Printable View
I watched Gothika a short while back.
Excellent movie. You get to see Halle Berry and Penelope Cruz in pyjamas for the most of the movie.
If any further incentive is needed, then let me say it's an excellent thriller, one of the best I've seen in a while.
Gawd that movie sucked :thumbsdown:
Pathfinder (2007) is an action film set in North America circa 900 AD. The Vikings (the bad guys) invade and want to kill all of the native Indians (the good guys). You see things from the Indian's perspective and the Vikings are just suddenly there. The protagonist is a Viking from a previous failed expedition who has lived with an Indian tribe. The film is visually dark which gives it a consistent atmosphere of taking place in a dark forested, northern latitude geographic area. The action scenes are well done in mostly closeup shots, but the ease with with the protagonist dispatches an almost endless stream of Vikings, who are all much larger physically and armored and often on horseback, is fantasy. The story itself is simplistic and predictable. You can figure out the whole narrative after the first 15 minutes.
ZOMG! I just saw the best movie EVAR!!! Commando with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Could you think of a better script? I couldn't.
Could you film better action sequences? I didn't think so.
Why, oh why did he make more movies after that? He could have retired off the royalties alone!!! Thank you people of California for electing such a wise and strong man to lead you. YOU HAVE RESTORED MY FAITH IN THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE!
I'm so proud to be a republican right now. :unitedstates: :elephant:
Based on Quirinus' recommendation I watched Eastern Promises (2007) which is a drama featuring very good acting by a strong cast directed by David Cronenberg. He's a director who likes to investigate a moral or ethical question and leave it unresolved so that the viewer makes his or her own judgement. You might think this film ends without resolution or climax, but that's his intent. He also leaves scenes out that are peripheral to the question he is exploring which means you have to do a little extra work to connect the scenes together. Inititally I thought there were some illogical scenes near the end, but after some thought they do fit together in a sensible way. In this film, Cronenberg explores the same territory he did in A History of Violence (2005) which is the morality and consequences of using violence. The drama, which is probably purposely low key, is punctuated with very graphic scenes of violence I would imagine to emphasize the contrast between the people who use violence and those who live without using it. I think David Cronenberg is an interesting filmmaker, and this one gets a lift from some very good acting.
Step Up 2, expected trash; got trash.
Think of Tokyo Drift, but remixed with dancing. (Mostly b-boying)
BTW, really psyched for the next Indiana Jones!
Liked it untill he throws a saw into someone head and he looks up, that just wasn't realistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Anyways, Fragile
Cool ghost-movie with the Ally macBale chick, who is as abolutily adorable imho, cute. I like the more recent horror movies, enough with the Halloween clones, more things like The Others svp merci.
.
Man on Fire
Some moments in which you say "good riddance" but a uselessly stupid ending.
.
The movie is based on the highly regarded AZUMI manga which won an Excellence Prize at the 1997 Japan Media Arts Festival, and the Shogakukan Manga Award in 1998. The film apparently does not explore all of the themes that are in the manga. Kitamura is perhaps limited as a dramatic director, but he's good with action scenes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Azumi (manga)
The manga Azumi, like the movie, focuses upon the life of the female assassin Azumi. The manga begins an indeterminate number of years after the Battle of Sekigahara.
Plot (quoted from Wikipedia):
Azumi is raised by an old man known as "Jii" (grandfather), who's name is later revealed to be Gensai Obata, as the only girl among eleven other small boys. They are secluded from the rest of society in a tiny valley called "Kiridani" (Fog Valley) to such an extent that they do not know the difference between men and women, what a baby is, or customs like marriage. Early in the manga, as part of their training, Azumi and her comrades are allowed to go to a small community of ninjas to learn the basics of ninjutsu.
The manga sets a chilling tone early on. The 12 "erabareta senshi" (chosen warriors), who are all young children are told by Jii that they have completed their training. For their first mission, they are to form a pair with whomever among the 12 that they feel the closest. Azumi pairs with Natchi, and all ten others pair with their closest friends. Having formed the pairs, Jii tells them their first mission is to kill their partner--whoever is too weak to kill their partner is too weak to fulfill their life's missions, and without any means of independent survival, there is no way to live other than to kill their partner. The twelve children each fight their respective duels, and Azumi slays Natchi, an event which appears to deeply traumatize Azumi, but she hides her feelings, as do the others.
Then, their second mission was to slay every person in the ninja commune, including women, children, babies, and their longtime teacher. Azumi hesitates, and is unable to kill a baby, a task which one of her comrades quickly accomplishes for her telling her "I'll keep this secret from Jii" but with a reprimanding glare.
The remaining six warriors proceed to go on assassination missions of the various important supporters of the Toyotomi Faction. Azumi gradually begins to feel doubts about the morality of killing, but is repeatedly told, quite truthfully, that if her targets remained alive, the coming war between the Toyotomi and Tokugawa will be that much more horrible and result in even more innocent deaths.
Azumi (2003) the movie exists in a 142 min Japanese version and a 128 minute international version. Aya Ueto was born in Tokyo, Japan in 1985, and at the age of 12 won the Special Jury Prize at the 7th All-Japan Bishoujo Contest (beauty pageant) in 1992. After her passionate portrayal of a high school student with Gender Identity Disorder in the 6th series of the long-running classroom drama Kinpachi sensei, she was able to pursue a solo music career in August 2002. It was this performance that also convinced cult movie director Ryuhei Kitamura to cast her in the title role of Azumi (2003).
After the Battle of Sekigahara, a samurai is tasked by the Tokugawa shogunate to raise a band of assassins to finish off Toyotomi's allies and other ambitious warlords, to prevent another civil war.
Plot (quoted from Wikipedia):
Azumi (played by Aya Ueto) is discovered as a 7–8 year old girl kneeling without visible emotion next to the body of her dead mother by the samurai master Gessai and his entourage of young students. Azumi is raised in the martial skills of samurai and shinobi sword fighting, and the art of assassination. Azumi and her fellow classmates, now at young adult age, are constantly being told about a "mission" they must accomplish, though they have no idea what this mission is yet.
Prior to setting out on their mission, their master orders his students to "pair up" with each others' best friend and proceed to kill each other, thus out of 10 students only five will remain to proceed with the mission. Questions and internal conflicts begin to arise amongst Azumi and her comrades as it seems their mission even prevents them from saving a village of mostly women and children from being massacred at the hands of a group of bandits, as their primary mission is to kill the warlords Asano Nagamasa, Masayuki Sanada and Kiyomasa Kato.
I've seen the 142 minute Japanese version, and while it's not a great film I found it to be entertaining. Although long, the film builds to a satisfying and spectacular climax. I think that Ryuhei Kitamura's style in shooting action sequences is quite good. Some of the sentimentality might be somewhat overdone, but it's moving just the same unless you are a callous person. Some of the swordplay choreography is flawed, although, I only noticed two instances that were really obvious, but there is flawed action choreography in even great samurai films such as Samurai Rebellion (1967). There are some continuity errors with blood on walls and clothes. As a viewer, I make the concession that they don't have the time or money to reshoot a scene with many extras involved just because one person makes a mistake. Aya Ueto gave a good performance, and Jô Odagiri was excellent in his portrayal of the mercenary adversary. Ueto's movements during the sword fights were dancelike, and for me that conveyed how superior her skills were compared to most of her opponents. She handled herself much better than I expected in the action scenes, although, if I'm not mistaken she did get injured in one of these scenes. There is limited use of CGI in this film which I appreciated, and no character has superpowers or uses magic skills which I also appreciated. There is a wide difference of opinion on this film, so I wouldn't necessarily write it off out of hand.
From an interview with Kitamura posted at Hoga Central:
Kitamura: Now the cast look all-star, but back when we started, all the young cast members were under the radar. Even the main actress Ueto was still less-known, and many people opposed to the choice, telling us to use a then-bigger name girl. But all three of us, Mr. Yamamoto, the original comic writer Yu Koyama and myself, believed in her.
Interviewer: The lack of experience was not only about Ueto or Kitamura. Samurai period films have long dead for the past 20-30 years, so the young actors in Japan don't normally train the swords play like the older generation used to do. Actresses are even further away from any action opportunity. In case of "Azumi", Kitamura did not have the luxury of keeping actors for a long time for training either. So what did he do?
Kitamura: I wish I had 1 year, but the budget and schedule only allowed me 2-3 months. On the first day of the training, I took all the young assassin team actors, except for Ueto, to the action coordinator. I told them to go out running a little bit, then they came back and did other things like swinging wooden swords or front rolls. These recent Japanese young men were too thin and weak, and I was so discouraged. I even went to Mr. Yamamoto and complained, 'I can't do it!' But the action coordinator told me they were all within the range and I don't have to worry.
These young people actually toughed it out. I told all of them, 'Your roles are the assassins who trained for ten-something years only to kill people, quite unordinary guys. So this training will be rigorous, but can you do it? I cannot make the casting decision right now. If you drop out of the training, you cannot get the role. Half of you will die early in the story, but everyone will go through the same training and you have to compete one another. If you don't like to play a small part after all, you can leave right now.' But nobody left, and nobody gave up during the training. So even the guys who die early on acted well, and I tried to film their short appearances carefully. The filming of that scene to kill each other was a dark day for me. Everyone stayed and trained together for 3 months, yet half of them had be gone that day.
Ueto had to be trained separately, as she was working on a TV drama at that time. I sent the action coordinator to the studio and she swung the sword when she had time. But she has to be the strongest assassin, so even when the filming had started, we had special trainings for her. I almost felt sorry for her. We would start filming at dawn, and after sunset, she went back to the hotel, took a shower, ate and then trained outside. We shot almost all the scenes sequencially, so she became more skilled towards the end of the film. We did not enough time and that was the only way. She took some weight trainings also, but that was still not enough. We asked her to do the image training, so she could act like she was cutting the bone, with devilish emotions.
Interviewer: It is difficult to make action movies in Japan in general, because the budget is usually limited and there aren't many action-trained actors. So what was your motivation to do this film?
Kitamura: That is exactly the purpose of this movie. When I made my first film "Versus", I did not know Mr. Yamamoto and nobody else in Japan agreed with me. They all said 'such a theme has to be animation, because we don't have a huge CG or explosives like Hollywood, or kung-fu stars like Hong Kong.' But if we keep avoiding this genre, we will not catch up with them forever. I felt that the important thing is how you fight. Azumi's budget is considered very low in Hollywood level, but that is not the point. I have a pride on my way of directing. I have my own style. So I made 'Versus", very edgy film, and brought it to international film festivals. International industry people and press told me it was a great Japanese action, the first one they saw since 'Lone Wolf'. I was happy, but at the same time, I was sad to realize nobody tried to make this type of film for 30 years. Because it is too risky. For actors, it is much more secure to do TV dramas, so the feature films have become TV-like, and lose the scale and entertainment factors. I wanted to do differently, and got the chance to direct 'Azumi', so I felt destined to do it. For example, people were surprised to see the 360-degree rotation scene. I saw it in U2 music video 15 years ago, but nobody in Hollywood would do it. They would not try. I have always thinking how to do it, and this time we developed the method to do it with our staff members.
I was not trying to revive the old style. I wanted to make the film which can be enjoyed 10, 20 years later. Now it is released in the U.S. 3 years later than Japan, but I don't think it got outdated. I wanted to make the mainstream entertainment film like Japan used to make, with a little edginess here and there.
Note: There was a Zatochi film made in 1989 which has spectacular sword fighting scenes, and there is also Samurai Fiction from 1998 which has some classic, samurai film, choreographed sword fighting.
Kruistocht in Spijkerbroek, pretty fun. It's about a boy that screws up with a time-machine, he wants to redo the lost footballmatch against belgium but gets thrown in the medieval time instead and joins a kid-crusade. Good movie but it isn't very realistic, I mean us losing from Belgium?
Watched Dodgeball last weekend. Hilarious stuff-- it's become my third favourite comedy, after Monty Python and the Holy Grail and Austin Powers. Ben Stiller shows why he's my favourite among the Hollywood comedy troupe.
Anybody else watch this movie, and, if so, what did you think of it?
Gah! I *hate* Ben Stiller with the fire of a thousand novas. Just like Will Ferrell, he's one of the least funny actors I know, yet somehow keeps appearing in movie after movie. :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
Now with that said, I admittedly enjoyed Dodgeball quite a bit. Vince Vaughn is in his usual droll comedic form, and Rip Torn as Patches O'Hoolihan is hillarious. :laugh4: Gary Cole & Jason Bateman as the announcers were great as well ("Ladies and gentlemen, I have been to the Great Wall of China, I have seen the Pyramids of Egypt, I've even witnessed a grown man satisfy a camel!"). Overall, it's a pretty solid physical comedy.
Of course, my favorite scene is where Lance Armstrong has that little talk with Peter. Truly classic. :smash:
Babel, meh. I am getting a bit tired of the multiple storylines omg they are connected how smart trick. It was genius in Magnolia, 21gram was good Crash was absolutily terrible and this is really nothing at all.
I was actually quite impressed with Will Ferrell in Stranger than Fiction. The comic star of questionable talent really came alive for me in a more dramatic role. With Emma Thompson and Dustin Hoffman, the movie already had plenty of quality acting outside of Ferrell's character, but he made an IRS agent of all people a sympathetic and likeable character, and showed he can act with subtlety as well as his usual over-the-top style. I'd like to see him in more dramatic roles and fewer comic ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Ajax
No, Crash was great! It set out to be melodramatic and thoroughly over-the-top, and succeeded marvelously. Some very memorable scenes, but o did it go for the cheap tricks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Saw the Bucket List. Wasn't bad as a "feel good" type of movie, but then again it wasn't much more. Morgan Freeman is always excellent though.
So incredibly patronising and cheap, hated it. It wasn't clever or anything just pushy and annoying. It also messes up with the seperate storylines because there isn't really a conclusion, if you want to see it done right watch 'The Hours'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
As a matter of fact, I do want to see this one as well. In addition to it being generally well-reviewed, I admit I'd still be curious to watch it just for the novelty of watching Ferrell play a serious role for once.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
(Sort of like watching Jim Carrey in non-comedies. I love The Majestic. :2thumbsup: )
I'd highly recommend it. It's one of my favorite new movies of the last couple years. Quirky, funny, and touching as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Ajax
Leben der Anderen, Das
Nazi Communists
.
.
.
and boobs.
Plus, you'll learn a bit about socialism (but not enough to know whether or not to capitalize the "S").
LMFAO! I loved that movie! it was great.
Has anyone seen: Akbar ?
I'm sure I'll enjoy it throughly but I wanted some other views of those who have seen it.
edit: For those who haven't seen or heard of it there was no subtitled trailer on youtube that I could find, there is one on the official site: http://www.jodhaaakbar.com/
JAI HIND ! JAI JAWAN !
?You watch Indian movies? ~:)
The local Rajput groups didn't let them release the movie in Rajasthan, but I don't think its such a loss, the movie isn't very good, I mean, it's basically your well beaten love story plot. No where accurate or anything. Good enough when you're just bored and have got nothing to do, not otherwise.
Thanks for you feedback. I'm taking that you did in fact see the film.
Well I have never seen a perfect historical movie so I'm not too fussed about if it's historical, or not.
Personally I think it will be a great movie, and I can judge that by the trailer, it should be very entertaining.
Now who would say Crouching Tiger is historical, or the more recent Chinese movie with the beautiful Zhang Ziyi, the one about the Chinese court. That's not historical either. I'm not much surprised that it's banned in Rajasthan, after all it shows a Raja's girl falling in love with a Muslim king, and being bartered to the King in return for political promise. There are other aspects of the film which probably insult the Rajas such as Akbar's persistence and desire for a great unified India. The Rajas would prefer to see him as a foreigner to preserve the idea of a purely Hindu India. Bombay (the movie) also had a lot of heat because of it's theme of love between a Hindu woman and a Muslim man.
I'd watch Akbar just for the whole costume drama, just like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, I wouldn't watch that for history either.
Saw I, Robot recently. I expected it to be bad based on what i had heard on the internets, but it was surprisingly good for a 'blockbuster' movie. Quite a few dumb action scenes, but also a story that digs just a little deeper than most (hyper commerical movies).
So like a typical idiot I looked at the title and thought: "Gee, wonder if anyone's head gets chopped off by a Muslim." Then I saw the clip, liked it (even though the emir/sultan guy looks like Borat), thought of Broken Crescent, and thought: "Interesting, it would be nice to see someone's head get chopped off." :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinan
Looks interesting. Very powerful if you're from the region.
Shui hu zhuan (The Water Margin) (1972) is an excellent chinese martial arts film set in 12th century China based on several chapters of a chinese literary classic. Originally released in the USA in a hacked down 81 minute version as Seven Blows of the Dragon, this film has been beautifully remastered in widesceen and restored by Dragon Dynasty to its full 124 minutes. The story, acting and fighting sequences are all very good and believable. There is hand-to-hand fighting and fighting with lots of different weapons. You won't see people flying through the air in this film or goofy comic relief. The only dodgy thing really is the opening sequence which briefly shows some obviously motorized boats. There are a lot of characters of which to keep track, but they are each introduced by their name in text when they first appear in the film.
The Bourne Ultimating, fine and all but it's so silly. Especially the scene in the terminal, Bourne is telling the journalist how to be unnoticed while holding his cell-phone as if it was a walky talky or whatever they are called.
Does he not have ear pieces or does he drop them for that scene?
More importantly: Why is Mr Superspyninja using an unencrypted cell phone?
Death at a funeral
Black comedy, setting is a funeral of some British guy where thing after thing goes wrong. Good acting, some truly hilarious moments and a midget wrestling scene. What more could you want?
I won't say
I-robot, really enjoyed it. Too heavy on the action but the camara-work in these sequences is truly amazing, the way they camara swirls around the action, up, down, under, wherever, is simply dazzling. Not a shabby plot either, Hollywood at it's best, first class entertainment. They could have fleshed out the main character some more, his aversion for robots isn't all that believable but it doesn't distract from an overall very enjoyable movie.
Considering that most of the plot is based on Asimov's tales, I wouldn't call it Hollywood at its best :grin3:
How does that effect a Hollywood production?
Well, if you're going to be picky, I may as well join in. Affect is the verb. Effect is the noun. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wandering Scholar
I feel I should make a movie related post. So, I've had the film about Ian Curtis and Joy Division for a while but I haven't got around to watching it yet. Has anyone here seen it? What did you think? I think it's called Closer but I'm not 100%
Well if you consider it Hollywood at it's best because it doesn't have a shabby plot, and Hollywood hasn't got anything to do with the plot, then the movie isn't that great because of Hollywood, but rather despite Hollywood.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wandering Scholar
Two things.
1)
Why does Hollywood have to come up with the plot for a movie to be 'Hollywood at its best'? Perhaps recognizing that talented writers can come up with better plots than most movie producers, and making a quality movie based off such a plot, is more laudable than repeatedly producing trash. Many of the best movies are made using plots that did not originate in Hollywood. I would happily call such effective borrowing 'Hollywood at its best.'
2)
In regards to affect vs effect. Both spellings can function as either a noun or a verb;
however, the most commonly used meaning of affect is a verb and the most commonly used meaning of effect is a noun.
affect
verb--2 major definitions (and several less common ones)
-To make a material impression on; to act upon, influence, move, touch, or have an effect on
-To put on a pretence of; to assume a false appearance of, to counterfeit or pretend
noun--used most commonly in psychology
-The way in which one is affected or disposed; mental state, mood, feeling, desire, intention
effect
noun
-Something accomplished, caused, or produced; a result, consequence
verb
-To bring about (an event, a result); to accomplish (an intention, a desire)
Definitions above are courtesy of the OED online, and here's a little XKCD comic on the subject:
Effect an Effect
Ajax
:gah2:
Why, Ajax, why? :sad:
Because I really am that geeky.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craterus
:holmes: :book: :pokemon: :study: ~;p :stupido: :book2: :scholar: :idea: :smart: :clown:
Ajax
Is that for me or against?
ooof. in case anyone was wondering, don't waste your time watching "vantage point".
ooof.
Horror goodness.
The descent, starts out harmless enough, a group of thirty-something female friends goes spelunking (I think that's what it's called you know enter caves), when a tunnel collapses they have to find a way out. Small passages you can hardly move trough, a consistantly close-up camara to emphasise the claustrophobiaand raised tensions between the friends could be enough for a 1,5 hour of terror. But that turns out to be the least of their worries. There is something there........ how original you think. It never gets silly though because of the believable characters, characters that are going to die in rather nasty ways, but never in a wouldn't-it-be-cool-way thought up by people with odd glasses. One nailbiting ride, you will need a strong stomach for this one because it's quite gory!
Is there any sex?
No sex in The Descent (2005), but there are relationships which are important to the character development in the story. Make sure you see the unedited version because the ending is different. The USA distributor, Lion's Gate, forced the director, Neil Marshall, to edit the ending for USA release. This greatly diminished the emotional impact of the ending, and changed the apparent fate of the main character.
.
I don't like movies in which chicks are slain. :no:
.
I thought that Cloverfield lacked the neccesary movie essential required to enthrall the modern audience. Namely the fact that it was obviously not an amateur camera.
Saw 10,000 BC. Weird movie all around. It was goofy in the way things happened which kinda gave it a realistic feel to it in more ways then one. And there is no real main bad guy from what I could tell or no anti-hero jibberish although at first it would appear so...that is not the case (thank god).
7/10
See it for yourself. I still don't know what to make of it
I'm quite fond of The Descent. I'm going on Saturday to see that director's latest outing, Doomsday. We'll see if it's any good ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Whoops, not liked by MetacriticQuote:
Originally Posted by Decker
Still not as bad as Meet the Spartans you would be embarrassed to make it.
you guys should check out the directors earlier movie...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Dog Soldiers
one of my favorite horror movies of all time......the Descent is good...but I think "Soldiers" is better....
still have to check out Doomsday
.
Arachnophobia
Not bad for a b-movie. Entertaining and not too stupid except a few necessary Holywood idiocies here and there.
.
What did everyone think to http://www.american-gangster.net/? Personally I turned it off after 40 minutes, I just couldn't get interested. The plot and the fact that it was a true story was a huge plus point and Washington is one of my favourite actors, dissapointment.
You just like that one because the lead actor also did the voice work in Medieval: Total War. I gotta admit, Dog Soldiers didn't really do it for me. Just a little too silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
But The Descent was pretty hard-core, even if there were lapses of logic and sense. (I like my horror films to play tennis with the net up, if you don't mind.) I'll be heading out to see Doomsday with a bunch of guys on Saturday -- we'll see what we see. If nothing else, it's an excuse for all of us to get away from our wives and kids for two to three hours.
Oh boy. Threads, so a nuclair attack isn't fun after all. Even more ghastly then the excellent The day after. Still have nightmares of the scene where the rockets are being launched.
Arachnophobia was a blast. I'm not a huge fan of spiders myself, it didn't require much thinking, and the exterminator was hilarious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
Ajax
.
Saw Payback and the last half hour of Godzilla tonight on TV.
Mel Gibson should have stuck to making action/crime movies. :no: (Add: This means I liked Payback. He should be banished from making pseudo-historical trash.)
Godzilla was a fun, silly, entertaining nonsense.
Coincidentally, both movies feature pretty lasses named Maria (Bello and Pitillo respectively). ~D
.
Gojira (1954) directed by Ishirô Honda is a sci-fi film which acts as social commentary on the danger of the atomic bomb and future technologies that governments would use for making war. Godzilla himself is clearly a metaphor for the atomic bomb, and he possesses a radioactive fire breath to incinerate people and buildings which he does indiscriminately. The ship which is incinerated at the beginning of the film has a life preserver with the number 5 on it. This is a reference to the Daigo Fukuryū Maru (Lucky Dragon 5) incident. In another scene which was removed from the USA version of the film, people on a train during the morning commute discuss the radioactive contamination of their food and water. Most of the anti-atomic bomb sentiment was removed in the bastardized USA version with stupid scenes featuring Raymond Burr added to make up for the 25 minutes that was removed from the original Japanese version.
This film was the basis for a long series of Godzilla films which deteriorated in quality and lacked the strong social commentary. The acting in this film is quite good, and there is also a sub theme concerning the social difficulty of a woman breaking an arranged marriage engagement, and another scene where a women's delegation has difficulty getting their collective voice seriously considered at a government meeting. The original Japanese version (98 minutes) has been released on a nicely restored DVD.
The Omen, pointless remake of one of the scariest movies ever made. Complete waste of time.
Got back from seeing Doomsday. It's a very silly movie. The exploding bunny near the beginning is a big tip-off. I lost count of the beheadings, but there were about four hands chopped off. I think a total of three people get squished, with guts flying everywhere. Only one person gets cooked alive and eaten, with gratuitous close-ups of the cannibals pulling flesh from the cooked body.
An enjoyable bloodbath, for all that. It also suffers from eight-films-in-one syndrome. It's a techno-thriller, no, it's a Mad Max homage, no, it's Robin Hood, no, it's Excalibur, no, it's Mad Max again. Reminded me of Brotherhood of the Wolf, which was by far the best French Language period martial arts werewolf buddy film I've ever seen.
I think I might have enjoyed it more if I were drunk. Still, not a bad way to spend an afternoon with some other dads.
Only Sith deal in absolutes. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wandering Scholar
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Watched Philadelphia yesterday. I wouldn't rate it as a great movie as some critics have labeled it, but it's a solid, effective movie. Denzel Washington does a good job as Miller the homophobe lawyer, but the kudos belongs to Tom Hanks. His acting is low-key and understated, but undeniably effective. One reason for that is that Andy never comes across as an archetype, whether it's the sick dying man or the gay, but as a real, multi-faceted person. One big bonus for me is the lack of theatrics in the courtroom scenes. No juries applauding or the lawyer convincing the judge with an outrageous passionate speech here. The proceedings are dignified. A worthy investment of my time.
I recently rewatched two very different comedies, South Park (the movie) and Monty Python and the Holy Grail. When I watched it alone, I considered the latter the best comedy ever made (or, at least, my favourite). I watched both with friends recently, and I found that South Park was pretty funny after all. I had found it to be merely okay before, watching it alone, but watching it with friends improves teh experience. In contrast, Monty Python and the Holy Grail was only okay when watched with friends-- while the jokes are still funny, they're not the sort of outrageous humour that makes South Park so fun to watch in groups. The point is that I think some movies simply work better in a group audience.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail is a classic, but now its very cliche, and not as humorous as it was before. You don't get the same laughs you could from it.
I personally enjoyed it. That black guy was a champion. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
The intro to the middle bits maintained really high energy and intensity. But the ending was a little rush. Couldved slowed it down a bit to give the full story including the terrorist fellows (And Enrique fellow.. My favourite dude)
Nice story line with a twist. I hope theres a directors cut coming out with more scenes
Saw John Carpenter's The Thing recently. A classic, full of terror and paranoia, that everyone should see, and the special effects have aged well.
You're a Sith! ~;pQuote:
Only Sith deal in absolutes.
CR
I enjoyed Drillbit taylor a lot.
You might want to look into 'Mayhem', it pulls the multiple-movies-in-one thingie of gloriously. You are never really sure what kind of a movie you are watching, it's full of surprises. And it has Kathy Bates, who does an even better job then she did in her oscarwinning performance in 'Misery'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Seen Sweeney Todd, enjoyed it very much:2thumbsup:
I had the pleasure to watch Life is beautiful last night, What an amazing film. Even in Italian and subtitled in English it is an emotive, funny and thought enhancing movie.
Right at the end when the American tank enters the camp, the little lads face lights up because he thinks he's won first prize for getting to a 1000 points, it's worth watching for that alone. Fantastic movie I heartily recommend. :2thumbsup:
Wait a cotton-pickin' minute -- you only now saw The Thing? What's the matter with you, son? That's a horror classic, a must-see for anyone interested in paranoia or snow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
As for the effects, if I could do one thing to that film it would be to scale back on the gore a little bit. The best moments in it are psychological, and we don't need the full Grand Guignol treatment.
Oh, I saw it years ago, but recently I saw it again.
CR
The original The Thing from Another World (1951) is quite good in terms of psychological suspense and paranoia as well. Of course, it doesn't have the special effects of the newer film version.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Saw 3:10 to Yuma and Shoot 'em Up recently.
Yuma's a nice western with great acting by Bale and Crowe. The end was predictable and worsened Crowe's character, but all in all it was a very decent western -not as good as Unforgiven, but good anyhow.
Shoot'em up was just an hour and a half hilarious action with the most badass Clive Owen I ever saw (even more so then in Sin City). The action was fast, hilarious en surreal. One hell of an action movie although the plot of course was terrible.
Last King of Scotland Intense. Very intense. Good movie.
Agreed :balloon2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmic
Way too butcher a perfectly fine book. Forest Whitacker is terrifying as Amin though, perfect casting.
Hmm. Whitaker is brilliant, he carries the film - but, as with Hotel Rwanda, it felt all too much like an over-dramatization of what were terrible times, almost too slick. In particular, in the Last King of Scotland, it's almost ironic that the writers of the film decided to place the emphasis on the drama and excitement of the white man (with the laughable link to the hijack business at the end) rather than, like the book, letting implications gradually build and speak for themselves. They remind me of the style of Crash, except that film doesn't have any pretensions about what it is.
Thank god I am not alone, everybody keeps raving about Hotel Rwanda. Didn't do it for me.
Sign me up to the "what's so great about Hotel Rwanda" club. I thought it was way too slick, way too bloodless, and somehow made one of the most horrifying events of the 20th century boring. Maybe I've just read too much about what actually happened, but the film didn't even come close to capturing the scale, the brutality or the horror.
Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007) is a well made film with some striking visuals, but suffers the usual distortion of historical facts to fit a preconceived dramatic story. The film stays focused on Elizabeth's character which is romanticized but inspiring none the less due to the fine portrayal by actress Cate Blanchett. The mandatory heroic deed during the Battle of Gravelines which the filmmaker gives Sir Walter Raleigh is far fetched in the extreme, and glosses over the contribution of the historical commanders. The Battle of Gravelines is presented in more of a symbolic fashion than entirely realistic fashion as is the assassination attempt which is fine as long as you understand that's what is being done.
I do really want to see this movie, despite the gross historical inaccuracies. I only saw the original Elizabeth movie for the first time this past summer, but I really enjoyed it. Blanchett really is superb (of course, that seems to be pretty standard for her).Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D