Movie Review Thread

Saw Battle:LA with my son a month or so ago.

He loved it...I didn't.

My initial description was "A squad-level Independance Day ", a friend of mine, without hearing my comment said: "Battle Los Angeles was much better the first time I saw it, back when it was called Independence Day". There are a couple of lines which could have been lifted right out of ID, though not quite word for word.

The problem is, as the Ebert quote above explains, the action is confusing and often doesn't make a lot of sense. I also agree with Subotan that this does not compare to movies like "Starship Troopers" or "Aliens", both of which are similar in genre but with far better execution.

CGI is a fine technology, but I think it's capabilities sometimes tempt the film studios to take it too far. This, like "Cloverfield" was way over the top and had a surreal feel to the whole thing. I don't know how to describe it, but I guess maybe it felt like I was watching a videogame. Anyway, most of the time I could barely focus my eyes on what was happening (Cloverfield was the same, but it actually made me feel sick to my stomach - and I do not get motion sickness as a rule). On the other hand, I did not have that problem with Avatar, for example...but I digress.

Note that I am not even touching the plot concepts in this film, many of the foundations of which I found to be completely absurd to the point where even discussing them is pointless. The main alien weakness, for example...sheesh, didn't they watch Star Wars Episode 1?

Anyway, if you are under 18, you might like this movie. Otherwise you will probably just feel it is a B level attempt to rehash some old ideas that you have seen too many times already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

I've never been able to watch a humanity vs. aliens movie in quite the same way after seeing Starship Troopers though. It is an absolutely brilliant film, and probably the best satire of fascism since The Great Dictator. The key to its genius is that it dehumanises the enemy without you even realising, so at the end of the movie you find yourself cheering for the fascists, precisely identifying the seductive nature of fascism.

---

Bah. Starship Troopers is a terrible film. It's not satire; it's a paper thin copy of war propaganda, with terrible acting, writing, and plot. There's no genius, no wit. The director just dresses the people up in obviously nazi-inspired costumes, alters some propaganda, and has them fight a most boring enemy.

You only cheer for the fascists because there's no other humans in the movies, and their opponents are giant insects that just attack whatever they see.

There's no substance in it's stupidity. The fact that it's a horrible movie does not make it a satire of war movies; it's simply a horrible movie.

Quote:

---

I agree partially with this, but not in a negative view. Firefights are chaotic. Ask anyone who's been in one. I think it portrays this very well, especially since the enemies are not stupid and do not simply advance from one side out in the open like is sometimes portrayed in movies.

---

Quick edits and lots of explosions are a really lazy way of showing chaos. It's not showing us that the people in the film are in the middle of chaos so much as the lens we are viewing them through is in chaos.

By setting up the situation with clarity films can portray a chaotic situation better - that is, actually immersing the watcher in the chaos instead of just showing the action in a chaotic way.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Quick edits and lots of explosions are a really lazy way of showing chaos. It's not showing us that the people in the film are in the middle of chaos so much as the lens we are viewing them through is in chaos.

By setting up the situation with clarity films can portray a chaotic situation better - that is, actually immersing the watcher in the chaos instead of just showing the action in a chaotic way.

---

:yes: The slo-mo portion of the Normandy landing in Saving Private Ryan comes to mind. There may be a lot of probems with the movie as a whole, but the cinematography is superb and much more gripping and memorable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Quick edits and lots of explosions are a really lazy way of showing chaos. It's not showing us that the people in the film are in the middle of chaos so much as the lens we are viewing them through is in chaos.

By setting up the situation with clarity films can portray a chaotic situation better - that is, actually immersing the watcher in the chaos instead of just showing the action in a chaotic way.

CR

---

>:|

I digress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Quick edits and lots of explosions are a really lazy way of showing chaos. It's not showing us that the people in the film are in the middle of chaos so much as the lens we are viewing them through is in chaos.

By setting up the situation with clarity films can portray a chaotic situation better - that is, actually immersing the watcher in the chaos instead of just showing the action in a chaotic way.

---

I could not agree more. This is the feeling I got from both the movies I described in my post (Battle LA & Cloverfield). Rapid switches between camera angles or rapid panning only serve to disorient the viewer. You keep wondering, "what am I looking at" & "where am I now", and "where am I supposedly looking"...you never get the answer before you are presented with a new angle.

There are many better examples in war-movies. Even within the Sci-Fi genre..."Aliens", while hardly an art film, depicted chatoic scenes without the general confusion to the viewer. I have to admit, for an action film, it is one of my favorites.

"Starship Troopers" is a hard one for me. I remember watching it, and enjoying it at the time...but it was hardly something I would revisit for more than curiousity. That said, given a choice I would rather watch it than either "Independance Day" or "Battle:LA". I do remember the over-the-top rhetoric. I suppose two different people watching it might have seen very different movies. For me, it was clear that the over-the-top portrayal was intended as a satire of sorts. Others might have revelled in it. Now I wonder, do I have to rewatch it to see what I see in it today, and if my impressions are skewed? (BTW:The follow on direct-to-video films I did not even bother to watch.). I can see how some (especially kids) could get all gung-ho about it, but the characters are so stupid that I have to wonder how this can be taken as pro-war propoganda.

(I had started writing quite a rant on the state of modern filmmaking...but I think I will spare you and save it for another day.)

Jaguara

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian to the Iron

I agree partially with this, but not in a negative view. Firefights are chaotic. Ask anyone who's been in one. I think it portrays this very well, especially since the enemies are not stupid and do not simply advance from one side out in the open like is sometimes portrayed in movies.

---

Of course, but when watching a film, the sense of panic and confusion should come from the danger the characters are in, rather than "AGHHH SO MANY THINGS HAPPENING SO FAST" which a lot of modern directors seem to think are one and the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Bah. Starship Troopers is a terrible film. It's not satire; it's a paper thin copy of war propaganda, with terrible acting, writing, and plot. There's no genius, no wit. The director just dresses the people up in obviously nazi-inspired costumes, alters some propaganda, and has them fight a most boring enemy.

You only cheer for the fascists because there's no other humans in the movies, and their opponents are giant insects that just attack whatever they see.

There's no substance in it's stupidity. The fact that it's a horrible movie does not make it a satire of war movies; it's simply a horrible movie.

---

I respectfully disagree. Unlike other satires, where the audience is laughing at the joke, the joke is on the audience. For example, take a look at the Starship Troopers Facebook Page. There's loads of stuff like "Rico is a hero", "The Only Good Bug is a Dead Bug" and [my favourite] "Personally I think we need a World Wide Government Like the Federation. Examining it from all sides yes it would be a dictatorship of sorts. BUT it would work as governmental system. No citizenship without service.". Most people don't realise that it is a satire, and that's what makes it so brilliant. Seeing as the director was also the same director who made Robocop (Which everybody seemed to get as satire), we can reasonably infer that the film was intentionally produced to look like a cheesy action movie, so that people would not get the joke. Only Neil Patrick Harris seems to get the joke (possibly because he's a legend amongst men but I digress), as everybody else plays it obliviously straight.

The Adjustment Bureau was very entertaining. The actor who plays Roger Sterling on Mad Men is in it, and it was very strange to see him not drinking and smoking constantly like his character on that show. If you like Phillip K. Dick, you'd like Adjustment Bureau.

Rango is also quite fun. TC and I went on a Friday afternoon and there were mostly adults in the theater. I don't know if I'd call it a kids' movie even though it's animated. There was a little violence, some death, and it's not cutesy. Johnny Depp did a great job voicing the main character and overall it was an amusing movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaguara

"Starship Troopers" is a hard one for me. I remember watching it, and enjoying it at the time...but it was hardly something I would revisit for more than curiousity. That said, given a choice I would rather watch it than either "Independance Day" or "Battle:LA". I do remember the over-the-top rhetoric. I suppose two different people watching it might have seen very different movies. For me, it was clear that the over-the-top portrayal was intended as a satire of sorts. Others might have revelled in it. Now I wonder, do I have to rewatch it to see what I see in it today, and if my impressions are skewed? (BTW:The follow on direct-to-video films I did not even bother to watch.). I can see how some (especially kids) could get all gung-ho about it, but the characters are so stupid that I have to wonder how this can be taken as pro-war propoganda.

---

Have you read the book? It's definitely the author's political views, but I think some of it is satire. The book has a depth to it that the movie didn't quite capture. But the movie has Neil Patrick Harris in it, so it all evens out. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

I respectfully disagree. Unlike other satires, where the audience is laughing at the joke, the joke is on the audience. For example, take a look at the Starship Troopers Facebook Page. There's loads of stuff like "Rico is a hero", "The Only Good Bug is a Dead Bug" and [my favourite] "Personally I think we need a World Wide Government Like the Federation. Examining it from all sides yes it would be a dictatorship of sorts. BUT it would work as governmental system. No citizenship without service.". Most people don't realise that it is a satire, and that's what makes it so brilliant. Seeing as the director was also the same director who made Robocop (Which everybody seemed to get as satire), we can reasonably infer that the film was intentionally produced to look like a cheesy action movie, so that people would not get the joke. Only Neil Patrick Harris seems to get the joke (possibly because he's a legend amongst men but I digress), as everybody else plays it obliviously straight.

---

See, this line of reasoning to me just seems like an excuse for the terrible film. Like "Ah, yes, it was supposed to be terrible, there's a deeper meaning to it all", as though the lack of quality is really evidence of a deeper quality. But there is no deeper meaning, no sly joke on the audience. People don't realize it's satire because there's little substantial satire going on. Just a copy and paste of old war propaganda and nazi uniforms.

As for people cheering for the characters, I am unmoved from my position. With so many millions having seen the movie, of course there's going to be some who take in the movie extremely straight.

As for the book - the movie is not related. Verhoeven was making an original movie and bought the rights to the name of the book partway through production. He didn't even read the whole book after that.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

See, this line of reasoning to me just seems like an excuse for the terrible film. Like "Ah, yes, it was supposed to be terrible, there's a deeper meaning to it all", as though the lack of quality is really evidence of a deeper quality. But there is no deeper meaning, no sly joke on the audience. People don't realize it's satire because there's little substantial satire going on. Just a copy and paste of old war propaganda and nazi uniforms.

---

That's what I think too.

A bit like the way in which 'The Room' - that Citizen Kane of bad movies - after all the criticism levelled at it was suddenly presented as a 'black comedy'. Yeah right.


Bad movies are bad movies. Just like 'camp' is really a disingeneous means to decrease cognitive dissonance for people to enjoy movies they think they ought to be well above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scienter

Have you read the book? It's definitely the author's political views, but I think some of it is satire. The book has a depth to it that the movie didn't quite capture.

---

I did read the book, before seeing the movie. I did not mention the book because the film was such a departure from it so as to be almost unrecognizable.

Suckerpunch

At first I was like
"WHERE'S THE VIOLONCE?!?!!?"

Then I was like
"Samurai with Gatling guns...short skirts on hot chicks...giant robots in WWI...B52 attacking Orcs and dragons...robots and huey....*drooling on self*"

And at the end I was like
".....What?"



odd movie, but visually entertaining. worth it just to see the freakin SAMURAI ROBOT WITH A GATLING GUN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian to the Iron

As if. Name 3 other movies in the last 5 years in which Marines are the only branch doing anything.

---

I never said doing anything at all. I meant doing anything with success.

Waterloo, 1970s film by Dino De Laurentiis.

That is how movies should be made. As far as Epic war movies, I can't think of anything that matches it to this day. To see a film done in similar fashion for Roman times would be amazing...unfortunately I fear that day will never come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

See, this line of reasoning to me just seems like an excuse for the terrible film. Like "Ah, yes, it was supposed to be terrible, there's a deeper meaning to it all", as though the lack of quality is really evidence of a deeper quality. But there is no deeper meaning, no sly joke on the audience. People don't realize it's satire because there's little substantial satire going on. Just a copy and paste of old war propaganda and nazi uniforms.

---

I think that's unfair, as there was more than that. Incidents such as when Rico was court-martialed and not kicked out of the army, but flogged, is like nothing we've seen in any war-time propaganda. The political structure of the federation is also totally alien to us (heh). It certainly wasn't a simplistic Nazi Earth vs. the Bugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

That's what I think too.

A bit like the way in which 'The Room' - that Citizen Kane of bad movies - after all the criticism levelled at it was suddenly presented as a 'black comedy'. Yeah right.


Bad movies are bad movies. Just like 'camp' is really a disingeneous means to decrease cognitive dissonance for people to enjoy movies they think they ought to be well above.

---

This is more substantial though, and I confess that I have nothing other than gut feeling to argue for Verhoeven in that I think he deliberately filmed it in the style of B-Action Movie. Even if he didn't, I still think it serves as a good satire of Fascism, if maybe not so much one of Hollywood's role in producing propaganda and our susceptibility to it.

Quote:

---

if maybe not so much one of Hollywood's role in producing propaganda and our susceptibility to it.

---

In terms of that, Wag the Dog is the far superior movie.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian to the Iron

Suckerpunch

At first I was like
"WHERE'S THE VIOLONCE?!?!!?"

Then I was like
"Samurai with Gatling guns...short skirts on hot chicks...giant robots in WWI...B52 attacking Orcs and dragons...robots and huey....*drooling on self*"

And at the end I was like
".....What?"



odd movie, but visually entertaining. worth it just to see the freakin SAMURAI ROBOT WITH A GATLING GUN

---

it took a DIVE from 1st place on the box office to 7th in just one week.

word of mouth is bad movie Kryptonite.

"King Arthur" was on TV last night. I had wisely avoided this when it came out in theatres, and when it came out on video, but it is amazing what you will watch at 2am.

I knew right off that I was in trouble...here is the start of the intro...

Quote:

---

By 300 AD the Roman Empire extended from Arabia to Briton, but they wanted more. More land, more peoples loyal and subservient to Rome. But no people so important as the powerful Sarmatians to the East.

---

Yes, Greece, Egypt, Carthage, Persia...they were nothing...what Rome really wanted was Sarmatia!

So, now Lancelot is no longer a Frank, he is a Sarmatian...as are all of the other Knights of the Round...and Arthur is in charge of the Roman garrison, which seems to consist almost solely of those 5-6 Sarmatian Cavalry (but called "knights"). Apparently the entire country is in fear of the power of these 5 (when one unit of archers in a treeline could end them).

So much of this movie is just so absurd that it wasn't even funny. It is more in line with what I would expect from a direct-to-video release. Clive Owen's performance has got to be the worst of his life, though I suppose it could be the directing. Regardless of his lines, they are delivered unconvincingly and in almost monotone.

Big mission - save a Roman household living north of Hadrian's wall from the oncoming Saxons. How these Romans had been surviving north of the Wall with only three guards is never explained.

I didn't even finish the film, it was so pathetic...and I almost always finish watching a film that I have started.

I saw Source Code over the weekend and found it very entertaining. So long as I didn't think too much. I enjoyed Moon, and this was the same director.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaguara

"King Arthur" was on TV last night. I had wisely avoided this when it came out in theatres, and when it came out on video, but it is amazing what you will watch at 2am.

I knew right off that I was in trouble...here is the start of the intro...


Yes, Greece, Egypt, Carthage, Persia...they were nothing...what Rome really wanted was Sarmatia!

So, now Lancelot is no longer a Frank, he is a Sarmatian...as are all of the other Knights of the Round...and Arthur is in charge of the Roman garrison, which seems to consist almost solely of those 5-6 Sarmatian Cavalry (but called "knights"). Apparently the entire country is in fear of the power of these 5 (when one unit of archers in a treeline could end them).

So much of this movie is just so absurd that it wasn't even funny. It is more in line with what I would expect from a direct-to-video release. Clive Owen's performance has got to be the worst of his life, though I suppose it could be the directing. Regardless of his lines, they are delivered unconvincingly and in almost monotone.

Big mission - save a Roman household living north of Hadrian's wall from the oncoming Saxons. How these Romans had been surviving north of the Wall with only three guards is never explained.

I didn't even finish the film, it was so pathetic...and I almost always finish watching a film that I have started.

---

You will appreciate: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/...eira-knightley

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

You will appreciate: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/...eira-knightley

---

What gets me the most is that they billed that as being a historically accurate version. (I only found that out in the article, which was interesting but only scratches the surface on the problems with this film)

Don't even bother making the argument of if Arthur was real or not...they don't even get the basic historical facts right in this movie. Just utter rubbish.

Yes it was utter dross, as was the "Lost Legion", that started out looking... well, acceptable... but then morphed into the Arthur legend near the end. I don't think the legend has ever been done well to date?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaguara

"King Arthur" was on TV last night. I had wisely avoided this when it came out in theatres, and when it came out on video, but it is amazing what you will watch at 2am.

I knew right off that I was in trouble...here is the start of the intro...


Yes, Greece, Egypt, Carthage, Persia...they were nothing...what Rome really wanted was Sarmatia!

So, now Lancelot is no longer a Frank, he is a Sarmatian...as are all of the other Knights of the Round...and Arthur is in charge of the Roman garrison, which seems to consist almost solely of those 5-6 Sarmatian Cavalry (but called "knights"). Apparently the entire country is in fear of the power of these 5 (when one unit of archers in a treeline could end them).

So much of this movie is just so absurd that it wasn't even funny. It is more in line with what I would expect from a direct-to-video release. Clive Owen's performance has got to be the worst of his life, though I suppose it could be the directing. Regardless of his lines, they are delivered unconvincingly and in almost monotone.

Big mission - save a Roman household living north of Hadrian's wall from the oncoming Saxons. How these Romans had been surviving north of the Wall with only three guards is never explained.

I didn't even finish the film, it was so pathetic...and I almost always finish watching a film that I have started.

---

This is going to make me sound like the shallow male I am: But the only reason to see King Arthur is for keira knightley in war paint.

:sweetheart:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monk

This is going to make me sound like the shallow male I am: But the only reason to see King Arthur is for keira knightley in war paint.

:sweetheart:

---

Whatever floats your boat.

I heard women say the same thing about "Troy", that the ratings were only so high because of so many women watching it to see Brad Pitt's ass. I know one female friend who bought the DVD for that purpose :rolleyes:. I still haven't bothered to see it myself, perhaps because of that comment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaguara

Whatever floats your boat.

I heard women say the same thing about "Troy", that the ratings were only so high because of so many women watching it to see Brad Pitt's ass. I know one female friend who bought the DVD for that purpose :rolleyes:. I still haven't bothered to see it myself, perhaps because of that comment?

---

Troy had some good battle scenes. I really don't remember seeing Brad Pitt's rear-end but I do remember a lot of.. I don't want to call them sex scenes cuz there wasn't much of that, but rather 'intimate' scenes. I think you know what I mean. Also the ending was a bit of a let-down and so was the overall villain of the story... :no:

Regarding the Arthur legend, I loved Merlin. Now that I look back at it I see that it could be seen as quite a childish take on the tale, but I'm inclined to think that's the best way, much like the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe.

Also, the special effects and costumes are dated, but it doesn't take much away if you can see past it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

Regarding the Arthur legend, I loved Merlin. Now that I look back at it I see that it could be seen as quite a childish take on the tale, but I'm inclined to think that's the best way, much like the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe.

Also, the special effects and costumes are dated, but it doesn't take much away if you can see past it.

---

I hadn't heard of that one...perhaps because it was direct to video, or perhaps because I have a somewhat low tolerance level for Sam Neil.

As far as Arthuran movies go, nothing has ever compared to "Excalibur". Sure it is not perfect, merges some characters and such, and makes no attempt to fit the story into history...but to me this is the benchmark to compare to.

Most of the major cast would not be recognized today, as most were classical actors, but a few notable early appearances from Patrick Stewart, Liam Neeson, Gabriel Byrne, Helen Mirren, Ciarán Hinds...

There are some really good lines in this film, and actors who can actually deliver them. Great soundtrack and some nice camera work as well...at least for the time. The scene of Arthur riding with his knights to Carmina Burana as the trees come back to life - reigning apple blossoms around them...epic.

I first saw it in a pre-release screening in 1981, as my father knew the projectionist of our local theater. My mother flipped because I was all of 9, and there was nudity & sex. It remained one of my favorite films for many years. I have not watched it in many years, I am probably due.

Edit: PS - don't watch the old trailer...like most trailers from the 70's & 80's it is pretty bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monk

Troy had some good battle scenes. I really don't remember seeing Brad Pitt's rear-end but I do remember a lot of.. I don't want to call them sex scenes cuz there wasn't much of that, but rather 'intimate' scenes. I think you know what I mean. Also the ending was a bit of a let-down and so was the overall villain of the story... :no:

---

I watched "12 Monkeys" because of Brad Pitt's rear end, and it turned out to be a good movie as well!

Rango.

Very enjoyable. More a western than a kids movie to be honest, which is probably why it was so enjoyable. It wasn't afraid to get a little quirky. Highly recommended.

I watched "Invictus" on TV the other day. I enjoyed it a lot, although I am not sports fan and the (true life) plot was a little slight. Morgan Freeman did a perfect job as Nelson Mandela and I liked how almost all of the supporting cast felt like real Africans, black and white, rather than American or English actors. Much of the joy of the film was in seeing how the two cultures contrasted and came together, so it was essential they appeared authentic. I particularly enjoyed the security detail - part ANC new bloods and part Afrikaans old guard. The other notable thing was the closing credits - photos from the real World Cup match; ridiculously athletic shots, they made the gameplay shown earlier in the movie resemble a dull school match. But if anything that added to the film - a celebration of the players' achievement.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I have never wanted to see someone die as much as Nurse Ratched, and they took that away from me. Jerks.