deeply melancholic, beautiful and exciting universe. Ran is not without its shortcomings though. I may speak for a minority, but this would be a virtually perfect film in my eyes, if not for Kurosawa's maniac obsession with redundant battle scenes, especially in the last half hour or so (yet again, for what?!), some dragging moments ought to be chopped out with more insightful editing work to keep up with the standards of the rest of the film, enough is enough. And hard for me to believe that no life was lost during those crazy shoots. Fortunately, these distractions are relatively minor here, not as bad as in Kagemusha, so it doesn't prevent Ran from becoming one of my favorite movies ever. The heartbreaking final scene also enters into my favorite list, perfect expression of how helpless we are in the world. Masterpiece from Kurosawa, highly recommended!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Deep Funk on April 23, 2014, 10:04:06 PM
Ran (1985) - 9

Once again Akira Kurosawa adapts a Shakespeare tragedy, King Lear, to the Sengoku period of Japan. Just like Throne of Blood, Ran easily engulfs me in a magical world of great enchantment, but this is a chaotic and cruel world. A world made of suffering where gods will not save Men from himself and where the thirst for power is the mirror of the natural struggle for survival, ethics and morality are subdued by the samurai conduct and interests of the powerful. Film of great symbolic significance, to watch Ran is like watching an epic and blazing Noh (form of Japanese classical theater) performance that reveals the true gist of human nature and existence. Tecnically superb work with countless memorable scenes, hauntingly beautiful soundtrack by Toru Takemitsu (whose work I highly appreciate), top-notch cinematography, camera work and acting, all in perfect harmony to create a deeply melancholic, beautiful and exciting universe. Ran is not without its shortcomings though. I may speak for a minority, but this would be a virtually perfect film in my eyes, if not for Kurosawa's maniac obsession with redundant battle scenes, especially in the last half hour or so (yet again, for what?!), some dragging moments ought to be chopped out with more insightful editing work to keep up with the standards of the rest of the film, enough is enough. And hard for me to believe that no life was lost during those crazy shoots. Fortunately, these distractions are relatively minor here, not as bad as in Kagemusha, so it doesn't prevent Ran from becoming one of my favorite movies ever. The heartbreaking final scene also enters into my favorite list, perfect expression of how helpless we are in the world. Masterpiece from Kurosawa, highly recommended!

I fully agree. One of the best films I ever watched. I also agree with the rating, mostly due to the cultural factor of the setting of the story. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on April 24, 2014, 02:29:40 PM
The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) - 7,5

This is my premiere of Wes Anderson Cinema, a comedy-drama revolving around the Tenenbaum family. This director exerts an unmistakable cinematic style and reveals great attention to detail in all aspects that might influence the mise-en-scene and the expressive quality of the movie, scenery, sound, camera and editing work, cinematography, soundtrack, costumes and even the acting are all conditioned by the formal etiquette of the direction, technical virtuosity serving a somewhat baroque aesthetical sensibility that might not be to everyone's taste. Manneristic Cinema is how the work of this American director has been described. I find it a very appealing style and I think it has great potential to be interestingly developed in future works. Very funny and interesting the way that Wes carves his characters, not being exactly caricatures they have somewhat restricted behavioral patterns and eccentricity, yet they display a certain degree of complexity and this brings out psychological and emotional nuances that escape perception in many other films, but enhance the dramatic and comic effect of Wes Cinema. Artificial or not, the characters make perfect sense the way they are, that's the way they have to be. This film genre is not usually very interesting to me, but Wes Anderson stylized and bittersweet comedy offered me moments of pleasure and was music for my eyes (and ears), the only thing that I didn't care for was the story itself, Wes style and writing works very well to develop these humorous family tales, but it still seemed redundant to me, perhaps a good platform of cinematic experimentation for those starting out. The Royal Tenenbaums is worth a watch for those who enjoy these witty and tender comedies, Wes style fits like a glove in this genre and enriches it with a different cinematic quality.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyline on April 24, 2014, 04:35:00 PM
The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) - 7,5

This is my premiere of Wes Anderson Cinema, a comedy-drama revolving around the Tenenbaum family. This director exerts an unmistakable cinematic style and reveals great attention to detail in all aspects that might influence the mise-en-scene and the expressive quality of the movie, scenery, sound, camera and editing work, cinematography, soundtrack, costumes and even the acting are all conditioned by the formal etiquette of the direction, technical virtuosity serving a somewhat baroque aesthetical sensibility that might not be to everyone's taste. Manneristic Cinema is how the work of this American director has been described. I find it a very appealing style and I think it has great potential to be interestingly developed in future works. Very funny and interesting the way that Wes carves his characters, not being exactly caricatures they have somewhat restricted behavioral patterns and eccentricity, yet they display a certain degree of complexity and this brings out psychological and emotional nuances that escape perception in many other films, but enhance the dramatic and comic effect of Wes Cinema. Artificial or not, the characters make perfect sense the way they are, that's the way they have to be. This film genre is not usually very interesting to me, but Wes Anderson stylized and bittersweet comedy offered me moments of pleasure and was music for my eyes (and ears), the only thing that I didn't care for was the story itself, Wes style and writing works very well to develop these humorous family tales, but it still seemed redundant to me, perhaps a good platform of cinematic experimentation for those starting out. The Royal Tenenbaums is worth a watch for those who enjoy these witty and tender comedies, Wes style fits like a glove in this genre and enriches it with a different cinematic quality.

Wes Anderson is far and away my favorite current director.

It's not even close.

I'd recommend starting with Bottle Rocket and working your way through his entire catalog.  It's fascinating to see the progression...
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on April 24, 2014, 09:05:15 PM
I'll be checking out more stuff from Wes in the coming days or weeks, but I have so many things in my watchlist that I can't see his entire ouvre, I'm aiming for his most notable stuff plus whatever looks interesting to me. He certainly has a very appealing style.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyline on April 25, 2014, 12:20:20 PM
I'll be checking out more stuff from Wes in the coming days or weeks, but I have so many things in my watchlist that I can't see his entire ouvre, I'm aiming for his most notable stuff plus whatever looks interesting to me. He certainly has a very appealing style.
In addition to what you've seen, I'd probably put Rushmore and Moonrise Kingdom as my other two favorites.

He also has his stop-motion film: Fantastic Mr. Fox.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on April 26, 2014, 12:10:38 AM
The Wicker Man (1973) - 6

Horror film directed by the British Robin Hardy. Interesting screenplay, but unrealized by a direction that left much to be desired, in my opinion. Not wanting to sound rude, this seemed like an amateur directorial work, this an insipid film, not capable of inspiring any reaction, feeling or mood in me, except when, inadvertently, it seems to mock itself, i.e., indulging in its own cinematic limitations and banality, in these cases it either amuses or unnerves me. The only positive things I could extract from here (besides the promising screenplay) were the female beauties, one or two wonderful folk songs and some comical moments (I'm not sure they were supposed to be so). The typical mediocre movie that never takes itself seriously and I usually try to avoid, but I understand why it has acquired the cult status. Major disappointment, to oblivion.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on April 27, 2014, 07:39:27 PM
The Wolf of Wall Street - 8

Scorcese casts a satirical look at the adventures and misadventures of Jordan Belfort as soon as he becomes a stockbroker at Wall Street stock market. Debauchery and corruption, irreverently portrayed in this movie, were commonplace elements in the real life of this man while he conned his way into fortune. I haven't seen a Scorcese film in a long time, and yet The Wolf of Wall Street turned up to match exactly the only expectation I had - a movie that entertains and engages effortlessly by way of the trademark cinematic quality and vitality of Scorcese, but also seems to be a residuum of redundancy since, in many ways, this is a similar work to past outputs like Goodfellas, for example. Was there any need to make a movie with such potentially contemptuous portray of debauchery? Maybe Scorcese thought so because otherwise it would be much more difficult to deviate the viewer's attention away from the fact that this is just more of the same. The same narrative concept, the same energy and aesthetics while we follow the rise and fall of the main characters (or group of main characters) connected to a criminal activity, the only differences are the thematic context and tone. The truth is, so much debauchery makes the movie a bit too long and slightly boring. What's so interesting about it?

But redundant or not, The Wolf of Wall Street is one more example of Scorcese's fine cinematic craft, technically perfect, very well polished, exciting and funny, with rock solid acting all around, I particularly liked DiCaprio and Jonah Hill. After watching this epic portrayal of Belfort's life of excess, one might have the natural tendency to look for an explanation or meaning behind all that, but I think that the main premiss of this work is to serve as an engaging and funny cinematic experience a bit like American Hustle. I think these two movies have relatively similar premisses, but David O. Russel's effort, itself with an imprint of Scorcese DNA, is a sexier, more organic, funnier and more appealing cinematic experience to me. I guess it's a matter of taste that will dictate which movie one likes the most.

Revaluating American Hustle to 9.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on April 29, 2014, 07:11:52 PM
Double Indemnity (1944) - 8,5

The most secret intention of an experienced insurance salesman blends with the perverse desire of his lusted woman to put an end to her husband's life. The classic story about the extramarital affair that commits spousal homicide. One of the great classics from Hollywood's golden age, Double indemnity is a seminal film noir directed by Billy Wilder, based on a novel of the same name authored by James M. Cain, whose inspiration came from a real case dating from 1927. This realistic movie does not portray the mechanics of the real case, the story here is much more sophisticated, intelligent and still perfectly plausible to happen in the reality of that time. In Double Indemnity we know from the very beginning that things will end terribly wrong. However, we still afford the privilege to witness and experience the tribulations of the evil mind as it meticulously sets in motion the perfect crime. We also experience the emotional unrest of the perpetrator as he verifies the authorities proving him wrong as they slowly unravel the truth. In addition to the wonderfully crafted suspense, this movie is also a wide open window to the complex psychological canvas of the guilty subject who deceives his daily friend until the eventual confession.

This movie is notable for the excellence of the narrative craft, which is enough to wrap me in the thrilling and realistic story, the dialogues are superb. The naturalistic and effortless acting endows the movie with life and emotional power. Barbara Stanwyck's role stands in my memory as the archetype of the femme fatale, beautiful, lustful, sweet, but a true wolf in sheep's clothing! Fred McMurray and Edward G. Robinson are also at high-level. Except for some memorable scenes, I didn't find the visual style to be particularly notable, the camera work is clean and polished, but apart from the innovative light and shadow work of John F. Seitz, there are no other gimmicks to enhance the visual style, this is a thoroughly realistic and stripped picture. I also lament the less than perfect condition of the film's analog source when it was converted to digital format, a bit more visual integrity and Double Indemnity would be an immaculate cinematic experience for me. Another wonderful black-and white classic, highly recommended!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on May 02, 2014, 11:06:02 PM
Playtime (1967) - 8

The wholly artificial environment of modern cities is an obstacle to natural social construct among people, it gives rise to alienation and strange behavioral patterns. The urban lifestyle is akin to life in a giant carousel or machinery, in a way, dehumanizing. So seems to suggest the comic choreography conceived by Jacques Tati. Subtle choreography, but complex and powerful. In Playtime, the singular cinematic language crafted by the French filmmaker departs from narrative conventions, this is fancy Cinema that relies heavily on technical rigor and prowess to make its point come across. Ironically or not, Playtime seems to be a cinematic product of the same dehumanizing and alienating phenomena that the film itself seems to mock about in human relations. A particularly eloquent proposal from such perspective, the notion of plot is very faint and the distance between the viewer and the human subjects within the film is so large that I almost feel like I'm watching a laboratory experiment where the effects of modern technology and architecture on human relations are dissected. But, on the other hand, it could be said that Playtime is going back to its roots, at times it is very reminiscent of Silent Cinema and it even brought me faint memories of Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin. It's a truly unique cinematic experience. The humorous pathos created by the numerous bizarre or absurd situations being represented is, possibly, the only narrative anchor that denounces the humanly persuasive premiss of this singular work. What's most impressive for me is the effortless way how this film immerses me in the cinematic experience despite being so unconventional. The aesthetical appeal fascinates me and the cinematography is beautiful. I haven't seen Playtime in a long time, but it maintains the same vitality in the way it intrigues, entertains and amuses me just like years ago when I first met this film. Jacques Tati deliberated the construction of a small futuristic city scenery just to shoot this work. Such ambition cost him dearly in his life, but the final product brought him deserved immortality. Playtime is a mandatory watch for any cinephile!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on May 08, 2014, 12:35:59 PM
A Brighter Summer Day (1991) - 9,5

A Brighter Summer Day is a terrifying film, showing the harsh reality of Taipei's streets in the 60s after the Chinese Civil War, that took place between 1946 - 49, forced millions of Mainland Chinese to flee to Taiwan. Hauntingly ruthless reality as if it had been rescued from the memories of someone who lived it as a teenager. The film focuses at this stage of life of a boy, the collapse of illusions, search for identity, paving way through emotional turmoil, learn to grow from marking experiences, all this becomes more urgent in the severe struggle for survival within the sea of street gangs that instigate a culture of violence and transgression among the youngsters. The teenage mob, permeable to external factors by nature, has in Taiwan multicultural melting pot a major influence for either the better or worse. Without the strong lead from previous generations, youths can find themselves helpless in a volatile and merciless world.

A Brighter Summer Day is usually labelled as a Drama. In my opinion, the experienced world is too stark and ruthless to have a merely neutral attitude towards it, any glimpse of hope or optimism is fleeting and soon turn mirage. I'd say this is a fine Horror specimen in equal measure, probably one of the very best I've seen. It does remind me of Kurosawa's Ran in its disenchanted view of the cruel human nature. The difference is that Ran softens (in a counter-productive manner) the impact of violence and brutality depicted on the screen by way of Kurosawa's style and for the fact that it is an allegorical fiction while Yang's work, on the contrary, enhances even more what could have been a real experience through very raw, yet intelligent and subtle cinematics. Some scenes evoked in me genuine feelings of horror and despair like no other film has done in a long time, City of God (2002) from Fernando Meireles is similar in this aspect, or at least has the same potential, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Brasilian director had taken inspiration from the Taiwanese work. It's frightening and deeply heartbreaking to imagine myself living those worlds in my own skin as a child or teenager.

Yang has great cinematic skill and this film easily immerses, curiously the bad picture quality enhanced even more the power of persuasion making the experience all the more haunting to me, for once I'm glad I didn't watch a film in HD. The acting is surprisingly accomplished taking into account that more than 100 amateur actors were used, it didn't actually seem to me that so many actors were ever on the screen, the film felt quite consistent and uncomplicated on the whole. The only thing that I would change are some of the last moments, I didn't feel as involved as in the rest of the film, the persuasive factor decreased very quickly. I felt there was a bit of dragging and the expression of religious disappointment towards the main character's tragic fate seemed redundant to me. This won't irk my appreciation for this work, but it wouldn't hurt to edit away a few minutes of redundant footage at the end of a film that is virtually perfect over 4 hours, only my opinion. It makes sense to say this is a technically perfect work.

This is the second work of Edward Yang to get printed in my memory, another masterpiece. The heritage of A Brighter Summer Day inherited by Yi Yi is easily recognizable in the plot, style, the way that thematics are developed and even in the brilliant moments of cinematic introspection, but this doesn't decrease Yi Yi's value in my eyes because both films have very different qualities. Yi Yi focuses on broader themes without the gloominess that plagues A Brighter Summer Day and the visuals are more polished. Yi Yi makes me feel like I experienced a whole life filled with bittersweet enchantment, A Brighter Summer Day makes me feel like I experienced a living nightmare during the brief period of a troubled youth. Both works are rich in thematic substance and equally epic, but they're completely different worlds. A Brighter Summer Day is wonderful and deeply moving, highly recommended!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on May 11, 2014, 10:50:03 PM
Blade Runner (1982) - 8,5

Final Cut version. Ridley Scott discourses on the human replica hot topic in this iconic Sci-Fi movie. At first glance this might seem like the typical detective story with a bit of clandestine love affair mixed in, a cat and mouse game where whatever happens goes without asking why. But this is just a pretext to forge an allegorical treatment for the real substance hidden under the surface. It seems to me that the major responsibility in this department lies in the paths of Roy Batty and Rick Deckard characters. Even the most perfect replicant is doomed to a short-lived slavery existence, so "it" is even more anguished when facing some of the fundamental questions we have in our minds about what we really are, the whys of Death, the legitimacy of our conjectures towards life, love and liberty, etc. Questions common to any being sharing human intellect. When does our ambition to play God go too far? What's the limit to what we can and should do with our technological prowess? Besides alerting us to the dangers and ethical issues raised by the alluring technological capabilities we could reach, Blade Runner also reminds us that human experience is conditioned by our mortal nature, we are slaves of our limits. Thematic substance shared up to certain degree with Tarkovsky's Solaris. The Russian film is more ambitious as it puts a question mark on our whole perception of reality and human knowledge, but Blade Runner is more accomplished as a proper Sci-Fi movie and a more entertaining cinematic experience.

The characters are more interesting to follow, there are no dragging moments despite the leisurely pace of the narrative and the aesthetic exercise in which Ridley Scott indulges is visually stunning. This is one of the main qualities of Ridley Scott Cinema, the engrossing scenic spaces forged with great technical competence and the creative mastery latent in the way that the camera work and cinematography carve the picture visual identity. The casual and sober style of the acting is ideal in this context, it enriches the world portrayed with realism and adds to the immersion factor. There's no impetus to doubt about the logic of that world because it looks so visually perfect and natural. An attribute for the authenticity and immersion of the cinematic experience. This is a major asset in the Sci-Fi genre and this is where Blade Runner is deservedly iconic with its full-fledged and gorgeous dystopian world. The only thing that distracts me and limits the quality of the cinematic experience is the acting. It's not as casual and natural as would be ideal, at times there are apparent limitations that make the characters look slightly ludicrous. In this department, Blade Runner doesn't quite follow the excellence of Alien in my opinion. Yes, many of the characters are replicants with obvious psycho-emotional issues, but there was still room left to improvement and make them (and the humans as well) more interesting. Someone else might not take this movie as seriously as it deserves just because of this limitation. This is what prevents me from seeing this work as a masterpiece. All in all, Blade Runner is a well-crafted cinematic work with appreciable conceptual substance. Above all, it's a gorgeous movie to watch, highly recommended!

Revaluating Alien to 9.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on May 13, 2014, 08:30:16 PM
Rushmore (1998) - 8

Work that precedes The Royal Tenenbaums which shares significant DNA. Rushmore is a comedy largely supported by the ridiculously adult and smug ethos of Max Fischer. A 15-year-old boy without the slightest notion of proportionality supposed to measure the ways of a teenager in his age when getting along with other people. He treats old-timers and youths as if they were all his equals, endowed with fearless bravura and propelled by his creative and enterprising wits. His hyperbolic character leads him to casually spark a friendship with a much older industrial man who builds admiration for the boy's pseudo-adult attitude. Both of them eventually find their hearts beating for the same woman, a beautiful teacher in Rushmore school, where Max... doesn't study. Each one will try to win the teacher's love in his own way and naturally the romantic mechanics between a bold 15-year-old boy and a woman with the competition of an even older man mixed in is a recipe for bizarre and hilarious situations throughout. I enjoyed very much the theater play scenes, they gave another quality and vitality to Rushmore. In a way, those scenes highlighted the evidence that there's a clear contrast between what can be real and what cannot, the difference between reality and fiction. Reality is not utopian like fiction, nothing happens out of pure will. Anything demands effort, patience and sense of proportionality. Everything comes in its right time and has its own place. A lesson that young Max Fischer has learned by the end of the film.

Wes Anderson likes to fantasize with people, seems like he is trying to capture some precious unobtainium underlying human relations and psyche. He plays with personal and social limits. There's usually a somewhat eccentric character, or group of characters, who have to endure through ordeals to reach the desired goal or redemption. Personal development is a common theme in Wes Cinema. Prominent attention is given to small gestures, either manifestations of affection or contempt. Younger people are an important part of the social mechanics and adults can't get away from giving satisfactions to youths when these so demand. In fact, children have almost adultlike maturity and social skill. This particular point is source of great amusement for me, but it's subtle. Max Fischer is that taken to the limit. So far, Wes movies have left me with the feeling of a bittersweet spell hovering over all human relations. They're sweet movies in an unreal way, but although it's artificially crafted sweetness, it feels natural and organic. Everything flows coherently in a mannerist way. The acting could be better, but it's not too distracting. Rushmore is smartly written, technically flawless, engaging, emotionally powerful and super fun! I burst into laughter on almost regular basis, I love the way how Wes constantly throws in snippets of humor to keep a smile on my face. Flavored and tasty Cinema. Wonderful cinematography and Olivia Williams is a goddess! I enjoyed Rushmore very much. Recommended!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on May 17, 2014, 08:30:05 PM
Moonrise Kingdom (2012) - 8

During my childhood and early adolescence, I had the privilege to own an incredible aptitude for dreaminess. It was common to find myself daydreaming with riveting places, landscapes, people or music which made me outburst with feelings or emotions so different from everything else that I still don't know if there are words able to describe them. Those daydreams were the stage of the deepest love fantasies of my early adolescence. As I grew older, this aptitude weakened progressively and today my mind is so gripped to reality that I cannot disconnect and feel the blaze of other worlds anymore. Nowadays, I am blessed with such visceral experiences only, and by rare luck, during sleep. Unfortunately, I forget most dreams. Cinema and music are the only escapes able to relieve me from the absence of my childhood reveries, but, try as they might, the experiences they offer are rarely close to be as visceral and unique as those that my mind can induce myself into. Moonrise Kingdom is far from being such visceral experience, but it leaves me with faint nostalgia because the story portrayed features the same kind of platonic young love affair that I fantasized in my early adolescent digressions: a love adventure tale in a wistfully beautiful and stormy landscape. So far, this is my favorite Wes Anderson movie, it's the only one that graces me with a cinematic experience that comes remotely close to transfigure into a waking dream. I also think this is the most powerful expression of the oblique quality that distinguishes his movies from the others.

The offbeat pathos is apparent in the aesthetic polish and narrative sophistication of Moonrise Kingdom. Here is yet another fine example of Wes Anderson's predilection to whimsically deliberate his characters' behavioral profiles. The youths are the main characters in this story and are endowed with obvious adultlike mannerisms, the acting is not exemplary, but this actually adds to the charm and funniness of the young characters. One more time, I perceived a tendency to dissect an almost intangible quality from some human subjects, Sam Shakusky and Suzy Bishop don't seem to be absolutely inserted in who they are (supposed to be), their manners are not as raw and settled as reality would demand. Their personalities seem to balance precariously on a tightrope at the limit of their elusive definition, just like appears to be the case with other subjects in The Royal Tenenbaums and Rushmore. But it is unreasonable to ask for such accomplished acting from kids or teenagers without any prior acting skills, so either this young couple of actors is monumentally talented or Wes Anderson is an expert at the art of crafting his characters by using actors as mere tools. Or maybe this fleeting and almost intangible quality I'm drooling about is nothing more than an illusion or wishful thinking of mine... and, in part, it probably is.

The wonderfully crafted cinematography and soundtrack enhance the dreamlike quality of the experience and contribute to forge different moods throughout the movie. Wes Anderson always reveals great musical taste in his movies, a quality I highly appreciate. The script and editing work are typically excellent and the camera work may be the most formal I've seen from Wes until now. Distractions come down to some poorly camouflaged CGI effects and little else. Once more, the story has a happy ending for the protagonists and yet again, the movie is more than just the story. In Moonrise Kingdom, more than the other Wes' works I've seen, the style itself adds to the substance and owns part of the appeal of the movie. Moonrise Kingdom is very easy to be enjoyed as a visceral, exciting and fun cinematic experience. I don't find it as hilarious as Rushmore, but I see it as a natural evolution of Wes Anderson's cinematic style. Wonderful movie, highly recommended!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyline on May 19, 2014, 02:36:24 PM
Glad to see you enjoying these movies.

You really do have to suspend your notion of reality when you watch his films.  They almost feel like a dream where you can't point to anything being "wrong", but you know something isn't quite "right", either.

However, it isn't an uncomfortable oddness.  As you said, it's all whimsical, nostalgic, and completely involving.

Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on May 19, 2014, 07:06:06 PM
Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) - 7,5

Wes Anderson makes an incursion in Stop motion animation with another comedy. In this fantasy, we watch an amusing open war between 3 wealthy human farmers and alpha male Mr. Fox. After stealing poultry from 3 farms to satisfy his wild beast whims, Mr. Fox and his family have to dig for their lives when faced with the farmers' vengeful fury. Fortunately, this fantasy determines that the personified animals are as smart as people and in the end sly fauna takes the upper hand over Men. Fantastic Mr. Fox is worth for the great visual beauty, for the rich characters and the very entertaining humor. Wes Anderson's steady hand in the direction and playful pathos prevents this movie from falling into mediocre territory. I would like to see substantially more facial expression from the animal characters, there were moments of emotional or otherwise persuasive agenda that didn't quite grip me as they could. Technical limitations, I suppose. Small distraction in such a colorful and lively movie. But then again, Wes' characters are never garish in their facial expressions. I was very curious to see how the director would forge his animated subjects and, unremarkably, they are not too different from live-action counterparts. Fun and beautiful animation movie, recommended.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on May 22, 2014, 05:44:28 PM
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927) - 9

Lust, betrayal, failed conspiracies, redemption. This silent pearl portrays a romantic tale where true love and loyalty overcome the strongest lust subversions. Nameless characters are archetypes in a universal and touching story. How bewildering it is to witness the changes undergone by Cinema through only one generation! Pedantic pathos, naïve mindset and technical rawness seem relics of prehistoric times, and turn this movie into a living fossil predating civilization and even time itself. In large degree, it's the wonderfully accomplished vision of Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau, and the numerous cinematographic innovations that support it, what contributes to the timeless and surreal quality of this work. And despite the age, Sunrise is still emotionally gripping, suspenseful and occasionally hilarious, even if unwittingly so. In fact, this is one of the few masterpieces able to offer me a cinematic experience almost as riveting as a waking dream. First movie directed in Hollywood by F. W. Murnau, one of the leading figures of German Expressionism in Cinema. This masterpiece is mandatory watch for any cinephile!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on May 25, 2014, 10:26:12 PM
The Bridge (Die Brücke, 1959) - 8

Final days of WWII, nearby U.S. troops tighten the siege to a small German city. The apprehensive atmosphere of the city contrasts with the cheerful tranquility of seven teenagers. Boys with a faint grip of reality, who still nurture patriotic warfare utopias. They face the incoming enemy forces with naïve excitement and even celebrate the call to join the army, it's their opportunity to show service for the Führer. From school directly into the army combat training, they go. But negligence and unforeseen setbacks determine fate and only one day after they joined the army, the seven boys get what they craved for. Events unfold, pre-warnings and shocking displays of the horrors of war set the mood for the living hell looming on the horizon. Soon they are at the epicenter of warfare, fighting the enemy, but this goes beyond what they are remotely prepared for. The boys are alone against an onslaught of enemy forces and, one by one, they learn, the hard way, that war is not what they nurtured in their moony minds. Only one survives the massacre. Movie directed by Austrian Bernhard Wicki, based on a real event from which only one boy survived to tell the story. The Bridge is usually described as an anti-war movie and I agree. This is one of the most persuasive and desolating war movies I've ever seen. It starts in a neutral tone, but ends loaded with horror and desolation. The cinematic style is slightly bland, but works well to enhance the rawness of the experience, the excellent black-and-white cinematography contributes to the effect, it's a sin to not watch this movie in HD. Good directing and acting. This rare work deserves more attention, in fact, I think it should be regularly screened as part of schools' curricula all around the world to disseminate awareness and disillusionment among the youth about the true nature of warfare. Recommended!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on June 05, 2014, 08:32:12 PM
The Mirror (1975) - 9

Hauntingly hermetic movie. Several plots and historical archives entangled in a jigsaw puzzle. All the events appear to revolve around one object whose identity is unclear. Maybe it's the prominent woman, or maybe the man whose voice interacts with the woman and other characters throughout the film. Dialogues point to personal and familial ordeals of the seemingly main character couple. The desultory narrative is fascinating, but what truly haunts me is the visual experience. This aspect is particularly noteworthy; as if Tarkovsky intended to lure the viewers with sheer contrasts and movements of striking imagery intertwined in fluid disorder. The picture is highly poetic; quality imparted by the wonderful cinematography (both color and B&W) and sensible camera work. The sound design, with excellent music, enhances the visual cunning. The cinematic experience is a multifaceted treasure; a narrative puzzle infused in a scenic sculpture that occasionally recalls to video art. There are nostalgic scenes, inspiring scenes, impenetrable scenes, and even scenes that evoke the cinematic styles of Bergman and Antonioni. Postmodern cinema in all its splendor. The only drawback, in my opinion, are the rare moments when Tarkovsky seems so impressed with his own artifice that he drags it into a redundancy skimming the ludicrous. Although minimal, these overboard moments inconveniently carry my attention towards the artificiality of the work, distracting as a result. If not for these immersion glitches, I would certainly rate The Mirror a perfect 10. Yet another masterpiece that lures me to a waking dream. So far, Tarkovsky's films have caused me a deep impression, and The Mirror is no exception; it's an amazing experience that keeps haunting me days after. I love it and I think every cinephile should give it a try!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on June 09, 2014, 10:38:27 AM
Yojimbo (1961) - 8,5

1860, Japan. A small city divided by the ferocious rivalry between two criminal gangs that fight for its control. The arrival of a ronin (a lordless samurai) sets forward a new order of events. Obscure reasons propel the warrior to join the conflict; a seemingly reckless decision that is soon offset by his astuteness and deathly ability with the sword. The nameless man, nicely played by Toshiro Mifune, makes marionettes of both parties of the rivalry in a machination set forward by himself. Power manipulation, swindles and righteous bravery in the face of setbacks culminate in the extinction of both gangs and the final resumption of peace in the city. The hero departs after his duty is fulfilled. Yojimbo is considered a major influence for the following western cinema; this probably explains the déjà vu feeling I experienced at the end of the film - I felt as if I had watched a western where the only thing missing was Clint Eastwood playing the lone wolf. I will say, however, that Yojimbo satisfies me in ways that no spaghetti western has ever matched. A lone vigilante who arrives to clean the city corrupted by criminals; the classic plot is polished to near perfection in this film. Raw and appealing aesthetics, rich and well-acted characters, perfect transitions between comedy, drama, action and suspense as we follow the lone samurai crafting his web. It becomes a natural reaction to sympathize with the hero, and, in the end, I am fully satisfied by the entertaining cinematic experience itself and by the culmination of the events. Moreover, this is another great cinematic example of perfect symbiosis between form and substance; a feat only within reach of great masters like Akira Kurosawa. This is masterful and very well-rounded filmmaking. Fun, thrilling and ultimately awe-inspiring, Yojimbo is excellent entertainment with no distractions. Great movie, highly recommended!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on June 17, 2014, 06:59:27 PM
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004) - 8

Steve Zissou is a reputed oceanographer. After the documentary screening of his last expedition where he lost a close friend, Zissou publicly announces the intent to document another journey where he aims to destroy the presumable Esteban's assassin--a so-called "Jaguar shark." The scientific purpose of this expedition is "Revenge." Soon after, he and his crew will embark on a new ordeal, marked by personal revelations and bizarre setbacks, until they are face-to-face with the daunting creature. I noticed that critics, in general, nurture weak appreciation for this movie; as a result of an insanity outbreak, I suppose. The style is not for everyone, true, but they should know better than judge a movie merely by its surface. The most ridiculous is that when those philistines criticize this particular work, they necessarily criticize the whole cinematic system of Wes Anderson, i.e., they bad-mouth the same thing that they laud in his cinema. It shocks me a little because I think this is his most characteristic work. This is the clearest expression of the director's cinematic DNA before Moonrise Kingdom. In my opinion, this brings only good things and automatically prevents this movie from falling into redundancy. Surely, there is always the chance that I'm the real lunatic here, but in defense of my ego, I declare myself the sole and absolute voice of reason.

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou shares the typical plot with other Wes' movies--the characters' path is equally liberating and reconciling--but on the aspects that juice up the cinematic experience, this movie seems the most uncompromising to me. Starting by the central character, oceanographer Steve Zissou. My favorite character in Wes universe; the oddity subverted in his gestures, attitudes and quirks, make him a fascinating and hilarious caricature. He endures a conturbed period in his life--he watched a friend die at the jaws of a shark, and then runs into his presumable son, Ned Plimpton, for the first time--balancing the gag-inducing charm with an equal dose of drama. I think Bill Murray did an excellent job playing this complex and sentimental goon. I also enjoy the reporter, Jane Winslet-Richardson--played by Cate Blanchett--who has a caustic relationship with the oceanographer, and an affair with his (pseudo)son.

We see something rare in a Wes' plot: one of the main characters, Ned, dies; absentee until the end. This, among other things, reinforces the dichotomy between comedy and drama, happiness and suffering. The bittersweet flavor is stronger in this movie compared to the others, except Moonrise Kingdom. The fleeting nature of some personas, something that haunts me forever in Wes' cinema, also seems more evident here. But this is probably a reflection of my own lunacy. The sea theme is nicely explored, in my opinion; the animated sequences don't come across as a sign of technical limitation, on the contrary, I feel the cinematic experience is more rewarding thanks to it. Technically, this movie showcases the usual standards of Wes; there's just more playfulness here. The cinematography of Zissou documentaries is charming and nostalgic; I wish that the real adventure was dressed up like this as well. The soundtrack has a few brilliantly hilarious moments, just like Rushmore; both movies are equally generous and intelligent laugh wise. Typically formal camera work as expected.

Sweetly awkward, silly fun, bittersweet; potentially pointless and dull-witted for insane minds. This is one of his most eccentric and colorful works. There's no way to dislike The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou for those who enjoy the cinema of Wes Anderson. Although all his movies follow the same basic formula, each one leaves me with a unique impression. I enjoyed this movie as much as any other work from Wes, recommended!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kunlun on June 17, 2014, 11:53:06 PM
Has anyone seen Ida?

It's set in Poland after WWII (appropriately in B/W for a Polish winter). An orphan girl raised in a covent who has become a novice is about to take her vows when the Mother Superior tells her she has an Aunt. She goes to meet her relative and discover the story of what happened to her parents.

It's well worth watching and it'll win some foreign picture award, no doubt.

If you see it, let me know what you thought of it.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on June 18, 2014, 02:34:56 AM
Has anyone seen Ida?

It's set in Poland after WWII (appropriately in B/W for a Polish winter). An orphan girl raised in a covent who has become a novice is about to take her vows when the Mother Superior tells her she has an Aunt. She goes to meet her relative and discover the story of what happened to her parents.

It's well worth watching and it'll win some foreign picture award, no doubt.

If you see it, let me know what you thought of it.

Yup, very good movie. Not sure its the best foreign pic of the year but the cinematography was well done.

Life Aquatic is my fave Anderson movie, most up my alley I suppose. As similar as his movies are, I find they each bring something different to the table.

The Immigrant was pretty good, probably Marion Cotillard's best work since she won the Oscar.

Words versus Pictures was good decent fun but predictable and formulaic. Binoche always has a nice seductive energy to her. Too bad she fries in Godzilla in the first 10 minutes.  Oops!!

Belle was good. Oprah should add it to her list of how to make a black history movie along with 12 years a slave.

Godzilla was fun as was Edge of Tomorrow. The latter being a tongue in cheek homage to Groundhog Day, Alien, Starship Troopers and about a dozen others.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on June 18, 2014, 02:01:09 PM
Has anyone seen Ida?


I've read good things about this film. I'm very curious to see it.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on June 20, 2014, 08:57:29 PM
Apocalypse Now Redux (1979) - 8

From the eve of a secret mission to the confines of enlightening horror. Willard chronicles the journey and the personal implications of what he faces until the echo of his words is muffled by the atrophied voice of a man who has allied with horror and moral terror by his own means to the detriment of a hypocrite army. The atrocious madness of warfare, dissected in a beautiful, spectacular and surreal cinematic feast. This movie looks surprisingly modern for a product of 1979. Modern in the best and the worst. I say the worst because it abounds with redundant moments that distract me. I wanted to nurture higher appreciation for this movie, but there is too much that, in my opinion, is not essential for the cinematic experience; some cuts would help to forge a more consolidated and distinctive work. The excesses are all the more frustrating by means of the typical hollywood-esque pathos so prominent that, sometimes, this movie looks like an exercise in ostentatious vulgarity without substance or appeal so common in nowadays' Hollywood junk food. This is a 1979 movie so it's difficult to pass fair judgement about its originality, but the fact is several scenes are insipid, seemingly pointless and slightly confuse me about the real message that the movie is trying to convey. I suspect that my nagging stems from the additional 49 minutes of runtime in the Redux version. I read about the added scenes and, not surprisingly, a large part of them match with what I consider surplus. I actually enjoy the leisurely, almost wandering, pace of the Redux version; it compels to thorough contemplation and reflection about everything there is to see and interpret. But the shifting pace enhances qualities and limitations in equal measure. I, therefore, agree with some of the criticism received by this version; I think this is a corruption, by excess, of a masterpiece (or so I hope). What is not essential, is excess; the essential of this movie is formidable; then it follows that I lust for the original version. I would love to see it in a big theater to experience all the visceral and haunting juice this movie has to offer.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on June 25, 2014, 12:37:58 AM
Apocalypse Now Redux (1979) - 8
....

You might find this interesting: http://news.yahoo.com/top-green-beret-officer-forced-resign-over-affair-190327213--abc-news-topstories.html
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on June 30, 2014, 09:49:54 PM
^No chopped heads, no big explosions? bah... :P
But sufficiently different from Apocalypse Now to be an interesting script. Maybe the Gant got inspired by the movie lol.

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) - 8

The setting jumps between four distinct periods; the most interesting to us is the most remote, in 1932. Eccentric Gustave H, prominent concierge at the Grand Budapest Hotel, and his newly employed lobby boy Zero Moustafa live the end of the hotel's golden age as the war approaches the state of Zubrowka. Both will get themselves in serious trouble after the mysterious death of Céline, one of the numerous love aberrations of Gustave. Among her voluminous heritage lies a valuable painting that was willed to Gustave--blasphemy for her family who won't take half-measures to reclaim what should be rightfully theirs. Gustave and Zero will jump on a risky and whimsical adventure until the conflict of interests is settled for the best and the worst. I think it's safe to describe this as the darkest Wes Anderson movie, darkly fun that is. Both for the story and the characters, especially the brutal cold-blooded killer J. G. Jopling, who has become one of my favorites in Wes filmography. Willem Dafoe can really put together a convincing killer act. This playfully eccentric, witty and darkly fun movie is among Wes' most expressive works, in my opinion. The Grand Budapest Hotel abounds with memorable scenes, dark humor and the deviant Gustave H might very well be the most iconic character in this mannerist universe, great acting from Ralph Fiennes. Steve Zissou is still my favorite goon, though. The Grand Budapest Hotel shows greater maturity and assertiveness from Wes, who has been granted with more sophisticated technical wizardry and casting quality in his latter works.

However, I'm left with a faint feeling that Wes may have reached the creative limits of his cinematic artifice. In the beginning, I was intrigued by the possibility that the four distinct settings and narrators could bring something new and substantial to the table, but that doesn't seem to be the case in my perception. Looking back, it almost seems like a simple technical gimmick to persuade the viewer that the movie holds more substance than it actually does. This is still the basic formula used in all Wes' movies, but this time enriched with a strong wistful flavor arising from the fact that the whole adventure is nothing more than the cherished memory of what was live and loved by Zero Moustafa--only this would justify a space-time transition, and only one would be enough. What's the point of four transitions? It seems redundant to me. The whole story is apparently read on the present by the girl in the a cemetery sitting just beside the grave of the book's author, but we barely become aware of it. Other than its darkly comical side, this could enhance even more the notion of distant or dreamlike past, in which case more development in the "sober" present would be desirable. Fortunately this wasn't a distraction per se; just a personal remark to explain my mixed feelings about the four settings and the ending. I found the whole movie very engrossing and entertaining; Wes is an expert of mood manipulation. I am very curious to see what he will do next. The Grand Budapest Hotel is Wes' sharpest mannerism. Highly recommended!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on July 01, 2014, 05:07:15 AM
^No chopped heads, no big explosions? bah... :P

Actually...

Btw, Train your Dragon 2 - 9.25/10; better than the first in many ways. Maybe a slight penalty for being busy. 

I'm not quite sure what to make of the fact that an animated/CGI picture can surpass 98% of the real movies made in its emotional range and impact.  Some of these are astonishingly well done. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: shipsupt on July 01, 2014, 11:37:49 AM
Two movies surprised me recently...

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty - Stuck in a hotel room with literally nothing else to watch because the internet connection sucked, I gave this a try and was pleasantly surprised.  Watched it again with the family when I got home and they all enjoyed it as well.

Chef - Nothing else to see but we wanted to get out for a movie, how about Chef?  Great nods to foodies, good chemistry between actors, and simple story to lay back and enjoy without having to work hard at it.  Another really good one that had stayed off my radar until now.

Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on July 01, 2014, 05:17:17 PM
Two movies surprised me recently...

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty - Stuck in a hotel room with literally nothing else to watch because the internet connection sucked, I gave this a try and was pleasantly surprised.  Watched it again with the family when I got home and they all enjoyed it as well.

Chef - Nothing else to see but we wanted to get out for a movie, how about Chef?  Great nods to foodies, good chemistry between actors, and simple story to lay back and enjoy without having to work hard at it.  Another really good one that had stayed off my radar until now.



Double thumbs up to those as well.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: anetode on July 02, 2014, 12:24:17 AM
Bill Murray along with Naomi Watts playing an Eastern European hooker, the movie of my dreams

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duZJnlpnmCQ
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on July 02, 2014, 12:51:07 AM
Bill Murray along with Naomi Watts playing an Eastern European hooker, the movie of my dreams

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duZJnlpnmCQ

Looks like Scent of a Woman meets Gran Torino.  Not a bad idea. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: anetode on July 09, 2014, 05:45:23 AM
Transcendence - possibly the worst, most pretentious pedagogical dreck I've been exposed to since being forced to read Daniel Quinn's Ishmael.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on July 09, 2014, 06:35:42 AM
Transcendence - possibly the worst, most pretentious pedagogical dreck I've been exposed to since being forced to read Daniel Quinn's Ishmael.

x2
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kirosia on July 09, 2014, 04:34:58 PM
but but jonny deps
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: anetode on July 10, 2014, 12:41:53 AM
Depp kinda phoned in an impression of HAL 9000 as David Koresh.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on July 12, 2014, 09:39:55 PM
Red Desert (1964) - 9

Grey melancholic days coat an industrial landscape where the blaze of nature has been superseded by the artificial. Backdrop for an exploration of images, sounds, contrasts, feelings, tensions, sexual liberation and social games. Giuliana is the main character; a traumatized woman unable to fit into the artificial and chaotic world around her. A very unstable and capricious personality, prone to awkward gestures and behavior. The unnatural landscape of the industrial world where Giuliana wanders, seemingly influences her strange ways. The movie exerts a dichotomy between the natural ways of humans and the corruption of the machine in our habits and environment; an aspect that reminds me Tati's Playtime. In the Italian movie, the main premise is not so much to dissect the influence of the artificial and unnatural world in our social construct, but rather to essay about the cosmetic effects of our action in the surrounding environment and about the way we deal with it. The comical stance of Tati's film is also replaced by the contemplative atmosphere of Antonioni's singular cinema, while the mental imbalance of the main character sets the pace.

The dramatic component of the movie revolves mostly around the romantic mechanics between Giuliana and engineer Corrado Zeller, close friend of Giuliana's husband, Ugo, who runs a petrochemical plant. Michelangelo Antonioni employs brutal and unapologetic honesty to portray the affair. What initially appears to be mutual interest propelled by genuine empathy and affection eventually unravels somber contours as it becomes obvious that the love plot is fueled by nothing more than Giuliana's "insanity". But the truly sinister insight is the fact that Giuliana is perfectly aware of this all the time; she is not as naïve or absent-minded as she seems. In Red Desert, we watch a perverse exploitation of feelings and expectations orchestrated, deliberately or not, by Giuliana with almost all the characters who interact with her, especially Corrado. The only character who is immune to Giuliana's web is her own son, little Valerio, who in turn appears to have inherited the Machiavellian talent of his mother and, to her dismay, subjects her to his own cunning.

All of this, wraped in the alienated and very particular cinematic style of Antonioni, leaves me with a perplexing impression of unapologetic egocentrism. Red Desert is a thoroughly egocentric construction, perhaps an inherent characteristic of Antonioni's cinematic language. This is reflected not only in the human relations as it can be extrapolated to the relationship between the characters (or us humans) and the natural environment. At a certain moment in the movie, Corrado expresses what could very well be the European Zeitgeist in the 60s or simply Antonioni's personal beliefs: "After all what does one believe in? In Humanity... in a way, in justice a little less, in progress a little more." Dead nature is omnipresent in the whole movie, except in the short fantasy segment that Giuliana chronicles to her son; the magnificent view of a nature inviolate by Men's actions has, therefore, become nothing more than mirage or utopia in the postmodern age. No one seems disturbed with the consequences of progress in the natural landscape, other than Giuliana. Maybe the character played by Monica Vitti acts as a reactive element against such thought doctrine. Thematically and ideologically loaded movie, although slightly ambiguous. Red Desert is a beautiful and fascinating cinematic essay gifted with great visual enchantment. Excellent camera work and deliberated use of colour. No technical remarks and I very much enjoyed the acting despite the dubbed voices. Red Desert goes into my favorite list. This is a wonderful masterpiece that puzzles as much as it marvels, and it's as simple as it is complex. Masterful filmmaking all around. Mandatory watch for any cinephile!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on July 19, 2014, 07:17:37 PM
Ivan's Childhood (1962) - 8,5

Tarkovsky could hardly come up with a better debut. Ivan's Childhood is yet another wonderful work from the Russian master. Moving and heart-breaking movie where a 12-year-old orphan risks himself on the front lines of the Second World War. For Ivan's young and corrupted mind, there is no worthwhile purpose except fighting the enemy of war, and the vengeance of his dead loved ones is a first order priority. Early love and happy childhood with his mother were ephemeral miracles now conserved in his memory; the war has become the only reality for Ivan. Similarly to The Bridge (1959), directed by Bernhard Wicki, Ivan's Childhood exerts a contrast between those two distinct realities to underline the absurdity of warfare and its costs. The Russian movie is a more intelligent, original and emotional cinematic experience, and is no less powerful in its anti-war message--if one chooses to see it that way--despite the fleeting combat sequences and not being as raw or graphic as The Bridge. Ivan's Childhood is, ultimately, more absurd and painful by throwing into the scene a 12-year-old child who has to duck the enemy practically alone. We fear and feel for him just like his adult comrades. Great acting by a very young Nikolai Burlyayev who later appears in Andrei Rublev. Very good acting overall, beautiful cinematography and inventive camera work. Based on a short story written by Vladimir Bogomolov, Ivan's Childhood is a powerful movie that deserves classic status. Even though this is Tarkovsky's first feature film and a few rough edges making itself noticed, it engages me in a poetic dream almost as effortlessly as the other masterpieces from the Russian genius. Highly recommended!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on July 31, 2014, 06:30:20 PM
Pandora's Box (1929) - 8

German silent classic directed by Georg Whilhelm Plabst. The libertine and naïve spirit of seductive Lulu is a potentially fatal trap to any man or woman who crosses paths with the young dancer. Seemingly unaware of the consequences of her actions, Lulu drifts at the mercy of events in a melodramatic adventure marked by strong sexuality and deviltry. Lulu's treacherous spell will be her doom; she will fall into misery and despair, and will meet a tragic fate at the hands of Jack the Ripper. Lulu personifies the Greek myth of Pandora on which the movie is thematically based. Pandora's Box is notable for lifting Louise Brooks into stardom, and for, presumably, being the first movie in the history of cinema to deal with the lesbian theme. This is a must-see for fans of Louise Brooks, fans of silent cinema and to whomever wants to see how homosexuality was treated on the screen in a period where it was still a taboo subject. The ludicrous pathos lends a funnier quality to the movie than it is supposed to be, but this doesn't hinder the cinematic experience. Wonderful cinematography and camera work. Supremely fun and naughty movie. Recommended.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: fishski13 on August 15, 2014, 02:40:31 PM
watched a fascinating documentary on the cyclist Pantani this morning over a few cups of coffee: http://pantanifilm.com/  (http://pantanifilm.com/) .   
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kirosia on August 24, 2014, 02:08:14 PM
Saw Ghostwatch (1992) on the recommendation of the cries of scared English children from decades past. Liked it. And after waking up to 2am bathroom break, I started thinking of the film and got a bit freaked out.

Entire movie here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHVqzRyaByM
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on August 25, 2014, 03:20:02 AM
Sin City 2 - 14/10 

2 points for pretty nice 3D work.  5 points for Eva Green!  Just when you thought Eva couldn't top the 300 sequel, BAM!!  Good lord.  Eva might end up kicking The Baroness and Selene out from my Pantheon of Goddesses in black leather and latex.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Deep Funk on August 25, 2014, 10:14:34 AM
Since James Bond Eva Green was appreciated for her natural beauty. I agree  ahoy
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on September 18, 2014, 07:23:17 PM
Imaginary Landscapes (1989) - 7,5

Rare documentary about Brian Eno, prominent figure in the history of electronic ambient music. Eno was one of the greatest pioneers of the genre during the 70s; his work was crucial to bring the forefront soundscapes to the ears of the general public. Today he is a multifaceted artist working in several fields of multimedia and audiovisual expression. In this 1989 documentary, Eno dissertates about his work and his vision of the world; about what inspires and disturbs him. His words are interesting and, sometimes, even fascinating to hear. And his beautiful musical creations illustrate the points of his abstract speech - from this dynamic emerges the real experience of the film. In my opinion, Imaginary Landscapes could be restricted only to the audio because the main focus is not what is seen but what is heard. It's in the dynamics between Eno's words and his sonic landscapes that lies the essence of this documentary. For lack of a better word, Imaginary Landscapes seems to be a remotely successful attempt to illustrate the interior and creative world of Brian Eno. The picture is a secondary factor dangling between casual formality and decorative artifice. My general impression of audiovisual works whose focus lie in the sound, is that the image does not seem to support the 'action' as well as the sound does the vice versa. Therefore, the image is disposable, especially when it contributes little to no substance to enrich the work. Instead, we ought to close our eyes and let the soundscapes fill in our visual imaginations for a more pleasurable and eloquent experience. This isn't necessarily the absolute case with this documentary. That shall be decided by each one's subjective judgement; for me, the image has scarce redeeming qualities to justify its presence. It's an interesting aesthetic exploration that may please many other viewers, nonetheless. Quite honestly, this 'stoned' style of documentary has been very much in vogue, and it quickly leaves me jaded if not perfectly executed. Imaginary Landscapes was directed by Duncan Ward and Gabriella Cardazzo. Ambient music lovers will find in this film a beautiful and eloquent soundscape that can be appreciated with closed eyes to almost full extent. Recommended!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on October 11, 2014, 09:19:53 PM
Tabu: A Story of the South Seas (1931) - 7,5

Last work from Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau. Just like Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans, this is a love archetype promoting a universal message. The story unravels within the seed of a tribal community inhabiting Bora Bora, a remote island in French Polinesia. Matahi and Reri ride against forces of higher order within the tribe to preserve their love bond. The resistance is stretched to the limits of what is humanly possible hereby sentencing their tale to a tragic fate. This movie is so engaging that it's easy forget that one is seeing a docufiction. As is hallmark of this genre, it's not possible to separate reality from fiction in what is partly a documentation of the people of Bora Bora and their culture. All the characters are the real tribal natives and chinese living in the region. By virtue of which Tabu invokes a different kind of allure from Sunrise. The idyllic landscape, the tribal rituals and the close contact with nature contrast with the modern world of Sunrise, and craft a rawer and even more nostalgic experience. But ultimately, Tabu doesn't have the impact of a timeless masterpiece like Sunrise. That monumental dreamlike enchantment of Sunrise is missing from Tabu; this is a slightly more earthy and dry experience in my opinion. In any case, Tabu has great poetic beauty and emotional power. The camera work and cinematography are top-notch and earned Floyd Crosby an Academy Award for Best Cinematography, while the archetypal performance as Reri launched Anne Chevalier's acting career for the following years. This beautiful work of silent cinema was honored by Miguel Gomes in 2012 with his homonymous film which I highly enjoyed and also reviewed. Recommended!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on October 12, 2014, 06:17:58 AM
Dracula Untold - 8.5/10.  Liked the more in depth portrayal of Vlad Tepes even if it is a bit whitewashed and syrupy.  Nice departure from the usual formula if you like this sort of thing and enjoyed watching him get it on with the Turks.  Definitely JJ Abrams liberties taken toward the end.  I do want people to spend money on it so they make the sequel.

The Judge - 8.5/10.  Solid movie.  Cute girls.  Duvall craps himself and Downey has to clean it up.  Can't miss hit.

The Good Lie - 9/10.  Almost didn't want to see this one as I've fallen out of love with the now snotty Reese 'do you know who I am' Witherspoon.  Good movie in spite of her.  Feel good movie that works because it's not a feel good movie. 

Alexander and the blah, blah, blah - 5/10.  Barely funny and I could really care if everyone in the movie just dies. 

The Admiral - 7.5/10.  Good action, great sets and love the rather accurate portrayal of Korean v. Japanese culture.  Issues with the usual Korean over the top earnestness and romanticism.

Gone Girl - 9/10.  Rosamund Pike, you go girl!!  Want to knock it for Affleck trying to hard to entrap the audience.  Get over yourself dude.

The Equalizer - 8/10.  I liked Denzel's latest iteration of Man on Fire.  One of my favorite series still ongoing.  Lots of guns and an old mysterious dude killing lots of bad guys.  Bring the kids, you parents know you don't teach them shit worth a damn anyway these days. 

Walk Among Tombstones - 8/10.  Like Man on Fire but white, and without the Scott camera work.

Maze Runner - 8.5/10.  I quite enjoyed this.  Didn't read the books.  Look forward to the sequel.  Waaay better than 'The Giver' which was too much of a 'Taker' of my time and money.

No Good Deed - 6.5/10.  Too predictable and formulaic most of the time.  Laughably entertaining twist.  Bonus point because I like Idris Elba.  No Good Deed is no good movie.  Might be better with copious amounts of alcohol or psychotropics.

This is where I leave you - 6/10.  Nothing you haven't seen from Jason Bateman or Tina Fey before.  More of the usual, move along, nothing to see here.  Probably 30 minutes too long.





Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on October 20, 2014, 07:19:31 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OGvZoIrXpg

Fury - 8.5/10.  Finally, the best Tank movie made to date that catches the conditions and implementation of their crews.  Would have been 9/10 except for a few problem scenes.

1-The response to Spielberg's prisoner dilemma from Saving Private Ryan.  Here David Ayer turns the scene on its head.  Unfortunately it comes off as callous and superficial without the sort of depth Spielberg employs.  Ayers version does carry a karmic value towards the end of the narrative but it's more vague and a bit less believable.  Certainly a stretch as a cinematic device.

2-The tank assault head on by 3 Shermans line abreast against an entrenched Tiger tank was just so beyond the realm of the imagination even for the Polish Cavalry.  Shermans require speed and maneuver and Tigers distance and defensive posture.  This is a tank movie, not 'Any Given Sunday' with Al Pacino and 300lbs linemen slamming into each other.

3-The final battle at the crossroads was just waaay too over the top approaching GI Joe cartoon/B movie standards.  The authenticity and attention detail employed throughout the movie just falls apart here.

Apparently Shia LaBouef actually cut his own face to improve accuracy.  Worth the price of admission right there.

Annabelle- 3.5/10.  I'm a good horror movie aficionado.  This is hardly either.  Sooo predictable, derivative, fake and overprocessed like Velveta cheese.  A little Rosemary's Baby here, a little Exorcist there, a touch of Insidious and sprinkling other bits where they don't belong.  I actually left before the end, just couldn't take anymore and was bored as heck.

The Best of Me - 6/10. The Best of Me is like the worst of the Notebook.  For all intents, it is the Notebook II with a pinch of 'Atonement' and dash of 'Body Parts'.  Rather just watch the original over again.

St. Vincent - 7/10.  Decent movie.  Liked most of it but had issues with Naomi Watts terrible Russian accent and obviously latex belly.  Bill's gruff NYC accent couldn't seem to decide if it was coming or going. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTWX-BB4aAA

Last Days in Vietnam - 9/10.  Well done documentary that covers a lot of ground over a short period of time.  Really shows how intricate and complex the layers of foreign policy and bureaucracy are, and the sorts of moral judgments people are faced with when determining whether to act legally or ethically.  An equation that is often lost on most movies covering the same ground.  Quite a few profiles of people performing heroic acts when the worst case scenario comes to fruition.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Buttercream on October 20, 2014, 10:37:21 AM
Gone Girl - 9/10.  Rosamund Pike, you go girl!!  Want to knock it for Affleck trying to hard to entrap the audience.  Get over yourself dude.

I agree, Rosamund Pike nails it, while Ben Affleck's performance comes off sort of unnatural/artifical.


-Spoiler-
Though that could just be him playing a not very nice guy trying to portray as a likable guy, whereas Rosamund Pike play as an unapologetic sociopath/psychopath that you can't help but admire.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kirosia on October 20, 2014, 02:05:21 PM
Watched Suspiria and Inferno. Neither did it for me. Interesting visuals, but the plot, acting, and actual chill was paper thin. Oh, and apparently the recent versions of Suspiria have vocals that are too quiet and music is absurdly loud.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on October 20, 2014, 05:31:09 PM
Watched Suspiria and Inferno. Neither did it for me. Interesting visuals, but the plot, acting, and actual chill was paper thin. Oh, and apparently the recent versions of Suspiria have vocals that are too quiet and music is absurdly loud.

I tried getting into Argento's stuff but like you it was just arthouse with blood, not really horror/suspense.  Rather watch a Hitchcock anyday.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Byrnie on October 21, 2014, 01:24:34 PM
I finally saw "X-Men: Days of Future Past" and I found it was fantastic!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kunlun on October 21, 2014, 03:03:56 PM
1. Go out with girl who looks just like Rosamund Pike. Fall in love hard. Discover she was hiding serious mental illness. Suffer as a result.
2. See Gone Girl
3. Have nightmares
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: gelocks on October 21, 2014, 04:14:23 PM
Watched Suspiria and Inferno. Neither did it for me. Interesting visuals, but the plot, acting, and actual chill was paper thin. Oh, and apparently the recent versions of Suspiria have vocals that are too quiet and music is absurdly loud.
Watched Suspiria and Inferno. Neither did it for me. Interesting visuals, but the plot, acting, and actual chill was paper thin. Oh, and apparently the recent versions of Suspiria have vocals that are too quiet and music is absurdly loud.

I tried getting into Argento's stuff but like you it was just arthouse with blood, not really horror/suspense.  Rather watch a Hitchcock anyday.

Definitely agree. I own both (I like horror movies/thrillers/etc) and I actually got very bored with Inferno especially (found Suspiria much more better). Good gore and special effects but since he doesn't really cares about going into plot details, etc. it ends up being that, "artsy horror"...

Have watched a few movies this month as I usually do every October (try to watch 31 horror movies) and the best I've seen have been: Wolf Creek 2 (predictable but enjoyable and the villain Mick kicks ass!) and WER, a decent take on the werewolf 'genre'.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: OJneg on October 24, 2014, 04:39:06 AM
Late to the party...but I just saw Snowpiercer. Very good.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: firev1 on October 26, 2014, 02:59:17 AM
Just thought I put this here, it looks absolutely amazing. If they bring it to my place, would absolutely pay for an IMAX tix for it. http://www.wired.com/2014/10/astrophysics-interstellar-black-hole
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on October 26, 2014, 03:08:43 AM
Just thought I put this here, it looks absolutely amazing. If they bring it to my place, would absolutely pay for an IMAX tix for it. http://www.wired.com/2014/10/astrophysics-interstellar-black-hole

Considering the amount of trouble Chris Nolan had with using 'time', I suppose it was only inevitable he'd mess up 'space' too.  I hope it's good because I used to love his stuff but it's been getting worse and worse.  It's like he's trying to copy Michael Mann's decline.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: ericfarrell85 on October 26, 2014, 04:22:53 AM
Black Sunday (1977) - 8/10

An easily overlooked gem (overlooked simply by being a part of the cinema-summit 70's). Robert Shaw is frightening and magnetic as he always is, when at his best (see -- A Man For All Seasons). The locales are insightful, as you really find yourself immersed in several international settings (minus the awful glitz and glamour that has become a staple of modern filmmaking). The ending is a little protracted and overwrought, but this is easily forgiven as the rest of the piece is taut, with few missteps. There is a great tension that accompanies the film and amazingly manages to grip for over an hour with little letup.

I've been visiting some of the more overlooked treasures from the 70's and can lump this alongside The Gambler, Fat City and California Split (* these specifically only because I saw them most recently; there are dozens more of course) as fine movies that are seldom mentioned; unjustly in my opinion.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: firev1 on October 26, 2014, 05:16:58 AM
Considering the amount of trouble Chris Nolan had with using 'time', I suppose it was only inevitable he'd mess up 'space' too.  I hope it's good because I used to love his stuff but it's been getting worse and worse.  It's like he's trying to copy Michael Mann's decline.

I hope so too but this is more CGI(overseen by a physicist) than actual acting so there should be not too much that gets wrong, I hope.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: uncola on October 26, 2014, 07:32:05 AM
Just watched Summer of Blood  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3625352/   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af0emao5Zxg

The most annoying protagonist imaginable.  It was kind of funny to watch once but this is going in my list of movies to NEVER watch again.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Byrnie on October 26, 2014, 11:52:29 PM
Just thought I put this here, it looks absolutely amazing. If they bring it to my place, would absolutely pay for an IMAX tix for it. http://www.wired.com/2014/10/astrophysics-interstellar-black-hole

Considering the amount of trouble Chris Nolan had with using 'time', I suppose it was only inevitable he'd mess up 'space' too.  I hope it's good because I used to love his stuff but it's been getting worse and worse.  It's like he's trying to copy Michael Mann's decline.
Don't get me started on Inception... it made no sense.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: gelocks on October 27, 2014, 03:24:55 AM
Worse "movie" (actually more like an acted videogame) I've seen this #HorrOctober ?!?!?!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3398788/

LOL LOL!!!
Really, don't watch ANY Necrostorm movie unless you are into gore... MAYBE... ugh!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on October 27, 2014, 04:53:04 AM
Don't get me started on Inception... it made no sense.

Ya think?

(http://www.chud.com/articles/content_images/5/inceptionruined.jpg)
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: gelocks on October 27, 2014, 02:36:12 PM
Hahahaha!!!
I love when meme's ruin movies in just half a second!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: DaveBSC on October 27, 2014, 02:42:47 PM
Depp kinda phoned in...

Insert name of movie.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kirosia on October 27, 2014, 02:48:09 PM
I liked Inception for what is was, a sci-fi popcorn flick. I don't have a background in actual science though, and grew up on "if it doesn't completely sound absurd/offensive, just let it go" plots.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on October 27, 2014, 06:20:23 PM
I liked Inception for what is was, a sci-fi popcorn flick. I don't have a background in actual science though, and grew up on "if it doesn't completely sound absurd/offensive, just let it go" plots.

Science wasn't the problem, it was the philosophical issues and logic holes that inspired facesmash on desk.  Plus other issues....

I suppose if an old and young Spock had shown up and met at some point of the movie I would have let it all go.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kirosia on October 27, 2014, 06:41:47 PM
I don't have experience in those fields either. I really... shouldn't... be allowed to talk about... things.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: firev1 on November 03, 2014, 06:07:15 AM
Watched Lets be Cops and Fury over the past week. Lets be Cops is kinda slapstick and their actions are very facepalm if you are into that sort of thing. Main character's imagination goes wild and he goes full retard. I kinda enjoyed it since the ticket was free(squadron ann. celebrations)

Fury was good shit, my friends are into WOT and tank models in general and for them it was a jizz fest. Brad Pitt speaking German was awesome. One of the tank scenes drew me right into the action and that was a good thing. If you are into gore, its everywhere.

Not a movie critic(I rarely watch movies ever) so yeah take with a pinch of salt.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Buttercream on November 06, 2014, 01:00:35 AM
Interstellar - 9

A visually and aurally stunning movie bogged down (slightly) by a screenplay that tries to be comprehensively grand. but sometimes don't make the effort to be.

If you can, see it in 70mm IMAX, then scenes in space are beautiful. Gravity kinda stole it's thunder by coming out a year ahead, but instead of seeing astronauts stuck in space, you'll see them travel through it.

Oh, and don't look up the IMDb page, major spoiler there.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on November 10, 2014, 03:54:33 AM
Interstellar (IMAX) 8.75/10 - Think Inception meets 2001 Space Odyssey. Far better than the first,  not quite the latter but good enough. Gave bonus points for Matt Damon revealing his true self. Gave demerits for poorly integrated score that was overbearing (just like Inception) and the overall theme of the film seemed like a his attempt at redemption for Inception.  Nice homage to Kubrick's piece with the plaid and updated HALs.

Birdman - 9.25/10 - Liked it quite a bit!

Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: lmswjm on November 10, 2014, 04:06:13 AM
"Big Hero 6" and "The Book of Life" are two good ones to take the kids to.  I enjoyed them.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: cizx on November 10, 2014, 09:16:39 PM
Gotta agree with Anax about the score to Interstellar... I saw it in imax and the music drowned out the dialog in a lot of important scenes.  Overall, it was better than the last Nolan Batman, but I don't think it was great.  Expensive, long, and loud, but not great.  6.5/10

I also saw Gone Girl, finally, and thought that the biggest problem was the lack of verisimilitude, which I think stemmed from Rosamund Pike's performance.  Still, though, I enjoyed it.  8/10

Nightcrawler was fantastic, and kept me enthralled all the way through. 9/10

Birdman is on my list.  Just need to find a theater showing it in the area!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Byrnie on November 11, 2014, 12:31:58 AM
Interstellar (IMAX) 8.75/10 - Think Inception meets 2001 Space Odyssey. Far better than the first,  not quite the latter but good enough. Gave bonus points for Matt Damon revealing his true self. Gave demerits for poorly integrated score that was overbearing (just like Inception) and the overall theme of the film seemed like a his attempt at redemption for Inception.  Nice homage to Kubrick's piece with the plaid and updated HALs.

Birdman - 9.25/10 - Liked it quite a bit!


Matt Damon is in Interstellar?  Weird.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Marvey on November 11, 2014, 06:35:02 AM
Big Hero 6. Entire family hated it. The movie fails on so many levels. (BTW, family loved X-Men: Days of Future Past)
Maleficent. It was OK, but kinda sucky.
Matt Damon is in Interstellar?  Weird.

I loved Matt Damon in Team America World Police and True Grit. He's really good at playing retarded or semi-retarded characters.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Claritas on November 11, 2014, 06:57:05 AM
I loved Matt Damon in Team America World Police and True Grit. He's really good at playing retarded or semi-retarded characters.

His best performance was Tom Ripley, a gay sociopath.  :)p8
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: cizx on November 11, 2014, 07:18:56 AM
His best performance was Tom Ripley, a gay sociopath.  :)p8
He was fantastic in that... also, the last time I liked Gwenyth Paltrow.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Buttercream on November 11, 2014, 11:53:43 AM
Big Hero 6 is originally a Marvel comic property, Disney watered it down to a "kid friendly" version, then added the typical Disney emotion manipulation.

Parent-less child? Check.
Having your loved one died in front of you? Check.
A companion (ala Baymax, which was the only good thing about it, IMO) coming to your rescue? Check.
Unnecessary goodbye/sacrificial scene? Check.
And finally reunion and happily ever-after? Check,

It's ironic that Big Hero 6 opened on the same weekend with interstellar and both have the same production budget (165 million), both film could have been so much more than the final product. Big Hero 6 brought down by Disney, and Interstellar brought down by a convoluted plot.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Byrnie on November 11, 2014, 01:00:38 PM
Big Hero 6. Entire family hated it. The movie fails on so many levels. (BTW, family loved X-Men: Days of Future Past)
  • Too long - it should have been a 30 minute short - seemed like an idea sketched on a napkin and then stretched out
  • Movie couldn't figure it was supposed to be about: kid and puffy robot bonding? super hero movie? mystery? morality tale? coming to grips with death? It was like three different episodes glued into one. Never felt cohesive as a whole.
  • Way too predictable - you knew what was going to happen way way way before it happened.
  • Lots of scenes didn't work - fell kinda flat - lots of stuff already kind of done before. My boy fell asleep. I squirmed around in my seat waiting for the scenes to end.
  • Disney sucks. They should have gotten Marvel to do it (since Marvel can't fail), or Pixar.
Maleficent. It was OK, but kinda sucky.
  • Twist on the tale that fails on so many levels. Premise makes no sense considering Angela Jolie is like a level 96 mage and humans are like level 4 warriors at best. The King douchebag thing doesn't work. It like part episode of the Bachelor - the one with the douchebag loverboy soccer player.
  • Like above, way too predictable. You already know how Aurora is going to wake up.
  • Half of the characters are annoying. Disney should have killed Prince charming and the three old ladies in most horrible ways, a la Scorsese to make the movie more interesting
  • Border between fairly land and human land makes no sense. I mean WTF? Is this Stardust?
  • All the flaws could have been overlooked if Angela Jolie was able to steal and carry the show. She doesn't. Yeah yeah, she acts all upset at her metaphorical rape, seems kinda pissed, whatever. I just realized she's kind of a mediocre actor in a lot of the movies she's in.
  • Disney sucks. They should have gotten Marvel to do this.
I loved Matt Damon in Team America World Police and True Grit. He's really good at playing retarded or semi-retarded characters.

Oh I think Anax meant Matt McConaughey.   I was gonna say "Matt Damon is in this but not in the trailer?"
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Buttercream on November 11, 2014, 05:07:56 PM
Oh I think Anax meant Matt McConaughey.   I was gonna say "Matt Damon is in this but not in the trailer?"

Matt Damon is in Interstellar. That's more than you should know, if you're still planning to watch it.

He is in the trailer. You never saw his face though.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on November 11, 2014, 07:20:29 PM
His best performance was Tom Ripley, a gay sociopath.  :)p8

That's because he didn't have to act much.

Oh my, was all the good Big Hero 6 stuff in the trailers?  Anax=sad Panda.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Byrnie on November 12, 2014, 03:48:03 AM
Matt Damon is in Interstellar. That's more than you should know, if you're still planning to watch it.

He is in the trailer. You never saw his face though.
Interesting!  I will check it out then.  Does he buy another zoo in this one :D
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on November 12, 2014, 04:33:43 AM
Does he buy another zoo in this one :D

Surprisingly yes, in a manner of speaking.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: LFF on November 12, 2014, 05:15:16 PM
Interstellar 9/10

Great movie. Loved it and kept me very entertained. Took off one point for a major, MAJOR plot hole.

Birdman 7/10

Too pretentious. 'Nuff said. Giving it 5 just because Emma Stone is in it. 2 more for trying to be different and original.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Marvey on November 12, 2014, 05:22:00 PM
Oh my, was all the good Big Hero 6 stuff in the trailers?  Anax=sad Panda.

Unfortunately yes. Many of the scenes that worked the best were in the trailers. The movie was very different than what the trailers would have led you to believe. I'm sure the Disney execs decided to resort to this trickery after they realized what a discombobulated mess they had on their hands.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: firev1 on November 12, 2014, 05:27:11 PM
I knew I was right to skio BH6!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kirosia on November 12, 2014, 06:50:10 PM
I watched Frozen recently. I thought it was dull and I disliked everyone but the reindeer-thing. Were the rock trolls supposed to be the magic negros of Disney yore?
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Colgin on November 12, 2014, 08:14:13 PM
Black Sunday (1977) - 8/10

An easily overlooked gem (overlooked simply by being a part of the cinema-summit 70's). Robert Shaw is frightening and magnetic as he always is, when at his best (see -- A Man For All Seasons). The locales are insightful, as you really find yourself immersed in several international settings (minus the awful glitz and glamour that has become a staple of modern filmmaking). The ending is a little protracted and overwrought, but this is easily forgiven as the rest of the piece is taut, with few missteps. There is a great tension that accompanies the film and amazingly manages to grip for over an hour with little letup.

I've been visiting some of the more overlooked treasures from the 70's and can lump this alongside The Gambler, Fat City and California Split (* these specifically only because I saw them most recently; there are dozens more of course) as fine movies that are seldom mentioned; unjustly in my opinion.


I haven't seen this in years, but loved it as a kid.  '76/'77 was when I started finally being able to watch adult films (but not R-rated ones as I was still too young) and I recall my mother taking this to me in the theater. I have a real fondness for '70's movies and there were really a lot of great ones, with many routine releases just still being of a very solid quality. Some other great '70s thrillers at the top of my personal list are Three Days of the Condor and Marathon Man.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on November 12, 2014, 08:46:59 PM
Birdman 7/10

Too pretentious. 'Nuff said. Giving it 5 just because Emma Stone is in it. 2 more for trying to be different and original.

I could totally see that.  It is an Iñárritu movie after all which I didn't know at the time.  I took it as tongue in cheek yet mocking of the pretension of performance art.  I suppose that could be pretentious in itself.  I took the opening scene to set the stage as "please don't take any of this shit seriously" lol.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on November 12, 2014, 08:48:53 PM
Some other great '70s thrillers at the top of my personal list are Three Days of the Condor and Marathon Man.


French Connection and Exorcist!  The Conversation is also good.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: DaveBSC on November 12, 2014, 09:08:20 PM
Disney sucks.


AFAICT Disney these days is no worse than Pixar, who have cranked out three turds in a row (Cars 2, Brave, and Monsters U) and is now digging up the corpse of Toy Story for another cash/merch grab. I think Pixar is running on empty.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on November 12, 2014, 09:16:51 PM
AFAICT Disney these days is no worse than Pixar, who have cranked out three turds in a row (Cars 2, Brave, and Monsters U) and is now digging up the corpse of Toy Story for another cash/merch grab. I think Pixar is running on empty.

Well, Disney has owned Pixar since 2006.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: DaveBSC on November 12, 2014, 09:27:37 PM
Yeah but they are still two different animation studios. Ironically Pixar at one point contemplated leaving the company because they were afraid Disney would try to pump out endless sequels. Oops.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Hands on November 12, 2014, 09:27:42 PM
In summary, Interstellar didn't have enough spaghettification (i.e. it had none - and, yes, that is a scientific term, if you did not know). I was pretty disappointed by that. To elaborate, I just felt there was too much pseudo-science in a movie that seemed to present itself as rather scientific in most contexts ("But we had a theoretical physicist consult us!"). Then the whole love transcending time and space nonsense which, while I get what they were going for, could have been left out without affecting the plot.

(click to show/hide)

I agree with Anax about the poorly integrated score. I just felt it was too much too often. Also, might have been the theater I saw it at, but the voice volume was generally way too low relative to everything else, to the point where you could barely hear them. Oh, lastly, some of the lines in that movie made me laugh out loud. So corny at times. Perhaps not the best way to describe it, but I just want to say Interstellar was ham-handed at times.

STILL, despite all this and the movie being a bit too drawn out at times, it was an enjoyable experience. I'd give it an 8/10 or so. Worth seeing once in theaters, but maybe not more than that.

--------

The GF and I actually enjoyed Big Hero 6. I know Marv thought the trailer had most of the good material, but I actually thought the opposite while watching it (I can see his point, though). It's a pretty typical and non-surprising (i.e. predictable) movie overall, but, regardless, I enjoyed it. I actually thought it was pretty funny. I also don't see many of movies in this style, though, so perhaps I'm less burnt out on them.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Buttercream on November 13, 2014, 11:27:25 AM
In summary, Interstellar didn't have enough spaghettification (i.e. it had none - and, yes, that is a scientific term, if you did not know). I was pretty disappointed by that. To elaborate, I just felt there was too much pseudo-science in a movie that seemed to present itself as rather scientific in most contexts ("But we had a theoretical physicist consult us!"). Then the whole love transcending time and space nonsense which, while I get what they were going for, could have been left out without affecting the plot.

-snip-


(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on November 15, 2014, 01:04:14 PM
How about some more oldies?  :&

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BxZeVFbtBOo/VGNjp5AQ9rI/AAAAAAAAAcQ/MFEEcgcgosY/s1600/kog2.gif)

King Kong (1933) - 8,5

Woderful B&W cassic. Technically brilliant and highly entertaining. Highly recommended!

Full review in my new blog, here (http://laminafiada.blogspot.pt/2014/11/king-kong-1933_15.html).

That's where I'll be posting all my movie reviews from now on.
I'm not fully done with the design, feedback and comments are appreciated.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: gelocks on November 16, 2014, 03:47:52 AM
LOVED Interstellar...

That's all.
Oh and IMAX rules! ;)
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: firev1 on November 21, 2014, 04:02:15 PM
Watched it too, some obvious pseudo science going on but I love the CG! Really gives life to the science. Shed manly tears at the last scene though yeah it was too short lol.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on December 07, 2014, 07:26:39 AM
Have to say, when Cumberbatch is not playing a genetically engineered Sikh conqueror in an alternate WASPy universe, he's quite superb.

Imitation Game - 9/10. Fantastic work by Benedict. Overall well produced movie about Alan Turing and Project Ultra v. Enigma. Didn't like how the epilogue turned a comprehensively well done movie into a preachy gay rights platform for the last couple minutes. The message was already well played via the movie's core material. Thought it diminished the movie kind of like being served melted generic store bought ice cream after a Michelin star meal.

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (by Danny Boyle) - 9.25/10. Cumberbatch was simply sublime as Frankenstein's monster. His work in the opening of the play is quite remarkable just carries forward. The only thing that annoyed me a bit was casting a white Frankenstein's father as a black man with a slight Caribbean accent (Katanga from Raiders of the Lost Ark). Really bizarre decision that smacked of too much PC to me. Victor's fiancee was already black and actually had a British accent, not Grenadian.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Ringingears on December 07, 2014, 02:02:39 PM
Watched it too, some obvious pseudo science going on but I love the CG! Really gives life to the science. Shed manly tears at the last scene though yeah it was too short lol.

This is interesting. http://www.wired.com/2014/10/astrophysics-interstellar-black-hole/ (http://www.wired.com/2014/10/astrophysics-interstellar-black-hole/)
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Marvey on December 23, 2014, 05:39:07 AM
August: Osage County


Oh gawd. This is fricking unwatchable. Julie thought Transformers 4 was better. BTW, Cumberbatch is in this film too.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on December 23, 2014, 05:48:17 AM
August: Osage County


Oh gawd. This is fricking unwatchable. Julie thought Transformers 4 was better. BTW, Cumberbatch is in this film too.

I don't recall if I reviewed this one here or not, but it's one of the most pretentious and overwrought pieces of dramatic BS to ever come from HW. There should really be a class action suit against this movie for damages inflicted upon the audience.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: keanex on December 23, 2014, 05:58:27 AM
I was watching Snowpiercer with a friend half-heartedly and it seemed to be a really odd movie I couldn't really get into. It was based off of a French comic so I imagine much got lost in translation.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Marvey on December 23, 2014, 06:01:51 AM
There should really be a class action suit against this movie for damages inflicted upon the audience.

I just walked out of the movie room. No need to finish it. Already see where it's going.

P.S. OMFG, that was Ewan McGregor!!!???
P.S.S. Nice touch on the sepia tone end credit slide show.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Ringingears on December 23, 2014, 06:22:47 AM
Thanks for the warning! My wife wanted to rent it. We will pass.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Marvey on December 23, 2014, 06:24:20 AM
Julie: It didn't end well.
Marv: <giggles> I guess that made the movie even worse.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Ringingears on December 23, 2014, 08:18:33 AM
Great! Now I have watch it to know what you are talking about! That's what HBO is for.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Claritas on December 30, 2014, 03:07:30 AM
The Good Shepherd (2006) 2/5 or 3/10

For the second or third time in my life, I watched most of a movie before realizing I'd already seen it. It's completely unmemorable and colorless. It could be argued that it suffers from the so-called imitative fallacy: portraying a colorless character colorlessly. But I don't believe that.

The only interesting moment is a brief, slightly offensive dialogue between the spymaster and a mafioso.

(click to show/hide)

The substance of those remarks is no longer true, but it's worth thinking about what's different since then and what's next.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: No_One411 on December 30, 2014, 03:16:07 AM
Anybody watch the Interview?

I want my money back...

Let's just say...

Seth Rogen and James Franco have done better.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on December 30, 2014, 07:07:02 AM
The Good Shepherd (2006) 2/5 or 3/10

For the second or third time in my life, I watched most of a movie before realizing I'd already seen it. It's completely unmemorable and colorless. It could be argued that it suffers from the so-called imitative fallacy: portraying a colorless character colorlessly. But I don't believe that.

The only interesting moment is a brief, slightly offensive dialogue between the spymaster and a mafioso.

(click to show/hide)

The substance of those remarks is no longer true, but it's worth thinking about what's different since then and what's next.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Jesus_Angleton
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Claritas on December 30, 2014, 07:27:53 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Jesus_Angleton

William F. Buckley's novel Spytime is a much, much better portrait of Angleton (though not quite adequate).

Golitsyn's an interesting guy too. But it's too hard to distinguish what's foresight and what's hindsight.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on December 30, 2014, 07:32:04 AM
William F. Buckley's Spytime is a much, much better portrait of Angleton (though not quite adequate).

Golitsyn's an interesting guy too.

Glad you know who these people are. Wasn't sure. Think that puts you in the top 0.001% of the population. You may continue voting. Carry on. Just don't touch the smite button.  ;) :)p17
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: anetode on December 30, 2014, 07:33:27 AM
Anybody watch the Interview?

I want my money back...

Let's just say...

Seth Rogen and James Franco have done better.

You weren't supposed to watch it sober.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: No_One411 on December 30, 2014, 07:37:23 AM
You weren't supposed to watch it sober.


Nah, I'm just hatin' cause I ain't them.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Deep Funk on January 01, 2015, 08:32:22 AM
Monty Python's The Meaning of Life from 1983 - No rating, too silly or simply awesome depending on your taste.

To celebrate and close the year 2014 I had to do something different, thus Monty Python.

On the whole this film is not really a film unless you count Pythonesque narrative sketch logic as a coherency tool for all things Python. The Crimson Permanent Assurance opening is one of those things that I can watch several times and still enjoy.

Then the main film starts with the sketches. The birth sketch is still one of my favourites. The "Ping machine" to impress the administrator is on of my favourite jokes ever. There is something about fish, fishy fish and the meaning of life and of course fish.

If this film does not make you want to re-enact the "Fish Slapping Dance", it might not be for you. If this film gives you the chucklelitis and pure R.O.F.L. tendencies you understand my rating.

To celebrate the start of 2015, Pythonesque memories and a fresh coffee. Cheers and may 2015 be meaningful! 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyline on January 01, 2015, 03:46:34 PM
Alright, I'm going to throw one out that will result in my man card being taken away.  I'm okay with that.

About Time - 2013

Yes, it's a romantic comedy.  Yes, it features Rachel Adams in her 2nd love story that revolves around time travel.  I wasn't expecting much, but it completely caught me off guard.

I didn't realize how much I needed to see a movie that just makes you feel good.  No real drama.  No huge complications.  Just a really solid and charming life-affirming movie. 

Many will probably find it cheesy, but that's not always a bad thing.  Go watch it and feel good about life for a couple of hours.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on January 01, 2015, 06:12:20 PM
Rachel McAdams is pretty irresistible. Hard to have a problem with her, especially if you survive Morning Glory.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: nonamodnar on January 01, 2015, 10:05:53 PM
And to follow suit wih Skyline,
The F Word with Daniel Radcliff
One of the few movies that have an involving/evolving dialogue that I really enjoy (besides the Before Sunrise trilogy). The chemistry between the two characters are undeniable and it's rather cute to see such freshness in the rom-com genre. I watched it twice and still can't get enough of the wit of their conversations.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on January 02, 2015, 04:49:50 AM
Just picked up one of my Korean War faves on BluRay on sale at Fry's for $2.99. Basically an updated Pork Chop Hill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGBAAKZiUk8

Also got 'New World' for the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rln9Hx_wPFw
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Dasgoblin on January 08, 2015, 06:37:06 AM
Has anyone seen The Drop with James Gandolfini and Tom Hardy? I felt it was every bit as good as gone girl.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kunlun on February 22, 2015, 05:28:30 PM
If people haven't seen Timbuktu, which is up for an oscar in the foreign movie section, then I'd recommend seeing it. I'd pick Ida over it for the foreign oscar, but Timbuktu has some moving and interesting scenes, that makes it a worthwhile time.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: gelocks on February 22, 2015, 08:57:43 PM
So I need to say that I watched John Wick for the second time.
I don't know if it's the "pseudo-noir" setting it has going on, or the interesting "assassins club" with their own payment methods and shit or if it's just the kick-ass action, I think I might buy it!!! :eek:
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Byrnie on February 23, 2015, 12:18:29 AM
So I need to say that I watched John Wick for the second time.
I don't know if it's the "pseudo-noir" setting it has going on, or the interesting "assassins club" with their own payment methods and shit or if it's just the kick-ass action, I think I might buy it!!! :eek:

I also enjoyed it and loved the celeb cameos.  I also saw Lucy and while the ending was "out there", I did like most of it up until then.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kunlun on February 23, 2015, 02:44:44 AM
If people haven't seen Timbuktu, which is up for an oscar in the foreign movie section, then I'd recommend seeing it. I'd pick Ida over it for the foreign oscar, but Timbuktu has some moving and interesting scenes, that makes it a worthwhile time.

Ida just picked up the foreign category oscar. Definitely a film to see.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Claritas on February 24, 2015, 12:57:05 AM
I watched Munich (2005) last night. It's a pretty crummy movie, not even so good as Sword of Gideon (1986) about the same Mossad operation.  2/5 or 3/10

In comparison, Munich is too long, bland and humorless, except for the moments of improbable pathos and unnecessary political commentary verging on moral equivalence.

It doesn't speak well for American cinema that Steven Spielberg is so well-regarded. I like Indiana Jones as much as the next guy; Spielberg should stick to similarly light topics (though he managed to bollocks that up too).
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on February 24, 2015, 01:35:18 AM
Finally! Someone else that realized Munich was a Spielberg knock off of Sword of Gideon. I get sick of all these Oscars for remakes like Gladiator (aka. Fall of the Roman Empire).

I'll confess I do appreciate Munich for it's modern high production quality and what to me is excellent integration of the Olympic hostage crisis which puts me on edge every time. I do think Spielberg does combat action/tension better than Eastwood fwiw. Also the Golda Meir speech is spot on. Much truth there that still resonates obviously today.

You might get a kick out of The Assignment if you haven't seen it already. I remember hearing about the govt getting the movie pulled after only a week or so of release.

Btw, saw Whiplash on the airplane. Fantastic movie and performance, Oscar well earned. 9/10

The Homesman - 8.75/10; Completely different take on the Old West and early pioneer life. Jarring stuff that deSpaghettify's and un-Hollywood's the genre.

American Sniper - 7.75/10; It was okay. Tactical inaccuracies, some caricature of real people that deserved a more honest and layered approach, little bit disjointed and ending hamstrung and truncated by current litigation process. Overall mood just too relaxed. Not Clint's best work imo. Kathryn Bigalow simply does it better. Hurt Locker gave me flashbacks and took me back there, certain scenes in this movie reminded me of Starship Troopers instead.

Jupiter Ascending - 2/10; gets points for CGI. Pretty weak all around.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Byrnie on February 24, 2015, 12:17:57 PM
I watched The Judge too recently and enjoyed it for the most part.

**fixed a typo
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: maibuN on February 25, 2015, 03:55:51 PM
Btw, saw Whiplash on the airplane. Fantastic movie and performance, Oscar well earned. 9/10

I agree with you :)
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Deep Funk on March 18, 2015, 11:15:18 PM
Flatland the Movie - 2007

The visuals look outdated but the story and plot are contemporary. There is a charm to the style.

If you are curious as to whether shapes as figures can tell stories, yes they can.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Sholay on April 26, 2015, 06:39:35 PM
Avengers - Age of Ultron : 1/10

Pathetic,senseless storyline. After the last Transformers movie that left me braindead i promised myself not to watch such stuff but got caught into the hype only to be disappointed again.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on April 27, 2015, 07:26:44 AM
Airing on PBS April 28th. One of the best documentaries about what really happened during our exit from Vietnam with the how and some of the why of what actually happened. I expect quite a few people in this day and age who think they know what happened to have those preconceptions challenged if they watch critically. A good lesson in waste (lives and money) and betrayal (loyalty/trust versus political expediency), and of how not to do things if a country is going to commit to doing them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amMQmLwV05Y

If only this aired at the White House 5 years ago to someone willing to look and listen to history.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: ultrabike on April 27, 2015, 04:53:41 PM
Saw Interstellar this weekend. Good movie too relax and chew on popcorn. Lot's of issues though.
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on April 27, 2015, 05:25:11 PM
My favorite part was, "that's not a mountain".  :-0
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: ultrabike on April 27, 2015, 05:32:25 PM
LOL! That mountain was slooooow (well, maybe it was not too bad). Moses would have been jelous.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on May 03, 2015, 03:58:25 PM
Seven Samurai (1954) - 8,5

Japan, Sengoku period.

Theft of values, theft of life, theft of happiness and pride. Oppressive suffering haunts a small village of farmers. Suffering perpetrated by vultures of greed whose next attack, the farmers profess, will sentence the village extinct. What can be done? Everything that follows stems from the instinct of survival. Instinct camouflaged in delusions of honor, justice, altruism and bravery. Instinct fed by fear, despair and love. Thus begins the existential crusade to preserve the dearest and most precious human virtues in a cruel and amoral world.

Appeals for the samurai conduct warrant provisions for the battle ahead. But the only distinction between a samurai and a non-samurai is one's mask: the world we invent for ourselves is only a disguise for our fears and denials. A farce that falls apart when heroism meets life's ungratefulness and the harsh truth becomes inescapable: all men are slaves of their mortality in the struggle for survival, samurai or not. Death is oblivious to our titles and dilemmas. But when death strikes, only those who seek to outlive fate are caught off guard. They will never know ephemeral happiness, for life is unforgiving of one's mistakes. Living it humbly is the only way to die undefeated.

A single negative remark: considerable length and slow progression may lead to boredom and distraction. Particularly during the first half where all main characters are slowly introduced. This is heightened by the fact that Kurosawa's cinema may not be particularly easy to chew for some: rewards aren't immediately apparent to viewers, and his movies may even appear aesthetically insipid or plain. Digging below the surface, however, reveals a very different truth. Seven Samurai overflows with beauty and genius subverted between the lines of the cinematic composition. The ability to effortlessly engage and entertain speaks volumes about the amount of thought invested in each take. Almost every sequence was crafted with sculptor's fastidiousness, and the result is near perfect symbiosis between form and function - one of Kurosawa's greatest gifts. Highly recommended!

Link (http://laminafiada.blogspot.pt/2015/05/seven-samurai-1954.html) for blog review.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: joch on May 03, 2015, 04:07:16 PM
Seven Samurai (1954) - 8,5


One of the best movie ever made. Get the Criterion version if you can.

This spawned the American Western version The Magnificent Seven -- also recommended.

Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: kkl10 on May 03, 2015, 05:00:34 PM
This review was delayed for months. I want to re-watch the movie because I believe my rating does not truly reflect the rewards I can extract from this movie. And yes, very interesting to see how some of Kurosawa's movies shared reciprocal influence with western movies at the time. I may watch The Magnificent Seven too.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Hands on May 03, 2015, 05:35:17 PM
Saw Interstellar this weekend. Good movie too relax and chew on popcorn . Lot's of issues though.

Not enough spaghettification in Interstellar. But a good "experience" regardless.

Saw Age of Ultron over the weekend. Worst part was all the actual comic book nerds screaming and cheering at the smallest things. That was annoying. I missed many lines because of that, dammit! Otherwise, movie was mostly mindless fun. Villian was too two-dimensional despite lines trying to make him seem less so (blowz up the worldz, make da hoomanz evolve, such betterz). Nothing too unexpected in the end.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Deep Funk on May 03, 2015, 09:19:12 PM
Un Homme qui Dort - 1974

A French film that is unlike most films. I was lucky to experience the film in a good setting. Think chapel like acoustics and a big projector screen.

The films is literally about man who sleeps in the sense that he escapes the clutches of society. Having written that this experimental film is largely carried by its black and white images, cinematography, directing style and soundtrack. There is a peculiar beauty to this film that either gets to you or or not.

I liked it. In the right setting this film can suck you in and spit you out. If experimental films are your thing, maybe worth a try.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: shotgunshane on May 03, 2015, 10:06:28 PM
One of the best movie ever made. Get the Criterion version if you can.

This spawned the American Western version The Magnificent Seven -- also recommended.



Really? Off to buy/rent/stream.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kunlun on May 03, 2015, 11:42:22 PM
One of the best movie ever made. Get the Criterion version if you can.

This spawned the American Western version The Magnificent Seven -- also recommended.

Yes.

Also, Yojimbo is a lot of fun, too.

Rashomon is simply required viewing.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on May 04, 2015, 03:42:19 AM
Usually love Kurosawa (Ran, Hidden Fortress, many others), but did not like Seven Samurai that much precisely due to kk10's mention of the negative aspect. By the time things might have gotten interesting, I really didn't care too much and perhaps a couple characters were too caricatured to me.

Liked Magnificent Seven significantly less still. Felt extremely dated from a much more naïve era compounded by the shameless ethnocentric monetization of a foreign classic. If Magnificent Seven is great movie, then The Departed would have to be a historic marvel of cinematic accomplishment. I'd rather watch any Sergio Leone movie 10x's in a row before this movie one more time.

Ex Machina - 7.75/10; knocked down a bit for lack of profundity but it was plain fun to watch for me in a Black Mirror/Outer Limits sort of way.

Adaline - 6.5/10; high marks for good overall production quality but what a bleh drag. Chick runs from love cuz she's scared of living forever. Love overcomes her fear and she begins to die. Son gets dad's sloppy seconds. What-the-fuck-ever... There's lightning and slow motion effects with a couple physics lessons presented by Dr.Seuss at the beginning and end of the movie.  ::)

True Story- 7/10; it's okay. Jonah Hill is a mediocre Bob Woodward. James Franco is a mediocre Ed Norton. Ain't no Truman Capote or In Cold Blood here.

Woman in Gold - 6/10; Formulaic and predictable, you know what's going to happen every step of the way.

Get Hard - 5/10; Weak. This movie made me soft. Maybe one or two lines brought a chuckle.

The Water Diviner - 7.75/10; Not super special but a fun watch for me with a somewhat atypical storyline from a historical period people might find interesting.

Longest Ride - 7/0 (zero); I could only stand to come in and watch the last 15-20 minutes of this 3rd or 4th shameless installment to The Notebook series using a different tittle and different faces. One old couple, one young couple, one war, half-naked chick and dude jump in a body of water and make out. By the level of sniffling and watery eyes I'd say Hollywood's fleecing of female consumers was moderately successful here. I hear the 5th installment in The Notebook series is only another 3-6 months out. This long ride seemingly will not end....



Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: joch on May 04, 2015, 03:49:22 AM
Yojimbo, another good one that became A Fistful of Dollars, which then gave way to The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.


Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kirosia on May 05, 2015, 11:54:47 PM
TMNT the Michael Bay Spectacular - It was good for what it was. I liked the turtles. April... had a bit too much work done on her face, but oh well. And the guy who played Eric Sacks? He turns out to be the villain in everything he's in. They stopped trying.

It Follows - Entertaining, if predictable. And honestly, not really horror. I've had better scares in straight-to-Netflix weekend fodder. The creature itself seems to be dumb as bricks- why not transform itself into someone the victim won't recognize to blend in, like a student while she's at school, etc.? And it's shown that it can kill someone practically instantly, but it effectively "plays" with the protagonist for no other reason than to prevent the movie from ending in 20 minutes.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: uncola on May 10, 2015, 08:25:54 AM
I just watched It Follows.. I liked it.  The girl is the same one from The Guest(another good movie I recommend).  I enjoyed the feel of the movie.. all the use of water symbolism and how it wasn't set in any particular decade.  I'm still not sure what the message of the movie is.. I guess it has something to do with dostoevsky's The Idiot since they read from it in the movie.  What message did you take away from watching the movie Kirosia? 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Marvey on May 11, 2015, 10:30:42 PM
Marvel Can Fail: Avengers 2.

Suffers a similar problem as Big Hero 6. Can't figure out what kind of movie it's going to be. This problem is compounded by the following: 1) lack of story; 2) introduction of even more heroes, villains, and other crap from the comics, e.g. Wakanda, vibranium, is that supposed to be the Flash? Klaw? Vision? Huh? What? Who is that girl with red magic powers? 3) a main villain that seemed menacing enough, however at no point we believed would be successful with his evil plan - unlike Loki in the first where we felt a strong sense of urgency - that he could have actually pulled it off; 4) an incredibly stupid McGuffin which allowed Ultron to be defeatable - I didn't know Marvel was taking lessons from Harry Potter. The movie was ran too long and was a torture fest for my kids.

Verdict: -28 stars. Slightly worse than Transformers 3. This movie would have been better had Michael Bay directed it.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Deep Funk on May 11, 2015, 11:07:23 PM
Marvel Can Fail: Avengers 2.

Suffers a similar problem as Big Hero 6. Can't figure out what kind of movie it's going to be. This problem is compounded by the following: 1) lack of story; 2) introduction of even more heroes, villains, and other crap from the comics, e.g. Wakanda, vibranium, is that supposed to be the Flash? Klaw? Vision? Huh? What? Who is that girl with red magic powers? 3) a main villain that seemed menacing enough, however at no point we believed would be successful with his evil plan - unlike Loki in the first where we felt a strong sense of urgency - that he could have actually pulled it off; 4) an incredibly stupid McGuffin which allowed Ultron to be defeatable - I didn't know Marvel was taking lessons from Harry Potter. The movie was ran too long and was a torture fest for my kids.

Verdict: -28 stars. Slightly worse than Transformers 3. This movie would have been better had Michael Bay directed it.

You are harsher than Cinemasins. If an action film entertains less than the Transformers routine exercise, if has failed hard.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: No_One411 on May 11, 2015, 11:12:01 PM
Marvel Can Fail: Avengers 2.

Suffers a similar problem as Big Hero 6. Can't figure out what kind of movie it's going to be. This problem is compounded by the following: 1) lack of story; 2) introduction of even more heroes, villains, and other crap from the comics, e.g. Wakanda, vibranium, is that supposed to be the Flash? Klaw? Vision? Huh? What? Who is that girl with red magic powers? 3) a main villain that seemed menacing enough, however at no point we believed would be successful with his evil plan - unlike Loki in the first where we felt a strong sense of urgency - that he could have actually pulled it off; 4) an incredibly stupid McGuffin which allowed Ultron to be defeatable - I didn't know Marvel was taking lessons from Harry Potter. The movie was ran too long and was a torture fest for my kids.

Verdict: -28 stars. Slightly worse than Transformers 3. This movie would have been better had Michael Bay directed it.

Ah, you are much harsher on the film than I was. I'll agree that it was hella long, and plot didn't flow well at all. A lot of the context only made sense if you actually knew what was going on. That said, the 2 upcoming Infinity War movies should hopefully be good.

I think the worst part was the inclusion of too many random jokes in the movie. You get these comic book nerds that laugh and yell in excitement at all the random one-liners.

I would know... I might have been one of them.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Buttercream on May 12, 2015, 12:16:01 PM
I think the run time is fine, but it's not evenly delegated throughout. For example, a lot of time is spent on establishing Hawkeye character and his family, but in the end when he "retires" and goes home, I didn't missed him at all, kinda glad he's gone to be honest.

Meanwhile, ultron goes from a pieced-mealed robot that's about to fall apart to his prime form in about 5 minutes. Huh? His intention and reasoning needs more time to ferment, and would better the film is he was a stronger villan. At no time did I feel he would pose a challenge to the Avengers and would live to see another film. Such a disservice to James Spader since he played the part so well.
 
Also, what is that traversty of Thor's so called story line. He goes off to invite Selvik to skinny dip, then comes back with the answer to everything. At no point explaining what that pool is, how he come to know of it, and why he needs to bring selvig along in the first place. All wrapped up in about 5 minutes of screen time.

And of course, they have to bombard us with "funny" one liners. The film want you to take it seriously, but wants you to laugh along as well. Humor is a seasoning, when you put that much into the pot it ends up ruining the dish.

Overall: 5/10

P.S., Wakanda, vibranium, and Klaw is a tease to black panther, supposedly to be introduced in civil war, and gets his own movie in 2018.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: gelocks on May 12, 2015, 12:40:50 PM
Anyone excited for the new Mad Max movie?! (Me like post-apocalyptic films!!!)
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Armaegis on May 12, 2015, 02:21:51 PM
I saw Avengers 2 the other day (probably the first movie I've seen in theatres since Avengers 1). The whole thing felt really cobbled together, like they had a checklist of all the characters, references, and jokes that they had to cram in. Would have been better as a 2-parter methinks. Some of the product placements were pretty ugly too.  But at any rate I still enjoyed the movie from a "shut off the brain and watch stuff happen" standpoint.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on May 12, 2015, 06:05:30 PM
Anyone excited for the new Mad Max movie?! (Me like post-apocalyptic films!!!)

Hell yes! The trailers look brilliant. It will be shocking if the film can live up to the trailers. If it does, I'd say it's better than the original. Charlize looks a little soft in the movie though, we'll see. I suppose dating Sean Penn means you really don't take anything in life seriously anymore. Joss Whedon fail.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Marvey on May 12, 2015, 06:14:29 PM
But at any rate I still enjoyed the movie from a "shut off the brain and watch stuff happen" standpoint.

Oh, I love shut off brain and watch things explode movies. Just ask Anax. But this one made me facepalm the entire way through. Avengers: Earth's Mightest Heroes cartoons manage to do better in their three part story arc 1/2 hour episodes with even more characters. Joss Whedon fail.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Armaegis on May 12, 2015, 07:23:55 PM

I think the run time is fine, but it's not evenly delegated throughout. For example, a lot of time is spent on establishing Hawkeye character and his family, but in the end when he "retires" and goes home, I didn't missed him at all, kinda glad he's gone to be honest.

I liked Hawkeye in the film actually. His scenes didn't really fit into the whole movie, but I just liked that he seemed the most grounded and normal person while everyong else was angsting.

Ultron and Vision were really characters. Lotsa potential, but so shoehorned.

Tony was pretty true to character compared to his recent comic appearances; a megalomaniac self-appointed world saviour and futurist that sees the earth is doomed unless he takes action by whatever means necessary.

Thor... had some dreams and stuff, then came back mumbling about infinity gems. Makes sense for us comic nerds, but probably completely lost on regular viewers. This seriously needed more explanation. I read somewhere they cut the explanation scenes in favour of Hawkeye's farm scene.

Black Widow & Hulk... meh, could have done without this, but I guess everyone needs equal screen time.

Cap... what did he do in the movie again?

Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Buttercream on May 12, 2015, 08:29:01 PM
From what I read, whedon had to cut a hour out of the film, and it showed in the final product.

I really liked Vision and Ultron, them along with the twins were my favorite part about the movie.

The infinity gems part, I understand. I just had no idea what that pool/pond was. I remember there's a shot in one of the trailers of a black woman entering said pond, but it didn't made into the movie. Maybe it'll show up in the longer cut.

I didn't mind Brutasha, though it made black widow seemed kinda desperate, and hulk kinda unlikable.

Cap spend a portion of his screen time wearing the hell out of some ridiculously tight t-shirts, not that I'm complaining. The rest of the movie he was seen in action scenes and delivering some... dialogue. He'll get to shine in his own movie next year, I hope.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Hroðulf on May 25, 2015, 08:17:05 PM
Mad Max, anyone?

One of the best action movies of the friggin decade, methinks.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on May 25, 2015, 09:25:52 PM
Yes. Most enjoyment at the theater I've had since Guardians of the Galaxy.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: cizx on May 25, 2015, 09:40:12 PM
Mad Max, anyone?

One of the best action movies of the friggin decade, methinks.

Yeah, definitely worth the ticket price. I'm not sure I can see it again, at least not for a while. The movie was an assault. I'm sure I missed stuff, though.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: gelocks on May 26, 2015, 02:05:25 PM
Hahaha and I thought I was excited about Mad Max!!
(still haven't seen it! :()

But, just to get in the mood, I've started watching the old ones again. Man, even though they are very rough (they definitely haven't age ALL that well), they just have that "it" factor, the attraction! Hopefully I'll see this new one this week!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Deep Funk on May 27, 2015, 12:54:45 AM
Mad Max, anyone?

One of the best action movies of the friggin decade, methinks.

Chris Stuckmann hinted at an electric guitar that breathes fire. Jimmy Hendrix would want to see that. My inner metal-head has to see that. '"An electric guitar that breathes fire", now repeat the sentence and try telling me that is not awesome.

I have to see this film and Kung Fury. After that back to non-film life...
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Sholay on May 27, 2015, 11:30:41 AM
Mad Max, anyone?

One of the best action movies of the friggin decade, methinks.

Yes, the best movie experience this year so far. The action sequences were amazingly intense and well done.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kirosia on May 28, 2015, 08:37:18 PM
Predestination 7.5/10

Predictable science-fiction that lays it on a bit thick (it's an adaption of a short story), but it's very well acted. Ethan Hawke and Sarah Snooke (who I'd only previously seen in the VOD-fodder Jessebelle) are simply captivating.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Deep Funk on May 29, 2015, 01:54:12 PM
Kung Fury - 2015

Best retro 80ties action movie in an half format that has as much entertainment value as the original Die Hard and Cobra films with plenty of Mortal Kombat action to justify creating the "finish him" drinking game. Too awesome for words.

No rating is good enough for this movie. All you can wish for is to ride a T-Rex all day. I have to have this on DVD.

Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: chetlanin on June 03, 2015, 06:33:01 AM
Politico-philosophical comedy: The Admirable Crichton (1957)

I am no film buff, but allow me to mention this all time favorite, an often overlooked gem, just in case some of you do not know it already.

Can be seen on youtube now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yNVp8qCf04 

(as long as it lasts before it is removed)

Worth to see for the acting of Cecil Parker alone (as Lord Loam), not to speak of a wealth of  hilarious moments down the road. But in addition to the comical elements, the film has a certain depth, setting it far apart from just silly comedies of its time (like the idiotic 1955 “Ladykillers”, say).

While most characters in the film are shown as caricatures, and the style is one of exaggeration rather than realism, I believe it can also -as a whole- be seen as a kind of bible of Conservatism (in a very condensed and popularized shape of course!) containing at the same time a convincingly realistic love story which seems somewhat  lifted out from the or cartoon-like background, and/but which does not spoil the film imo, instead rather stressing its charmingly un-correct “political” message by letting the hero in anti-hollywoodish fashion reject his great love for the sake of conserving the existing order (so to speak).



Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kirosia on June 06, 2015, 06:49:19 PM
The Pact II - Bleh. The first one was at least memorable to some extent.

Run All Night - It's Liam Neeson doing his thing. Better pacing than A Walk Among the Tombstones, story's much less original though. I mean, as long as you're going in expecting a mostly throwaway thriller (with a some forced heartfelt stuff here and there), you're good.

Unthinkable - Watched it on Crackle. Sam Jackson plays a scary anti-hero. He does it well. I liked it.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kunlun on June 21, 2015, 04:54:53 PM
Inside Out

Definitely see this, it's great. Pixar still knows how to tell a great story. Lewis Black as anger is the perfect casting ever.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kirosia on June 21, 2015, 07:18:45 PM
Insidious 3 - It has almost a straight-to-video quality. The setting, the characters, the incredibly hammy dialogue. It's a prequel to first two firms, but it's much more linear and frankly not as entertaining. The other films had flaws, but they were still compelling watches. Part 3 does things too by-the-book with regards to storytelling. Scares are few.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Claritas on June 23, 2015, 11:16:07 PM
Inside Out

Definitely see this, it's great. Pixar still knows how to tell a great story. Lewis Black as anger is the perfect casting ever.

I certainly don't regret watching it but I'm not sure how much I'd have missed out on had I not seen it, given my prior knowledge of the topic.

Maybe it will help promote emotional intelligence (EI) in children, which would be good. Some of the stereotypes--Joy is a cute, blue-eyed blonde and Sadness is a chubby brunette with glasses--are mildly irksome.

I wondered how accurate it was regarding current psychology and brain research. This review, http://www.businessinsider.com/what-pixars-inside-out-gets-right-and-wrong-about-human-psychology-2015-6 (http://www.businessinsider.com/what-pixars-inside-out-gets-right-and-wrong-about-human-psychology-2015-6), tries to explain some of it. But I find it hard to get past the notion that joy is or ought to be a person's default setting or that people are controlled solely by their emotions. I simply don't believe that everyone's more or less alike.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyline on June 24, 2015, 12:46:00 AM
I certainly don't regret watching it but I'm not sure how much I'd have missed out on had I not seen it, given my prior knowledge of the topic.

Maybe it will help promote emotional intelligence (EI) in children, which would be good. Some of the stereotypes--Joy is a cute, blue-eyed blonde and Sadness is a chubby brunette with glasses--are mildly irksome.

I wondered how accurate it was regarding current psychology and brain research. This review, http://www.businessinsider.com/what-pixars-inside-out-gets-right-and-wrong-about-human-psychology-2015-6 (http://www.businessinsider.com/what-pixars-inside-out-gets-right-and-wrong-about-human-psychology-2015-6), tries to explain some of it. But I find it hard to get past the notion that joy is or ought to be a person's default setting or that people are controlled solely by their emotions. I simply don't believe that everyone's more or less alike.
Given your prior knowledge on the topic?

It's a kid movie.  It's supposed to be fun.  It wasn't an educational film on human psychology.

I heard people on NPR the other day upset at the Tim Taylor-esque moment inside the Dad's brain.  Give me a break.

I'd go on a rant here, but I suppose I should save that for purrin's thread on political correctness. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kirosia on June 30, 2015, 06:55:33 PM
Chappie. Uh... it was interesting. The one big thing (of likely many things) that bothered me, and could've been just something I missed *SPOILERS* where did the device capable of copying human consciousness come from? I know there was a helmet that allowed someone to pilot the Metal Gear, but I thought that was what Chappie took to the lair? And if they have do have such a device... why is it completely downplayed in the film? Like, a fuckin' helmet that can copy and upload human consciousness (or just memories and processes) with complete ease? Kind of makes the discovery of AI look... lackluster.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: No_One411 on July 03, 2015, 05:11:04 AM
Terminator Genisys:

Suffers the same problem as Avengers: Age of Ultron. Gaping holes in storyline, lack of substance in plot, and too many random jokes inserted.

However, if you are a fan of the Terminator series, I think it's not too bad of a movie.

Otherwise...agree with poor reviews. Transformers: Age of Extinction tier...
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: M3NTAL on July 03, 2015, 05:57:23 AM
Chappie. Uh... it was interesting. The one big thing (of likely many things) that bothered me, and could've been just something I missed *SPOILERS* where did the device capable of copying human consciousness come from? I know there was a helmet that allowed someone to pilot the Metal Gear, but I thought that was what Chappie took to the lair? And if they have do have such a device... why is it completely downplayed in the film? Like, a fuckin' helmet that can copy and upload human consciousness (or just memories and processes) with complete ease? Kind of makes the discovery of AI look... lackluster.


I'm not sure if I remember correctly, but is it possible that Chappie had gained more knowledge than humans and hacked the device for that purpose? 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: shotgunshane on July 04, 2015, 01:46:55 AM
Earlier I watched perhaps the most complicated movie I've ever seen: Primer. It's a low budget flick (made for 7k) about time travel. I just read 2 different blogs explaining the complexity and finally understand it. I can't decide if it's brilliant or the biggest waste of time.  :-\ There are certainly storyline inconsistencies and holes but its foundation is a good story.

Here are the explanations (if you don't mind ruining the plot):
http://qntm.org/primer
http://www.sparknotes.com/mindhut/2013/06/20/primer-understanding-the-most-complicated-sci-fi-movie-ever-made
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Buttercream on July 04, 2015, 07:14:50 AM
Terminator Genisys:

Suffers the same problem as Avengers: Age of Ultron. Gaping holes in storyline, lack of substance in plot, and too many random jokes inserted.

However, if you are a fan of the Terminator series, I think it's not too bad of a movie.

Otherwise...agree with poor reviews. Transformers: Age of Extinction tier...

I actually liked Terminator Genisys better than Age of Ultron. (Ducks from rocks being thrown at me from marvel fans)

It better structured for one. AOU feels and plays like a two episode TV finale, with no definitive separation between second and third act. Genisys is at least paced like a film.

And I care more about the characters, even though I only gave a damn for Arnold and Emelia Clarke. The scene of *spoilers* Arnold telling Kyle Reese to "take care of my Sarah" was actually sad. Whereas with AOU I was actually waiting to see who dies. And don't even get me started that out of the whole roster, they choose to kill off quicksilver? WTF?

Yes, both are not good cinema, but Genisys comes out ahead.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on July 04, 2015, 07:44:39 AM
Testament of Youth - For me 10/10. Based on a true story about WW1 from a woman's perspective. If it had flaws I pretty much missed them due to Alicia Vikander's amazing performance. She was great in Deus Ex Machina, but this was a whole other level. Definitely a new on-screen crush for me. Bye bye Charlize (and your dog faced mummified BF). Hello Alicia!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tP7k4wqVJo
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Claritas on July 04, 2015, 07:52:45 AM
Testament of Youth - For me 10/10. Based on a true story about WW1 from a woman's perspective. If it had flaws I pretty much missed them due to Alicia Vikander's amazing performance.

Thanks. I'll have to check it out.

What did you think of A Very Long Engagement? Some really impressive camera work.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on July 04, 2015, 08:28:56 AM
Thanks. I'll have to check it out.

What did you think of A Very Long Engagement? Some really impressive camera work.

It is. Tbh, I don't remember much about it so take that for what it's worth. I might have been dealing with some sort of mental block of All Quiet on the Western Front collides with Amelie. I should probably see it again, but I recall something(s) about that movie putting me off a bit. The sets and cinematography weren't the problem.

Just beware you won't be seeing any combat in ToY. It's all from her perspective so anything beyond that is an allusion. Despite that, I find it hit home for me based on a few universal principles that I think every great war film should cover. Be careful what you ask for, prepare for the worst, expect the unexpected, adapt and overcome.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on July 13, 2015, 06:30:23 AM
K, I'm watching this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x08iNZ8Mfc
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Deep Funk on July 13, 2015, 08:53:39 AM
K, I'm watching this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x08iNZ8Mfc

An American actor pulled of lines Peter Sellers could utter in his sleep and he still sounded cool. I agree... 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on July 25, 2015, 03:37:18 AM
I know what I'm watching this weekend:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkYBbBK0qoM

Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Colgin on July 25, 2015, 05:11:53 AM
Testament of Youth - For me 10/10. Based on a true story about WW1 from a woman's perspective. If it had flaws I pretty much missed them due to Alicia Vikander's amazing performance. She was great in Deus Ex Machina, but this was a whole other level. Definitely a new on-screen crush for me. Bye bye Charlize (and your dog faced mummified BF). Hello Alicia!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tP7k4wqVJo

Just finished watching Ex Machina. Loved it and she was terrific. Will have to check this out.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Eric_C on July 25, 2015, 12:17:47 PM
An American actor pulled of lines Peter Sellers could utter in his sleep and he still sounded cool. I agree... 
I think Cavill is British.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Ben on July 25, 2015, 04:18:06 PM
Just watched Edge of tomorrow and it was a pretty fun watch. Interesting video gamish concept makes it pretty fresh for alien movies so yeah I'd give it a thumbs up for people looking for alien invasion genre but wants something more than just big gun.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Deep Funk on July 25, 2015, 10:37:52 PM
I think Cavill is British.

You are right. I missed that bit of information. He is from the island Jersey between Britain and France. He must be very versatile as he had a good run in U.S. films. I never detected a strong British accent in U.S. media. 
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Buttercream on July 25, 2015, 10:54:41 PM
It's an adaptation of the Japanese light novel "All You Need Is Kill". The movie didn't do so well at the box office. A shame really, a refreshing original entry in a market saturated with reboot and sequels.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: lmswjm on July 30, 2015, 04:59:44 AM
Took the kids to see Ant-Man which was a lot of fun. We agreed that Michael Peña stole the show. Marvel's sense of humor is the main draw here.

http://youtu.be/uEGkLqzNBEU
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on July 30, 2015, 04:45:21 PM
Liked Ant Man as well.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Buttercream on July 31, 2015, 07:24:23 AM
Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation: 9/10

One of the top blockbuster of 2015 IMHO. Excellent set-piece, that plane sequence was only the amuse-bouche. Great humor peppered throughout, particularly from Simon Pegg. A tad long if I were to nitpick.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: lmswjm on August 07, 2015, 08:40:19 PM
Peter Travers, Rolling Stone: "The latest reboot of the Fantastic Four -- the cinematic equivalent of malware -- is worse than worthless. It not only scrapes the bottom of the Marvel-movie barrel; it knocks out the floor and sucks audiences into a black hole of soul-crushing, coma-inducing dullness."

Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kirosia on August 12, 2015, 03:00:09 AM
Watched Fantastic Four. Wasn't even that bad really. Predictable, rushed, and Teller's dialogue and delivery near the end was shit, but I've seen worse. Doom looks like a mix of the Crash Test Dummy and the Bicentennial Man.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: gelocks on August 12, 2015, 04:00:08 AM
Went to see Ant-Man and it was definitely fun. Not bad at all. I actually had not heard of this "superhero" before... I know I know...

Fantastic Four --> http://io9.com/the-most-important-scenes-from-fantastic-four-as-i-rem-1723363327

;)

FINALLY saw Mad Max and holy balls!!! It was completely entertaining and I would love to see more!!!!
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kirosia on August 14, 2015, 01:45:59 AM
Project Almanac. It's a time travel movie targeted towards people (teenagers) unfamiliar with time travel. (Read = they make the rules up as they go, and even then you need to shut your brain off) The first half with all its nonsense is alright, although the characters are really stupid considering they built a damned time machine. The main protagonist gets accepted to MIT at the very beginning, so. And the second half straight up mimics Butterfly Effect.

The film also doubles as a two-hour commercial for Lollapalooza.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kirosia on August 22, 2015, 07:06:05 PM
Dragon Ball Z: Resurrection of F

*SPOILERS*

Bullshit. So much bullshit. Suspension-of-disbelief, even in the context of just the Dragon Ball universe, is needed in levels that both childhood and adult me find offensive.

Frieza returns, this isn't a surprise. But he becomes, in the course of the film, as powerful as Goku in Super Saiyan God mode. The same Frieza that was cut to shreds by Future Trunks, who isn't anywhere near as powerful as the Z fighters during the Majin Boo arc. This is explained by Frieza as we'd known him having never trained a day in his life, his then strength being a sole product of his genetics. It takes him six months of training after being resurrected to achieve his present Goku-rivaling form.

Okay so I mean, Frieza comes from a unique race likely, one that IIRC has never really been defined. Maybe his people are just that formidable. But during the Namek Arc, it's stated the reason he and his family destroyed the Saiyan race was because one of theirs could someday become strong enough to defeat him. If Frieza knew he could achieve this insane form of from the start, why would he be afraid of the Saiyans? Considering their collective power levels at the time, there's no way Frieza could feasibly conceive that they'd be able to beat him? And even then, if all of six months of training is all he needed to vastly overshadow the Saiyans, why not just do that and never have to worry? Hell, his brother and father could do it too, and they'd be unstoppable throughout the universe.

And why didn't he try it when he came to Earth to kill Goku before, unless his cybernetics (which actually mad him stronger than he was on Namek) precluded this evolution in power?

Ignoring that, and just taking the movie itself as word, Frieza states shortly after his return that his father told him to avoid fighting two specific people- Beerus and Majin Boo. The same Majin Boo that was defeated by Goku before he learned his God mode from Beerus.

And speaking of, why wouldn't Frieza attempt to take on Beerus? If six months gets him to a point where he's over halfway to Beerus' strength (in the previous film, Beerus stated that he was using ~70% of his true power against God Goku, who by the way was probably a smidge weaker then), couldn't Frieza beat him by simply training even longer? Once again, maybe Frieza's already reached his genetic limit, and he's become as strong as he'll ever be.

Or not.

Also, even one of the stronger Z Fighters should've been more than enough to waste Frieza's troops in an instant. The strongest among them were said to be on the same level as the Ginyu Force.

Fuckin' eh, the ending. Frieza's lackey has a magic ring that fires a lazer capable of piercing God Goku's chest.

What.

What the fuck.

Why not just equip all your troops with this absurdly dangerous weapon of downing gods? Oh, he does. Frieza gloats that it's a "common ray gun".

Bullshit. So much Bullshit.

The film was decently entertaining. The previous one had more humor, with this one being the "action-packed" sequel.

Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Deep Funk on August 22, 2015, 11:17:16 PM
Kirosia, Gohan needs to become the next Goku. He has his mystic powers and transformation and that alone opens up a new opportunity for stories with new villains.

Thankfully there is still TFS.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Kunlun on August 23, 2015, 02:14:22 AM
End of the Tour was good. I liked Jason Segel in a more serious role.

Jesse Eisenberg I can kinda do with only in small doses, but he does well here. A.O. Scott said he is at least 25% weasel, which should make for a good Lex Luthor if he does some push-ups and gets his head shaved.
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on August 25, 2015, 06:40:01 AM
Frequencies-Not too shabby. The kind of movie that doesn't really deserve a score. To each their own on this one. Despite the trailer, don't expect 1984, lol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22VVuQI4kgc
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: Anaxilus on August 29, 2015, 03:55:21 AM
Interesting...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzayf9GpXCI
Title: Re: Movie Discussion Thread
Post by: DrForBin on August 29, 2015, 04:03:59 AM
Interesting...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzayf9GpXCI

hello,

very much agreed.