Movie Review Thread

[Fragony]

read somewhere that Megan Fox is actually a guy. thoughts?
i dont believe it though.

If so he definately fooled me, and I would do him.

[econ21]

I was looking for something to watch over lunch and happened to switch on The Thin Red Line partway on TV. It's over 10 years old and although I like good war movies, something about this one had put me off seeking it out. But wow - it made an impression. Let's just say I had a long lunch break.

I probably missed the first hour and so made a cold entry into the stunning combat scenes in the middle. At one level, they seemed to depict amazing heroics by the US soldiers - neutralising an MG nest with stunning efficiency. It reminded me a lot of Band of Brothers, although it was clear this was not an elite outfit like the airborne. But at another, they also brilliantly captured the emotions of the men on both sides. The Americans were terrified, confused, at times hysterical. It seemed almost serendipitous that they gradually seemed to step up a gear and press their attack with textbook proficiency.

Subsequently, the depiction of storming a Japanese camp was strangely the first war film I have seen where I thought war was murder. Although the Japanese were armed and Americans were dying in the assault, it was a depiction of slaughter much like you would imagine a US cavalry charge rampaging through a native American camp. I later read on the net that the Japanese were supposed to have been weakened by hunger and disease. Many did seem enfeebled and traumatised, although many did fight bravely if rather ineffectively. There was something terrible about the killing that justified the anti-war voice over and tilt of the film. Anti-war movies are two a penny and the idea of war as murder sounds like a cliche, but somehow no other film made me think it those terms. Typically, they shy away from it, focusing on "fair" combat as kill or be killed or otherwise depict tragic deaths as "collateral" accidental damage. This was the first film that made me think I would have a problem killing a man with a gun who was trained and ordered to kill me. It's not murder, but it is taking a young life and as such hard to contemplate.

The ending of the film was more slow burning than the intense almost pure combat of the middle, but it made me want to see the whole thing from the start. It was beautiful to look at and the acting was impressive.

I really don't know why it took me over 10 years to find it.

[Ramses II CP]

On The Thin Red Line; of course what we take from a movie is always colored by our own bias and perspective, but I didn't see this film as anti-war. Instead I felt that it captured the sense that war is not about good guys and bad guys, or about two equal opponents contesting with each other. More often, for those on the ground, it's about miscommunication, misguided ambition, and overwhelming force brought to bear against hopeless resistance. Though there was really nothing good about what happened to the fighting men their own quality, positive and negative, still carried through in life and death.

Then we're treated to a rather foolish speech in the end which, despite being naive, still manages, in context, to convey that although war may not in any sense be noble it is still an unavoidable necessity and even a worthwhile endeavor. All the pomposity, the false ideals, even the deaths of questionable necessity (murder) serve a larger goal that is essential and inescapable.

In other words, war cannot be conducted perfectly, but it cannot always be prevented either. The stories we tell ourselves to make it acceptable aren't true, but they're still an important part of the process that make it possible to fight at all.

I felt that the story itself was overly complex and needlessly long, but the characters still carried it to be a successful war film in the end. Not my favorite, but enjoyable.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Creation.

A gentle, thoughtful film very well acted and written. It tells the story of Charles Darwin as he comes towards the moment where "Origin of Species" is finally finished, but doesn't dwell much on the science or the theory itself. The story rather, examines the internal struggle of the man and the strain his ideas place on his marriage with Emma, a deeply religious woman who feels her world collapsing at her own husband's hand. In this, the script is an allegory of the greater cataclysm in thought to come once the book is published.

This storm of emotion centres around Darwin's most beloved child, Annie, and his guilt about her fate. Is it connected with his own struggle with God and loss of faith, or worse still, his understanding now developed that marriage with his first cousin may have created risks for their offspring? I found it a deeply religious story, exploring the eternal themes of faith and loss - and how one faces the challenge of the reality of the world and tragedy.

It's a very human film, bringing gargantuan themes down to a family in crisis. Subtle, beautifully filmed - perhaps slow if you don't like lengthy character development and understated dialogue about ideas (remember, this is a Victorian family setting). It relies on unannounced flashbacks, with only small visual clues to define the new frame, which is mildly confusing at first but brings great power to the themes as they develop.

Darwin is my great hero, and I was afraid of the usual historical aberrations - but the film is pretty faithful, with just one or two minor manipulations. Paul Bettany holds the film very well indeed as the tortured Darwin, without allowing sentimentality to take over - except at the two moments it was necessary, which had me in tears.

I can greatly recommend this film - I understand it is not going to be distributed everywhere (hopefully that will change) but see it if you can.

[Ibrahim]

Cool as Ice

another typical promotional video, this time of Vanilla ice (do such people really exist?). The man is a bad actor, is way too corny, and the story is stilted and senseless, with no imagination, no wit, no reason. I am still suffering a headache from all the falcepalms I did regarding the movie, and am suffering from the "hanger to the face" feeling from the sheer stupidity of it, as well as the last move I reviewed (Alone in the dark). I recommend that all people avoid the movie, so as not to suffer from its ill effects.

I seem to get into the habit of seeing movies. and of course the nostalgia critic (see above) usually turns out to agree with me.

rating: 0/10

[Hax]

Gabriel (2007, Australia; Religious Sci-Fi/Horror)

+ Some interesting martial action
+ Very nice special effects for their budget

- Incredibly lame plot
- Overall bad acting
- Plain characters
- Unoriginal
- Did I mention the plot was bad?

Okay, let's get this out of the way first. I might be biased, because I don't follow the Christian faith. However, the movie on its own was horrible. Gabriel is about the epic battle between Angels and Demons (sorry) over control of purgatory. But seriously, why the hell did they choose this incredibly lame idea. I have to be honest, the special effects and fighting scenes had some pretty good moments (although the latter resembled The Matrix a lot on several occasions).

The movie is about the Arch-Angel Gabriel (called Arcs in the movie, for some reason) who was sent by God (who isn't even mention by name in the entire movie, to regain control over Purgatory which has been lost to the Fallen Angels! Oh no! Those Arcs that are still alive have gone into hiding and are laying low at the moment, with the lady (there has to be a lady ;-;) being forced to work as a prostitute after she decided to go after the main bad guy (and lost). Of course, he saves her, they have sex, same old same old. The movie ends with this horrible plot twist (horrible being incredibly lame, not gasp-provoking horrible. Well, perhaps for the incredible lameness) and of course, good wins. End good all good, whatever.

The only thing that was somewhat likeable was the fact that Gabriel (after seeing his allies die) flips out and goes on a killing spree. That was slightly interesting, but for the love of God, the rest of the movie was so unoriginal. The plot-twist is visible from about 15 minutes into the movie, and it gets quite a drag seeing Gabriel talk to his allies, proceed to mate with his girly-girlfriend (did I mention they're angels), killing the baddies. After 30 minutes, I started to do something else, because I got the general message.

If you like good action scenes with some gore and a plot that could have been created by a retarted monkey, this movie is for you. I recommend watching it with your girlfriend, you've got enough time to make out and cover her eyes not to despoil her innocence by the foul images that will inevitably flood the screen after some thirty minutes.

For some reason, film-makers see this as a formula that is bound to work:

1) Hero goes to a place
2) Place is in a bad shape, hero inquires with allies (and possibly girlfriend)
3) Hero starts to kill/destroy/demolish the evil people
4) Things are looking up, movie speeds up
5) Out of revenge, the main evil guy kills the hero's allies, which...
6) Make things seem bad, but...
7) In the end, hero kills villain, hero and girlfriend live, everything works out happily ever after.

That's my first review of the horror movies I saw.

Next up: Chakushin Ari (One Missed Call, Japanese version)

[Decker]

Zombieland - It was a lot better than I thought it was going to be. I laughed pretty much through most if not all of the movie. It also did a very good job at getting a very packed theater to jump and scream despite being a comdey, it also had some moment of in your face... gore (ala Ingoreous Basterds) which was done well but also made you laugh at the same time. And I'll have to say that I have become even more disgusted with twinkies after watching that movie There were only two things that really had me scratching my head. One was that there were quite a few times where they wasted a decent amount of ammunition when they found it... but again it was a comedy and did not really emphasize on serious survival.
9/10

[Andres]

I watched La Vie en Rose (2007) last night, a movie about the life and work of Edith Piaf. Brilliant movie and great performance by Marion Cotillard (she was rewarded with a well deserved Academy award for it).

The movie tells the story of Piaf's life in a non-linear way and it constantly jumps back and forth between her childhood and life as a young woman, the period when she was at the height of her succes, her last years and her last days. The film is so good that you stay focused, so it's not at all difficult to follow and to get the entire story. Some moments deeply touched me and sometimes Marion Cotillard manages to give you a good image of what a strong woman and great artist Edith Piaf must have been. Sometimes, you can almost feel the power, the passion, the fire that must have been burning inside that woman.

Great movie and I highly recommend it, even if you don't know her music (which you should, really, even if you don't understand French, you'll still understand alot because of the way she performed. I believe it was one of the greatest artists ever and probably the greatest French artist ever.)

[Hooahguy]

X Men-Origins: Wolverine
a pretty good movie, but i didnt understand the beginning.
8.5/10

[Fragony]

Hellboy 2, destroys the first. Hollywood a it's finest, it's funny, it's genuinly moving, and the action, man what a ride. Doesn't get much better than thisseems rather lacking in content

[Hax]

Chakushin Ari / One Missed Call (2004, Japan; supernatural horror)

+ Interesting plot development
+ Frightening moments
+ A realistic portrayal of supernatural events*
+ Good acting

- A bit goofy at times
- Same old, same old...
- A strange ending


Chakushin Ari was directed by Takashi Miike, the guy responsible for the incredibly good and sickening movie "The Audition", and instead of the realistic plot behind that movie, he has chosen to pick up the series of what I call the "Ju-on" legacy, focusing on the Japanese tradition of "yuurei", female spirits that have come back from the dead to haunt the living.

Now, the plot revolves around this cell phone, and this ghost is bound to these cellphones. It starts out with two girls during this dinner with friends, and they go to the bathroom. One of the girls gets a phone call, but when she looks at her cell phone, she notices something weird; it's her own number calling her. Then who was phone?! In any case, she did not answer the phone in time and a message is left: "One Missed Call". She then listens to the voicemail, which is the sound of herself talking on the phone and suddenly screaming.

..two days later, the girl who has received this mysterious cellphone is walking on a bridge overlooking a railway track, and she's talking to one of her friends on the phone (the one we saw in the beginning of the movie). Suddenly, she is picked up by this massive force and thrown on the tracks, in front of an uncoming train...


This is generally what Chakushin Ari is about. If you receive a call on your cellphone in a ringtone that is not yours you will die the day after tomorrow, and you will witness the sound of you being killed.

This is interesting, nay? In any case, what I really liked about this movie is the fact that in the movie, rumours have spread about this cellphone, and it gets media attention. In the end, one of the victims is dragged into a reality show and a Buddhist exorcist makes his appearance (yes, of course I'm biased ;p) and tries to exorcise the ghost, failing hard.

Anyways, it's a pretty good plot, good characters, pretty realistic acting, save a bit of cliché acting during the first ending (there are several, as is common in J-Horror). The only bad things I can think of is that it could be perhaps too detailed for people who don't really want to pay attention to the plot, but are rather waiting for gore and stuff, and the ending is really weird and strange, and it's left to the viewer to think what eventually happened with the ghost.

Well, this movie gets an 8/10.

Next up: Shutter, Thai version.

*What I meant by "realistic portrayal" is the fact that if such a thing would occur, it would attract massive media attraction.

[Martok]

Obviously a very late review, but what the hey....



Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen


What complete and utter rubbish. Michael Bay took just about everything that was good from the first movie (pacing, humor, an at least marginal semblance of storyline and character development) and threw it out the proverbial window. The only new character to be even mildly amusing and/or interesting was Jetfire, and even he was completely nullified by the highly offensive (not to mention *unbelievably* irritating) "gangster" Autobots Mudflap and Skids. I was pleasantly surprised to see Frank Welker reprise his original series role as the voice of Soundwave, but that's one of the very few positive things I can say about this "movie".

This was far and away one of the worst films I've ever seen. I'm very glad I waited for it to come out in the dollar theater.


Final score: 1/10.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Anyone seen the movie called "Surrogates"? Is it good? I saw it's trailer and found it quite interesting.

[Hooahguy]

i saw it. it was "eh"

[Crazed Rabbit]

Zombieland is awesome. Very funny, good characters, great gratuitous violence. Well paced, keeps your interest throughout. Also, pleasantly has sensible characters who follow sensible rules for staying alive.

CR

[Ibrahim]

If I may Hax, I'll do a corollary to your review, which I more than agree with.

Gabriel (2007, Australia; Religious Sci-Fi/Horror)

+ Some interesting martial action
+ Very nice special effects for their budget

- Incredibly lame plot
- Overall bad acting
- Plain characters
- Unoriginal
- Did I mention the plot was bad?

Okay, let's get this out of the way first. I might be biased, because I don't follow the Christian faith.

well, cruddy movies are all over the place. I'm not surprised you dug this piece of **** up in Sci-Fi. was it directed by Uwe Boll?

as to the bias part: in a nutshell: you aren't really biased.

However, the movie on its own was horrible. Gabriel is about the epic battle between Angels and Demons (sorry) over control of purgatory. But seriously, why the hell did they choose this incredibly lame idea. I have to be honest, the special effects and fighting scenes had some pretty good moments (although the latter resembled The Matrix a lot on several occasions).

you should see alone in the dark-a lame reared culture that leaves behind a bunch of zool style monsters, and a crazy paranormal investigator, played by christian slater, who is about as good an actor in this one as that monotone voice on my Windows XP is a good Opera singer.

The movie is about the Arch-Angel Gabriel (called Arcs in the movie, for some reason) who was sent by God (who isn't even mention by name in the entire movie, to regain control over Purgatory which has been lost to the Fallen Angels! Oh no! Those Arcs that are still alive have gone into hiding and are laying low at the moment, with the lady (there has to be a lady ;-;) being forced to work as a prostitute after she decided to go after the main bad guy (and lost). Of course, he saves her, they have sex, same old same old. The movie ends with this horrible plot twist (horrible being incredibly lame, not gasp-provoking horrible. Well, perhaps for the incredible lameness) and of course, good wins. End good all good, whatever.

now I must question the sanity of the producer, the director, the writers, and anybody directly involved overall. Angels bunging with mortals?

The only thing that was somewhat likeable was the fact that Gabriel (after seeing his allies die) flips out and goes on a killing spree. That was slightly interesting, but for the love of God, the rest of the movie was so unoriginal. The plot-twist is visible from about 15 minutes into the movie, and it gets quite a drag seeing Gabriel talk to his allies, proceed to mate with his girly-girlfriend (did I mention they're angels), killing the baddies. After 30 minutes, I started to do something else, because I got the general message.

yeah, the anthropomorphic principle applied to beings that aren't even human-certain people are retarded that way.

If you like good action scenes with some gore and a plot that could have been created by a retarted monkey, this movie is for you. I recommend watching it with your girlfriend, you've got enough time to make out and cover her eyes not to despoil her innocence by the foul images that will inevitably flood the screen after some thirty minutes.

I agree about the girlfriend part, but at least it was written by a retarded monkey-hey, it could have been a crazy horse, a retarded donkey, or a mad cow.

For some reason, film-makers see this as a formula that is bound to work:

1) Hero goes to a place
2) Place is in a bad shape, hero inquires with allies (and possibly girlfriend)
3) Hero starts to kill/destroy/demolish the evil people
4) Things are looking up, movie speeds up
5) Out of revenge, the main evil guy kills the hero's allies, which...
6) Make things seem bad, but...
7) In the end, hero kills villain, hero and girlfriend live, everything works out happily ever after.

That's my first review of the horror movies I saw.

Next up: Chakushin Ari (One Missed Call, Japanese version)[/

because most directors are stupid and unimaginative. and to quote Kyle justin: "they want a quick-buck for this ****-load of **** "

so in short: the plot sucks, the producers have no brains, they are clearly out to make a quick buck, and I hate Christian Slater's acting.

[Hooahguy]

anyone see Law-abiding citizen?

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Malena

Ironically hilarious, not to mention Monica Belluci.
.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Monsters vs. Aliens

Surprisingly good for a Dreamworks summer offering. Relies heavily on you appreciating the cast (who are excellent though maybe predictable - or as predictable as you could get with Hugh Laurie as a mad scientist who turns himself into a cockroach).

I went into this with low expectations, though.

8/10

[econ21]

I caught Oliver Stone's W on Sky Movies Premier last night. I greatly enjoyed it.

Josh Brolin did a very good impersonation of George W Bush and Richard Dreyfuss was just a freaky doppleganger for Dick Cheney. I gather it did not attract much interest on release, because GW was just seen as history at that point and, with awful popularity ratings, rather too easy a target. But as a Brit who is less familiar than US audiences with the subject, I found the material fascinating. (I've never understood the cause of the second Iraq war and even after the film still don't, but find it a compelling subject).

I guess there are two levels on which to judge the film - as accuracy and as drama. In terms of accuracy, with Oliver Stone, one must be cautious. I was bowled over by his film JFK, for example, but then deeply disappointed to discover that in terms of historical accuracy, it was an edifice built on sand. This film was far less dazzling as cinema than JFK and no doubt had many elements that loyal Republicans and the Bush family will find offensively concocted. The "dream" sequences and some of the father-son dynamic seemed crude and lacking credibility. Likewise, the Cheney figure seemed a little too Dr Strangeglove with the lust for oil and a permanent presence in Iraq. However, much of the other material seemed pretty accurate. For example, I remember watching Bush's cringingly embarassing end of term press conference.

As drama, I enjoyed it. I was sufficiently vague about Bush's background to find the pre-presidency events interesting, while the focus on Iraq appealed to my tilt. Inter-cutting the two elements made it more fun that a simple chronological ordering would have been. The central performances were good. Brolin's George W was sympathetic enough to be interesting - especially (and to me, surprisingly) after "being born again". The rest of the ensemble were strong, especially the actor playing his father.

I would give the film about an 8/10. Not nearly as good as his earliest stuff, but Stone's best picture for a long time.

[Fragony]

You know what you are going to get, it´s also as always really good.

[Fragony]

X-Men 3, weakest of the bunch, most of the best characters die. The chick who can see how powerfull a mutant is cute though.

[Fragony]

Iron Man, another fun Marvel adoptation, what you would and should expect, lots of humour, fun characters, great over the top action. It might be by the numbers but by the numbers is a great formula.

[naut]

Iron Man, another fun Marvel adoptation, what you would and should expect, lots of humour, fun characters, great over the top action. It might be by the numbers but by the numbers is a great formula.

It's decent. Very lame in parts. Paltrow is a classy lady.

[Hooahguy]

i saw Red Cliff last night.
one word:
epic.

[naut]

The Darwin Awards. Quirky. Pretty funny.

[Scienter]

A Serious Man was very funny at parts. It may be confusing to people unfamiliar with Jewish culture/religion. Ending was meh and made me feel like the writers were super lazy. I would have liked it more if it weren't for the ending, though.

[naut]

Taken. Okay. Seemed like a lesser version of Man on Fire.

[Strike For The South]

Taken. Okay. Seemed like a lesser version of Man on Fire.

A lesser version?

[Hooahguy]

This is Spinal Tap
it goes to 11.