Movie Review Thread

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The messenger: really well done Joan of Arc story. Luc Besson.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

yesterday saw Alexander: Director's Cut and it was quite boring, bad aciting and bad choice of actors imo. and the battles werent long enough to keep me satisfied imo. but then in a director commentary i heard him say he cut out a few battles, so i think i would have enjoyed the original much more. btw anybody saw the original, and was it better?

[Fragony]

Saw a great one again yesterday, an english movie 'Naked'. Depressing! Everyone in the movie is emotionaly damaged white trash living in ugly London (I am not saying London is ugly, just the poor parts. Scratch that, just London ). Fascinating movie from beginning to end, but dear god just shoot me now.
Some great dialogues.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest - What a wonderful movie. I loved it as much or more than the first one. You'll be surprised at the end, but I wasn't. I called it in the last movie!

[The Spartan (Returns)]

Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest - What a wonderful movie. I loved it as much or more than the first one. You'll be surprised at the end, but I wasn't. I called it in the last movie!

crtics say it was too long. (only two hours) imo that would be good two hours.

[yesdachi]

The messenger: really well done Joan of Arc story. Luc Besson.

I couldn’t agree more! In addition to the cool fighting and the god, devil, church triangle I found the subtle political maneuvering by the French interesting. Good show.

[Puzz3D]

The messenger: really well done Joan of Arc story. Luc Besson.

Joan of Arc (1999, 180 minutes) staring Leelee Sobieski was much more authentic than The Messenger, although it had a few inaccuracies and skipped the Loire Valley campaign.

yesterday saw Alexander: Director's Cut and it was quite boring, bad aciting and bad choice of actors imo. and the battles werent long enough to keep me satisfied imo. but then in a director commentary i heard him say he cut out a few battles, so i think i would have enjoyed the original much more. btw anybody saw the original, and was it better?

The theatrical release was not nearly as good as the directors cut. Oliver Stone re-edited the move the way he wanted to originally show it rather than the way the studio wanted it. The flashbacks are much more logically placed and the homosexuality is not played up as much. Also, Roxanne doesn't pull a knife on Alexander as she did in the theatrical release. The director's cut shows the years in BC rather than the "years later" method of the theatrical cut. The studio though people would get confused by years counting down as time passed.

The battle sequences are exactly the same in both versions. What Olive Stone meant when he said he only used two battles is that some important events that occured in battles not shown were placed in the two battles that were shown in the movie. The two battles shown bracket Alexander's peak. He's in accendancy before the first, and in decline after the second. Although his wounding did not occur as shown or in that particular battle, what is presented accurately shows why he got wounded which is because his men held back. Bucephalus didn't die in that battle either, but did die in India and had recieved many war wounds. Personnaly, I thought the battles were well done and very intense, but this movie isn't just about the battles.

The movie attempts to portray what Alexander was like, and it gives a very reasonable assessment of him. You can do a lot of reading about Alexander, but I doubt you'll have any better grasp of his character than is presented in the movie. The symbolism in the movie is also well done. The ending is a bit rushed, and more time passed than the impression given. Apparently, Alexander spent 9000 gold talons on Hephasion's funeral which was an astronomical sum. This isn't shown in the movie, but his intense grieving is which is apparently accurate.

I was pleased to see the movie done as a Greek tragedy rather than a Shakespearian play, and I thought the acting was good. The actors were allowed to speak in their natural voices so that the cameraderie these men had would come thought. Angelina speaks in an accent which might be reasonably authentic since she is of an ethenticity similar to Olympia. In anycase, it sets her apart from the other main characters as she was historically. Many quotes and events are right out of the historical record. Those records are secondary but it's all we have since all the primary accounts were destroyed with the loss of the library at Alexandria. I was disappointed that the movie didn't show Alexander's body lying in state, wrapped in thin sheets of gold foil with full armor, in Alexandria as it apparently did for something like 550 years.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

thank you very muchPuzz3D.

[Geoffrey S]

Seen Exorcist: the Beginning and Constantine recently. Both were better than expected. Exorcist isn't on par with the original (what is?) but was quite original and solid. Constantine was messily done plotwise but ultimately entertaining enough; certainly more enjoyable than something like Hellboy.

yesterday saw Alexander: Director's Cut and it was quite boring, bad aciting and bad choice of actors imo. and the battles werent long enough to keep me satisfied imo. but then in a director commentary i heard him say he cut out a few battles, so i think i would have enjoyed the original much more. btw anybody saw the original, and was it better?

I quite enjoyed the movie (director's cut), certainly more than I was expecting to. It was a bit messy, but in general as Puzz3D stated the acting was good; I particularly enjoyed the moments when Alexander kills Cleitus and the parts after Hephaistion died. Wasn't so keen on the way the young Alexander was portrayed, it didn't make clear to me what made him such a leader of men, he just came across as rather whiney.

Guagamela I enjoyed, mainly due to the excellent editing making clear what happened (but the music was crap), but I definitely did not like the one in India. It came across as very manufactured and didn't make much sense. I found it a pity there wasn't anything really depicting the siege of Tyre. Then again, the emphasis of the movie doesn't lie on the battles and shouldn't be judged as such.

All in all, I think the press was rather unfair about this one. It wasn't brilliant, no, but I enjoyed it more than for instance Kingdom of Heaven.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

well for some people acting was outstanding imo. Person who played Aristotle Brian Blessed Played the trainer and perhaps Philip of Macedon. I would have loved to see the sige of Tyre or when Alexander fights the Theban-Sacred Band. (forgot the name of battle.) btw i find Gladiator my favorite movie the best war film imo. (never seen the older ones though)

[econ21]

I saw The Alamo (2004 version) the other day and was very impressed. It seemed very authentic and realistic. For me, it was like an anti-war movie, in that it showed how horrible the fighting was. The overpowering nature of the Mexican assault at the Alamo - masses of bayonets - was very well portrayed, while even the depiction of the "triumphal" San Jacinto victory showed the horror of the Mexican rout.

The main characters (Travis, Bowie, Crockett, Houston and Santa Anna) were well drawn and convincingly acted. Billy Bob Thornton was brilliant as Crockett, a man trapped in his own legend. The one possible flight from realism - where Crockett fiddles a harmony to the intimidating Mexican military band - is poetic and the standout sequence in the film.

I seem to recall the film received distinctly lukewarm critical reviews, but I suspect TW fans with an interest in historical representations of war would like it.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I rented The Alamo when it came out on DVD about a year or so ago. I pretty much agree with econ21's assessment except for the fact that there wasn't enough battle. Don't know, maybe it was just me. It would have been great if about 15-30 minutes of non-battle action was replaced with more of the storming.

If you want realism I suggest renting Gettysburg, a 1993 (or is it 1994?) movie starring Jeff Daniels and Martin Sheen. This puppy is over 4 hours long but it goes by really quickly. The portrayal of the battle is extremely authentic and you get a look into the minds of the generals who were present. One of my favorite movies of all time.

EDIT: Whoops, looks like it was already mentioned. Well, I think it deserves another one.

[Zalmoxis]

Well, I'm gonna review of couple of movies I've seen recently.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest thought it was a good movie, good choice of actors, and a solid, if somewhat more fantasy inspired plot than the previous.

Batman Beginning: Good movie, some parts confused me a bit, but overall I thought it was a good movie, and I hope they make a sequel.

House Of Wax: This movie is God awful, the acting is terrible, the plot twists aren't smart, the reactions of the characters aren't original or in any way intelligent. This movie drips with horror movie cliches, and I will therefore say it was totally worth watching this movie due to a scene in which Paris Hilton has a spear thrown through her head and as a result dies.

[Fragony]

Hmmmm joan of arc, a series of well build scenes but as a movie it failed.

Now something different, Paradise now, a palestinian movie. It follows the last 24 hours of two suicide bombers, it is surprisingly apolitical given the subject, almost to a fault. The making of was more interesting then the actual movie, shooting a movie over there is sure to give anyone a headache. If you think of watching it, make sure you buy the version that includes the documentory, fascinating stuff.

[R'as al Ghul]

I saw Sin City on TV over the weekend. It was an agreeable way to waste time. Visually impressive, with the black and white effects. The acting of the lead "hard men", and especially their voice overs, was effective. I did not recognise Mickey Rourke as Marv, whose middle segment the "long goodbye" was the best of three stories. The plot and the ultra-violence reminded me of Tarantino's first two films, but without the innovation or audacity. Ultimately the whole thing was rather juvenile (every woman was an object of desire), but what do you expect of a film based on a comic?

I agree with some of your points like visually impressive, effective voice overs and Tarantino paralells, but I wouldn't call it juvenile.
Anyone not familiar with the novels of Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammet may miss the point that the whole idea of Sin City is an hommage to the hard boiled Detective novel genre. Including the, admittedly, rather stereotypical roles. But that's deliberate. Ever read a Mickey Spillane story? It's all there, voice over, damsel in distress and the femme fatale. Of course Spillane like Marlowe or the Sin City heroes are the tough guys. Dismissing the story because of clear cut characters is like complaining that Superman can fly when reading Superhero stories.
Mickey Rourke's performance is awesome (The "What a nice coat you have" line always makes me smile). With the graphic novel in mind, I can only say Mickey is Marv! And, I couldn't imagine to find Frodo (what's his name again) scary. Well done!
Apart from that, Sin City is the only film version of a comic worth calling it. (horrible versions of brilliant Alan Moore novels come to mind)
That's of course due to the fact that Miller himself co-directed it.
I was most pleased by how they achieved the strong black/white/colour contrast of the books in film.
That alone renders it a Masterpiece.
It's a movie that clearly wasn't made for a mainstream audience.

Still, the books are even better.

[Geoffrey S]

It's a movie that clearly wasn't made for a mainstream audience.

Goodness knows where you got that idea from. It was absolutely designed to appeal to a youngish male audience.

I enjoyed bits of it (not so keen on the long Willis sections), but despite it being created with stereotypes in mind I don't think it's an excuse for it being a rather predictable romp through a noir setting. That said, it was a remarkably entertaining romp.

Apart from that, Sin City is the only film version of a comic worth calling it. (horrible versions of brilliant Alan Moore novels come to mind)

Close, but the X-men movies (haven't seen the third one yet) are absolutely fantastic. And perhaps, Road to Perdition, but I'm not familiar with the original.

[econ21]

...I wouldn't call it juvenile.

To be honest, I find most of the Tarantinoesque film ultra-violence juvenile. It has no humanity nor soul; ultimately it tells us no truths nor engages any deep emotions. It's just "Oriental babe with two katanas leaping from a roof top - how cool is that?!" kinda of thrills. Entertaining if you are in the mood for it, but still juvenile (I'm tempted to say moronic) IMO. I think they are the action genre equivalent of the gross-out horror movie. Cheap thrills.

Apart from that, Sin City is the only film version of a comic worth calling it.

I really enjoyed the Spiderman movies. They have humour, humanity, characters you can give a damn about and are very well made (the acting, the script, the effects etc). Far superior to the source material, I suspect. But then I have a soft spot for Toby Maguire's laid-back, self-deprecating, whimsical style - he was also great in Ride with the Devil.

PS: Just saw the Rock again last night. Pretty much a waste of time - talk about juvenile - and definitely a waste of a terrific cast.

[R'as al Ghul]

Goodness knows where you got that idea from. It was absolutely designed to appeal to a youngish male audience.

So, youngish male equals mainstream? It's a big target group but not what I understand as mainstream. Mainstream means a wide audience as possible, making concessions like no nudity and no violence.
Anyway, the way it was produced and received doesn't make it a mainstream movie in my book. The comics were also rather underground/ independent.

Close, but the X-men movies (haven't seen the third one yet) are absolutely fantastic.

Now that's what I call mainstream and juvenile.

And perhaps, Road to Perdition, but I'm not familiar with the original.

The original is heavily inspired by Lone Wolf & Cub. It's a well written Graphic novel. I didn't like the movie bits I saw, mainly because of Tom Hanks.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Infernal Affairs:



The girl with the gun isn't in the movie, in fact there are no scantily clad girls with guns in the movie

But it was quite good. Undercover cop pretends to be a gangster and an undercover gangster is pretending to be a cop. Good stuff.

[R'as al Ghul]

To be honest, I find most of the Tarantinoesque film ultra-violence juvenile. It has no humanity nor soul; ultimately it tells us no truths nor engages any deep emotions. [..] I think they are the action genre equivalent of the gross-out horror movie. Cheap thrills.

I dont agree but it's all a matter of taste. I've often heard criticism on the violence in Tarantino' movies. I think it annoys people that the violence disturbs them. While in a Schwarzenegger movie you can cheer when legions of faceless villains are massacred without spilling blood, the violence that Tarantino, Scorscese or Miller serve isn't as easy to stomach. Besides, it's not like a Tarantino film does only contain violence, far from it.
I remember having tears in my eyes when finishing the original story "That yellow bastard" which is the Bruce Willis arc in the movie. The truth you mention is not to be seeked in the violence itself, of course.

I really enjoyed the Spiderman movies. They have humour, humanity, characters you can give a damn about and are very well made (the acting, the script, the effects etc). Far superior to the source material, I suspect.

Pick up some Stan Lee collection. You may be surprised how enjoyable they can be. While the movie isn't that far from the original stories I don't think it's superior. It's a different medium anyway. What Spiderman and X-men both show, is that it's possible to make Superhero movie that's not looking completely ridiculous. I also enjoyed the new Batman while hating all the previous ones.

A last remark, humanity also has its dark sides worth being shown and talked about.

A Frank Miller fanboy.

[econ21]

I dont agree but it's all a matter of taste. I've often heard criticism on the violence in Tarantino' movies. I think it annoys people that the violence disturbs them. While in a Schwarzenegger movie you can cheer when legions of faceless villains are massacred without spilling blood, the violence that Tarantino, Scorscese or Miller serve isn't as easy to stomach.

Maybe, but I suspect the reverse - the people that like the film violence of a Schwarzenegger movie (and they were pretty hardcore for their time) are also attracted to the latest ultra-violent stuff. Personally, if a film is going to dwell on violence in a real world context, I prefer it to be like those in, say, Boyz in the Hood or Band of Brothers - so that you see the horror and the consequences. Those kind of depictions have a truth and a morality to them. I am not sure what "Frodo" did or has done to him in Sin City serves any purpose other than to disturb or shock.

Besides, it's not like a Tarantino film does only contain violence, far from it.

Indeed - his first two films were virtuoso performances in terms of cinematic story - telling and dialogue. It reminds me of what used to be said of Eminem - if you forget about the often appalling lyrics, the music is actually inspired.

[R'as al Ghul]

And now to something completely different.
We may agree that the mainstream family comedy "Meet the parents" and its sequel "Meet the Fockers" are hilarious?
Personally, I enjoy de Niro in comedys. I think he's an awesome comedian. The second part with Dustin Hoffmann is brilliant.
Circle of trust and "I'm watching you" cracks me up every time.

[Fragony]

And now for something completily different. Yesterday I was checking out my new nephew, and since my familia is just as much a movienut as I am I checked out their collection. Between all the rubbish I saw a title 'Caligula', my favorite roman emperor. When I asked my aunt if I could borrow it the nurse gave me this strange look, I didn't understand it untill I watched it last night. My aunt said that there was a lot of sex in it, but she said I should be able to handle that.

Lots of sex, true that was. This is a hilarious movie, completily decadent and shameless. It has a load of respectable actors, like Malcolm macDowel and Helen Mirren, so I wasn't quite prepared for what I was about to see, which was: porn, porn, porn. Great sets, great acting, very violent, and porn, porn, porn. Thing is, the sex is completily joyless, it's not arrousing at all. It's more of a brilliantly shot arthouse movie, one of these guilty pleasures for those that can handle the well, porn. A delicious atrocity is the closest I can get to describing it. A question for the older members, did this movie actually made it to the cinema? The productionvalues are insane(a gold plated replica of a roman Gally was build for this movie, no kidding), so I wonder if they made any money with it.

[Geoffrey S]

Also an excellent film, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, starring Bill Murray and Owen Wilson. About Zissou, an waterbased documentary maker who has seen better days. Directed by Wes Anderson, and very much in line with his earlier films. He truly has a unique style of direction, with an almost surreal presentation. Acting is uniformly brilliant, with Murray standing out as the misanthropic Zissou. Loved it.

So, youngish male equals mainstream? It's a big target group but not what I understand as mainstream. Mainstream means a wide audience as possible, making concessions like no nudity and no violence.

Fair enough. I probably was thinking more of a big target group, rather than mainstream. Still, the slick way in which it was produced makes it debateable if it "clearly wasn't made for a mainstream audience".

Indeed - his first two films were virtuoso performances in terms of cinematic story - telling and dialogue. It reminds me of what used to be said of Eminem - if you forget about the often appalling lyrics, the music is actually inspired.

Excellent comparison.

[drone]

Lots of sex, true that was. This is a hilarious movie, completily decadent and shameless. It has a load of respectable actors, like Malcolm macDowel and Helen Mirren, so I wasn't quite prepared for what I was about to see, which was: porn, porn, porn. Great sets, great acting, very violent, and porn, porn, porn. Thing is, the sex is completily joyless, it's not arrousing at all. It's more of a brilliantly shot arthouse movie, one of these guilty pleasures for those that can handle the well, porn. A delicious atrocity is the closest I can get to describing it. A question for the older members, did this movie actually made it to the cinema? The productionvalues are insane(a gold plated replica of a roman Gally was build for this movie, no kidding), so I wonder if they made any money with it.

Take a look at the IMDB entry for this:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080491/

Gore Vidal wrote the original screenplay, which is how they got the big name actors, but Bob Guccione (Penthouse publisher) fronted the money and went behind his back to change scenes and insert a lot of teh pr0n. It did OK in a limited run in the theaters, but I'm pretty sure it has made most of it's money from the video releases.

[scooter_the_shooter]

I just saw The Hills Have Eyes (the new one) And not a movie you want your five year old to watch.


Spoilers ( dont read if you have not seen it!)

























I SAID DONT READ IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN IT





















Lat chance to turn back, buddy.











It was not that scary it degrades into an action movie towards the end but one part in was to disturbing......two of the deformed mutant inbred hill-billy miners (thats what they are I am not joking) rape one of the women and have a lil fun with the other It's friggin sick I was hoping the 2 abused women died how the hell can they function normal after having a corpse looking thing do that It ruined part of the movie for me it was not scary just wrong.


I liked how they showed that some people actually own guns. (it is estimated that one in three americans have firearms....yet you never see em' in a horror movie) And that the characters were not just going to take it...When there were no other weapons there they improvised with rocks, pans, anything. They didn't sit back and take it like a pansy....but it was not all action hero BS they were actually scared.

The dogs were stupid though....who owns a dog that always happens to run away at the worst time possible?

And all the good folks in the movie died...the ones with loose morals lived



Over all I give it a 6-7 out of 10.








Spoiler laced review over.

[Csargo]

Yeah Ceasar that one part of the movie was sick with the girl and the two mutants it was just wrong.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

A Knight's Tale: Awesome movie, jousting set to 'We will rock you' with the crowd doing the wave. Very funny.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Seconded. That should be part of MTW2's soundtrack, as well.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Der Undertang. All I can say is wow. What a terrific movie with terrific actors. I loved every second of it.