What is the last movie you saw? and rate it.

[Janine]

^ I agree that Cotton comes across as very bland.

That's it exactly...I was going to write pale, but bland is right-on. When he gets angry in the diner it seemed out-of-character for him; but then maybe that was just the point. Still, I don't see why she would have been attracted to him. I also didn't see how they were anything alike, did you?

[AmericanEagle]

I also didn't see how they were anything alike, did you?

I also didn't see how they were alike. I just put that down as a plot hole, which many Hitchcock films have.

[grace86]

Coraline - 8/10. It kinda weirded me out a little bit but I loved it.

The Soloist - 8/10. It was strange too but I liked it.

[Janine]

Coraline - 8/10. It kinda weirded me out a little bit but I loved it.

The Soloist - 8/10. It was strange too but I liked it.

:wave: Hi Grace, I am laughing since, everytime I see some newer film now I seem to be weirded out too or they seems strange. I haven't found one film, I would rave over this from this past year. I did want to see The Soloist though. I heard it was good and I like Robert Downing, Jr. He was great in Chaplin. Ever see it? Pretty sure he won an oscar for it. He deserved it.

[grace86]

:wave: Hi Grace, I am laughing since, everytime I see some newer film now I seem to be weirded out too or they seems strange. I haven't found one film, I would rave over this from this past year. I did want to see The Soloist though. I heard it was good and I like Robert Downing, Jr. He was great in Chaplin. Ever see it? Pretty sure he won an oscar for it. He deserved it.

Haven't seen Chaplin but I will because I like him too! Yeah I don't know, the movies were just kind of weird...I haven't seen one I truly enjoyed in a long time. I've seen some really good old ones though recently.

[*Classic*Charm*]

The Ugly Truth- heh heh it was pretty funny. I love cheap movie nights with the bff.

[Mark F.]

Mark F, I am always running across this film on Amazon, since I like another film by the same name, with different actors/storyline. It sounds interesting, but I read it's quite bloody.

It is very bloody, but the violence is explored as a theme a bit like in Peckinpah's work. The film looks at racism in Australia, against the natives but also between the different people colonising the place, and at the violence that comes from there.

[AmericanEagle]

Double Indemnity - 9/10. My favourite film noir.

[Mathor]

Double Indemnity - 9/10. My favourite film noir.

this movie is so amazing.

Inglourious Basterds - No rating - Surprisingly really amazing. I can't really score this movie, except to say that it was brilliant. Completely changing the events of WWII in such a way is kind of marvelous, something you'll never ever see in another WWII flick. It begins and ends almost perfectly. I was completely surprised, as I was not impressed by the previews I had seen of this movie. Christopher Waltz is amazing in this.

[NickAdams]

Inglorious Basterds:

There was so much that I enjoyed about the film. Tarantino writes such distinct characters, but they have the tendency to digress in the same manner. There was more diversity in this film compared to Kill Bill, where The Bride, Bill and Elle seemed to have attended the same speech class ( I always cringe when Elle reads from her notepad).

There is a very interesting tone to the film and the performances that have been praised are well deserved, but I have to watch it a second time to really grasp Pitt's performance.

[Helga]

G.I.Joe

2/10

very obvious, lame jokes, mediocre acting, good enough bad guys for 2 stars

[Mark F.]

Inglourious Basterds - Q Tarantino

Could have been good but the focus on the terribly written french characters and some awful acting ruined it. I would have liked to see more of the "Basterds". Christoph Waltz was great in this though.

Satantango - Bela Tarr

One of the greatest films ever made, a true work of art. Over seven hours long but every second of it is beautifully crafted and mesmerizing. It takes a while to get used to the perculiar rythm but once past that you're in for a treat. Everybody who sees cinema as a form of art should see this once in their life.

[Sapphire]

The Inglourious Basterds - Enzo G. Castellari 8/10
I'm so curious about Q.Tarantino's new movie, so I figured I should see the one he got some inspiration from. I enjoyed it a lot, a dark A-team movie... with quite an anti-war message. I would definitely watch it again!

Pulp Fiction - Q. Tarantino 9/10
What's there to say? Just grand. I like Tarantino's style :D I really dig the dialogues. And the music. And the jumping between points of view. And... :) Just grand!

[DisPater]

shrek the third

very funny like shrek always is....

I also bought today 'love in the time of cholera' but I haven't watched it yet

with 'love in the tine of cholera' you got robbed. it is a piece of crap movie.

later edit:
Brüno ---über-crap.

[NickAdams]

Ernest Scared Stupid! I haven't seen it recently, but I remember how often I watched it when I was a child.

[Helga]

fell asleep watching Angels and Demons....

[manolia]

Inglourious Basterds - Q Tarantino

Could have been good but the focus on the terribly written french characters and some awful acting ruined it. I would have liked to see more of the "Basterds". Christoph Waltz was great in this though.


I enjoyed this one. Curious which actors did you find horrible? I also liked C Waltz very much..he was the main reason i liked the film (mr Pitt is lately a turn off for me, but his last two movies i've seen-well this one and the one you recommended were really good).

[Helga]

inglorious basterds.... really liked it, good characters and I always love it when people speak their own language, I hate it when everybody speak English just because it's an American movie. the French and I love listening to German, a beautiful language. Good bad guys if you know what I mean...

I usually like Tarantino's movies.

[qimissung]

Inglorious Basterds I liked it more than I thought I would. I do like Tarantino, and I'd forgotten how good he is at dialog. I don't care if they digress. The suspense. I felt that he really let the scene take its own time to develop. Personally I thought the acting was pretty good, but that Christoph Waltz was incredible and that he stole the show. 8/10

The Time-Traveler's WifeAnother pleasant surprise. Fairly well acted, the story is absorbing and touching. 7/10

[Pollopicu]

I watch the same movies over and over again, every night. I choose new movies about twice a year. Some of the movies I watch, repeatedly, are "shawshank redemption", "ghost world", "royal tannebaums", "husbands and wives", "bridges of madison county", "kramer vs Kramer", "heartburn".

I alternate between these every night. It comforts me.

[Janine]

I watch the same movies over and over again, every night. I choose new movies about twice a year. Some of the movies I watch, repeatedly, are "shawshank redemption", "ghost world", "royal tannebaums", "husbands and wives", "bridges of madison county", "kramer vs Kramer", "heartburn".

I alternate between these every night. It comforts me.

hahah..you sound just like me; I do vary a bit but sometimes I like going back to my favorites and you are right - somehow the familiarity of them is comforting. Two nights ago I watched a film I have watched a zillion times.

I like some of the ones you mentioned too...the first and "Husband and Wives" are good films in my opinion. I think years ago, I saw "Heartburn" and liked that, too. Is Meryl Strepp in that too?

[Pollopicu]

Yes. I love Meryl. it's funny, cause I never realized how many movies I watch with Meryl streep. She's so versatile in her characters, I don't see it as being a fanatic of hers, cause I'm really not. I'm more a Judy Davis fanatic. I think meryl just happens to be a coincidence.

those are just the ones I watch over and over at night. I watch other "oldies" (70's 80's) but goodies from time to time.

you know what movie to comes to mind that i think is so funny? " nightshift" with Michael keaton. Also "Arthur" with Dudley Moore.

[DanielBenoit]

Saw Lynch's Wild at Heart a about a week ago. It was quite good, though not as powerful as Blue Velvet and a little overly self-satirical, it still hits most of the right notes and is a fascinating allegory of getting lost on the Yellow Brick Road. Lynch certainly is somewhere over the raindow :lol:
7/10

Also, I saw Drugstore Cowboy about a week ago. Matt Dillon's performance is so great, and Van Sants directing is top notch. It truly gives you that feeling of degration and despair and that sick feeling of being a pills addict. It reminded me a bit of Bonnie and Clyde (another American masterpiece) in which this gang of "bandits" go around having a good time robbing stores/banks, but then fall into the consequences. But Bonnie and Clyde had it easy, their lives ended with a bang, a drug addict's life ends with a slow decomposing whimper. 10/10

[Janine]

Yes. I love Meryl. it's funny, cause I never realized how many movies I watch with Meryl streep. She's so versatile in her characters, I don't see it as being a fanatic of hers, cause I'm really not. I'm more a Judy Davis fanatic. I think meryl just happens to be a coincidence.

Pollopicu, I was for a time very enamoured with the work of Meryl Streep. I guess I still am to a degree; but her earlier stuff more than her new stuff. Of course, I still think she's a amazingly talented actress and really looks great at her age; has a lot of vibrant energy - she was quite good in her newest film: Mama Mia and she has a nice singing voice also. She is still quite beautiful I think. I own a few of her films; Sophie's Choice, The French Lieutenant's Woman, Out of Africa; in fact, Out of Africa is my favorite move of all time! I finally had to purchase a copy for myself, since I watch it so often.

Funny you should mention Judy Davis. I really like her work as well. I own a few of her films: Celebrity and A Passage to India; she was great in Husband and Wives. She can be both serious and very funny at times.


those are just the ones I watch over and over at night. I watch other "oldies" (70's 80's) but goodies from time to time. I watch a lot of films from that era and even earlier. I will buy one from ages ago (even from my teen years) and then I begin to recall others I particularly loved back then; I track those down to buy if they are something really special that I know I will watch over and over again. I just ordered a few: A Summer Place (60's, 70's ?), Summer of '42. Not too long ago I bought A Patch of Blue. Are you familar with any of these? It will be fun to revisit these wonderful older films; will bring back memories.


you know what movie to comes to mind that i think is so funny? " nightshift" with Michael keaton. Also "Arthur" with Dudley Moore.

I loved Dudley Moore in the day! Not only Arthur, but others he did were just hilarious. I should look those up online and try to buy a few of the winners. I like the one with Goldie Hawn, but now I can't think of the name of it. It also starred Chevy Chase as a gumshoe detective...ah...wasn't it called Foul Play? That was an entertaining movie. Michael Keaton was good in a number of films from that era. I am not sure if I saw Nightshift. I liked him in Batman and he was good in Beetlejuice.

[billl]

Nightshift (with Henry Winkler, too, making up the other half of the "odd couple") is a lot of fun, with some of the best lines ever.

[Janine]

Nightshift (with Henry Winkler, too, making up the other half of the "odd couple") is a lot of fun, with some of the best lines ever.

Oh, Winkler was great. I will have to check it out sometime soon; sounds like fun.

[skaterskagg1]

Casino Royale. The James Bond movie from 2006ish. One of the few movies I've seen lately that I can confidently give 10/10. That movie is amazing.

[Pollopicu]

Nightshift (with Henry Winkler, too, making up the other half of the "odd couple") is a lot of fun, with some of the best lines ever.


Oh, Winkler was great. I will have to check it out sometime soon; sounds like fun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N6rzfoWHzg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjHUP9Sta9I&feature=related

"feeding mayonnaise to tuna fish" :P

[DarkMessenger13]

Watched public enemies.....Awesome film

[billl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N6rzfoWHzg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjHUP9Sta9I&feature=related

"feeding mayonnaise to tuna fish" :P

careful Janine--great scenes!! you could save them for a soon-to-be viewing... :)

[Shalot]

I saw Halloween II. I guess the cultered people here at Lit Net haven't seen this fine film..

It wasn't that great but I was in the mood for the movie theater and I had a cherry coke and some popcorn so I sat through it. There were a couple of cool cinematic shots that would make for great desktop wallpaper, and Rob Zombie's wife pulled off the creepy ghost mother role better than anyone else could.

[Shalot]

Inglorious Basterds I liked it more than I thought I would. I do like Tarantino, and I'd forgotten how good he is at dialog. I don't care if they digress. The suspense. I felt that he really let the scene take its own time to develop. Personally I thought the acting was pretty good, but that Christoph Waltz was incredible and that he stole the show. 8/10

The Time-Traveler's WifeAnother pleasant surprise. Fairly well acted, the story is absorbing and touching. 7/10

I saw this movie too, and I have to say that Tarantino missed the mark with his character from Maynardville, TN. Brad Pit did okay with the accent, but no one in Maynardville says bidness in place of business.

[Janine]

An oldy but goody tonight, something from my early days of going to the movies. This may be a SPOILER if you have not seen this film:

The Summer of '42

I remember loving this movie when I was younger; seeing it on a big screen in the movie theater was such a treat. I still enjoyed it very much and it brought back keen memories of my own adolescence. It's a 'coming of age' film with a lot of thought behind the main character's first connection with the opposite sex and eventual first sexual experience; that scene being beautifully shot; filmmakers of today should take a clue here - less is sometimes better; one's on imagination takes over, making this scene very sensual and beautiful and tender...just seeing the lace curtains move with the ocean breeze and hearing the rhythm of the waves was very effective in evoking just the right amount of emotion, feeling and depth between the youth and the older woman he consoles. The rest of the film leading up to this part was very well paced and very funny at times; so typical of three young boys spending their summer vacation on Cape Code in the 40's. The supporting cast was also very good. And who could ever forget the luminous beauty of Jennifer O'Neil? The 15 yr old young man playing Hermes, was quite good as well. The first and last lines of the movie are very poignant and meaningful. If you get to see this film, pay particular attention to the voice over narration both beginning and ending. The score is beautiful and very memorable. I always loved the theme song. A lovely sensitive film, which I would rate 9/10. Classic for it's time period.

[DanielBenoit]

Tonight I stayed up late to watch Fargo directed by the Coen Brothers. It's such a masterpeice and remains the Coens best work. I remember watching this when I was at my grandmothers house and there was about four feet of snow outside. . . .
This is such a masterful movie, and yet everything is very subtle. After their overblown Raising Arizona, we see an ever growing maturity in the Coens as great directors, their talents reaching their peaks in Fargo, who's plot is so popostorous and weird, that's so violent and funny, that the entire movie seems one big juxtaposition of everyday Mid-Western life.
Here, the Coens achieve what Lynch tried to do with Twin Peaks, and that was to have witty and quirky small-town characters, just going about their everyday lives, oh, and there happens to be a triple homicide. There are moments in the film in which the bored inhabitants of Brainard simply concern themselves with the usual small talk, choosing that over police-work interrigation and questioning, you know all that complicated stuff.
William H. Macy gives a brilliant performance in playing a bad actor; a car salesman who hires two criminals to kipnap his own wife, so that her father can pay the ransom so he'll get some of the money or, whatever, it's too confusing. Frances McDormand is in her shining role of her career who plays a sweet but clever policewoman who seems to be a force of small-town nature on her own, like that hauntingly quirky statue of Paul Bunyan, just outside of Brainard.
Either way, this is a masterpiece, covered in snow and coldness, which presents itself as an interesting crime film and unravels into the most delightful dark comedies ever made. 10/10

[qimissung]

I saw this movie too, and I have to say that Tarantino missed the mark with his character from Maynardville, TN. Brad Pit did okay with the accent, but no one in Maynardville says bidness in place of business.
:lol: Do they ever get those southern accents right? Did he get the sensibility of the place right, I wonder? I remember when they did Silwood and I was so annoyed at the background music, like we all sat around and played banjo music. I guess there is a preponderance of people who like country music in my home state, but I am not one of them. :)

[qimissung]

Tonight I stayed up late to watch Fargo directed by the Coen Brothers. It's such a masterpeice and remains the Coens best work. I remember watching this when I was at my grandmothers house and there was about four feet of snow outside. . . .
This is such a masterful movie, and yet everything is very subtle. After their overblown Raising Arizona, we see an ever growing maturity in the Coens as great directors, their talents reaching their peaks in Fargo, who's plot is so popostorous and weird, that's so violent and funny, that the entire movie seems one big juxtaposition of everyday Mid-Western life.
Here, the Coens achieve what Lynch tried to do with Twin Peaks, and that was to have witty and quirky small-town characters, just going about their everyday lives, oh, and there happens to be a triple homicide. There are moments in the film in which the bored inhabitants of Brainard simply concern themselves with the usual small talk, choosing that over police-work interrigation and questioning, you know all that complicated stuff.
William H. Macy gives a brilliant performance in playing a bad actor; a car salesman who hires two criminals to kipnap his own wife, so that her father can pay the ransom so he'll get some of the money or, whatever, it's too confusing. Frances McDormand is in her shining role of her career who plays a sweet but clever policewoman who seems to be a force of small-town nature on her own, like that hauntingly quirky statue of Paul Bunyan, just outside of Brainard.
Either way, this is a masterpiece, covered in snow and coldness, which presents itself as an interesting crime film and unravels into the most delightful dark comedies ever made. 10/10

Good review, Daniel. I haven't seen this one yet. I acknowledge the Coens are good, but they are also an acquired taste. I will put this on my list of movies to see now.

[manolia]

I saw Halloween II. I guess the cultered people here at Lit Net haven't seen this fine film..

It wasn't that great but I was in the mood for the movie theater and I had a cherry coke and some popcorn so I sat through it. There were a couple of cool cinematic shots that would make for great desktop wallpaper, and Rob Zombie's wife pulled off the creepy ghost mother role better than anyone else could.

hehehe agreed. Love that film :nod:

[DisPater]

Away We Go --- an OK movie.

[DanielBenoit]

Good review, Daniel. I haven't seen this one yet. I acknowledge the Coens are good, but they are also an acquired taste. I will put this on my list of movies to see now.

It's so good.

This is probably the funniest scene from the film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRu6_mJiVAo

[Janine]

It's so good.

This is probably the funniest scene from the film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRu6_mJiVAo

That is one of my favorite films ever and I have to admit I am not too into the Cohen Brother's films. But Fargo is a classic. It's excellent! Definitely it has to be their best work ever. Good taste in films, Daniel.

[DanielBenoit]

That is one of my favorite films ever and I have to admit I am not too into the Cohen Brother's films. But Fargo is a classic. It's excellent! Definitely it has to be their best work ever. Good taste in films, Daniel.

Thank you :D

Aww, what films of theirs have met with your disapproval :(

[Janine]

Thank you :D

Aww, what films of theirs have met with your disapproval :(

I actually hated O,Brother Where Art Thou...Maybe I just didn't get it. I found it annoying. Another movie of theirs I thought was terrible, but now I can't recall it's name. It came out after BWAT...Oh, I recall what it was now...I had high expectations but I really hated it, too....The Ladykillers...wasn't that a remake of an old film?

I am not much of an authority on their work, I admit this. Come to think of it and I forgot about this one, I did love Raising Arizona, when that film first came out. No Country for Old Men was a very good serious film; quite different than anything I had ever seen before. I hadn't realised they directed that film. I just looked up their filmography on Wikipedia. I should see The Big Lebowski sometime but I keep putting that one off. I admit it does look pretty funny though.

[DanielBenoit]

Oh, you just had very bad luck. Definitley see No Country for Old Men, as well as Blood Simple, The Man Who Wasn't There and Miller's Crossing.

[Janine]

Oh, you just had very bad luck. Definitley see No Country for Old Men, as well as Blood Simple, The Man Who Wasn't There and Miller's Crossing.

I saw No Country for Old Men...I really did like that one. I will have to check out the other more serious or thriller type films. Didn't you see my post above yours? I guess my view of their work is divided; some I liked and some I didn't.

[DanielBenoit]

Ooops, I misread :redface:

[Janine]

Ooops, I misread :redface:

Oh that's ok, Daniel, ....:lol: maybe you need reading glasses. So are the other ones you mentioned more on the serious side with some quirpiness? If so I would probably like them.

[DanielBenoit]

Oh yes, all of them are great. Omg, I forgot: Barton Fink! Big thumbs up to that one.

[billl]

I'll chime in:

Raising Arizona--I saw it in the theater and loved it. This was a pretty new kind of film, at least to me way back then. Comedy about love for a stolen baby, with lots of bumbling shenanigans. And pretty arty editing, etc.

Ladykillers--I had read a lukewarm review or two, but tried it out because I love the Coen Bros., and had an absolutely fantastic time watching it. It is hard to judge Tom Hanks fairly after all of his accomplishments, and his mainstreamness seemed to make me less interested in his performance, but I never found reason to criticize the performance (I was maybe almost disappointed about that--that's just how I am when it comes to putting big-budget guys in a Coen Bros. film), and there was a lot of other great stuff going on, I thought.

Miller's Crossing--A gangster film without too much Coen-quirkiness. It had (for me) all the weighty family issues coated with cold-bloodedness that Scorsese films have made me expect from Mafia films, but did not resemble a Scorsese film in any way, not in performance, casting, set design, or any film technique my untrained eye could notice. I thought it worked well, but I can't say I remember it so well. I'd like to see it again.

The Man Who Wasn't There--I didn't get into this one. It was dark, and moody, and grim. I had little reason to smile, and some of it moved kind of slow, I thought. I wouldn't mind seeing it again, and I strongly suspect that a fan of this one could open my eyes to stuff I missed, and maybe change my opinion. Still, there was little joy or wackiness in this one, and plenty of discomfort, imho.

O Brother--I thought this was a great film! All I can say is that there were some unusual characters, but it never seemed like they were pointlessly unusual. The story went through some odd changes, but it never seemed pointlessly unusual. And the whole thing was offbeat, sometimes absurd, other times ridiculous in its old-time innocence and conservatism. But I was able to watch it without all the extremes and odd juxtapositions throwing me out of a pretty warm and lightly-wacky adventure story, subtly underlined by the quiet, soulful reverberations of eternal truths, kind enough to keep their distance.

The Big Lebowski--I won't say much about this one, just be ready for wackiness, EXTREME quotability, and a rather surprisingly explorable allegory for post-Vietnam U.S. But just forget I said that, it isn't important, really.

[DanielBenoit]

Speaking of Raising Arizona. . . .

Raising Arizona seems as if a camera was given to a twelve year old Orson Welles and was told to go crazy. This is an unbelievably skillful and well photographed film with endless eye-candy and camera moves that seem like circus tricks. This film is just exploding with Wellesian innovation and charm.
That is, with the camera at least.
Raising Arizona is probably the prime example of a director choosing stlye ocer substance. This is a suprisingly premature film from the Coen brothers, who made Blood Simple only two years ago, and Fargo ten years later, both of them masterpieces. This one, is an extemely well made dud. Nothing works in here except the camera. Everything is overdone to nauseating extremes, including the comedy. The screenplay is very messy, which can be quite poetic, but at the wrong times. Really, this film is like a seesaw: It has either moments of pure genius or flat-out embarresingly helpless ones.
It's a good thing that the Coens realized that they could both express their genius and be funny at the same time with Fargo, which is so beautifully subtle and smart. But hey, Raising Arizona was just a mistake. The Coens made Blood Simple before and Fargo after, along with many other greats to add to their collection. Every dog has it's day, and every dog has it's dud.
5/10

[billl]

Just to clarify my comments about Raising Arizona--I had fallen asleep during Blood Simple while watching the newly-released VHS at a friend's house, but only because I was extremely tired. After that, my friends' love for the film made it impossible for me to watch it again from a fresh perspective.

Anyhow, I don't know when DanielBenoit saw Raising Arizona, but I thought Nick Cage was a pretty new and interesting face at the time. I can understand the see-saw type perspective, but I'll give the film an 8.

But Wild At Heart gets a 9, from me.

[DanielBenoit]

Just to clarify my comments about Raising Arizona--I had fallen asleep during Blood Simple while watching the newly-released VHS at a friend's house, but only because I was extremely tired. After that, my friends' love for the film made it impossible for me to watch it again from a fresh perspective.

Anyhow, I don't know when DanielBenoit saw Raising Arizona, but I thought Nick Cage was a pretty new and interesting face at the time. I can understand the see-saw type perspective, but I'll give the film an 8.

But Wild At Heart gets a 9, from me.

Yeah, I certainly wans't around at the time it was released, so I wouldn't understand the context in which it was released.

By the way, I hope I didn't offend anybody with my bad review of Raising Arizona :redface: :lol:

[billl]

Well, I panicked about not having mentioned Blood Simple in my list of reviews. Maybe I'd have felt the same as you about Raising Arizona if I had gotten a good viewing of Blood Simple first.

I still haven't seen No Country, can't wait for the right time to check that one out...

[Mathor]

The best of the Coen Brothers films is easily Fargo, though the only terrible movie they made I can think of is Intolerable Cruelty (Court-Room Romance? wtf?) or Burn After Reading.


500 Days of Summer - 7/10 - I wanted this to be a lot better. Some really good acting (on the part of Zooey Deschanel and her co-compadre) mixed with some very mediocre directing.

[Janine]

Yeah, I certainly wans't around at the time it was released, so I wouldn't understand the context in which it was released.

By the way, I hope I didn't offend anybody with my bad review of Raising Arizona :redface: :lol:

You didn't offend me, Daniel, but I liked the movie at the time I saw it - way back in the day, year it was released. I may hate it now; haven't seen it in ages, so I can't currently judge.

[Mathor]

The Hurt Locker (2009) - 10/10 - It's easy to see why this is the best reviewed movie of the year, because it's simply the best movie of the year. This movie realizes the realities of war, without putting some sort of political or situational brush on any of the issues. The things that happen simply happen, and they have nothing to do with whether or not the soldiers want to be in war or not. War presents an escape. As is quoted in the opening lines of the movie "War is a drug." Brilliant in every possible way. Look for this in the Best Picture category of the Oscars in a couple months.

[Nightshade]

THe Kingdom of Heaven ( director's cut)
It was a good ( really good actually - if a little long especiall concidering adverts :sick:) film but the true story didn't need messing with and it would have been soooooo much better if they didnt add the needeless mush between Balian and Sibylla esp concidering in reality he was marrie...d to her sister. *grumble* *grumble* but all things concidered I think I have a new film for the favourites list. 9.5/10 :D

[TheFifthElement]

Australia. Hmm. I'd give the first hour 0/10 and then the rest probably a 7/10. Nicole Kidman earns a 1/10 for some terrible overacting, and on the whole it was much too long. I'm not sure what they were trying to achieve with this movie and I'm not sure they were either, and as a consequence it is very hit and miss. No Moulin Rouge.

Overall, I'd give it a 4/10.

[DanielBenoit]

8 1/2
Well, this being one of my three favorite films of all time, whenever it's on, I never hesitate for a revisit.

First of all, this is the greatest dedication to film ever made; it is a complete homage to art and life, and how art can save life. The subtitle of this film was The Beautiful Confusion and that is exactly what it is. Throughout the film we feel as if the camera and actors are participating in some sort of surrealistic ballet. This film was so many layers of depth, everything gravitating around it's centeral character, who is without a doubt the Hamlet of cinema, Marcello Materorini in the performance of his career, a director who suffers from writers block and muses upon nostaligic memories of his childhood as the whole world around him waits at his feet for his next film.

At one level, this is a meta-fictional film, with even a self-referencial title to tell so (Fellini had directed seven features and three shorts before this). It is obvious that the director, Guido is Fellini, and that Fellini; after making La Dolce Vita was suffering from writers block, having no idea where to go next, so he decided to make a film about his very own confusion, and crafted it into a beautiful character study of a man who shares every part of us.

It's not just that Guido is searching for inspiration, but he is searching for meaning, for purpose, to his seemingly artifical, confusing and yet orderly life. Nobody understands him obviously; the producer is constantly bugigng him, his intellectual co-writer is always taking philosophical jabs at him, he even sees a priest, who has nothing of use to say but that he can never find salvation outside of the Church. His wife loves him, but is fed up with his confusion and ambivilence as well. He tries to drift off into peaceful moments in which he can muse upon the ideal beauty, his nostaligic past or sexually charged dreams of the subconscious.

There are so many flawlessly directed scenes in this film, all of them handled with such imagination and surrealism, that one is reminded why Fellini is Fellini. Nobody can express the confusion and surreality of both waking and sleeping life than Fellini, not Lynch, not anybody. Fellini handle Guido with sentimentality, but transends any kind of sympathetic/unsympathetic standards, by self-consciously answering any critics and believing enough in himself that Guido represents everyone of us.

(might be some spoilers)
Never has more personal a film been made than 8 1/2, nor has a more joyful, confusing and surreal film ever been made. By the end, Fellini dives into the chaos that is life and gives Guido the most beautiful Hamletian epiphany, and the film ends with a baroque band of circus performers playing the flute, tuba and horn, to the dancing of everyone whom Guido has ever known in the chaos of his life.
10/10

[byquist]

JCVD -- or, Jean-Claude Van Damme -- very interesting film and VD does some quality acting. A slick and subtle villain who you wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley at night. A bit of Inside Man, F/X, and a film about film and filming. Worth seeing.

[Janine]

I have seen a lot of films lately but have not found the time to write them up in here. I hope to get to that eventually. But for now, here is one film I watched last night.

King of Hearts ~ Alan Bates ~ directed by Phillipe de Broca

I saw this great film years ago and when I discovered my library just purchased it, I checked it out for the weekend, thrilled that they had such good taste in films. I watched it two nights in a row. I love this film! It's both amusing and has a sweet poignancy to it; and a lot of social commentary on war - the futility of war and life in general. The closing line sums it all up...I won't give that one away - wonderful!

Basically, it's about a bumbling Scottish Private Plumpick, who is recruited (the General claims he's to be volunteered) to go into this quaint walled French village to disarm booms, rigged to the clock tower..a suicide mission for certain. He's a bird specialist, and tries to make the General realise this fact; that he knows nothing about ballistics...hahaha....thus the story begins. By the time he gets to the town, the town is evacuated; but the Germans have infiltrated; then they catch a glimpse of him walking through the streets in his kilt, with his birdcage in hand. A chase follows and he stashes the birds in some empty window well and takes off...he makes it to the gates of a lunatic asylum, into the building and finally all the way into a ward of very playful, eccentric mental patients. The men are playing cards and calling themselves by card related names; he quickly slips into a white coat, pretending to be one of them. When he announces to the German's that his name is the "King of Hearts" they leave (in fact, they run out in a flurry!), but the patients all exclaim with joy - "the King has finally arrived!" It's hilarious! He takes off again to retrieve his carrier pigeons, only to encounter the opposition, who knock him out accidentally; leaving him for dead. When he awakes he discovers the empty town has been taken over by the patients, these lovable eccentrics. They all dress in appropriate (or in some cases, 'inappropriate' costumes), which they find in the town..living out their individual fantasies. Now the real fun begins. No matter what he does, he cannot get through to the new town inhabitants, that he must disarm the weapons or they will all die. He can't find the weapons for one thing; the reason is made clear later on in the film. He's very frustrated, but he's becomes more and more involved and transformed by this happy carefree band of escapes.

The social commentary here is terrific. I won't tell anymore of the story, but I highly recommend it. Much of the film is in French, or German (with subtitles)...but there is some English, as well. I always find I am slow reading subtiles, so I watched the movie twice, as to absorb all the deeper meanings in the lines - great, clever script. I would say this is a true classic and deserves a 10/10.

On the back of the DVD it reads:

One of the most popular films of all times, plaiying continuously in some theatres for over five years, King of Hearts is a bright, lilting, whimsical, lyrical (Cue) comedy that cleverly satirizes the absurdity of war with a "message [that is] meaningful and entertaining" (Boxoffice).

[grace86]

Wow Janine you are very detailed! :D

The last movie I saw was last night with a friend of mine...All About Steve. It was a bit corny and sad but I really enjoyed it and the ending was good. 8/10

[Janine]

Wow Janine you are very detailed! :D

The last movie I saw was last night with a friend of mine...All About Steve. It was a bit corny and sad but I really enjoyed it and the ending was good. 8/10

Hi grace, good to see you on Litnet again...been awhile...haha..well the movie I saw impressed me AND you know me - long-winded! I never learned to abreviate. I write just like I talk!

All About Steve, hummm...I am not familar with that one. Who was in it? Is that title a play on words with the old film All About Eve? I just saw and reviewed that one recently on here. It starred an aging Betty Davis and was terrific.

[rimbaud]

I just saw Ice Age 3, and even though it's not as good as I hoped it would be, I had some laughs :) and one of my favorites was:

eddie: what's that sound?
buck: it's the wind, it's talking to us.
eddie: what does it say?
buck: I don't know. I don't speak Wind.

[byquist]

Der Tunnel (The Tunnel) or some such German title. Well-done serious film, about West vs. East Berlin, with touches of wit as well as sadness. 2 hrs. 40 minutes, so have time on your hands. Not a happy-go-lucky film. Serious history. The bad East German inspector is effective and subtle.

[DanielBenoit]

Blue Velvet - It's amazing how David Lynch can take something which seems to have been done a number of times, and craft it into something so entirely his own, that the influences almost seem to disappear. He creates simulacrum

Blue Velvet remains today Lynch's most powerful film (next to Mulholland Drive and his short film Grandmother) and certainly his most nostalgic; and though it may not be him at the height of his independent powers (much of this film is influenced by Hitchcock, with an almost blatantly Hitchockian climax), it is still in a very messy way, a masterpiece. It opens with a shot of roses, blowing in the spring wind, a surreal slow-motion shot of a friendly fireman waving at the camera, schoolchildren crossing the street. Lynch's pseudo-setting of Lumberton seems to exist in such a timeless and warm place, that we can only assume that all time and culture stopped in the 50's, hell, it's even filmed with the campy humour of a 50's flick.

Blue Velvet completely reflects Lynch's love of movies, especially Hitchcock and his weird juxtapositions, as well as his nostalgia for innocence. It can be seen in almost all of his films; Wild at Heart dances between the lines of a violent manhunt, an erotic Elvis-like love story, and an obvious homage to The Wizard of Oz all at once. Muholland Drive graciously floated between a parody on Hollywood and Nancy Drew, and a truly nightmarish dream and lesbian love story.

Compared with all of Lynch's other works, before and after Blue Velvet, it is moderately tame in its weirdness, but no less shocking. It is a story of maturity, as its main character Jeffery, who is such a good college-boy with not a dirty thought in his mind, who comes up with the idea of playing Mr. Detective and breaking into the apartment of a women who might be involved in the mystery of a severed ear that he found in the forest, without giving any second thoughts to other implications of his idea.

It's amazing how Lynch fiddles with the subconscious, of both the audience and his characters (learning from only the best; Hitchcock). It's quite interesting how Jeffery's attitude towards his plan is before he sneaks in, and after. Before, he takes it as if he is self-consciously in some detective film and Sandy (a highschool blonde who has all of the attributes of any 1950's movie cliches) being his accomplice. But once he arrives at Dorothy's empty apartment, and a series of circumstances leads to Jeffery hiding in a closet, he unwittingly watches her get undressed and then raped. Watch his eyes throughout the scene, they almost seem like a replication of the shot of Norman Bates, vouyeristically peering though a hole in the wall to watch one of his unsuspecting vacator’s get undressed.

It's about time that I get to the other world which inhabits Blue Velvet; a world completely pitted against the campy world of Lumbertown. The world of Dorothy's apartment, (all of these scenes, which interestingly take place at night) is one of victimization, sadomaschism and sexual violence. The two performances which are embraced in this world are Isabella Rossilini as Dorothy (in what is probably her most powerful performance) and her victimizer and rapist, Dennis Hopper as Frank Booth, who is undoubtedly one of the most sadistic and intense villians in the history of cinema. His terrifyingly intense yelling of the word "****" in every sentnece is greatly contrasted with Sandy's dreams of love, birds and angels.

Not enough can be said of Rossinlini's performance, which is so painful and powerful that we feel for her even before we even know who she is. What has happened, is that her husbund and son have been kidnapped by Frank Booth, and the only way she can get them back, is if she becomes his slave. It's so painful and strange to see how masochistic she is in a scene in which she is having violence inflicted upon her; it is one of the most shocking psychological devices in cinema representing the loss of innocence.

What Blue Velvet really seems to be about is how the mystery of a severed ear leads the eyes of the audience; Jeffery, to the haunting underworld of his very own hometown. But it's so much more than that: It's a story of the underlying evil lurking underneath everything beautiful and innocent in the world, and despite the fact that this evil may be defeated, innocence cannot be regained.

Blue Velvet is an extremely well-made movie with some moments of true genius (the Candy-Colored Clown scene for example), but then these great scenes are juxtaposed with some slightly mediocre scenes, which are quite difficult to accept on first viewing (such as Sandy’s melodramatic recollection of her dream of heaven), but then become appropriate after becoming familiar with Lynch’s other work. The reason why his juxtapositions are so extreme; why he combines blatantly campy satirical daytime scenes with scenes of the nocturnal horrors of the night; a time in which the id goes wild, is because it necessitates Lynch’s philosophy. In all of his films he seems to see a duality in the world; the beautiful, angelic, child-like and innocent and the violent, grotesque and strange. Much of this certainly seems to be rooted in his experience of Philadelphia as a young man and how he discovered the dark, absurd side of human nature. Many of his films are concerned with this discovery one way or another; Blue Velvet is about this discovery, oh and how beautifully nightmarish it is.
9/10

[DanielBenoit]

Through a Glass Darky - This film is one of the greatest religious films ever made, and the reason why this is so is not because it is filled with angels and demons, but because it deals with real humans on a human level, existing within the absurdity of the human condition. This absurdity and despair is something Bergman admits in all of his films, but in the tradition of Kierkegaard, he still finds a place for God.

The title is a quote from Corinthians (Swedish translation) which said that our understanding of God will only be as clear as "through a glass darkly" and will only be clear once we die. What Bergman is so fascinated by, is how we as humans are able to survive without this kind of knowledge.

The story is quite simple really; it makes place entirely on an island, with only four characters (what would be known as a chamber film), and basically concerns the return of a schizephrenic young women to her family, after being released from an asylum, and the interactions between the four; the father (guilty because he rarely spends time with his son and daughter), the schizephrenic women's husband and the father's son.

This is such a quiet and beautiful movie, with very little action taking place and mostly consisting of long dialouges and silent human moments. Take for example around the begining, when the son has just put on a play for his father; the father recognizing the undertones concerning the son's fustration with his negligence and choosing of work over family, silently gets up and goes back into the house in which he mournfully stands at the window and silently weeps. Bergman doesn't try to pump up this moment with melodramatic music or cutting, but instead just leaves the camera where it is and lets it speak for itself. The father then comes back out and acts like nothing ever happened.

Eventually the daughter's schizephrenia begins to come back and tragedy occurs. Not tragedy in any sort of traditional or conventional way, nobody dies, nothing physically tragic occurs; it's just the tragedy of human experience, as if watching some mentally-ill person throw a fit on the floor (which is what happens).

This film has so many good speeches, and not speeches on any sort of epic philosophical idea, but just personal soliloqueys concerning each person's life, which then in part, silently consitute a bigger whole. Take for example the daughter's soliloquey at the climax of the film concerning God and a spider. It is so powerfully and yet subtly done, with such poetry, that it has to be one of the greatest speeches in all of cinema, and really hits home what Bergman's metaphor is saying.

I must say, that of all the great directors of the human experience, Bergman is the best; yes Fellini is great at capturing the induvidual and the confusion of society, but Bergman is the only one who can make statements about the human condition in such a silent and subtle way, like the waves which softly curl up upon the shores at the begining and end of the film.
10/10

[TheQuarkGotAway]

Section 9. Moments before going to see this I called my plumber friend about another matter and he told me not to go see this movie- he'd seen it the night before and did not like it. But hey, I had time to myself (without any feminine influence), and desperately needed the scifi cortex of my brain to receive some serious stimulation.

What I got was gritty, dirty ugliness that allowed surprising glimmers of insight into how we behave toward the Other. This is one of science fiction's greatest advantages: to be able to create a landscape at the edge of possibility and people it with characters, then turn a mirror on us and ask what would we do, and how would we feel about it?

The offbeat premise in Section 9 is that when we finally confront another technological life form, they are not more advanced in an individual sense (like the Vulcans or the Newcomers from Alien Nation) but more like us, their insectoid appearance notwithstanding. They know familial love, and honor, and grief. They are beggars on our planet, put in concentration camps and clandestinely used in government medical experiments. The film location of Soweto, near Johannesberg, South Africa is perfectly suited for this story, and a powerful part of the mirror that it holds up.

I must respectfully disagree with my plumber, because I liked this movie quite a lot. My scifi cortex was duly stimulated, and I walked out into the humid afternoon with even more fodder for the dreams I need to make sense of this world. 7/10

[Jazz_]

Rachel Getting Married

I didn't really enjoy this. I do enjoy 'arty' films, but this seemed to try too hard... The hand held cameras presumably used to create a different atmosphere just made me feel a little nauseous, and reminded me of a dodgy home video.

The acting was reasonable, Anne Hathaway played a very different character to usual - though I prefer her in other films. Several scenes stretched on way too long, including the wedding speeches and taking turns packing the dishwasher - which were equally boring.

Overall probably only 5/10 - I won't watch this again :p

[DanielBenoit]

Lost Highway - Okay, one thing is for sure about David Lynch's Lost Highway, you probably will never see another film like it. It is, in my opinion, Lynch's darkest, certainly his coldest leaving the audience with little empathy for any of the characters, except maybe young Jimmy.

Okay, this is one of the most underrated films of the 90's, but it does possess something that the critics in 1997 were right about, it is an excersise in style, though that doesn't mean that it's an empty film.

It has a masterful begining, with extremely shadowy neo-noir lighting (hell, I whole film has some of the best cinematography of any Lynch film), it also has the most effective moments: Those involving encounters with the incredibly creepy Mystery Man. Basically what Lost Highway is about, it identity, with a Lynchian twist with the metaphyiscs of Twin Peaks.

It begins with the couple Fred (who is a saxaphonist) and Renee (who plays two parts in this film), their marriage is cold and empty. One day a video-tape is left on their doorstep. They watch it to discover that it is a videotape of themselves alseep in bed! They call the police "somebody filmed us, while we slept" and before you know it, Fred is acussed of murdering his wife in a very effective sequence.

The fragmentary nature of this film is wonderful, and it possess, like most of Lynch's films, moments of true greatness, as well as ones of medicrity. The very best scene in the film occurs at a party in which Fred has a surreal encounter with the Mystery Man who gives him some information that is utterly mind-bogglingly surreal and creepy, and would probably have impressed Hitchcock. As for the medicore scenes; they are rather the techniques used, for example; one in which there is a POV shot, then with editting effects Lynch pauses the motion for a second and creates a jumbling shaky effect, as if the perciever is losing touch with reality. I have encountered this technique in two of his films; in this one, and in Muholland Drive. In the latter it, it comes at a point of sexual fustration and jealousy for one of the characters, and is infitiley effective, and just perfectly illustrates the character's POV, as a matter of fact, it may be one of the best shots in the entire film. But here in Lost Highway, it is used with haste and feels empty and meaningless.

Well, in the end, if you are looking for an expereince, you will find it here. It is as dream-like and surreal as Eraserhead, Muholland Drive and Inland Empire, and it will certainly cause confusion and terror, and yet, despite it's flawless cinematography and talented (though at times hasty) directing, it leaves the viewer with little impact except the question "what was that I just saw?" Now of course the reason we watch Lynch is to get that effect, but at least we can say it in the case of his other films to some purpose.
7/10

[Mathor]

Rachel Getting Married

I didn't really enjoy this. I do enjoy 'arty' films, but this seemed to try too hard... The hand held cameras presumably used to create a different atmosphere just made me feel a little nauseous, and reminded me of a dodgy home video.

The acting was reasonable, Anne Hathaway played a very different character to usual - though I prefer her in other films. Several scenes stretched on way too long, including the wedding speeches and taking turns packing the dishwasher - which were equally boring.

Overall probably only 5/10 - I won't watch this again :p

I completely disagree. I found this movie to be pretty amazing, honestly. The dishwasher scene provided a bit of dry humor. I suggest you watch it from another perspective.

That being said:

Dial M For Murder - 10/10 - I cannot find the words to describe how perfect this movie is. Certainly my favorite of Grace Kelly's films (who is present in my avatar from another Hitchcock film, To Catch A Thief). This is Hitchcock genius, second only to Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant in Hitchcock's "Notorious". This movie contains a lot of uncomfortable things, as an ex tennis pro designs the "perfect murder" to kill his wife. This one leaves you thinking until the very end.



EDIT: And Benoit, your review did not save my feelings on that movie being more than imperfect, and far from a masterpiece. You yourself said at the very end that there is very little to be found in that movie. As a musician I record lots of things that are interesting or sound cool but are far from complete, little exercises in style. That does not make those things good. This does not discount Lynch's superiority as a director, but Lost Highway is a load of crud, from my humble opinion. 6/10. Compare to any of his other films and you find you've wasted a lot less time.

[Janine]

I completely disagree. I found this movie to be pretty amazing, honestly. The dishwasher scene provided a bit of dry humor. I suggest you watch it from another perspective.

That being said:

Dial M For Murder - 10/10 - I cannot find the words to describe how perfect this movie is. Certainly my favorite of Grace Kelly's films (who is present in my avatar from another Hitchcock film, To Catch A Thief). This is Hitchcock genius, second only to Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant in Hitchcock's "Notorious". This movie contains a lot of uncomfortable things, as an ex tennis pro designs the "perfect murder" to kill his wife. This one leaves you thinking until the very end.

Wow, Mathor, just saw it the other night. I totally agree. I have seen it many times before but finally bought the DVD for my H collection. It is so well done and I love watching the Special Features, as well; I always do. By the way, I love Notorious...I watched that a few months back - third viewing now. Both are a 10/10 undoubtably. Both actresses are A1 in my opinion!

[NickAdams]

Brief Interviews with Hideous Men: as an interpretation it has its virtues, but as an adaption it it horrid. John "Tuna" Krasinski had some interesting visuals choices and the editing was impressive, but the score was a cliche and the framing device made a lot of the interviews a contrivance. The essence of the book is lost by the visualization of the interviewee and interviewer. The cast is off, because Krasinski stayed true to the monologues but didn't take linguistics (something David Foster Wallace was very conscious of) into account and the characters that the idioms, and the like, suggest doesn't correspond with what's on screen.


Lost Highway - Okay, one thing is for sure about David Lynch's Lost Highway, you probably will never see another film like it. It is, in my opinion, Lynch's darkest, certainly his coldest leaving the audience with little empathy for any of the characters, except maybe young Jimmy.

Okay, this is one of the most underrated films of the 90's, but it does possess something that the critics in 1997 were right about, it is an excersise in style, though that doesn't mean that it's an empty film.

It has a masterful begining, with extremely shadowy neo-noir lighting (hell, I whole film has some of the best cinematography of any Lynch film), it also has the most effective moments: Those involving encounters with the incredibly creepy Mystery Man. Basically what Lost Highway is about, it identity, with a Lynchian twist with the metaphyiscs of Twin Peaks.

It begins with the couple Fred (who is a saxaphonist) and Renee (who plays two parts in this film), their marriage is cold and empty. One day a video-tape is left on their doorstep. They watch it to discover that it is a videotape of themselves alseep in bed! They call the police "somebody filmed us, while we slept" and before you know it, Fred is acussed of murdering his wife in a very effective sequence.

The fragmentary nature of this film is wonderful, and it possess, like most of Lynch's films, moments of true greatness, as well as ones of medicrity. The very best scene in the film occurs at a party in which Fred has a surreal encounter with the Mystery Man who gives him some information that is utterly mind-bogglingly surreal and creepy, and would probably have impressed Hitchcock. As for the medicore scenes; they are rather the techniques used, for example; one in which there is a POV shot, then with editting effects Lynch pauses the motion for a second and creates a jumbling shaky effect, as if the perciever is losing touch with reality. I have encountered this technique in two of his films; in this one, and in Muholland Drive. In the latter it, it comes at a point of sexual fustration and jealousy for one of the characters, and is infitiley effective, and just perfectly illustrates the character's POV, as a matter of fact, it may be one of the best shots in the entire film. But here in Lost Highway, it is used with haste and feels empty and meaningless.

Well, in the end, if you are looking for an expereince, you will find it here. It is as dream-like and surreal as Eraserhead, Muholland Drive and Inland Empire, and it will certainly cause confusion and terror, and yet, despite it's flawless cinematography and talented (though at times hasty) directing, it leaves the viewer with little impact except the question "what was that I just saw?" Now of course the reason we watch Lynch is to get that effect, but at least we can say it in the case of his other films to some purpose.
7/10

I liked the beginning, but I think Lynch fully realizes the structure and idea (though a variation) in Muholland Drive.

[manolia]

I watched "Vertigo" last night (at the theater :nod:) 10/10

[DanielBenoit]

I watched "Vertigo" last night (at the theater :nod:) 10/10

At the theater :eek:

Vertgo. . .. on the big-screen!!!

I am officially the most envious person in the world for today.

[The Comedian]

I saw X-Men 2 the other night on DVD. It was everything that movies can aspire to: light characters & a light plot, lightly tied together with an over-dependence on the audience to graciously fill in the holes in the story-line. Oh yes, and it had some kicka. . ., er, awesome action sequences.

As movies go, this film deserves 10/10 adamantite claws.

[Helga]

I watched The Boondock Saints again... I do love that one... I am addicted to IMDB.com so I checked it out there and saw that there is a movie number 2.... sounds intriguing...

[manolia]

At the theater :eek:

Vertgo. . .. on the big-screen!!!

I am officially the most envious person in the world for today.

Hehehehe :)
Last year i watched rear window :D

[Hurricane]

"Zombieland", 10/10. So. Awesome.

[DanielBenoit]

Hehehehe :)
Last year i watched rear window :D

Where on earth did you get to see these classics, ON THE BIG SCREEN! :eek2:

[Mathor]

Where on earth did you get to see these classics, ON THE BIG SCREEN! :eek2:

live in NYC, Chicago, L.A, or Toronto, there are classic film festivals and classic film theaters!

[manolia]

Where on earth did you get to see these classics, ON THE BIG SCREEN! :eek2:

There are a few movie clubs here, the one i am a member of rents a theater once a week :nod: They have both old and new films (but i pick the old ones most of the time).

[Janine]

live in NYC, Chicago, L.A, or Toronto, there are classic film festivals and classic film theaters!

Wow, where I live they're non-existent. You sure are lucky. It's been years since I saw a film on a big screen; mainly because I prefer older films, too. I wanted to see something last year but in no time flat it had disappeared from the theaters. That was unfortunate.

:wave: Hi manolia, I am like you. Mostly I take out the older films from my library. I am glad they have a lot of those available and if they don't, I can always request one and they will find it in the county collection. Might take time; but hey, it's free rental, so I don't mind waiting.

[mono]

Last night I watched Shrink, a newer movie (2009) starring Kevin Spacey, who never fails as a fantastic actor, whether on screen or stage, and one of the few films of, a name I had to research, Jonas Pate; Thomas Moffett, another unfamiliar name I looked into, wrote the screenplay.
Despite Spacey seeming the only prominent name in eyesight, other than cameo appearances from Robin Williams and Gore Vidal, this film had many twists and turns, an astoundingly complex plot composed of few main characters with extraordinarily precise, careful directing of the sensitive subjects of psychotherapy/psychiatry, substance abuse, mental illness, death, and struggles with adolescence. Each character has his/her bright and shining moment, and, though the first half of the roughly 100-minute film has a few slow and vague parts, everything comes together smoothly and beautifully like a once-shattered vase, pieced back together like new, full of "ooohs" and "aaahs" in the surprise ending.
The talent, obvious hard work, and definitude placed into what seems regarded as a mostly "no-name" film really surprised me, and I intend upon watching it again before returning it to the video store to admire again its solidarity of writing/directing and remarkable acting.
Rating: 10/10

[GothMan]

Cry_Wolf

6/10

[Mathor]

Last night I watched Shrink, a newer movie (2009) starring Kevin Spacey, who never fails as a fantastic actor, whether on screen or stage, and one of the few films of, a name I had to research, Jonas Pate; Thomas Moffett, another unfamiliar name I looked into, wrote the screenplay.
Despite Spacey seeming the only prominent name in eyesight, other than cameo appearances from Robin Williams and Gore Vidal, this film had many twists and turns, an astoundingly complex plot composed of few main characters with extraordinarily precise, careful directing of the sensitive subjects of psychotherapy/psychiatry, substance abuse, mental illness, death, and struggles with adolescence. Each character has his/her bright and shining moment, and, though the first half of the roughly 100-minute film has a few slow and vague parts, everything comes together smoothly and beautifully like a once-shattered vase, pieced back together like new, full of "ooohs" and "aaahs" in the surprise ending.
The talent, obvious hard work, and definitude placed into what seems regarded as a mostly "no-name" film really surprised me, and I intend upon watching it again before returning it to the video store to admire again its solidarity of writing/directing and remarkable acting.
Rating: 10/10

I'm glad to see there are people out there watching this movie. It's a complete independent picture, and unfortunately the reviews for it were very terrible. However, I thoroughly enjoyed this film. Kevin Spacey regularly impresses, though there a large group of people out there who are put off by Spacey's work as an actor.

[DanielBenoit]

I have a personal sentiment towards films made or set during the 20's, for it has to be my favorite era in history, culturally, muscially and artistically. Fitzgerald always touches me in a very personal way every time I read him, Loius Armstrong's trumpet always seems to tug at some joyful part of my soul, and Singin' in the Rain is on my list of ten greatest films ever made.
Recently, we've had two utterly moving pictures made about the 20s', both of them biographical, and both of them containing some of the best acting, directing and special effects to come out this decade.


The Curious Case of Benjeman Button - A truly poetic film about the passing of time, seen through the eyes of a man who ages backwards (we is born an old man and dies a baby). Director David Fincher perfectly and beautifully illustrates all the ages that Benjeman goes throughout his life, from the Progressive era, to the Jazz Age, to the seventies; this is a breathetaking (though sentimental) film on the grand scale of an entire life. Of course not all relationships can be illustrated as vividly in the course of three hours, but each friendship that Benjeman makes is like a subtle litte short story. Take his affair with the wife of a politician (played sublimely by Tilda Swinton), their late night chats in the kitchen are so reflective of real life, that most of this film seems to be a strange ironic story, based on fantasy and built into something pure and real. This has Brad Pitt's and Cate Blanchett's best performance to date, and has too many perfect snapshots of life to be listed entirely in a review. Their relationship throughout the film is beautiful, except for one mistaken scene, which seems to be a bit too fantastic and feel as if it came out of some cheap romance novel (I merely refer to the scene in which they make love on the beach while the sun sets). Stunning make-up and special effects, all integrated into one of the best films to come out in the past ten years. What do you know? Hollywood finally comes out with a picture with unbelievable special effects and performances *gasp* 9.9/10

The Aviator - Of Scorsese's big bidget collaborations with Leonardo DiCaprio in the past ten years, this one in my opinion is his best (I loved The Departed by the way). This is a truly masterful biographical film about the great Howard Hughes (with DiCaprio in probably the greatest performance of his career), who was a filmmaker, an industrialist, a playboy, and most importantly an aviator. He was also a troubled man, who's compulsions and phobias got in the way of his genius, and eventually led to his demise. Goddamn it, besides Stanley Kubrick, nobody knows how to use music in a film better then Scorsese, especially pop music. Ever since the bursting explosion of the opening song in Mean Streets, to the wide pop soundtrack in Goodfellas, Scorsese has always mastered a sense of time in place through the soundtrack. Here he makes a big use of jazz from the Big Band era (which I must thank the film, for it's music is what turned me on to jazz). Cate Blanchett has a fun little performance as Katherin Hepern (Hughes's short-time girlfriend), which can be easily underappretiated, due to the fact that Blanchett pulls it off without looking like a muttering fool. As in Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Taxi Driver and a ton of his other films, Scorsese masters a sense of subjectivity within the audiences mind in relation to the character, in which we are seeing the paraniod illusions that Hughes is tormented by. Oh, and did I happen to mention that DiCaprio's performance is top-notch? and that Scorsese's directoral work is unsuprisingly true mastery. Maybe I should shut up. Go see this. 10/10


(sorry everybody for constantly writing raving 10/10 reviews, and calling almost all of them "masterpieces", I just don't go to the cinema that often to see recent pictures, and when I do, I sure as hell better make sure that it is directed by somebody I know. Just my personal bias :redface: )

[MarkBastable]

Up

Brilliant.

10/10

[Mathor]

Up

Brilliant.

10/10

:nod::nod::nod:

This is probably one of my favorite films of this current year. I'm very confident you'll see this movie with the word "Oscar" related to it in the coming months.

[samah]

Batman Begins -on T.V- , 8/10

[mono]

I'm glad to see there are people out there watching this movie. It's a complete independent picture, and unfortunately the reviews for it were very terrible. However, I thoroughly enjoyed this film. Kevin Spacey regularly impresses, though there a large group of people out there who are put off by Spacey's work as an actor.
You betcha! ;) I try to keep my tastes at least relatively eclectic - good to hear someone else liked it, too.



Whew - watched a lot of movies lately -

W. - unfortunately we cannot discuss current politics on the forum, and Dubya's departure from the U.S. Presidency seems recent enough not to speak of on the forum, but, in regards to the Oliver Stone film, other than having a few slow parts . . . ha! :lol:
Rating: 9/10.

The Escapist. Many individuals I know seemed to enjoy this film, so I rented it on somewhat of a whim, starring such names as Joseph Fiennes, Brian Cox, and Seu Jorge; the writers and director, however, I did not feel too familiar with, even after some minimal research. To put it bluntly, I did not feel too impressed - the time-cuts often seemed too sudden and unfulfilling in their purposes (making me frequently feel lost), the acting and the character interactions felt very ambiguous and unimportant in nature, the plot seemed ill-developed and vague, the surprising-ending came so suddenly that the end credits come with leaving the audience in the dark (literally and figuratively, of course), and the only thing I enjoyed, I believe, involved the setting, particularly the place, a London prison. In my opinion, the writers, director, and actors could have accomplished a lot more with the obvious effort placed into the film, but unfortunately their intentions did not shine through for me.
Rating: 4/10.

Fargo. I feel really embarrassed that I have never seen this much-regarded classic, especially as a fan of the revered Coen brothers. Last night, I finally witnessed what I have missed for over a decade, and all I can say: wow, wow, wow! Some of the best acting I have seen, especially that of Frances McDormand and William H. Macy, stellar and thoughtful directing, and obviously silk-like construction in writing. Bravo!
Rating: 11/10.

[Mathor]

Fargo. I feel really embarrassed that I have never seen this much-regarded classic, especially as a fan of the revered Coen brothers. Last night, I finally witnessed what I have missed for over a decade, and all I can say: wow, wow, wow! Some of the best acting I have seen, especially that of Frances McDormand and William H. Macy, stellar and thoughtful directing, and obviously silk-like construction in writing. Bravo!
Rating: 11/10.

A lot of people on litnet disagree with me, but this is my favorite of all the Coen Brothers films. The greatest part about it is the "based on true story". You find out if you watch the credits all the way through they put a disclaimer that the movie is purely fictional. No murder, no events, nothing like that in that area ever occured. It was a masterful touch on the viewer's belief that it was real.

[mono]

A lot of people on litnet disagree with me, but this is my favorite of all the Coen Brothers films. The greatest part about it is the "based on true story". You find out if you watch the credits all the way through they put a disclaimer that the movie is purely fictional. No murder, no events, nothing like that in that area ever occured. It was a masterful touch on the viewer's belief that it was real.
I think it quickly ended up as my favorite Coen brothers flick, too, though I loved No Country for Old Men, Ladykillers, and Paris, Je T'aime, as well; Fargo, I think, may have topped them all, since, as much as others will hate to hear this, The Big Lebowski and O Brother, Where Art Thou did not do as much for me.
Just out of curiosity, do you have a favorite Coen brother, whether Joel or Ethan? Difficult to narrow down, eh?

[quitaash]

tomb raider
______________________

Radiant floor heating systems (http://radiantfloorheatingsystems.org) | Electric radiant floor heating | (http://radiantfloorheatingsystems.org/radiant-floor-heating-systems/)How to install hydronic radiant heat floor (http://radiantfloorheatingsystems.org)

[GothMan]

Bloody Mary

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469684/

2/10

[Mathor]

I think it quickly ended up as my favorite Coen brothers flick, too, though I loved No Country for Old Men, Ladykillers, and Paris, Je T'aime, as well; Fargo, I think, may have topped them all, since, as much as others will hate to hear this, The Big Lebowski and O Brother, Where Art Thou did not do as much for me.
Just out of curiosity, do you have a favorite Coen brother, whether Joel or Ethan? Difficult to narrow down, eh?

Though Joel does most of the directing and Ethan does most of the writing, for the most part all of their films are pretty collaborative (both take part in a little bit of every part of the movie). Their isn't one brother that is really more powerful than the other, or one who creatively lacks in some way. They are both geniuses, and work well together. I'd say since Joel takes a bigger hand in directing, though, that Joel would probably be my favorite.

I also loved The Ladykillers, and though I liked The Big Lebowski, I wasn't too fond of O Brother, Where Art Thou.

Ive also seen the most recent film, A Serious Man, that just came out. I think it's probably my second favorite of their films.

1. Fargo
2. A Serious Man
3. No Country For Old Men
4. Miller's Crossing

You'll have to see the newest film when you get a chance, It's pretty brilliant.

[Dirtbag]

(I watched Goodbye Lenin! again a couple of days ago. I love that movie. It's motivated me to learn German... but I'll probably give up soon. Anyway, great movie.)/10

There was some other movie on yesterday that was really cool but I don't know what it was called. It was a silent movie with this girl named Mimi and this playwright. It had some strangely amazing piano music. That's why I watched it. It was like post rock-ish. I don't know. It made me want to make a silent movie to play music to. lol, but I'll probably give up on that too.

[GothMan]

Suspiria

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076786/

6/10

[optimisticnad]

The Barber of Siberia

Its an old moviie, quite long, if you've not seen it I would strongly recommend it, having said that i do believe some people will feel suicidal 15mins into the movie, its not everyoes cup of tea but i thought it was fantastic storyline, setting, characters and the ending....beautiful.

8.5/10 (because it had some russian which I couldn't understand and which would have added meaning to the play but you could get the gist from the actions etc.)

[rimbaud]

The last one I saw was Jimmy and Judy and not one of the best I have ever seen, but it was still a good movie.

/In the Kentucky suburbs of Cincinnati, social misfit Jimmy Wright always has his video camera - at his psychiatrist's, spying on his parents in their bedroom, and watching high-school senior, Judy Oaks-Kellen. He rescues Judy from a teacher and students who tease and torment her, and showing her his video tape of revenge kick-starts their friendship, which is soon in an overdrive of romance, sex, and pleasure. Jimmy is in and out of mental institutions, and before long, he and Judy are on the run. Cocaine, guns, and a commune of other misfits figure in their flight. How far can their love take them? It's all on video./

[Lynne50]

This is a bit premature, but I'm going tonight to see Where the Wild Things Are...book by Maurice Sendak. I can't wait. It got very good reviews, except they say it's not for little kids. I'll let you know how is was.

[Janine]

This is a bit premature, but I'm going tonight to see Where the Wild Things Are...book by Maurice Sendak. I can't wait. It got very good reviews, except they say it's not for little kids. I'll let you know how is was.

Lynne, that is so funny you should mention this today. I was just thinking, about a hour ago, of buying the book for my grand-daughter, knowing my son loved it as a kid. I didn't even know about the movie. Let me know how it goes; if you liked it. Sounds more adult but interesting.

[Neo_Sephiroth]

Hmmm...Lets see...What was it...? Oh! Black Snake Moan! Samuel L. Jackson, Christina Ricci, and Justin Timberlake. I liked it. But I wish they had played a little more blues in it though. Man, I love 'em blues. 5 STARS!!! :lol:

[DanielBenoit]

Pearl Harbor- Throughout the history of cinema there have been films that have been leagues ahead of there time. Take the war genre; ever seen the Japanese film Fires on the Plane? Light years ahead of its time, made in 1959 and it was the first film to ever deal with cannibalism among soldiers. How about Apocalypse Now or Come and See, whose level of intensity reached and sometimes surpassed Speilberg's Saving Private Ryan, made thirty years later. All of the above mentioned films are films that took daring steps in dealing and presenting certain issues. they were masterpieces far far ahead of there time and are still effective today. Pearl Harbor is not one of these films. As a matter of fact it is a step back in film history. It returns to truly ancient cliches about war and makes the one-dimensionality of the symbolic hero's in Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin look like creations of Shakespeare, it's that bad. Who else but Michael Bay would make the 'bold' move of casting Ben Affleck, Josh Harnett and Kate Beckensale in a frickin' love triangle on the eve of the attack on Pearl Harbor? Who else but Michael Bay would find the inclusion of smoking and drinking to be too controversial despite the well-known historical fact that practically every single person living in 1941 drank and smoked. Who else would have such a ****ty script that one cringes every single time an actor opens his or her mouth?

Why is it that I feel like I'm watching some typical Hollywood propaganda film from the 40s'? I'm by no means criticizing films like Tora!Tora!Tora! or The Guns of the Navorone which are better films than this one by leaps and bounds, but merely pointing out the cliches that have become associated with that era of film history, to be found in a film made in 2001! Did Michael Bay ever once watch Tora! Tora! Tora! or The Guns of the Navorone while making this film? How about Apocalypse Now or Saving Private Ryan. One would think that such a prominent director such as Michael Bay, who is directing a big-budget film on a deeply tragic day in American history, that he would be familiar with what has already been accomplished. But no, he takes the easy was out and makes a film that would receive boos from audiences if released sixty years ago! This is a pitifully empty film with nothing in it but simulations of recycled war film cliches and is an insult to bold directors such a Francis Ford Coppla and bold filmmaking in general. It is an insult to the hero's of December 7, for the film spends well over two hours focusing on a stupid and predictable love triangle between three characters, with the remaining hour spend on special effects and explosions.

I suppose the most depressing thing about this whole film is the fact that audiences weren't outraged when it came out. Why didn't anybody yell out in the theater “I am smarter than this!” and walk out to see the redux restoration version of Apocalypse Now playing the same time Pearl Harbor came out. But no, despite the fact that it was lauded by critics, it made $499 million at the box office.

I once asked my sister what her favorite movie was and she answered Pearl Harbor. About a week before we had watched Apocalypse Now and she had walked out within thirty minutes, complaining that it was too boring and long, and plus it was old. Okay yes, Apocalypse Now was made in 1979, if you call that old, then I'm fine with that. It is a long movie, but probably only a little longer then the agony of Pearl Harbor. As for boring. . . .I just can't comprehend. Apocalypse Now is probably the most intense and disturbing war films I've ever seen. As its narrative progresses, you further and further feel like that you are falling into madness along with its characters. Pearl Harbor isn't worth a second of Apocalypse Now. 1.5/10



Transformers 2 - And if that couldn't get any worse, I must recall the hellish experience of seeing Transformers 2 in the theater with my sister. If there is any reason why you should see this movie, it should only be for an extremely altruistic reason, and even then you'll feel disgusted with yourself.

My step-sister was not feeling good at all (her boyfriend had just dumped her) and she wanted to get out of the house and go watch some mindless movie (as she admitted herself). I had remembered how much I hated the first one, but felt too much of an obligation to make her feel better.

So we went into the theater. I had gotten a big Reese's Peanut Butter Cup, which was probably the highlight of the entire experience and is the only thing I wish to remember.

The lights went down and the projector started. Immediately there was noise, and this noise progressed more and more to unbearable measures as the film went on for two-and a half hours.

It was the most meaningless use of the film camera I had ever seen. It was an insult to the special effects people who had spend hours creating every single frame of CGI motion, only for them to be set to a nonsense story with nonsense characters and nonsense robots.

I remember looking around the theater (with a pounding headache) and counting how many people had yet walked out. None had. There were quite a few ten year olds who seemed to be enjoying it immensely, and then I realized that this film was a ten year olds dream. I myself remember being eight or nine and playing with Legos, spinning together outrageously epic plots with outrageously extreme special effects. I suppose I can remember creating robot battles similar to what one sees in Transformers when I was eight. But that's what Legos are for, and, why not just make Transformers a PG rated kids film? But instead we get a violent two-and a half hour commercial with racist undertones and tons of sexual innuendo in the Megan Fox character, who is misogynistically portrayed by Bay as a sex object and nothing else, even though Fox is such a bad actress that there is not much that can be done with her as an actress.

Upon leaving the theater, after sitting through it for the full two-and a half hours I had felt like a good person, but I felt utterly miserable for having wasted two hours of my life, along with twenty other people, when we all could've gotten together and found ways to cure world hunger, or cancer or teach poor kids how to read, or just walk out and see a better film. 0/10

Postscript: By the way, I remember walking out of the theater and thinking that “this must be one of the worst films ever made” Yet after reading a comment made by Bay in response to all of the negative criticism of his film, he said “It's easy to go shoot an art movie in a winery in the South of France. But people have no idea how hard it is to create something like Transformers.” Oh boo-hoo Michael Bay. I am not convinced of the “easiness” of shooting an art film, since Bay has not ever produced something even close to one-tenth the value of the works of Michelangelo Antonini or Jean-Luc Godard. But that aside, I must say, that this quote sums up all that Michael Bay's films represents. After reading this, I came to the conclusion that Transformers represents everything that is wrong with cinema today, and that it is the mother of all bad films, and like a cancer, it is killing the art of cinema.


By the way, I was unaminously outvoted among my friends to go see Inglorious Basterds. We're going to see Surrogates instead, oh how I hope that it won't be half the torture that Transformers was!

[Lynne50]

Just got back from watching Where the Wild Things Are.. I enjoyed it very much but I have to reiterate what the reviewers said... it's not for little kids. I think any child under 8 may not get the gist of the movie. The original book is only 10 lines long, so Spike Jonze took many liberties with it, with the consent of Maurice Sendak. It was during the 'quiet times' in the movie that made it so special.. I think the boy that played Max was exceptional. His name is also Max. Funny coincidence. And towards the end of the movie, I got teary eyed. I didn't even realize that one of the wild things was the voice of James Gandolfini, of Sopranos fame. It wasn't until his anger came out, that I recognized his voice. I would definitely watch it again.

[DanielBenoit]

City of God - In a world of merciless violence, a world in which massacares are done merely on an insult, a world in which nine year olds hold guns bigger than their hands, a world in which law and reason are non-existent and one's fate is quite bleak, everything is left to chance. One young man gets a religious epiphany from a dream at the right time and reforms, while one of his friends is shot to death in the streets. A an aspiring photographer finds a chance to fulfill his dream, while a gang of little kids aspire to kill the leading man of the city. The final shot of the film perfectly illustrates this. The world here is more bleak then the mob world of Scorsese's Goodfellas which still had ways out, here you are born into a violent world, and are doomed to die at a young age, rarely will one ever find there way out.

This film is a masterpiece of style. It is infinitely creative and has about a hundred different great moments. It is comparable to Scorsese's Goodfellas and belongs among the greatest of crime films. It takes us through the years of a young man's life, who, could be one of the few to make it out in the world. It is a vision of the underworld, which isn't so underground. It is amazing the amount of characters that we see, and the amount of stories that we hear. Each one fulfills some silent philosophical truth about one of the characters.

The rapid editing and extreme camera angles are incredible. Take the opening sequence in which a chicken runs away from its butcher and is chased through the streets. This then leads to a confrontation between the gang chasing the chicken and the police. It illustrates so vividly the constant tension within the city. A gang of criminals are chasing their dinner through the streets, then, are facing a troop of police with loaded weapons pointed at them.

It is amazing that a film as creative as this, and as abroad as any foreign film, could make it to the Oscars (even though it was unjustly neglected for any Best Picture nomination).

This film has the heart and soul of the streets and is equivalent to the heights of Scorsese. Now coming at the close of the 00s' I can say that without a doubt that along with Ramin Bahrani, Fernando Meirelles is the best new director of this decade and has a lot coming for him in the following years. I hope to see more of him. 10/10


Chop Shop - It's amazing what a simple film this is. It strikes itself to the roots of Italian neo-realism and is shot in an utterly convincing documentary style with almost every shot being hand-held. Its plot concerns the everyday life of a tough street kid and his relationship with his older sister.

Their dream is to open their own food stand and they speak about it with such enthusiasm and hope, that we discover how much this means to them living in a bleak world. The kid is a homeless orphan who works at a chop shop stealing car parts from the parking lot at Yankee Stadium, just outside of his workplace.

The control of emotion in this film is utterly masterful. Ramin Bahrani, an immigrant from Iran, has made three films, all of them concerning unique and hopeful individuals trying to fulfill the American dream. Many of them don't, but if they did, would that be true to life?

Bahrani is respectful of his subjects space and keeps a distance. There are no melodramatic close-ups, no teary eyed moments, only true and honest human moments. Take one heartbreaking scene in which the brother discovers something about his sister. It is truly unbelievable that a scene with such emotional intensity, and yet such silence could be pulled off by such a young actor. The boy is no Makulie Kulkin and is tough and smart.

This film is neither up-beat or down-beat, it is true and totally honest filmmaking. A breathe of fresh air. The best film of 2008 and one of the best of the decade. 10/10

[manolia]

"Family Plot" by A. Hitchcock. A really good film (but not one of my favorites by said director).

[TheFifthElement]

The Reader

8/10

[NickAdams]

Where the Wild Things Are: I really enjoyed the first quarter or so, before Max sailed off. What a great opening, as much energy as when Jason Patrick chases down the meth dealer in the beginning of Narc. Max's behavior is one of the most honest representation of that sort that I've seen in cinema. I was reminded of a few of the children that attended an after school program that I use to work at. I guess my criticism is towards the moral attached to this tale, even though Max learns through reflection rather than being told. Even in its darkest, I found the film to be wholesome and very suburban (as abstract as that is). I'd rather take my child, hypothetical child or course, to this film than anything by Disney. At least the would learn how to be a human being instead of being a warrior (boys) or a princess (girls). If there had o be a moral, at least it was empathy.

Bronson: I really don't know what to think of this film. I need another viewing.



Ive also seen the most recent film, A Serious Man, that just came out. I think it's probably my second favorite of their films.


That's the one I meant to see.


Pearl Harbor- Throughout the history of cinema there have been films that have been leagues ahead of there time. Take the war genre; ever seen the Japanese film Fires on the Plane? Light years ahead of its time, made in 1959 and it was the first film to ever deal with cannibalism among soldiers. How about Apocalypse Now or Come and See, whose level of intensity reached and sometimes surpassed Speilberg's Saving Private Ryan, made thirty years later. All of the above mentioned films are films that took daring steps in dealing and presenting certain issues. they were masterpieces far far ahead of there time and are still effective today. Pearl Harbor is not one of these films. As a matter of fact it is a step back in film history. It returns to truly ancient cliches about war and makes the one-dimensionality of the symbolic hero's in Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin look like creations of Shakespeare, it's that bad. Who else but Michael Bay would make the 'bold' move of casting Ben Affleck, Josh Harnett and Kate Beckensale in a frickin' love triangle on the eve of the attack on Pearl Harbor? Who else but Michael Bay would find the inclusion of smoking and drinking to be too controversial despite the well-known historical fact that practically every single person living in 1941 drank and smoked. Who else would have such a ****ty script that one cringes every single time an actor opens his or her mouth?

Why is it that I feel like I'm watching some typical Hollywood propaganda film from the 40s'? I'm by no means criticizing films like Tora!Tora!Tora! or The Guns of the Navorone which are better films than this one by leaps and bounds, but merely pointing out the cliches that have become associated with that era of film history, to be found in a film made in 2001! Did Michael Bay ever once watch Tora! Tora! Tora! or The Guns of the Navorone while making this film? How about Apocalypse Now or Saving Private Ryan. One would think that such a prominent director such as Michael Bay, who is directing a big-budget film on a deeply tragic day in American history, that he would be familiar with what has already been accomplished. But no, he takes the easy was out and makes a film that would receive boos from audiences if released sixty years ago! This is a pitifully empty film with nothing in it but simulations of recycled war film cliches and is an insult to bold directors such a Francis Ford Coppla and bold filmmaking in general. It is an insult to the hero's of December 7, for the film spends well over two hours focusing on a stupid and predictable love triangle between three characters, with the remaining hour spend on special effects and explosions.

I suppose the most depressing thing about this whole film is the fact that audiences weren't outraged when it came out. Why didn't anybody yell out in the theater “I am smarter than this!” and walk out to see the redux restoration version of Apocalypse Now playing the same time Pearl Harbor came out. But no, despite the fact that it was lauded by critics, it made $499 million at the box office.

I once asked my sister what her favorite movie was and she answered Pearl Harbor. About a week before we had watched Apocalypse Now and she had walked out within thirty minutes, complaining that it was too boring and long, and plus it was old. Okay yes, Apocalypse Now was made in 1979, if you call that old, then I'm fine with that. It is a long movie, but probably only a little longer then the agony of Pearl Harbor. As for boring. . . .I just can't comprehend. Apocalypse Now is probably the most intense and disturbing war films I've ever seen. As its narrative progresses, you further and further feel like that you are falling into madness along with its characters. Pearl Harbor isn't worth a second of Apocalypse Now. 1.5/10



Transformers 2 - And if that couldn't get any worse, I must recall the hellish experience of seeing Transformers 2 in the theater with my sister. If there is any reason why you should see this movie, it should only be for an extremely altruistic reason, and even then you'll feel disgusted with yourself.

My step-sister was not feeling good at all (her boyfriend had just dumped her) and she wanted to get out of the house and go watch some mindless movie (as she admitted herself). I had remembered how much I hated the first one, but felt too much of an obligation to make her feel better.

So we went into the theater. I had gotten a big Reese's Peanut Butter Cup, which was probably the highlight of the entire experience and is the only thing I wish to remember.

The lights went down and the projector started. Immediately there was noise, and this noise progressed more and more to unbearable measures as the film went on for two-and a half hours.

It was the most meaningless use of the film camera I had ever seen. It was an insult to the special effects people who had spend hours creating every single frame of CGI motion, only for them to be set to a nonsense story with nonsense characters and nonsense robots.

I remember looking around the theater (with a pounding headache) and counting how many people had yet walked out. None had. There were quite a few ten year olds who seemed to be enjoying it immensely, and then I realized that this film was a ten year olds dream. I myself remember being eight or nine and playing with Legos, spinning together outrageously epic plots with outrageously extreme special effects. I suppose I can remember creating robot battles similar to what one sees in Transformers when I was eight. But that's what Legos are for, and, why not just make Transformers a PG rated kids film? But instead we get a violent two-and a half hour commercial with racist undertones and tons of sexual innuendo in the Megan Fox character, who is misogynistically portrayed by Bay as a sex object and nothing else, even though Fox is such a bad actress that there is not much that can be done with her as an actress.

Upon leaving the theater, after sitting through it for the full two-and a half hours I had felt like a good person, but I felt utterly miserable for having wasted two hours of my life, along with twenty other people, when we all could've gotten together and found ways to cure world hunger, or cancer or teach poor kids how to read, or just walk out and see a better film. 0/10

Postscript: By the way, I remember walking out of the theater and thinking that “this must be one of the worst films ever made” Yet after reading a comment made by Bay in response to all of the negative criticism of his film, he said “It's easy to go shoot an art movie in a winery in the South of France. But people have no idea how hard it is to create something like Transformers.” Oh boo-hoo Michael Bay. I am not convinced of the “easiness” of shooting an art film, since Bay has not ever produced something even close to one-tenth the value of the works of Michelangelo Antonini or Jean-Luc Godard. But that aside, I must say, that this quote sums up all that Michael Bay's films represents. After reading this, I came to the conclusion that Transformers represents everything that is wrong with cinema today, and that it is the mother of all bad films, and like a cancer, it is killing the art of cinema.


By the way, I was unaminously outvoted among my friends to go see Inglorious Basterds. We're going to see Surrogates instead, oh how I hope that it won't be half the torture that Transformers was!

Agreed, but the work that went into the film is impressive. It's ridicolous for Bay to take that much credit with so many people on the payroll. I'm sure he did more consulting that directing. He's not writing, operation the camera, or even making furniture for his films like Lynch. Lynch makes "art films", but to call what Lynch does easy is absurd. It's far easier to build a house with a crew, with multiple specialist, than it is to do it yourself. What a dick.

You can have all the tecnical skill in the world, but he doesn't take the material seriously (and you can be as campy as John Waters and still be serious about the material). I can get all I need out of a Bay picture by watching the trailer. I really don't need to see two hours of rotating and push shots (I found it obnoxious in The Departed as well); it just shows that the material is weak.


City of God - In a world of merciless violence, a world in which massacares are done merely on an insult, a world in which nine year olds hold guns bigger than their hands, a world in which law and reason are non-existent and one's fate is quite bleak, everything is left to chance. One young man gets a religious epiphany from a dream at the right time and reforms, while one of his friends is shot to death in the streets. A an aspiring photographer finds a chance to fulfill his dream, while a gang of little kids aspire to kill the leading man of the city. The final shot of the film perfectly illustrates this. The world here is more bleak then the mob world of Scorsese's Goodfellas which still had ways out, here you are born into a violent world, and are doomed to die at a young age, rarely will one ever find there way out.

This film is a masterpiece of style. It is infinitely creative and has about a hundred different great moments. It is comparable to Scorsese's Goodfellas and belongs among the greatest of crime films. It takes us through the years of a young man's life, who, could be one of the few to make it out in the world. It is a vision of the underworld, which isn't so underground. It is amazing the amount of characters that we see, and the amount of stories that we hear. Each one fulfills some silent philosophical truth about one of the characters.

The rapid editing and extreme camera angles are incredible. Take the opening sequence in which a chicken runs away from its butcher and is chased through the streets. This then leads to a confrontation between the gang chasing the chicken and the police. It illustrates so vividly the constant tension within the city. A gang of criminals are chasing their dinner through the streets, then, are facing a troop of police with loaded weapons pointed at them.

It is amazing that a film as creative as this, and as abroad as any foreign film, could make it to the Oscars (even though it was unjustly neglected for any Best Picture nomination).

This film has the heart and soul of the streets and is equivalent to the heights of Scorsese. Now coming at the close of the 00s' I can say that without a doubt that along with Ramin Bahrani, Fernando Meirelles is the best new director of this decade and has a lot coming for him in the following years. I hope to see more of him. 10/10


Chop Shop - It's amazing what a simple film this is. It strikes itself to the roots of Italian neo-realism and is shot in an utterly convincing documentary style with almost every shot being hand-held. Its plot concerns the everyday life of a tough street kid and his relationship with his older sister.

Their dream is to open their own food stand and they speak about it with such enthusiasm and hope, that we discover how much this means to them living in a bleak world. The kid is a homeless orphan who works at a chop shop stealing car parts from the parking lot at Yankee Stadium, just outside of his workplace.

The control of emotion in this film is utterly masterful. Ramin Bahrani, an immigrant from Iran, has made three films, all of them concerning unique and hopeful individuals trying to fulfill the American dream. Many of them don't, but if they did, would that be true to life?

Bahrani is respectful of his subjects space and keeps a distance. There are no melodramatic close-ups, no teary eyed moments, only true and honest human moments. Take one heartbreaking scene in which the brother discovers something about his sister. It is truly unbelievable that a scene with such emotional intensity, and yet such silence could be pulled off by such a young actor. The boy is no Makulie Kulkin and is tough and smart.

This film is neither up-beat or down-beat, it is true and totally honest filmmaking. A breathe of fresh air. The best film of 2008 and one of the best of the decade. 10/10

The style and narrative reminded me of Boogie Night; it's still a great piece of cinema.

Close-ups are great, but it depends on you motivation for using them. When it is used for emotional emphasis, than it is nothing more than an exclamation mark, but when used with fascination, than you have Bergman.

[DanielBenoit]

Close-ups are great, but it depends on you motivation for using them. When it is used for emotional emphasis, than it is nothing more than an exclamation mark, but when used with fascination, than you have Bergman.

Oh of course they are. I didn't mean to denounce the application of close-ups or anything, I merely wanted emphasize Bahrani's distant and contemplative style in which very few reaction shots are used and such.



I can get all I need out of a Bay picture by watching the trailer.


Lol exactly. It's mightly cool to see those things transform for the first time, but only for about five seconds and only the first time. Seeing it happen on the screen over and over for two and a half hours is just ridiculous self-indulgence.

Btw, I award the production team everything in the world for making such well-done special effects. But it is the director's and writer's job to put that technology to good use. It's the writer's, actor's and Michael Bay's fault for mutilating and overdoing what could've been a reasonably entertaining Hollywood blockbuster.

[DanielBenoit]

“Years ago my mother used to say to me, she'd say, 'In this world, Elwood, you must be' -- she always called me Elwood -- 'n this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant.' Well for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me.”

Harvey - I begin with this quote because it virtually sums up the simplicity and pleasantness of Elwood, the films protagonist, who, enjoys passing the time in bars and pubs, being a gentleman to everyone (even the most insulting), drinking with his invisible six and a half foot rabbit friend Harvey.

This film, along with Vertigo and It's a Wonderful Life, is the reason why James Stewart is known as one of the immortals of cinema. The selection and diversity of his characters is immense. In It's a Wonderful Life he was an ambitious young man, frustrated by the fact that he can't escape the confines of his hometown; in Vertigo he was a retired police detective who becomes obsessed with the perfect women; in Harvey, he plays an anti-conformist who greets adversity with a smile.

In the sense that he is an anti-conformist, is that he refuses to be a narcissistic self-righteous member of the herd. It's not that he is consciously rebelling, it's just against his pleasant personality.

Harvey, adapted from Mary Chase's Pulitzer prize winning play, takes place almost within the confines of a single day, the plot being a comedic farce concerning Elwood's image-obsessed sister and her attempts to commit him to a mental institution. James Stewart as Elwood merely seems to float and dance around all of the events of the day, practically not knowing what is going on, introducing himself left and right, offering his card, and inviting new acquaintances to dinner. He is the most powerful and free person in the entire film, because he has utterly surrendered himself to the music and rhythm of life, to the smiles and handshakes of the world (the world that at least, wishes to smile back).

Harvey is a special film. There's nothing that special in the directing (though the invisible effects of Harvey's presence is always magical), it is a film of phenomenal performances and writing. It could virtually be a stage production if it were not for all of the many special performances and moments. Every single character has his or hers own beautiful idiosyncrasies and personalities, and are usually only recognized by somebody as caring as Elwood. Just look at the scene in which Elwood is searching for Harvey as he freely wanders about the institutions grounds, he comes upon the electric gate at the exit (something quite innovative and modern for 1950), he comments on how fascinating it is to the elderly police man who runs it. He engages in his usual politeness, but no matter how routine, he always seems utterly sincere.

Elwood is an individual who belongs to the tradition of Falstaff and Don Quioxte who surrenders himself to the world of play. I must admit that of all of the many characters in cinema, it is he whom I aspire to be the most. I remember watching Harvey over the years every Easter ever since I was a little kid, and I must say that it was grown on me with each viewing. It is no longer that routine holiday film which I would watch once a year, but it is a deep character study of all of the many roles that we might play in the world. So very few films say so much about something in such a pleasant way, and in the absence tragedy (though faithful readers of mine will know that I prefer tragic stories over easy shallow tales). But Harvey is not a shallow film, it is filled with comedic joy, all done at the expense of all of the other films characters, who just don't seem to understand Elwood's innocence and joy. There is not a single despicable character in this film, almost all of them have their faults, but we seemed to have already accepted them as friends along with Elwood.

The most beautiful scene in the entire film (and probably in my opinion, Stewart's shining moment), takes place in a back-alley outside of a club with jazz music playing in the distance, with Elwood explaining to two psychologists who have been following him all day, how he met Harvey. Of course there is so much more to this scene, and is an opening into Elwood's psyche. It is so perfect and so calmly and casually articulated by Stewart, that we can't help but fall along with the two doctors into the trance that is Elwood. There is a shot in which we see the two doctors faces as they listen to Elwood talk, and we can see for about a moment, that they too are experiencing the joy the Elwood is constantly experiencing, for the first time in their life.

I haven't even gotten to Josephine Hall's manic performance as Elwood's sister. It is truly a work of comedic genius; her mannerisms and thoughts completely preoccupied with impressing her friends and making sure that her daughter Myrtle May find the “perfect young man”. She is the antagonist and cause of all the action in the plot, but is not so threatening to the audience, living behind Elwood's pleasant smile. Take the scene in which the head doctor is explaining to Elwood how all day she had been attempting to lock him up. Elwood thoughtfully replies, “She did all that in one afternoon. Veta certainly is a whirlwind isn't she?”

As for Harvey; Elwood's imaginary rabbit friend on which the entirety of the film is centered on. What is Harvey? Is he real or imagined? Merely a figment of some of the characters imaginations or a true physical force? I believe such questions are irrelevant to the fact that Harvey, real of imagined, is the uncanny reflection of Elwood's innocence, his forever-loyal friend and companion, which is himself and the world. Harvey is a physical manifestation of Elwood's warmth and kindness. Like a fantastic six foot white rabbit, Elwood welcomes the world with open arms.

Oh how I make this sound like some complex philsophical film. It is philosophical in the sense that Charlie Chaplin's City Lights is philosophical. It is a delightful entertainment, making one think of their best experiences at the theatre. It is hilarious and quick-witted (with Hall's performance being by far the funniest) and is filled with so many theatrical soliloqueys by characters from cab-drivers to scientific-minded psychologists.

Elwood may be a simple man, but is not a simple character. He annunciates so many bits of knowledge on life and humanity without even noticing it. He is a genius of humility and wholesomeness. Stewart's performance is so humble, and Chase's script so subtle, that this film can be immensely underappretiated at first or second viewing, but eventually grows out to be an elegantly mysterious character study of a man who seems to be beyond us. Who is Elwood? Maybe he's a metaphor for that piece of humanity inside every one of us. Either way, he is without a doubt the Falstaff, the Prince Myshkin of the 20th century. The idiot of cinema. 10/10

[crystalmoonshin]

Malena 9/10

[mono]

I also loved The Ladykillers, and though I liked The Big Lebowski, I wasn't too fond of O Brother, Where Art Thou.

Ive also seen the most recent film, A Serious Man, that just came out. I think it's probably my second favorite of their films.

1. Fargo
2. A Serious Man
3. No Country For Old Men
4. Miller's Crossing

You'll have to see the newest film when you get a chance, It's pretty brilliant.
I may give The Big Lebowski another chance, having watched it only once at a relatively young age when it first came out (1998), and somewhat regret placing such a disliking label upon it so early. Unfortunately, I have not yet seen A Serious Man yet, but have only heard good things - thanks for the recommendation, as I will certainly look into it.
No Country for Old Men, I feel, got neglected greatly amid most other Coen brothers films, especially somewhat more mediocre works like O Brother, Where Art Thou? and Burn After Reading (perhaps it seems obvious at this point that I would not call myself a Clooney fan). Sure, it won some Oscars, but among the Coen brothers fan-base, it got mostly overlooked - perhaps because of the less mainstream actors/actresses? I loved everything about No Country for Old Men - mysterious plot, subtle acting, and enough twists and turns to watch multiple times back-to-back!

-----

Last night, upon a recommendation from a friend, I watched Sideways, a film she thought resembled me, starring Paul Giamatti as a painstakingly pretentious and undeniably depressed wine snob, literary geek, introverted man with a dark humor. I wonder why she thought I would like this; regardless, I did a lot. Alexander Payne wrote and directed this gem, the same director of Election, About Schmidt, and one of the fragments from Paris, je t'aime, so this hinted a bit that I might enjoy this slightly over 2 hours. It had a few slow parts, but would burst forth with its blunt, forceful internal and external struggles with themes of alcoholism, depression, adultery, love vs. lust, longings for the past, and friendship, featuring breathtaking regions of some mid-California vineyards I unregretfully recognized with a fuzzy memory, and a dark, subtle humor somewhat reminiscient of Wes Anderson and Noah Baumbach. A beautiful film, a triumph!
Rating: 9.5/10.

[GothMan]

Circle of Friends

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0799987/

4/10

[rimbaud]

Revolver 8/10, or maybe 9/10

[Stargazer86]

Death at a Funeral
Silly, ridiculous, and funny. I loved it 8/10

Mono- Personally, I love The Big Lebowski. It's one of those movies you have to be in the right mood for though. It's odd...you can't take it seriously. It's one of those where you usually either love it or hate it.
But if you're ever in a silly or lighthearted mood, I reccomend giving it another shot :)

[atiguhya padma]

Elite Squad

By the director of City of God, this is a stark, violent but realistic film about how the violence of Brazilian cities creates a vicious circle for both the police and the inhabitants. It is a harrowing, sad and haunting film that leaves you grateful that you don't live there.

8/10.

[Stargazer86]

Elite Squad

By the director of City of God, this is a stark, violent but realistic film about how the violence of Brazilian cities creates a vicious circle for both the police and the inhabitants. It is a harrowing, sad and haunting film that leaves you grateful that you don't live there.

8/10.

Is it a documentary or is it a movie (similar to City of God)?
I love that movie but it is heartbreaking

[atiguhya padma]

Elite Squad started life as a documentary but ended up as a movie. The police co-operated with the director in making the documentary, but then they got cold feet and so the director felt that he had to make a fictional account based on the documentary evidence he had received. He worked closely with drug pushers and their gangs and the police to show what life is like in the elite squad. Before it was released, a pirate copy made its way round the city, and it is believed that 11 million people watched it before it was even released, which is just as well, as most people wouldn't have been able to see it in the cinema. its an awesome film, but filled with sorrow, misery, suffering and sadness. I recommend it.

[Stargazer86]

Elite Squad started life as a documentary but ended up as a movie. The police co-operated with the director in making the documentary, but then they got cold feet and so the director felt that he had to make a fictional account based on the documentary evidence he had received. He worked closely with drug pushers and their gangs and the police to show what life is like in the elite squad. Before it was released, a pirate copy made its way round the city, and it is believed that 11 million people watched it before it was even released, which is just as well, as most people wouldn't have been able to see it in the cinema. its an awesome film, but filled with sorrow, misery, suffering and sadness. I recommend it.

Thanks for the info. I will definately check it out

[The Comedian]

Transformers I -- silly, dumb, loud, bright, cliche -- so just a tick below nearly every other movie there is.

5/10

[pjjrfan1]

Doubt with Meryl Streep and Phillip Hoffman, I was just overwhelmed by this movie and one scene in particular left me in tears, when the little boy is bullied and Hoffman appears and helps him pick up his books and then gives him a hug. Hoffman never ceases to amaze me. The ending kinda surprised me a bit, I would've bet that sour Nun would have never admitted she might be wrong. But other than that, I loved the movie.

[Mathor]

I may give The Big Lebowski another chance, having watched it only once at a relatively young age when it first came out (1998), and somewhat regret placing such a disliking label upon it so early. Unfortunately, I have not yet seen A Serious Man yet, but have only heard good things - thanks for the recommendation, as I will certainly look into it.
No Country for Old Men, I feel, got neglected greatly amid most other Coen brothers films, especially somewhat more mediocre works like O Brother, Where Art Thou? and Burn After Reading (perhaps it seems obvious at this point that I would not call myself a Clooney fan). Sure, it won some Oscars, but among the Coen brothers fan-base, it got mostly overlooked - perhaps because of the less mainstream actors/actresses? I loved everything about No Country for Old Men - mysterious plot, subtle acting, and enough twists and turns to watch multiple times back-to-back!

Burn After reading was just a pretty terrible movie. Coen Brothers like to do that intentionally, I feel like. They have an interesting sense of humor and I like it. I don't want them to be COMPLETELY serious. I like that they can go from making a movie as wonderful as No Country For Old Men and win best picture one year, and make a silly stupid comedy with Burn After Reading the next.

And don't count out George Clooney, completely. He was amazing in "Michael Clayton" (probably the only amazing movie i've seen that he's acted in) which came out in 2007. Also his newest film he's working on "Up In The Air" is a shoe-in to win best picture this year.
(due to festival buzz and early reviews, it doesn't come out til december)
I'm pretty excited about it, at least.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-Da8Tz4_E

[sadparadise]

the fall 9/10. Great movie. Not for kids!!!

[Ebonon]

27 Missing Kisses

A great Georgian Film...have watched it 5 times already.....

[manolia]

"Lost highway" (again and again :D) It's 10/10 for me :nod:

[mono]

Mono- Personally, I love The Big Lebowski. It's one of those movies you have to be in the right mood for though. It's odd...you can't take it seriously. It's one of those where you usually either love it or hate it.
But if you're ever in a silly or lighthearted mood, I reccomend giving it another shot :)
Indeed, I think I discounted it a little early in life, when I doubt I understood the humor entirely. A joyful mood comes my way from time to time, and I will probably give it another watch sometime then, as it seems that almost everyone I have disclosed my initial disliking of The Big Lebowski felt surprised that "someone like me" would not enjoy such a film. I will rent it again sometime soon, thanks! ;)

And don't count out George Clooney, completely. He was amazing in "Michael Clayton" (probably the only amazing movie i've seen that he's acted in) which came out in 2007. Also his newest film he's working on "Up In The Air" is a shoe-in to win best picture this year.
(due to festival buzz and early reviews, it doesn't come out til december)
I'm pretty excited about it, at least.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-Da8Tz4_E
Similar to labeling The Big Lebowski somewhat early, I suppose I should not insult certain actors and actresses too early. I guess my dislike for George Clooney comes from exhaustion than in calling him talentless; Clooney has plenty of talent, but I feel overwhelmingly fatigued from that smug, sly, grinning hard-boil that the watcher hates to love in films like Ocean's Eleven, Burn After Reading, Three Kings, and The Perfect Storm. My first dislike of him, however, as a big Batman fan, occurred in Batman & Robin, which hurt to watch; no one beats Michael Keaton, in my opinion, but I felt that even Val Kilmer performed better in Batman Forever and Christian Bale in The Dark Knight. Luckily, From Dusk Till Dawn came out, and that restored some of my affinity for George Clooney, a lot of it actually, alongside the brilliant Quentin Tarantino, but not too much of his work has impressed me since.
I regret to say that he scared me away from Michael Clayton, but, since we have shown some similar tastes in films, I will give it a chance sometime soon for sure, and appreciate the link to the Up in the Air trailor, because that looks fairly decent, too - perhaps a bit of a turn-around for him, eh? Now . . . if only we can get Mel Gibson to do the same . . . :lol:

[Shalot]

Wristcutters 10/10

This movie is so great. I stumbled across it on the Sundance channel. It's a comedy about this heartbroken guy who commits suicide over a girl and the afterlife ends up being just like life, only worse. It doesn't sound like much of a comedy, but it does have many humorous moments. Also, I really liked the music.

[Ebonon]

Has anybody seen a movie called Lars and the Real Girl?

[rimbaud]

Jackie Brown, and I'd give it 7/10 not Tarantino's greatest

[DanielBenoit]

Jackie Brown, and I'd give it 7/10 not Tarantino's greatest

Oh no! :eek:

[Dirtbag]

The Rocky Horror Picture Show

It was my first time watching it but I recognized a lot of the music. Entertaining movie. Susan Sarandon was hot...

8/10

[rimbaud]

Oh no! :eek:

what?! Pulp Fiction was way better, Inglourious Basterds too, so was Death Proof and Reservoir dogs!

I know you are a robert deniro fan :) but still, it's not his best movie

[DanielBenoit]

Dancer in the Dark - Lars von Trier; I have only seen two of his films, but I'm confident enough to say that he is the most emotionally powerful director living today. His unflinching power transcends that of almost any director.

Trier has made some of the most shocking, sexually violent and emotionaly tramatic films of all time, with his new film Antichrist probably being the most extreme example (though I have yet to see it). Roger Ebert himself even said in his review of Antichrist that Trier "is driven to confront and shake his audience more than any other serious filmmaker - even Bunuel and Herzog." Those familiar with these two great directors will know the expanse of this statement. And it's true.

Judgement of Trier's films does not come about by asking the question, is this film great or not? but if it has effected you or not. Dancer in the Dark is a melodrama with a plot that would better suit a film made during the age of D.W. Griffith. It concerns a Chekloslovokian single-mother who works at a factory and is trying to star in a stage production of The Sound of Music and tries to hold these two jobs together to save up money for an operation on her son, as she slowly goes blind. The operation is one that will remove the genes that she has passed on to him, so that he will not have her blindness heriditary. This film also happens to be a musical, and without a doubt the most unconventional musical ever made (but I'll get to that in a little bit).

Now, I've seen many films, and I don't fall very easily for melodramas and in fact prefer emotionally subtle directors like Stanley Kubrick or Ingmar Begman, who make immensely emotional films, but don't come bursting out on the screen with tears and tissues.

Dancer in the Dark is one of those films that will only effect you whether or not if you are in sympathy with the characters. Dancer in the Dark has a relatively soapy plot, and has many of the typical characters of melodramas, but is filmed, directed, acted in such an unconventional way, that every second is utterly believable.

I don't want to give away much of the plot, for, like most melodramas, a lot happens. All I can say is that Bjork is such a brave and beautiful actress, with merely the nature of her performance being a curiosity. For those not familiar, Bjork is a famous Icelandtic pop star, who is a celebrity in her country. Now, imagine Paris Hilton or Britney Spears in a not-so-glamorous performance, with a director known for his lack of mercy, in a Danish art film. Yeah, incomprehensible. Bjork's performance is so admirable and so couragous, so humble, that it is shocking to think that the star of this film is a pop celebrity (and though this may be a musical, upon seeing it, you'll know what I mean).

Now any actor or actress willing to work with Trier should be commended for their bravery. But Bjork's in particular is daring because not only is she willing to play an pretty, but far from glamorous single-mother who possesses more innocence and heart than intelligence and wit, but also because she was bold enough to sing in such a film.

Now the musical scenes come in as a result of her character's passion for music (especially Hollywood musicals) and her senstitive ear, to which she begins to hear rhythms upon hearing noise. From the bleakness (and sometimes unbearably traumatic) of her everyday life, she escapes into daydreams in which everyone begins singing and dancing.

The film self-consciously begins by seemingly criticizing the escapism of musicals, one of its characters saying how he didn't understand why in musicals people suddenly burst into song. As the movie progressed, I soon came to realize that this film is possibly the greatest and most loyal dedication to musicals, presenting escapism as a nessicary part of human existence.

Filmed in typical Trier style, almost every shot (besides the musical ones) is filmed on a handheld digital camera (in accordence with Dogme 95) with many jump-cuts and seemingly improvised camera-work. The musical scenes are contrasted with static cameras, with carefully composed camera-angles, with saturated film colors.

It is quite fascinating the self-conscious irony of the film. It has an extremely un-modernistic plot, more comfortable in a silent melodrama from 1919, while it is filmed in an the innovative avant-garde style of Dogme 95 and performed with extreme emotional intensity.

Oh and I haven't even come to the characters, who, despite being founded on cliches, are the heart of the film and the very reason why this film is so powerful. There is Selma (Bjork), who has a heart of gold and proves to be utterly selfless in literatly eternal dedication to her son. Not enough can be said of her, for she is such a beautiful and kind person, able to make even the most unlikely people smile, that it is suprising and sickening when there are those (very close to her) whom betray her.

There is her best friend and fellow worker at the factory who is more outgoing and reliable than her, and is always someone whom she can lean on. There is Jeffery, who is (if I must say) Selma's adorable crush, who waits for her every day after work trying to offer her a ride home (his feelings for her being very well established), but her shyness not allowing it. Then there is the couple from whom she rents her trailer, a police officer and a strongly 'American' women who loves to spend money. The police officer is a close friend of Selma's, who seeks her in times of deep distress and shares with her his secret financial troubles as well as his suicidal tendancies, while she shares him detererating sight (something she admits to no one). This is where the plot begins and what follows is a chain of unpredictable events leading to some of the most unbearable scenes I've ever had to sit through.

When I say 'unbearable' I do not mean it in the way the Transformers 2 is unbearable (far from it). I mean, unbearable in the sense that Trier has jolted and tore me apart from the inside; the power of his storytelling is unprecedented. I must warn you, for those who are squemish or easily disraught. Those, who like Selma in the story, become so depressed when a musical ends that they walk out before the second to last song so that they can hold the endless memory of it forever in their hearts, DO NOT watch this movie, or any of Trier's other films. One must be very brave and ready when watching any of his films. I, who am no stranger to tough films, found myself repeating "it's only a movie, this is all fake", but couldn't convince myself, due to the mercilessly realistic documentary-like photography which had cast me under a spell. I was in fact so shooken up, that afterwards I had vomitted half of my meal and had to take long shower so that I could go to sleep.

It is almost shocking the unflitching integrity of the final scenes, the willingness to show it all, to not close the curtain and fly the camera through the roof until it is over, which, through all of the ironies of ironies, it does.

So is Trier's musical a great film or is it cruelly manipulative? I don't know. There are only a handful of films like these which transcend criticism and can only be judged on a purely emotional level. What do I think of Trier's film: I am utterly shaken. 9/10

[DanielBenoit]

Casablanca. Oh how those syllables seem to echo throughout the collective memory of film audiences. Its lines, phrases and characters have become virtually commonplace and this work of art is just as likely to settle into the collective unconscious of Western civilization just as Hamlet or The Sistine Chapel has. Let's admit it, this is one of the most popular movies of all time, so popular and so well loved, that it has become almost a cliche to call it the greatest film ever made. Every filmgoer who has seen it, loves it, and we all know that it is one of the three or four greatest films ever made, what's the point of even stating something that is common knowledge?

But Casablanca is more than just some great film. It's passion and love is unlike anything ever made in Hollywood, or anywhere for that matter, all thanks to the two immortal performances of two immortal actors, backed up by probably the finest cast of all time along with The Godfather and Citizen Kane. Every inch of this film is perfect.

I probably won't even bother with a synopsis because this film is like a piece of music that we've all heard and look upon with memory. It's like whistling the opening chords of Beethoven's 5th, it resonates inside every filmgoers head.

Now I could waste an entire review saying how great everything about it is, when I can just say what everyone else has said in a single sentence: This is a perfect film, perfect script, perfect acting, perfect atmosphere. Done.

There are just so many characters to love, down to the corrupt French police offical Captian Renault, who's probably the most lovable. His subtle bisexuality and amorality is so amusing that he seems to steal every non-serious scene in the movie. Bergmen and Bogart's performances are both great, and probably the greatest to ever be found in a Hollywood romance, or any film for that matter. Sam is the wonderfully charming piano player, who, despite his minor performance, made Casablanca what it was with the perfect pitch of jazzy music. Paul Henried as the heroic Victor Laszlo is probably the most stiff romantic hero of all time, but who's banality sets just the right tone so that his political heroism doesn't outshine the far more interesting and troubled Rick.

But what is it that draws us to it? Why is it so well loved? It is, in my opinion, along with Singing in the Rain, the greatest thing Hollywood has ever produced. Now of course Hollywood produced Citizen Kane and The Third Man, but those were films made by directors more free from the constraints of the studio system. They are works by their directors; Casablanca is not. It is a purely studio production if there ever was one, and it is an achievement on their part.

What I must say, upon many viewings from over the years, the explanaition of Casablanca's effect sinks in with time. The movie is about time and memory, and the love which seems to go along with it. Observe the nostaligc flashbacks of Paris and the end result; what we see is love, innocence and joy, pitted against the modern world, however can two lovers keep their innocence in a bloodstained world, seems to be what the film asks. Out of this comes Rick's despiar; nostaliga, apathy, memory. And yet, how beautiful it is, that through Paris to Casablanca, that we still hear Sam play "As Time Goes By", strumming the keys as if winding a clock. 10/10

[NickAdams]

Dancer in the Dark - Lars von Trier; I have only seen two of his films, but I'm confident enough to say that he is the most emotionally powerful director living today. His unflinching power transcends that of almost any director.

Trier has made some of the most shocking, sexually violent and emotionaly tramatic films of all time, with his new film Antichrist probably being the most extreme example (though I have yet to see it). Roger Ebert himself even said in his review of Antichrist that Trier "is driven to confront and shake his audience more than any other serious filmmaker - even Bunuel and Herzog." Those familiar with these two great directors will know the expanse of this statement. And it's true.

Judgement of Trier's films does not come about by asking the question, is this film great or not? but if it has effected you or not. Dancer in the Dark is a melodrama with a plot that would better suit a film made during the age of D.W. Griffith. It concerns a Chekloslovokian single-mother who works at a factory and is trying to star in a stage production of The Sound of Music and tries to hold these two jobs together to save up money for an operation on her son, as she slowly goes blind. The operation is one that will remove the genes that she has passed on to him, so that he will not have her blindness heriditary. This film also happens to be a musical, and without a doubt the most unconventional musical ever made (but I'll get to that in a little bit).

Now, I've seen many films, and I don't fall very easily for melodramas and in fact prefer emotionally subtle directors like Stanley Kubrick or Ingmar Begman, who make immensely emotional films, but don't come bursting out on the screen with tears and tissues.

Dancer in the Dark is one of those films that will only effect you whether or not if you are in sympathy with the characters. Dancer in the Dark has a relatively soapy plot, and has many of the typical characters of melodramas, but is filmed, directed, acted in such an unconventional way, that every second is utterly believable.

I don't want to give away much of the plot, for, like most melodramas, a lot happens. All I can say is that Bjork is such a brave and beautiful actress, with merely the nature of her performance being a curiosity. For those not familiar, Bjork is a famous Icelandtic pop star, who is a celebrity in her country. Now, imagine Paris Hilton or Britney Spears in a not-so-glamorous performance, with a director known for his lack of mercy, in a Danish art film. Yeah, incomprehensible. Bjork's performance is so admirable and so couragous, so humble, that it is shocking to think that the star of this film is a pop celebrity (and though this may be a musical, upon seeing it, you'll know what I mean).

Now any actor or actress willing to work with Trier should be commended for their bravery. But Bjork's in particular is daring because not only is she willing to play an pretty, but far from glamorous single-mother who possesses more innocence and heart than intelligence and wit, but also because she was bold enough to sing in such a film.

Now the musical scenes come in as a result of her character's passion for music (especially Hollywood musicals) and her senstitive ear, to which she begins to hear rhythms upon hearing noise. From the bleakness (and sometimes unbearably traumatic) of her everyday life, she escapes into daydreams in which everyone begins singing and dancing.

The film self-consciously begins by seemingly criticizing the escapism of musicals, one of its characters saying how he didn't understand why in musicals people suddenly burst into song. As the movie progressed, I soon came to realize that this film is possibly the greatest and most loyal dedication to musicals, presenting escapism as a nessicary part of human existence.

Filmed in typical Trier style, almost every shot (besides the musical ones) is filmed on a handheld digital camera (in accordence with Dogme 95) with many jump-cuts and seemingly improvised camera-work. The musical scenes are contrasted with static cameras, with carefully composed camera-angles, with saturated film colors.

It is quite fascinating the self-conscious irony of the film. It has an extremely un-modernistic plot, more comfortable in a silent melodrama from 1919, while it is filmed in an the innovative avant-garde style of Dogme 95 and performed with extreme emotional intensity.

Oh and I haven't even come to the characters, who, despite being founded on cliches, are the heart of the film and the very reason why this film is so powerful. There is Selma (Bjork), who has a heart of gold and proves to be utterly selfless in literatly eternal dedication to her son. Not enough can be said of her, for she is such a beautiful and kind person, able to make even the most unlikely people smile, that it is suprising and sickening when there are those (very close to her) whom betray her.

There is her best friend and fellow worker at the factory who is more outgoing and reliable than her, and is always someone whom she can lean on. There is Jeffery, who is (if I must say) Selma's adorable crush, who waits for her every day after work trying to offer her a ride home (his feelings for her being very well established), but her shyness not allowing it. Then there is the couple from whom she rents her trailer, a police officer and a strongly 'American' women who loves to spend money. The police officer is a close friend of Selma's, who seeks her in times of deep distress and shares with her his secret financial troubles as well as his suicidal tendancies, while she shares him detererating sight (something she admits to no one). This is where the plot begins and what follows is a chain of unpredictable events leading to some of the most unbearable scenes I've ever had to sit through.

When I say 'unbearable' I do not mean it in the way the Transformers 2 is unbearable (far from it). I mean, unbearable in the sense that Trier has jolted and tore me apart from the inside; the power of his storytelling is unprecedented. I must warn you, for those who are squemish or easily disraught. Those, who like Selma in the story, become so depressed when a musical ends that they walk out before the second to last song so that they can hold the endless memory of it forever in their hearts, DO NOT watch this movie, or any of Trier's other films. One must be very brave and ready when watching any of his films. I, who am no stranger to tough films, found myself repeating "it's only a movie, this is all fake", but couldn't convince myself, due to the mercilessly realistic documentary-like photography which had cast me under a spell. I was in fact so shooken up, that afterwards I had vomitted half of my meal and had to take long shower so that I could go to sleep.

It is almost shocking the unflitching integrity of the final scenes, the willingness to show it all, to not close the curtain and fly the camera through the roof until it is over, which, through all of the ironies of ironies, it does.

So is Trier's musical a great film or is it cruelly manipulative? I don't know. There are only a handful of films like these which transcend criticism and can only be judged on a purely emotional level. What do I think of Trier's film: I am utterly shaken. 9/10

Stubborn characters make great tragic figures, especially those who refuse to ask for help.

Which other Trier film have you seen?

I've seen the opening of Antichrist and it is beautifully shot. He returns to formalism of his earlier films (The Element of a Crime, Europa etc). Julien Donkey-Boy has to be my favorite Dogme film (or digital?), but Dancer is amazing for giving its Lifetime for woman material the Faulkner gut-punch.

[DanielBenoit]

Stubborn characters make great tragic figures, especially those who refuse to ask for help.

Which other Trier film have you seen?

I've seen the opening of Antichrist and it is beautifully shot. He returns to formalism of his earlier films (The Element of a Crime, Europa etc). Julien Donkey-Boy has to be my favorite Dogme film (or digital?), but Dancer is amazing for giving its Lifetime for woman material the Faulkner gut-punch.

I saw Dogville a bit of a while ago. Concerning Antichrist, I'd love to see it . . . .if only it was playing in Green Bay :( , though from what I've heard, and from what I've seen from the trailer, it certainly looks like an extremely despairing experience.

I remember you mentioning Julien Donkey-Boy in one of your posts, and I watched the trailer of Youtube, and it looks utterly brilliant (Werner frickin' Herzog's in it!). But it's just so hard to find.

Not to move away from Dogme films, but I've also been meaning to see Killer of Sheep, looks so great. Anybody seen it?

[NickAdams]

I saw Dogville a bit of a while ago. Concerning Antichrist, I'd love to see it . . . .if only it was playing in Green Bay :( , though from what I've heard, and from what I've seen from the trailer, it certainly looks like an extremely despairing experience.

I remember you mentioning Julien Donkey-Boy in one of your posts, and I watched the trailer of Youtube, and it looks utterly brilliant (Werner frickin' Herzog's in it!). But it's just so hard to find.

Not to move away from Dogme films, but I've also been meaning to see Killer of Sheep, looks so great. Anybody seen it?

I haven't but, I tried to see it in theaters before it was released on dvd. I saw it in this truly great movie shop in NYC (Kim's Video); a cinephile's dream.

[DanielBenoit]

I don't know what relavence this may hold to the thread, if any at all. . . . .but for those who are familiar with my reviews might be happy to know that I have just gotten a job as Foriegn Film Critic at examiner.com!!!!!!

[NickAdams]

I don't know what relevance this may hold to the thread, if any at all. . . . .but for those who are familiar with my reviews might be happy to know that I have just gotten a job as Foriegn Film Critic at examiner.com!!!!!!

Congrats!:bday_2: (The birthday smiley seemed the most celebratory.:lol:)

I hope that you go beyond criticism and get into filmmaking.

[mono]

Having enjoyed The Squid and the Whale multiple times, by the same writer/director, Noah Baumbach, I watched Margot at the Wedding tonight, and almost preferred it over the former. I have seen it more than once on the video store shelves, and passed it by for unknown reasons, since both Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Jason Leigh have never failed to impress me, but even Jack Black gave an impressive performance that placed many of his slapstick films to a shameful position. Wes Anderson, one of my favorite writer/directors, first introduced me to Baumbach, and the few films that Baumbach has created certainly prove a quality-over-quantity complex that strives towards success in earning valid fans.
The film itself, without spoiling the details, explores several social inadequacies that would make even Dr. Sigmund Freud blush, amid familial, neighborly, and intimate relationships, not neglecting the age groups of adolescence and adulthood, as well as its transition. Its frequently dark and awkward humor only offers more to the cerebrally alluring plot to egg a viewer on for slightly under 2 hours, full of enough metaphors to attract any common thinker. Many twists and turns follow from the first 20 minutes, out of both amazement and curiosity, and no disappointments present themselves amid the disorganizations of a well-created plot, precise acting, and a well-chosen region of directing.
Rating: solid 10/10.

[formality hater]

IT...3/10
I wonder why most of the movie adaptations of Stephen King books fail to impress!My sister(having not read the book) could not get the ending as it wasn't explained well.I think the movie-makers shouldn't have messed with the actual story!:(

[NickAdams]

IT...3/10
I wonder why most of the movie adaptations of Stephen King books fail to impress!My sister(having not read the book) could not get the ending as it wasn't explained well.I think the movie-makers shouldn't have messed with the actual story!:(

Especially since it was a miniseries, so it wasn't like they had to boil it done to 90 minutes. I do prefer Kubrick's Shinning to King's miniseries.

[DanielBenoit]

I do prefer Kubrick's Shinning to King's miniseries.

Oh yes! My theory about literary adaptions is that it is best if they are taken in a different direction than the book and stand on their own as films. Just look at Kurosawa's adaptions of Shakespeare's plays, or Kubrick's entire career, especially film adaptions like Lolita or Barry Lyndon, the latter being a radical departure from the book.

[Mathor]

Now . . . if only we can get Mel Gibson to do the same . . . :lol:

There's no savin' ol' Mel. And if there is, it will be the career turnaround of all time.

[manolia]

I don't know what relavence this may hold to the thread, if any at all. . . . .but for those who are familiar with my reviews might be happy to know that I have just gotten a job as Foriegn Film Critic at examiner.com!!!!!!

Congrats Daniel :)

[NickAdams]

There's no savin' ol' Mel. And if there is, it will be the career turnaround of all time.

Did you like Apocalypto?

Here's a trailer for his new film, it's nothing new though:
http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2723086873/

[Helga]

der untergang

amazing.. I really liked it, disgusting and real... but I thought Hitler had a golden retriever not a german shepherd.... maybe I'll check it out.. also Junge always said he treated his dog very well so one scene seemed out of place but I don't know he was on the edge down there....

[byquist]

"The Lemon Tree" and "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas," both high quality films.

[DanielBenoit]

There's no savin' ol' Mel. And if there is, it will be the career turnaround of all time.

I've never cared for Mel Gibson that much, but I did think that The Passion of the Christ, though being a bit empty (especially when compared to Scorsese's Last Temptation), is very well directed and quite powerful at some points.

[NickAdams]

I've never cared for Mel Gibson that much, but I did think that The Passion of the Christ, though being a bit empty (especially when compared to Scorsese's Last Temptation), is very well directed and quite powerful at some points.

You have to give Kazantzakis some credit for Last Temptation. Other than the roles of Jesus and Mary, I applaud Gibson for casting actors with ethnic backgrounds that are accurate and for his choice of the languages used in both Passion and Apocalypto. The world is far to connected for Hollywood to continue to produce films like Valkyrie. Robert Pattinson as Dali?! WTF, indeed.

[DanielBenoit]

I just saw Bela Tarr's Werckmeister Harmonies for the second time in my life. I'm going to hold off the review because there is so much to say and I don't want to post it here until I publish it on examiner.com, which will be at the end of the year when, as tradition, all professional critics compile a list of the best films of the decade.

All I can say is that I have never seen anything like it. It is utterly mezmerizing. Bela Tarr seems to have invented a new language of cinema with his extremely long and contemplative takes. The atmosphere achieved in this film is so visually haunting, despairing and beautiful all at the same time. It is a metaphyiscal and political allegory in the best sense of the word. If you have the time and patience to go and seek out a rare, but extremely different film from the rest of things being made today, please see this haunting masterpiece. NetFlix is where I found it. 10/10

[Mathor]

Das Weisse Band (The White Ribbon) - 10/10 - Germany's selection for Foreign language film at the Academy Awards this upcoming awards season promises to blow the competition apart. This movie is amazing! Being an Oscar-watcher over the past couple years, I've got many foreign language submissions yet to see, but this one is the obvious favorite (With the winning of the Palme d'Or at Cannes this year). Great stuff.

EDIT: And Daniel, I agree on Passion.

[Pryderi Agni]

The Core gets a solid 2/5 for me (I dig Hilary Swank), while Stranger Than Fiction gets a thumping 5/5.

[Darlin]

Stranger Than Fiction was definitely a very good movie.

Last movie I saw was Song of Love with Katharine Hepburn and it was pretty decent. I'd put off watching it, deleted it from my list then finally thought why not! Made me want to read the biographies of the Schumanns and Brahms. Just more books to add to that list.

[DanielBenoit]

Killer of Sheep - It is a miraculous thing that a film like this was made. Not because it is some epic adventure no. But because it possesses the power and the vision of some of the greatest films of all time, and yet it was made on such a minuature budget with no professional actors and was considered a lost film for decades.

Thanks to the grace of director Steven Soldbeirg, this film was rediscovered and re-released, thirty years after it's original release in 1977. Upon the films second chance, critics exploded. It was universally acknowledged as a masterpiece and its director Charles Burnett was immedietly hailed as one of the American masters. Almost right after its release, it was submitted into the National Film Preservation Regestry, a privlidge that only a few American films have shared. This film is proof that independent cinema can create gems, and that you hardly need anything to make a monumental film.

Set in urban Los Angeles through long hot summer days, we are given a series of vignettes concerning the everyday encounters of urban life for African-Americans. The films protaganist, Stan, is an emotionally detached working man who earns the little money he gets by working as a slaughterer at a sheep processing plant (hence the name).

This film is just teeming with life. With little scraps and bits of everyday life, we are able to intigrate a glorious whole of what it is to live in America. This film is neither upbeat or downbeat. It possesses no plot, it has minor character development, and wanders about the urban neighborhoods, with Stan being our guide.

There are moments of despair, confusion, joy, play. Hardly any scene has any deliberate connection to another, but in the end, we are do not feel that we have seen some kind of pretenscious fragmentated mess, but rather a beautiful mosiac of the human experience.
10/10

[Mathor]

2012 - 8/10 - Million times better than I ever could've hoped it would be. I expected this to be one of the worst movies this year.
The Box- 5/10 - Take a ridiculous plot and spin it around a couple times blindfolded, with the philosophy of a really abstract David Lynch movie, but with none of the same redeeming qualities and you have "The Box".
A Christmas Carol - 10/10 - This movie was brilliant.
Antichrist - 7.5/10 - This movie will disturb you. I promise.
The Cove - 10/10 - I'm gonna go out on a limb and say with all certainty this movie will win "Best Documentary" at the Oscars this year.

Maybe i'll start actually posting my reviews of movies in the future instead of just posting little one-line comments.

[Emily May Nelms]

I have just seen the movie "Julie & Julia" starring Meryl Streep. I would give it 9 stars out of ten for-
1. Outstanding preformances
2. Appels to writers and cookers
3. Has soo many funny lines and is rather tragic
4. Makes you feel the emotions from the characters, and the way it was directed made it feel like you were best friends with both of the characters. Outstanding!

"Madea goes to Jail" by Tyler Perry
Amazingly funny!
10 out of 10, the only let down in this entire movie is the fact that you wish they had more of Madea in it but what you see is very satisfying. this movie tells the story of a prostitute and how her friend, who finds her after the past few years, trys to help her. Meanwhile, never-failing Madea is back in court and is now going to jail. See how she survives and how she tells the jail that she is the boss.
I say Check it out ASAP. grab your family, sit down, and laugh!

[Mathor]

I have just seen the movie "Julie & Julia" starring Meryl Streep. I would give it 9 stars out of ten for-
1. Outstanding preformances
2. Appels to writers and cookers
3. Has soo many funny lines and is rather tragic
4. Makes you feel the emotions from the characters, and the way it was directed made it feel like you were best friends with both of the characters. Outstanding!

if you like Meryl Streep, you should see the new Wes Anderson (Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic, Rushmore) film that's coming out in like a week, it's an animated film starring her and George Clooney. It's called "The Fantastic Mr. Fox"

[mono]

if you like Meryl Streep, you should see the new Wes Anderson (Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic, Rushmore) film that's coming out in like a week, it's an animated film starring her and George Clooney. It's called "The Fantastic Mr. Fox"
Indeedy, from the Roald Dahl novel - so exciting! Other than Streep, it has a lot of the Wes Anderson crowd - Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman, Owen Wilson, Adrien Brody, etc., and apparently Noah Baumbach helped with a lot of the screenwriting. I cannot wait! :D

[DanielBenoit]

A Woman Under the Influence - Some films seem to flash before your eyes in seconds and then they are over. I for one enjoy films, and thus if I am watching a good movie, prefer the film to go on. I do not think extended running length is a vice.

That's why it's almost so strange to watch A Woman Under the Influence a Cassavetes film which runs at 155 minutes but probably has under eight full scenes. These scenes are stretched out beyond expectation to emphasize the reality and the life of this films characters. There is not one false moment in this film.

The plot: A blue-collar working man (played tensely by Falk) begins to come under the impression that his wife (played masterfully by Rowland) might be insane, and decides to commit her. It is well established that he has been aware of this for a very long time, as is everybody else, and is merely regarded as her quirky attitude.

It is quite obvious that Mabel has some issues at the begining of the film when her husband calls her and says that he is going to have to work late. Tonight was supposed to be a special night for them, they had sent the kids to their mothers, so the house would be empty. Nick seems to know from experience her behavoir and dreads returning home to something terrible. Something does happen, but hardly serves the plot and rather shows us Mabel's world.

The following scene takes place at a dinner table, with a dozen or so of Nick's friends coming over for dinner. Here a base is formed on which we discover these characters. Mabel seems to possess more social anxities and esteem problems than she does insanity and tries too hard to please. In fact, the dinner goes well even when she begins to get comfortable, and thus over-the-top eccentric. It is not until at one point Nick yells out "sit your *** down" does a state of silence vanquish the scene.

Unlike many films, this is not about characters evolving, both spouses are still helplessly themselves in the end, but rather about characteristic discovery, for both the audience and the protaganists. It involves two great performances by Falk and Rowland and intense camera-work by Cassavetes. There are some scenes of such extreme emotional intensity, that sometimes you are shocked, and yet, you despairingly know what's going to happen.

A Woman under the Influence is a film about two helplessly wounded people; one who doesn't know how to act in front of others and thus escapes into eccentricity, another who is terrified of a lack of order and is easily ashamed by his wife's acts, and reacts in shocking ways.

There is one immensely powerful scene in which Mabel returns after six months of being in the institution. Everyone is unnerved upon seeing her behave, which lacks all of the antics and embaressing idiosyncracies. Nick is ironically embaressed by this and takes her upstairs and demands that she just be herself. Covered in shadows the two try to discover what it is they want out of each other. In the end it seems that they don't want anything, but rather must have each other in their own madness. Mainly because not everybody is as forgiving as Mabel.
10/10

[stephofthenight]

HAHA amongst all these mature movies I have to throw in my Ice Age Three-Dawn of the Dinosaurs.... :D ITS AMAZING

[manolia]

A Woman Under the Influence - Some films seem to flash before your eyes in seconds and then they are over. I for one enjoy films, and thus if I am watching a good movie, prefer the film to go on. I do not think extended running length is a vice.

That's why it's almost so strange to watch A Woman Under the Influence a Cassavetes film which runs at 155 minutes but probably has under eight full scenes. These scenes are stretched out beyond expectation to emphasize the reality and the life of this films characters. There is not one false moment in this film.

The plot: A blue-collar working man (played tensely by Falk) begins to come under the impression that his wife (played masterfully by Rowland) might be insane, and decides to commit her. It is well established that he has been aware of this for a very long time, as is everybody else, and is merely regarded as her quirky attitude.

It is quite obvious that Mabel has some issues at the begining of the film when her husband calls her and says that he is going to have to work late. Tonight was supposed to be a special night for them, they had sent the kids to their mothers, so the house would be empty. Nick seems to know from experience her behavoir and dreads returning home to something terrible. Something does happen, but hardly serves the plot and rather shows us Mabel's world.

The following scene takes place at a dinner table, with a dozen or so of Nick's friends coming over for dinner. Here a base is formed on which we discover these characters. Mabel seems to possess more social anxities and esteem problems than she does insanity and tries too hard to please. In fact, the dinner goes well even when she begins to get comfortable, and thus over-the-top eccentric. It is not until at one point Nick yells out "sit your *** down" does a state of silence vanquish the scene.

Unlike many films, this is not about characters evolving, both spouses are still helplessly themselves in the end, but rather about characteristic discovery, for both the audience and the protaganists. It involves two great performances by Falk and Rowland and intense camera-work by Cassavetes. There are some scenes of such extreme emotional intensity, that sometimes you are shocked, and yet, you despairingly know what's going to happen.

A Woman under the Influence is a film about two helplessly wounded people; one who doesn't know how to act in front of others and thus escapes into eccentricity, another who is terrified of a lack of order and is easily ashamed by his wife's acts, and reacts in shocking ways.

There is one immensely powerful scene in which Mabel returns after six months of being in the institution. Everyone is unnerved upon seeing her behave, which lacks all of the antics and embaressing idiosyncracies. Nick is ironically embaressed by this and takes her upstairs and demands that she just be herself. Covered in shadows the two try to discover what it is they want out of each other. In the end it seems that they don't want anything, but rather must have each other in their own madness. Mainly because not everybody is as forgiving as Mabel.
10/10

Such a great film :thumbs_up

[MANICHAEAN]

Ok, all you goldern oldies. What was the oldest films you saw?
"Above Us The Waves" with John Mills.
"The Hill" Sean Connery.
"Ice Cold in Alex"
"El Cid" Charlton Heston.
"Straw Dogs"
"Midnight Cowboy" Jon Voight
"The Dam Busters"
"Saturday Night & Sunday Morning" Allan Bates
"Klute" Jane Fonda
"The Big Country"
"The Servant" Dirk Bogart.
"Zulu" Michael Caine.
"The Pawnbroker" Rod Steiger
"Mutiny On The Bounty" Marlon Brando.

[V.Jayalakshmi]

I am way behind all of you.But I did see the "Gone With The Wind" in TCM channel again.I admire Vivien Leigh for her characterisation of Scarlet.I also saw that old classic "Witness For The Prosecution".Brilliant court scene.But a modern day variation of the theme was "The Shawsaw Redemption" .Oh! What acting by both lead actors.

[MANICHAEAN]

Good choice V.J.
Apart from the nostalga angle for the MGM & TCM channels, its always a joy to hear dialogue, outdated in modern parlance, but great in the context of its time.
Tim Robbins & Morgan Freeman in the Shawshank Redemption, a gem of a cocktail. Vodka & tonic / Rum & coke / Whiskey & Drambuie.

[DanielBenoit]

Ok, all you goldern oldies. What was the oldest films you saw?


Okay, I take the cake (though Mathor might steal it from me):

Broken Blossoms (1919) - A beautifully lurid melodrama, which despite its cliches, is one of the most utterly depressing films I've ever seen. I've only seen it twice, and each time was a tough experience. Out-dated in story, never out-dated in emotion. 10/10

Intolerance (1916) - The epic before there were epics, a film just as ambitious as today's The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars. It's quite suprising to see this much immmensity at a time when film grammer was still developing. 10/10

Birth of a Nation (1915) - As influencial as it is controversial, I must admit that there is greatness in the skill of this film, but despicable hatred in the final third of this long film. But like The Battleship Potemkin this is an important part of film history, no matter what its reservations. 8/10

The Great Train Robbery (1903) - I don't remember a whole lot of this, since it was so short (runing at about twenty minutes). It's quite exciting to see history in the making, but difficult to really criticize since it was made at a time in which people were still learning what is to be done with this camera. Love the final shot though, one that can be found in hommage in both The Godfather and Goodfellas.

And if this counts, a two second long film, which was considered the first motion picture ever made:

Roundhay Garden Scene (1888)

[Mathor]

1896 Bataille de Boules de Neige - The Snowfight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBTMRBVIXvo&feature=related
Lumiere brothers are amazing.

Le Voyage Dans la Lune - A Trip to the Moon (1902) - George Melies - this movie is AMAZING. Easily one of the greatest surrealistic movies ever made.

[DanielBenoit]

1896 Bataille de Boules de Neige - The Snowfight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBTMRBVIXvo&feature=related
Lumiere brothers are amazing.


Whoa it's so simple and yet so very absorbing. Though the music has a lot to do with it.

[MANICHAEAN]

DB & Mathor
I humbly submit.
Apart from 'The Battleship Potemkin" of which I remember extracts, you have got me beat.
If you dont mind me asking are you "dedicated" film buffs?

[DanielBenoit]

DB & Mathor
I humbly submit.
Apart from 'The Battleship Potemkin" of which I remember extracts, you have got me beat.
If you dont mind me asking are you "dedicated" film buffs?

Coming from someone who has seen Citizen Kane about twenty times and has analyzed great films shot-by-shot on more than one occasion, yeah, I'm a dedicated film buff :nod:

[NickAdams]

Love Streams directed by John Cassavetes. It's my favorite film by Cassavetes and is working it's way into being my favorite in general. Cassavetes has always made films with a heighten emotional realism, but employed expressionistic (either that or surrealistic) techniques in Opening Night and Love Streams. I found the visions in Opening Night underlined with tension and fear, but there is a warmth and sadness in its use in Love Streams. There is an emotional build throughout the film that I still feel after multiple viewings. I've seen the film about eight times, but I watched the dream sequences at least once a day for an entire month after my first viewing. 10/10

I was flicking through the channels on Saturday and Thirteen was showing this visually beautiful movie and the only actor I recognized was Tony Leung, so I thought it might have been 2046 (which I own but haven't seen). I watched about twenty minutes of it and I'm interested in seeing the rest. I did some research today and it turns out the film is "In the Mood for Love". Has anybody seen it?

I still haven't watched Antichrist, but I will before it hits theaters and now Herzog has two film coming out, one produced by David Lynch. This is not the time to be in a recession.


A Woman Under the Influence - Some films seem to flash before your eyes in seconds and then they are over. I for one enjoy films, and thus if I am watching a good movie, prefer the film to go on. I do not think extended running length is a vice.

That's why it's almost so strange to watch A Woman Under the Influence a Cassavetes film which runs at 155 minutes but probably has under eight full scenes. These scenes are stretched out beyond expectation to emphasize the reality and the life of this films characters. There is not one false moment in this film.

The plot: A blue-collar working man (played tensely by Falk) begins to come under the impression that his wife (played masterfully by Rowland) might be insane, and decides to commit her. It is well established that he has been aware of this for a very long time, as is everybody else, and is merely regarded as her quirky attitude.

It is quite obvious that Mabel has some issues at the beginning of the film when her husband calls her and says that he is going to have to work late. Tonight was supposed to be a special night for them, they had sent the kids to their mothers, so the house would be empty. Nick seems to know from experience her behavoir and dreads returning home to something terrible. Something does happen, but hardly serves the plot and rather shows us Mabel's world.

The following scene takes place at a dinner table, with a dozen or so of Nick's friends coming over for dinner. Here a base is formed on which we discover these characters. Mabel seems to possess more social anxities and esteem problems than she does insanity and tries too hard to please. In fact, the dinner goes well even when she begins to get comfortable, and thus over-the-top eccentric. It is not until at one point Nick yells out "sit your *** down" does a state of silence vanquish the scene.

Unlike many films, this is not about characters evolving, both spouses are still helplessly themselves in the end, but rather about characteristic discovery, for both the audience and the protaganists. It involves two great performances by Falk and Rowland and intense camera-work by Cassavetes. There are some scenes of such extreme emotional intensity, that sometimes you are shocked, and yet, you despairingly know what's going to happen.

A Woman under the Influence is a film about two helplessly wounded people; one who doesn't know how to act in front of others and thus escapes into eccentricity, another who is terrified of a lack of order and is easily ashamed by his wife's acts, and reacts in shocking ways.

There is one immensely powerful scene in which Mabel returns after six months of being in the institution. Everyone is unnerved upon seeing her behave, which lacks all of the antics and embaressing idiosyncracies. Nick is ironically embaressed by this and takes her upstairs and demands that she just be herself. Covered in shadows the two try to discover what it is they want out of each other. In the end it seems that they don't want anything, but rather must have each other in their own madness. Mainly because not everybody is as forgiving as Mabel.
10/10

One of my favorite opening sequences.:thumbs_up I didn't appreciate Peter Falk until I watched Cassavetes' films and Elaine May's Mikey and Nicky.

I saw the first ten minutes of Werkmeister Harmonies and I have to see the rest. I'm picking up a copy tomorrow ... if it's reasonable priced.

[DanielBenoit]

I still haven't watched Antichrist, but I will before it hits theaters and now Herzog has two film coming out, one produced by David Lynch. This is not the time to be in a recession.


Bad Lietenunt: The Port Call of New Orleans is the one that's coming out on the 20th and is said to be some of Nicholas Cages best work since Leaving Los Vegas, so I've heard.

My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done? is the one produced by Lynch and from the trailer looks like a pure Herzog film, both visually and thematically, with a bit of Lynchian touches including the casting.




I saw the first ten minutes of Werkmeister Harmonies and I have to see the rest. I'm picking up a copy tomorrow ... if it's reasonable priced.

We have a convert! If you have NetFlix, you can easily find anything, and I mean anything.

[NickAdams]

Bad Lietenunt: The Port Call of New Orleans is the one that's coming out on the 20th and is said to be some of Nicholas Cages best work since Leaving Los Vegas, so I've heard.

I haven't seen Leaving Los Vegas, but he gives an excellent performance in Adaptation.



My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done? is the one produced by Lynch and from the trailer looks like a pure Herzog film, both visually and thematically, with a bit of Lynchian touches including the casting.


Lynch's relevance comes from being Lynch, but Herzog is too strong a personality to be influenced by Lynch. I'm sure Lynch's involvement doesn't go beyond promoter (like when Tranatino "presented" Iron Monkey") and earnestness to help out the director of Even Dwarves Started Small.



We have a convert! If you have NetFlix, you can easily find anything, and I mean anything.
:blush:

[Mathor]

DB & Mathor
I humbly submit.
Apart from 'The Battleship Potemkin" of which I remember extracts, you have got me beat.
If you dont mind me asking are you "dedicated" film buffs?

what do you mean by "dedicated"?

[Mathor]

Bad Lietenunt: The Port Call of New Orleans is the one that's coming out on the 20th and is said to be some of Nicholas Cages best work since Leaving Los Vegas, so I've heard.


Yeah, Roger Ebert did a big blog about all of the new Herzog movies back in May. He liked Bad Lieutenant most of all of them. I agree, saw a screener from a friend a couple months ago. Bad Lieutenant is certainly one of the better films of this year.

[QueenoftheNight]

Actually, I thought Sleepy Hollow was great. Have you read the tale? Burton did an amazing job with that movie, even when it's not one of his best jobs. That being said, I agree 100% about Planet of the Apes.

I know, right? I love Sleepy Hollow, in spite of what a lot of people seem to think about the film.

The last one i watched though was Becoming Jane.. I never got around to watching it when it was released. It was alright. Maybe 6.5 out of ten? I don't watch a whole lot of movies so my judgement's probably really off.

[Shalot]

I saw 2012 today and I have to say...eh.

It was a Thanksgiving movie trip out.

If you're going to watch this movie, I recommend doing it in a theater so that you can hear all the explosions in surround sound and see all the destruction etc. on the big screen. Otherwise, it's just another formulaic, Hollywood end- of-times movie. Deep Impact comes to mind There's the emotional goodbye scenes that made me embarrassed in my seat. And there were a lot of them in this movie.

But, I went with my husband who is fun in theaters because he was so "oh no!" in the many close-call action scenes. I'm sure the other people in the theater appreciated that. If they could even hear him - it was a loud movie.

[DanielBenoit]

Funny story: My parents being extremely religious believe that the world is going to end soon and that the antichrist is coming and blah blah blah. Well, they decided to go see 2012 so that they can "counter" the "ideas" presented in the film concerning the Mayan calander and whatnot. Little did they know that the film possessed not a single second of thought-provoking topics. But considering their taste in films, 2012 may have actually been thought provoking.

[Shalot]

Funny story: My parents being extremely religious believe that the world is going to end soon and that the antichrist is coming and blah blah blah. Well, they decided to go see 2012 so that they can "counter" the "ideas" presented in the film concerning the Mayan calander and whatnot. Little did they know that the film possessed not a single second of thought-provoking topics. But considering their taste in films, 2012 may have actually been thought provoking.

That is pretty amusing about them going for that reason....considering the type of movie that it is.

[manolia]

I saw 2012 today and I have to say...eh.

It was a Thanksgiving movie trip out.

If you're going to watch this movie, I recommend doing it in a theater so that you can hear all the explosions in surround sound and see all the destruction etc. on the big screen. Otherwise, it's just another formulaic, Hollywood end- of-times movie. Deep Impact comes to mind There's the emotional goodbye scenes that made me embarrassed in my seat. And there were a lot of them in this movie.

But, I went with my husband who is fun in theaters because he was so "oh no!" in the many close-call action scenes. I'm sure the other people in the theater appreciated that. If they could even hear him - it was a loud movie.

hehehe agreed.
What i found most embarassing in that particular end-of-days film is that mankind still goes on but incidentally only rich folk survive (since they are the ones who were able to buy a ticket) and the film pretends to have a happy ending :rolleyes:

EDIT
"The double life of Veronique" 10/10 (this is one of my all time favorites)
"The birds" 10/10 (again and again, i love this film)

[DanielBenoit]

hehehe agreed.
What i found most embarassing in that particular end-of-days film is that mankind still goes on but incidentally only rich folk survive (since they are the ones who were able to buy a ticket) and the film pretends to have a happy ending :rolleyes:

EDIT
"The double life of Veronique" 10/10 (this is one of my all time favorites)
"The birds" 10/10 (again and again, i love this film)

One thing I find quite funny about the disaster film genre is that there's all of this destruction going on and people dying on a massive scale, and yet we're supposed to care about some two or three cardboard heros :rolleyes:

[Pryderi Agni]

Ben 10: Alien Swarm gets a solid 9/10.

[Gadget Girl]

Gamer gets 3/10.

I only watched it for the Butler.

[mono]

A Woman Under the Influence - Some films seem to flash before your eyes in seconds and then they are over. I for one enjoy films, and thus if I am watching a good movie, prefer the film to go on. I do not think extended running length is a vice.

That's why it's almost so strange to watch A Woman Under the Influence a Cassavetes film which runs at 155 minutes but probably has under eight full scenes. These scenes are stretched out beyond expectation to emphasize the reality and the life of this films characters. There is not one false moment in this film.

The plot: A blue-collar working man (played tensely by Falk) begins to come under the impression that his wife (played masterfully by Rowland) might be insane, and decides to commit her. It is well established that he has been aware of this for a very long time, as is everybody else, and is merely regarded as her quirky attitude.

It is quite obvious that Mabel has some issues at the beginning of the film when her husband calls her and says that he is going to have to work late. Tonight was supposed to be a special night for them, they had sent the kids to their mothers, so the house would be empty. Nick seems to know from experience her behavoir and dreads returning home to something terrible. Something does happen, but hardly serves the plot and rather shows us Mabel's world.

The following scene takes place at a dinner table, with a dozen or so of Nick's friends coming over for dinner. Here a base is formed on which we discover these characters. Mabel seems to possess more social anxities and esteem problems than she does insanity and tries too hard to please. In fact, the dinner goes well even when she begins to get comfortable, and thus over-the-top eccentric. It is not until at one point Nick yells out "sit your *** down" does a state of silence vanquish the scene.

Unlike many films, this is not about characters evolving, both spouses are still helplessly themselves in the end, but rather about characteristic discovery, for both the audience and the protaganists. It involves two great performances by Falk and Rowland and intense camera-work by Cassavetes. There are some scenes of such extreme emotional intensity, that sometimes you are shocked, and yet, you despairingly know what's going to happen.

A Woman under the Influence is a film about two helplessly wounded people; one who doesn't know how to act in front of others and thus escapes into eccentricity, another who is terrified of a lack of order and is easily ashamed by his wife's acts, and reacts in shocking ways.

There is one immensely powerful scene in which Mabel returns after six months of being in the institution. Everyone is unnerved upon seeing her behave, which lacks all of the antics and embaressing idiosyncracies. Nick is ironically embaressed by this and takes her upstairs and demands that she just be herself. Covered in shadows the two try to discover what it is they want out of each other. In the end it seems that they don't want anything, but rather must have each other in their own madness. Mainly because not everybody is as forgiving as Mabel.
10/10
I just saw this film a few days ago at a local film festival, and I certainly agree that the fewer scenes of the movie definitely contribute to its very blunt realism. Previously, I had only heard of Cassavetes' acting, particularly in the 60's and 70's, but this made me curious to explore more of his unique style of directing, too.

[NickAdams]

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans 6-7/10
I haven't seen the Harvey Keitel film, so I can't reference it, but I'm told that the only similarities between the two are the titles and the naughty officer. Bad Lieutenant is Training Day minus the Ethan Hawke rookie and both featuring Eva Mendes. The humor is delivered like the "steak" scene in Raging Bull. Nicholas Cage makes the film worth seeing along with the three reptiles and the dancing soul (I don't know if credit goes to the screen writer or Herzog).

Dogville 10/10
Amazing!!!

[DanielBenoit]

(I don't know if credit goes to the screen writer or Herzog)

Probably Herzog. Anyone remember the dancing chicken from Stroszeck? :lol:

[Mathor]

One thing I find quite funny about the disaster film genre is that there's all of this destruction going on and people dying on a massive scale, and yet we're supposed to care about some two or three cardboard heros :rolleyes:

hmm. Weird, though, I heard this movie got pretty decent reviews. Like, it's not amazing, but I expected this to be the worst movie of the year, and from what people tell me it's B+ worthy. But if its truly not good, it's what I expected, and the reason why I haven't bothered to go see it.

[DanielBenoit]

The Fantastic Mr. Fox - I've contended and still contend that Pixar makes masterpieces, and that their newest film Up is unquestionably one of the best of the year. But to see a film like this, directed by Wes Anderson and released by 20th Cetury Fox and done in old-fashioned stop-animation, it is quite a breathe of fresh air.

Most animation films find a perfect balance at entertaining adults and kids, thus pleasing everyone in the audience. This film seems slightly more for adults and has a few things that might offend parents of young kids(smoking and drinking are persistent in the film). All the better for me. I enjoy nothing more than a film that will polarize everyone, as oppose to make everyone in the audience get into a big group hug.

Let me say this, I have never seen an animated film like this one before. It defies the conventions and techniques of typical animation, even stop-motion. Done with elaborately meticulous sets and long tracking camera work, similair to that of a slide-projector, Wes Anderson makes full use of the foreground, background, left-side, right-side, in almost shockingly long static shots. The technique of this film has more in common with Orson Welles elaborate aeriel shots than most animation techniques used today.

The story, which is quite simple and based on Rohd Dahl's children's story. A fox (appropriately named Mr. Fox) begins stealing chickens from the the farm next door. The humans discover this and plan revenge. A long drawn-out plot to be rid of the pesky animals persists.

All the voices in the film are great (Anderson made the unique decision to do the voices outside of a sound studio), there is a family theme within the plot which avoids the cheesy sentimentality of so many other movies. Though there are some quasi-sentimental lesson-learning moments which at times were very appropriate for the story, and at other times just plain akward and long drawn out. The film is filled with irony and winks at the camera, which saves it from typical formula, but at the same time limits it from being anything but clever. This is an animated film, but this is a problem amongst independent cinema.

But I must come back to the technique which just awed me in the first five minutes. That said, the method of the "camera" panning across sets following characters got a little worn out after a while, for they are the most commonly used shots in the film (with the exception of tight close-ups of the characters faces, which is obnoxious at times as well). Anderson films conversations in the style of the great Yarujio Ozu by having characters look straight into the camera, thus giving the viewers the point-of-view of the other character.

The film is a lot of fun with plenty of Tarantino-esque irony and humour, a spagehtti western formula and some fantastically mature characters. Hell, this film is animated neorealism when compared to Twilight and 2012. 7/10

[Mathor]

The Fantastic Mr. Fox - I've contended and still contend that Pixar makes masterpieces, and that their newest film Up is unquestionably one of the best of the year. But to see a film like this, directed by Wes Anderson and released by 20th Cetury Fox and done in old-fashioned stop-animation, it is quite a breathe of fresh air.

Most animation films find a perfect balance at entertaining adults and kids, thus pleasing everyone in the audience. This film seems slightly more for adults and has a few things that might offend parents of young kids(smoking and drinking are persistent in the film). All the better for me. I enjoy nothing more than a film that will polarize everyone, as oppose to make everyone in the audience get into a big group hug.

Let me say this, I have never seen an animated film like this one before. It defies the conventions and techniques of typical animation, even stop-motion. Done with elaborately meticulous sets and long tracking camera work, similair to that of a slide-projector, Wes Anderson makes full use of the foreground, background, left-side, right-side, in almost shockingly long static shots. The technique of this film has more in common with Orson Welles elaborate aeriel shots than most animation techniques used today.

The story, which is quite simple and based on Rohd Dahl's children's story. A fox (appropriately named Mr. Fox) begins stealing chickens from the the farm next door. The humans discover this and plan revenge. A long drawn-out plot to be rid of the pesky animals persists.

All the voices in the film are great (Anderson made the unique decision to do the voices outside of a sound studio), there is a family theme within the plot which avoids the cheesy sentimentality of so many other movies. Though there are some quasi-sentimental lesson-learning moments which at times were very appropriate for the story, and at other times just plain akward and long drawn out. The film is filled with irony and winks at the camera, which saves it from typical formula, but at the same time limits it from being anything but clever. This is an animated film, but this is a problem amongst independent cinema.

But I must come back to the technique which just awed me in the first five minutes. That said, the method of the "camera" panning across sets following characters got a little worn out after a while, for they are the most commonly used shots in the film (with the exception of tight close-ups of the characters faces, which is obnoxious at times as well). Anderson films conversations in the style of the great Yarujio Ozu by having characters look straight into the camera, thus giving the viewers the point-of-view of the other character.

The film is a lot of fun with plenty of Tarantino-esque irony and humour, a spagehtti western formula and some fantastically mature characters. Hell, this film is animated neorealism when compared to Twilight and 2012. 7/10

Indeed. Up is better, but I LOVE Wes Anderson films.

My picks for Animated Category of the Oscars (since there are 20 animated films in the running this year as opposed to the usual like 13, the category has expanded to 5)

1. Up
2. Ponyo
3. The Fantasic Mr. Fox
4. Coraline
5. The Princess And The Frog

with the visionary director Hayao Miyazaki's new masterpiece Ponyo, and another masterpiece from Pixar, unfortunately it doesn't stand much of a chance, but The Fantastic Mr Fox is definitely a movie that should be seen. All Wes Anderson films are certainly an experience, mainly his use of color in his films. I can see why you gave it a 7/10, though, Wes Anderson is full of imperfections, and he is still growing as a director. With so many great films he's made, I cannot wait to see him make a film that doesn't have any missteps. But maybe his imperfections are what makes him so unique and unlike any director of this time period.

[The Comedian]

I saw Angles & Demons the other day. It was to the mind as Oreos are to body: cheap & tasty, but not that good for you.

5/10

[Pryderi Agni]

Rewatched the X-Men Trilogy. Gets a cool 11/10 every time ;)

[Mrig]

I saw Paa last week. 7/10

[NickAdams]

Werckmeister Harmonies: 10/10!

[DanielBenoit]

Well I can't really review this because I saw only about ten minutes of it on youtube, but I must say that it only further proves Bela Tarr as one of the greatest directors of our time: His adaption of Macbeth for television in 1982 is anything but conventional and despite being in Hungarian pertains the beauty of Shakespeare's language. The whole film consists of two shots; one at the begining which lasts for five minutes, and one for the rest of the film which lasts for a stunning 57 minutes on a handheld camera. Obviously this is a greatly abridged version, but having not seen the whole thing, I can only comment that Tarr's direction is masterful. Both the camera and actors possess a sort of grim realism, this is one of the rare films of his shot in color and the low-quality television format is a bit off-putting at first, but then starts to benefit the film which its utter claustraphobic grittiness. I really look forward to getting my hands on the complete version. A very interesting look at a genius in development.

[manolia]

Watched too many films lately. I'll just mention the last one, which was district 9 (at the theater). I was pleasantly surprised! Good film :nod:

[Noisms]

A History of Violence - Brilliant performances, great directing, great script. It's always good to see Ed Harris in a film. And I really fancy Maria Bello. 9/10.

[Mathor]

Tonight when I had reached a full and unabashed state of mental despair, I watched "It's A Wonderful Life" on TV (one of Frank Capra's many directoral masterpieces). It inspired me as it always does, remaining one of the greatest films of my lifetime. Such a gem.

[Pryderi Agni]

Eagle Eye gets a 9/10; if they'd toned down the car-bashing, it'd've been a perfect 10.

[sixsmith]

'Paranormal Activity' 3/10.

Promising underlying premise but executed very poorly. Scenes that may have provoked genuine fear are clumsily telegraphed. Neither the acting or the narrative are strong enough to maintain the 'documentary' artifice. Exceedingly lame.

[Mathor]

Up In The Air - 10/10 - this is the best film i've seen all year, and I didn't think i'd say that seeing as The Hurt Locker and In The Loop came out this year, but this one tops them all. Brilliant. The best role of George Clooney's career, without a doubt.

[sixsmith]

Up In The Air - 10/10 - this is the best film i've seen all year, and I didn't think i'd say that seeing as The Hurt Locker and In The Loop came out this year, but this one tops them all. Brilliant. The best role of George Clooney's career, without a doubt.

I've heard good things but I was dubious. Will certainly check it out now.

[DanielBenoit]

Only three films in my life have rendered me so speechless that I felt as if I had somehow transcended all thought. 2001: A Space Odyssey, Apocolaypse Now and Persona. The latter I have just finished watching and I must say that I am as mute as the women in it. This film along with 8 1/2 the above mentioned and a few others, is the all-everything of cinema; it is infinite. 10/10

[Lumiere]

Only three films in my life have rendered me so speechless that I felt as if I had somehow transcended all thought. 2001: A Space Odyssey, Apocolaypse Now and Persona. The latter I have just finished watching and I must say that I am as mute as the women in it. This film along with 8 1/2 the above mentioned and a few others, is the all-everything of cinema; it is infinite. 10/10

I second 2001: A Space Odyssey. It was not until I saw this creation that I fully appreciated film as an art form.

The last movie I saw was The Tenth Level (1975). It was a made for TV movie about a real psychological experiment that investigated what made people obey orders of cruelty toward others, and how far the average person would go, (an idea that stemmed from the events that took place in Nazi Germany during WWII). The content was intriguing. Also, it starred William Shatner and included his famous shoulder-roll, which is always a plus in my book. :lol: 9/10 for quality of subject matter.

[Mathor]

The White Ribbon - this movie mystifies me more and more every time i see it.
2001: A Space Odyssey - Watched it against last night. I'm always on the edge of my seat every single time. SO GOOD.
Inglourious Basterds - I just got this on DVD. This is my third time seeing it, and I think it gets more hilarious and brilliant every time you watch it. This is starting to shake the ranks of some of my old fav Tarantino films.

[DanielBenoit]

The White Ribbon - this movie mystifies me more and more every time i see it.


Grrr, I have to find some time to see this.

[Mathor]

Grrr, I have to find some time to see this.

take your time. It's a very hard watch, a very difficult movie to take in. Even when you're finished with it you likely won't know how you feel about it.

[DanielBenoit]

The Blind Side - The fact that this film made $150 million at the box office proves that this is one of the most manipulative films in years. Maybe it is better that more people are seeing this than nonsense films like Twilight, but then at the same time, most people when watching Twilight are there for entertainment and know they're watching nonsense; by the numbers, audineces seem to be mistaking The Blind Side as something profound.

Of course it is hard-times and sometimes all we need is a feel-good movie. I've never been much of a fan of feel-good movies since most of them violate the logic that Capra laid out for them, and that is there must be something of a plot, conflict or even sadness or despair preceding the feel-good fluff. Take It's a Wonderful Life, the quitessential feel-good movie; our hero goes through an entire life of what he sees as failures, irrelevances and meaningless trials to the point that he is driven to commit suicide. Taken literatley to the edge of the bridge, his guardian angel suddenly comes down to him and not-so-easily convinces him that his life was and is worth living.

The Blind Side gives us the guardian angel, but no preceding life, hell it doesn't even give us the nightmare of George Bailey's world without him, the very source of the heart-fulfilling ending. The Blind Side assumes that it needn't pull its audiences emotions, it plays it as safe as it possibly can and squirms into the little gutter of corniness whenever the very sight of a conflict arises. Hell, from the very opening scenes one is convinced that all will be better in the end.

Yes this may be based on a true story, but as moving as it may be, if the movie is not brave enough to at least show us some darkness then we have no reason to believe in it. Instead it shows us nothing of him except a series of reaction shots overtrumpted by Sandra Bullocks condesending and yet very good performance. I'm sure the two stars of the film mean well and are more than capable of doing a honest version of this story, it's clearly the writers and director who are at fault in diminishing their hero into a shallow object of pity with absolutely no psychological depth and giving the films guardian angel the main role.

Probably the films major fault besides its disrespect for the audiences intellegence is the embaressingly old-fashoined racial profiling. This is probably one of the few mainstream American films in years to indulge in the age old insult that the helpless big black boy must be saved and reconciled from all of the evil black druggies by a smart and angelic rich white women who will teach him the rules of the civilized world.

What an insult. At first I threw off this undertone as illusorary, but once the film got to the point in which the only other African-American portrayed onscreen besides our helpless giant was a mean old lady and a bunch of cronies leading him the wrong way, I was convinced that this film was at least diluted in very subtle and outdated friendly racism in which all African-Americans portrayed on film are either druggies or innocent little teddy-bears that cannot survive without the help of a bunch of nice rich white people.

It's such a sad thing that a film with such racial condecation would be making $150 million at the box office in the year of 2009 when the very same year a much smaller and much greater film is playing, though in not the nationwide multiplex theaters The Blind Side unfortunatley finds itself in. That movie is Precious, both concern a teenage African-American living in poverty, both are abused by their parents and both are given help by kind induviduals. The difference is that one respects its characters by making honest and real, by not being afraid to but them under the most unbearable circumstances and trials, in the end, not being afraid of the cruel world. Precious is real life, The Blind Side is an illusion. One is more uplifted by kindness after seeing a harsh and cruel life than one is by seeing nothing but kindness from the very begining.

God, if there's anything I hate in a film it is the feeling of condecation from the film through cheap manipulative preachy moments. This overlong two hour and eight minute film is stuffed with these until the slop boils over. Sure Old Dogs is an awful film, but when would somebody take it seriously? The Blind Side is nowhere near as bad as Old Dogs but is more dangerous since audiences have taken it seriously. The former is just bad entertainment, the latter is a lie disguised as reality. 3/10

[Veho]

Avatar - 9/10

I wasn't really looking forward to it and I went in to the cinema slightly sceptical, but I was pleasantly surprised, it was a good story that kept me enthralled until the end. I will be buying the DVD when it's released, that's for sure.

[The Comedian]

I saw Public Enemies the other night. I was mostly confused, bored, and disinterested by it.

5/10

[Idril]

Now that I've discovered just how easy it is to watch netflix movies on my computer, I've gone a little nuts. This weekend alone I watched 4 movies. The first was The Rage in Placid Lake which was a fun little Australian movie, I would give it about 8 out of 10 stars. The second was The Other Side of Sunday, a Norwegian film about growing pains of a young girl who's father is the pastor of a very conservative church. Even though my experience was wildly different from her's, I still felt a slight kinship with her being a pastor's daughter myself. The acting was excellent, the story line was griping but the lighting was frustrating because it was always dark, even in the middle of the day with the sky clearly blue. That is a 8/10 as well, it would've been a 9 if I could've actually seen what was going on with any certainty. :p The last two are both Chinese movies, the first one was King of Masks about a street performer in the very traditional art of bian lian. He is widowed with no children. Tradition dictates that he can only pass on the secrets of his art to a male heir, which he does not have, so he tries to "buy" one on the black market but it turns out the 'boy' he bought is actually a girl. Again, the acting was wonderful and it explored some really thought provoking themes. The ending was a little sappy but that doesn't mean it didn't still make me cry a little. :blush: I loved the scenes with the mask changing and it had a few scenes from Sichuan opera which is always bizarre yet fascinating. Another 8/10. The last movie was Tuya's Marriage which took place in Mongolia. A woman with a disabled husband divorces him, with his 'permission' and looks to remarry so she will have help on her farm. It was an incredibly complex look into the culture and relationships, like the landscape it was bleak and sparse and out of the 4, it was my favorite, 9/10

[Mathor]

Avatar - 10/10 - I wasn't looking forward to this movie. I mainly saw this to prove how good it WASNT. No amount of bias can bring this visual triumph down. And no, it's not because the visual triumph is such a spectacle, it's because it is paired with a story that is surprisingly amazing.

This movie does everything you would dislike in a movie. It's filled to the brim with special effects, it's about 75 percent animation, the last 1/3 of the movie is one long action sequence. These are things which one could normally safely say ruin just about any movie. James Cameron proves that he is the exception to the rule. So much intricacy is put on developing the story, that by the time the action rolls around, you're praising god that it's there. This movie is the 'Ben-Hur' or 'Jaws' of our era. This film does things with motion that I did not know were possible. Okay, James Cameron, after months of thinking this was a TERRIBLE concept for a film (with a story that from the trailer seems pretty wishy-washy) you've proven me wrong. I should have expected this.


EDIT: One other point. This is the only movie I've ever seen in 3d where the 3d enriched the experienced. I have been adamant that 3D ruins the viewing experience, that it is distracting, that it really has no place in cinema (and 99.999999 of the time I'm right). To this and all points, Cameron, Touche.

[NickAdams]

Now that I've discovered just how easy it is to watch netflix movies on my computer, I've gone a little nuts. This weekend alone I watched 4 movies. The first was The Rage in Placid Lake which was a fun little Australian movie, I would give it about 8 out of 10 stars. The second was The Other Side of Sunday, a Norwegian film about growing pains of a young girl who's father is the pastor of a very conservative church. Even though my experience was wildly different from her's, I still felt a slight kinship with her being a pastor's daughter myself. The acting was excellent, the story line was griping but the lighting was frustrating because it was always dark, even in the middle of the day with the sky clearly blue. That is a 8/10 as well, it would've been a 9 if I could've actually seen what was going on with any certainty. :p The last two are both Chinese movies, the first one was King of Masks about a street performer in the very traditional art of bian lian. He is widowed with no children. Tradition dictates that he can only pass on the secrets of his art to a male heir, which he does not have, so he tries to "buy" one on the black market but it turns out the 'boy' he bought is actually a girl. Again, the acting was wonderful and it explored some really thought provoking themes. The ending was a little sappy but that doesn't mean it didn't still make me cry a little. :blush: I loved the scenes with the mask changing and it had a few scenes from Sichuan opera which is always bizarre yet fascinating. Another 8/10. The last movie was Tuya's Marriage which took place in Mongolia. A woman with a disabled husband divorces him, with his 'permission' and looks to remarry so she will have help on her farm. It was an incredibly complex look into the culture and relationships, like the landscape it was bleak and sparse and out of the 4, it was my favorite, 9/10
Thanks for the King of Mask recommend.

[NickAdams]

Avatar - 10/10 - I wasn't looking forward to this movie. I mainly saw this to prove how good it WASNT. No amount of bias can bring this visual triumph down. And no, it's not because the visual triumph is such a spectacle, it's because it is paired with a story that is surprisingly amazing.

This movie does everything you would dislike in a movie. It's filled to the brim with special effects, it's about 75 percent animation, the last 1/3 of the movie is one long action sequence. These are things which one could normally safely say ruin just about any movie. James Cameron proves that he is the exception to the rule. So much intricacy is put on developing the story, that by the time the action rolls around, you're praising god that it's there. This movie is the 'Ben-Hur' or 'Jaws' of our era. This film does things with motion that I did not know were possible. Okay, James Cameron, after months of thinking this was a TERRIBLE concept for a film (with a story that from the trailer seems pretty wishy-washy) you've proven me wrong. I should have expected this.


EDIT: One other point. This is the only movie I've ever seen in 3d where the 3d enriched the experienced. I have been adamant that 3D ruins the viewing experience, that it is distracting, that it really has no place in cinema (and 99.999999 of the time I'm right). To this and all points, Cameron, Touche.

I'm going to see Avatar for the same reason. I have no doubt that the new technology is revolutionary, but I'm so tired of the "going-native" genre. I'd rather see a revolution in narrative. CGI, of any sort, doesn't impress me. Herzog trying to get a ship over a mountain, Buster Keaton and the Vertigo effect is very impressive. There's no magic to CGI. We know the trick: it was done on computer.

[Mathor]

I'm going to see Avatar for the same reason. I have no doubt that the new technology is revolutionary, but I'm so tired of the "going-native" genre. I'd rather see a revolution in narrative. CGI, of any sort, doesn't impress me. Herzog trying to get a ship over a mountain, Buster Keaton and the Vertigo effect is very impressive. There's no magic to CGI. We know the trick: it was done on computer.

I couldn't agree with you more on all of those points. CGI ruins most movies because you begin to believe what is going on in the movie, begin to get sucked in, and then you see a CG explosion or a CG monster or a CG Spiderman mixed in with all the real shots and it sets up a bit of disbelief in the viewer. You say to yourself "that is not real". Avatar finds a way to do it that works. After seeing it, i'm very mad at the production companies for how they made all of the trailers of Avatar. It makes the movie look very stupid. The movie you are going to expect to see is certainly not the movie you will be seeing, that's the only thing I can guarantee you.

[DanielBenoit]

I'm going to see Avatar for the same reason. I have no doubt that the new technology is revolutionary, but I'm so tired of the "going-native" genre. I'd rather see a revolution in narrative. CGI, of any sort, doesn't impress me. Herzog trying to get a ship over a mountain, Buster Keaton and the Vertigo effect is very impressive. There's no magic to CGI. We know the trick: it was done on computer.

I totally agree, and I love films like LOTR or Avatar, but seeing Buster Keaton do the real thing is truly astonishing. Hell the greatest thing about Buster besides the fact that he is one of the best and funniest actors who ever lived, he's without a doubt the greatest stuntman. It is enthralling to see what he does; fall off of a twirling house, jump onto a moving car, have a frickin' house fall on him, and all with a straight face.

It's all too bad that directors no longer take very many risks when all they have to do is add CGI. What would've a film like Fitzcarraldo become if it was done with CGI?


Anyway, I've been watching a lot of silent films recently, most notably that of Buster Keaton, Eisenstein and Murnau, because I'm busy and tired I'll only provide my unusually brief reviews.

October - Upon second viewing I still contend that though Battleship Potemkin is more iconic and powerful, but October is far more visually poetic and complex. With less a clear narrative than Battleship Potemkin, October seems to become a series of images which intigrate into a propigandist recreation of the October revolution in Soviet Russia. There are some indescribably effective edits/shots in this film, such as when a machine gun is fired into a crowd and Eisenstein shows a hyper-fast back-and-forth edit between the machine gun and the gunman. There are many immensely effective montages like that in this film, all of which are technically astonishing. But October, like Potemkin, fails to really captivate its audience on an emotional level which spans beyond its visual poetry. It is admittingly tedious and overdone at times, making Potemkin the more dense and structured of the two, but the flawless technique is too irresitable to dislike as a film-lover. 9/10

Sherlock Jr. - What can I say? I love Buster Keaton. Whatever he does, he can do anything and I will be thrilled and awed by it. A simple facial gesture or expression of his is equal to an entire performance from a lesser actor. This film is one of the most surreal of his I've seen with its modernistic non-linear narrative and hilariously weird moments. The directing is filled with eager vitality and excitment and the stunts are unsuprisingly stunning. 10/10

The Last Laugh - Beautifully moving performance by Emil Jannings in Murnau's technically influencial melodrama which is truly silent for it lacks any title cards. Each shot of Murnau's directing is something of a beautiful epiphany, infinitely inspired. I was most shocked to see in a dream-sequence handheld camera work done quite flawlessly (this was made in 1924 mind you). The story and character is deeply deeply moving but then flushes itself down the toliet in the final ten minutes. My advice would be to walk out of the theater ten minutes before it ends and you would have seen a great heartbreaking film. 8/10

The Man with the Movie Camera - Ideally experimental work from Soviet director Vertov who creates a film of pure cinema in this non-narrative masterpiece of cinematography and editing. 10/10


EDIT: Btw, ALL of the above films can be found for free at google video :D

[NickAdams]

I couldn't agree with you more on all of those points. CGI ruins most movies because you begin to believe what is going on in the movie, begin to get sucked in, and then you see a CG explosion or a CG monster or a CG Spiderman mixed in with all the real shots and it sets up a bit of disbelief in the viewer. You say to yourself "that is not real". Avatar finds a way to do it that works. After seeing it, i'm very mad at the production companies for how they made all of the trailers of Avatar. It makes the movie look very stupid. The movie you are going to expect to see is certainly not the movie you will be seeing, that's the only thing I can guarantee you.

Lol, those moments in Spider-man are overshadowed by the instances in the Matrix sequels.

Thanks. No matter how much I'm against a movie, I'd rather end up enjoying it than have my criticisms validated. There was another movie, I don't remember which, that I was dragged to this year and I was surprised that the tone was totally different than how the trailer portrayed it. I wonder how many good films I have missed because of that. I'm hoping that, with the internet, more films will start posting the first ten minutes rather than continuing with trailers.

[NickAdams]

I totally agree, and I love films like LOTR or Avatar, but seeing Buster Keaton do the real thing is truly astonishing. Hell the greatest thing about Buster besides the fact that he is one of the best and funniest actors who ever lived, he's without a doubt the greatest stuntman. It is enthralling to see what he does; fall off of a twirling house, jump onto a moving car, have a frickin' house fall on him, and all with a straight face.

It's all too bad that directors no longer take very many risks when all they have to do is add CGI. What would've a film like Fitzcarraldo become if it was done with CGI?

My younger brother called me recently to help him with an essay on The Prestige, so I watched it again and it's interesting how the movie can work as a metaphor for two types of directors. You have Angier "The Great Danton" (Michael Bay) and Bordon "The Professor" (Herzog). The Great Danton can stand for any commercial director or abuser of CGI (those who believe that they're an auteur just becuase they are credited as the director).

You can even draw a comparison of how Hollywood exploits the independent creations: Bordon creates a trick called the Transported Man and Angier copies the trick, but commercializes it.

[DanielBenoit]

The Great Danton can stand for any commercial director or abuser of CGI (those who believe that they're an auteur just becuase they are credited as the director).


I know, I can't stand how some special effects directors somehow see themselves as autuers when there is almost nothing unique about them. Sure Michael Bay's trademark is that of helecopters on the horizez and Peter Jackson does have a tendency to provide many close-ups in slow-motion, but that does not mean that they are autuers in the sense that Tarantino or Korine are. Besides, the real authors behind most of the work is the special effects people, they're the real minds behind these films.

[chaneybean]

Up

Loved it! 10/10

[DanielBenoit]

Omfg I'm so excited! One of the very few French New Wave masters still alive, the great Jean Luc-Godard shall release a new film called Socialisme. Here's the trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhqOFWdtDdY&feature=related

EDIT: It has been reported to be his last!!!!! BIG news here!


Ooops, wrong thread :blush:

[papayahed]

The Hangover - Kinda dopey with a few funny parts thrown in, 7/10.

[Shalot]

The Hangover - Kinda dopey with a few funny parts thrown in, 7/10.

We have rented the DVD here...I haven't watched it yet but I was going to.

Spun: I've seen this before but I'm watching it again. Britney Murphy is in it and as we all know, she died and the thread about it was locked. But anyway, this movie is just crazy. It's about these people who are on Crystal Meth and it's revolting but I couldn't stop watching... I give it a 9/10.

Oh, and since I couldn't post this in the Britney Murphy thread, I just wanted to recommend The Dead Girl. I think Britney Murphy did have talent...you just have to look beyond the tasteless Maxim photos there.

[NickAdams]

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
I'm not really sure how to rate it.

Most of the reviews I've read have praised Ledger's performance and cringed at the story. I found Ledger's performance uneven with moments of nice casual humor, but the praise comes from his death and not what's put on screen. There is more of Ledger than the reports led me to believe. Out of the three actors that volunteered to complete Tony's story, Colin Ferrell , Jude Law and Johnny Depp: Johnny Depp is the only one that is consistent with what has come before.

I found Lily Cole's performance flat, Tom Waits' odd, Andrew Garfield's promising and Verne Troyer is surprisingly funny as a George Costanza type.

There are some great looking set pieces. Terry Gilliam blends the real and fantastic, something that he has done before and better in pictures like The Fisher King.

If I were to recommend this film it would be for Christopher Plummer as Doctor Parnassus and the very interesting take on his relationship with Mr. Nick.

[Mathor]

Lol, those moments in Spider-man are overshadowed by the instances in the Matrix sequels.

Thanks. No matter how much I'm against a movie, I'd rather end up enjoying it than have my criticisms validated. There was another movie, I don't remember which, that I was dragged to this year and I was surprised that the tone was totally different than how the trailer portrayed it. I wonder how many good films I have missed because of that. I'm hoping that, with the internet, more films will start posting the first ten minutes rather than continuing with trailers.

Yeah. Ultimately I try not to dwell too much on trailers at all. You can rarely realize if you will like or dislike a movie simply by watching the trailer. I've also had many movies that i see the trailer and think "this is going to be the best movie ever" and I come to realize that the trailer only made it appear to a movie worth watching. It's all hollywood trickery. The director does not make the trailer, therefore using it to determine if we will see a movie seems almost like the backwards way of doing things.

[Mathor]

An Education - 10/10 - Finally. Finally. Finally. A movie that addresses all the elements of the story it is trying to tell. I watched The Blind Side a month ago, a movie that is truthfully and simply a movie about racism, but the movie tries so hard to be a heartwarming flick that it never even once touches on the theme that the entire movie is evolving around. I felt this same way when I watched Clint Eastwood's Invictus, a movie that is also really about racism, but attempts to cover this up to make it a movie about sports (Much like Remember The Titans).

Here we have An Education. A girl (masterfully acted by Carie Mulligan) who is only 16 and a year from graduating from high school wishes to break out of the hole her life appears to be in. She is obsessed with french films and art and jazz music, and her dream is to play the cello in some sort of great London orchestra. Her father says that all of these things are a waste of time, that she will not need any of these things when she goes to Oxford. He tells her that all she needs is An Education. She meets a man of 32 one day in the rain after cello practice, and he drives her home. He appears to be a man of much wealth, and he offers her a series of dates and similar things. On top of that, the man is able to convince her parents that he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. This man is able to give her a slice of the fancy life she dreams of living. The ultimate theme of the movie is the lingering question of why the girl (Jenny) must get an education and go to college. When the playboy offers her a hand in marriage, the headmistress of her school says that "you can not do anything in this world without an education". And Jenny says to her "but what if i do not want to be a teacher?" and the headmistress simply replies "then you could be a secretary". The harsh reality of the time period of this movie, before any great civil rights initiatives for women, women were forced into one job. All of the "working" women portrayed in this movie are unhappy with their lives, often single, often seen as women who are pretty lonely people. When Jenny asks her dad about getting married he simply says to her "Well then I guess you'd be all taken care of." And Jenny says "Well, what about Oxford?" and he says "I guess you really wouldn't need to go to school, then, would you?" This movie spends a great deal of time discussing women and their roles in society, and the very small route of options for them as individuals. I cannot discuss this movie as much as I'd like without giving away what happens, but please go see this film.

I should point out Rosamund Pike's amazing acting as a sort of aristocratic jazz beatnik (portraying the side of women who choose not to go to school) who befriends the young Jenny. You might notice her as Jane Bennet from Pride and Prejudice.

Rosamund Pike is on the left, Carrie Mulligan as Jenny on the right:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Lifeandhealth/Pix/pictures/2009/10/21/1256123359905/Rosamund-Pike-and-Carey-M-001.jpg

And i just feel the need to point out the brilliant cinematography to go along with the wonderful narrative:
http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/122954/2208762/2231119/091008_MOV_anEducationEX.jpg

[DanielBenoit]

Yeah. Ultimately I try not to dwell too much on trailers at all. You can rarely realize if you will like or dislike a movie simply by watching the trailer. I've also had many movies that i see the trailer and think "this is going to be the best movie ever" and I come to realize that the trailer only made it appear to a movie worth watching. It's all hollywood trickery. The director does not make the trailer, therefore using it to determine if we will see a movie seems almost like the backwards way of doing things.

Yeah, most trailers make films look feel-good when they're really downbeat and Hollywood thrillers when they're works of American neo-realism (see the trailer for United 93).

[Janine]

It's a Wonderful Life ~ Frank Capra...amazing to find out this great film was not recieved well when first released; but now is found much more world-wide popularity and acclaim...it was nominated for many awards back in the day of it's release, but then passed over and into obscurity until the copyright ran out; it was then shown on TV and later released on DVD. Of course, it's corny and sentimental in parts, but still one can't beat the story and the characters; top-notch actors! I think it's one of Jimmy Stewart's best roles ever...especially, when he shows rage and then is in darkest dispair on the bridge in the snow. Donna Reed was perfect for the role and she is just drop-dead gorgeous in this film. Great to watch the extras and see just how the film was staged and shot; and the snow was one of the first, that used a combination of ingredients to make artificial snow. I have to say the falling snow looked quite realistic. I am a big Capra fan, and I hadn't seen this movie for awhile, so I enjoyed it emensely. It's the perfect holiday movie. Frank Capra, himself, felt it was his greatest achievement. I could watch it again right away - it's delightful. I love the angel, Clarence. He's really humorous.

[DanielBenoit]

Gummo - Some may say that director Harmony Korine is unfair and condecending towards his characters, presenting them as dumb, racist white trash, and while the extremity of this film may create a convincing argument for that (for its content is not gracious or subtle) it is too shallow an interpretation in this otherwise haunting and hypnotically strange and disturbing film.

Yes before viewing this I had heard all about the films contnet; the cat-drowning scene, the depictions of racism, the extremely odd logic of the film, which consists of a series of surreal vignettes concerning a small Ohio town which had been hit by a tornado.

At the begining we are presented with many explicitly disturbing things, not least one of them being the drowning of a cat by two teenagers, then them going to the grocery store to sell it. One of the teens narrates and talks about his friend "some say he's evil". At this point we certainly agree, knowing very well that most serial killers began with killing cats. But they don't kill for enjoyment, or at least partly. Their hunt is in a sense a strange and offbeat means of survival, it's Korine's modern twist on the hunter-gatherer culture. What the grocery store does with the cats I don't know and probably don't want to know, but that doesn't matter. The point is that they are killing cats, but why is it so much more disturbing than if they were killing bears or wolves.

There are many deep and simple snapshots just like this throughout this exploration through this hic town in mid-western America. Take one in which a girl figures out she has AIDS. She goes to a doctor and learns that she's going to have to have her breasts surgically removed. She despairs over the fact that she won't be able to get a boyfriend after that because "boys are like that". Which raises an uncomfortable and yet deeply troubling question: Do we as a society place all the value of a women in her breasts? If so, what is she to men when she no longer has them? The answer is deeply troubling.

This film is a masterpiece of poetic and despairing moments concerning suicide, murder, Satanism, sexuality, death, old age, racism and blue-collar culture. Korine makes a masterful use of different film mediums to convey his visual poetry, which is effective at all times with haunting voice-over narration by the two teenagers. Just take the opening sequence in which one of them describes the tornado that hit. To hear his voice and the things he says so simply is chilling.

This is a troubled and deeply disturbing film whose style and subject matter will immedietly turn off many people. Those who cherish experimental art cinema know who they are and will seek out this film, if you are still watching Twilight, you may not be ready for this film just yet. It has a beautiful pace and is masterfully directed by the young Korine and hardly ever fails at what it does (except at the more light-hearted comedic parts). And despite its disturbing images, it does have heart and moments of tenderness you are shocked to find. There is a beautiful scene in which one of the teenagers pays to have sex with a prostitute. She turns out to be a weirdly motherly and innocent girl who looks like she walked out of a cartoon from the 50's. Instead of having sex the two talk and she mothers him in an odd and tender way. When I say this film has heart, I mean it is embedded under all of the despair and suffering of this horror, just like at the heart of every human being. 9/10

[Mathor]

It's a Wonderful Life ~ Frank Capra...amazing to find out this great film was not recieved well when first released; but now is found much more world-wide popularity and acclaim...it was nominated for many awards back in the day of it's release, but then passed over and into obscurity until the copyright ran out; it was then shown on TV and later released on DVD. Of course, it's corny and sentimental in parts, but still one can't beat the story and the characters; top-notch actors! I think it's one of Jimmy Stewart's best roles ever...especially, when he shows rage and then is in darkest dispair on the bridge in the snow. Donna Reed was perfect for the role and she is just drop-dead gorgeous in this film. Great to watch the extras and see just how the film was staged and shot; and the snow was one of the first, that used a combination of ingredients to make artificial snow. I have to say the falling snow looked quite realistic. I am a big Capra fan, and I hadn't seen this movie for awhile, so I enjoyed it emensely. It's the perfect holiday movie. Frank Capra, himself, felt it was his greatest achievement. I could watch it again right away - it's delightful. I love the angel, Clarence. He's really humorous.

This is one of my all-time favorite movies. It's one of many great Capra films, and for some reason it does the most for me. I do not know if it's the technical best, but the story just WORKS. From start to finish, it's cinema gold. I watch this every Christmas, and the past couple Christmas' (mainly this and the last) I've had some pretty unhappy things happen right around the holiday season. This movie can make me forget about these things, no matter what has happened in my life. It's also probably Jimmy Stewart's best role of his life outside of The Philadelphia Story.

[DanielBenoit]

This is one of my all-time favorite movies. It's one of many great Capra films, and for some reason it does the most for me. I do not know if it's the technical best, but the story just WORKS. From start to finish, it's cinema gold. I watch this every Christmas, and the past couple Christmas' (mainly this and the last) I've had some pretty unhappy things happen right around the holiday season. This movie can make me forget about these things, no matter what has happened in my life. It's also probably Jimmy Stewart's best role of his life outside of The Philadelphia Story.

Yeah I agree. The all-time greatest feel-good film (though I have a personal prefence for It Happened One Night). One of the most life-affirming stories played to perfection by every single character. A true momument to a heroic life which was unable to see its own significance. And though Jimmy Stewart's performance is one of the greatest in the history of cinema, I always consider his work in Harvey to be his best, his performance in Vertigo trailing along.

[Janine]

This is one of my all-time favorite movies. It's one of many great Capra films, and for some reason it does the most for me. I do not know if it's the technical best, but the story just WORKS. From start to finish, it's cinema gold. I watch this every Christmas, and the past couple Christmas' (mainly this and the last) I've had some pretty unhappy things happen right around the holiday season. This movie can make me forget about these things, no matter what has happened in my life. It's also probably Jimmy Stewart's best role of his life outside of The Philadelphia Story.

Mathor, I totally agree with everything you said, and I have had two difficult years myself; so I know the feeling of being able to relate and to escape into this movie. It's really hopeful in the essense of the story; that ending makes me smile and cry. I agree - probably Jimmy Stewart's best role ever. He amazed me in those intense scenes and even when he shed tears - one doesn't think of Stewart in that sort of way; he pulled it off with realism, very touching. I felt torn up inside and so sympathetic towards him in that he feels his life has been useless or below his potennial...this really made me think. We don't always reach goals we thought we would, but then if we applied the same idea of 'never having been born', our lives might take on a whole new perspective. It's a wonderful life and wonderful movie! It's a total classic and perfect for the holiday season. 10/10 is not enough to rate it.

Have you seen Capra's "Lost Horizons"?...read the book and loved the film.

[Mathor]

Yeah, I love Lost Horizons, though I've never read the book.

Speaking of wonderful Christmas movies.

My favorite of all-time might be A Christmas Story. There is a 24 hour marathon on TBS every year, and I watch it all night christmas eve and all day on christmas. It competes with It's A Wonderful Life, but certain brilliance places it higher as far as holiday classics go.

[Janine]

Yeah, I love Lost Horizons, though I've never read the book.

Speaking of wonderful Christmas movies.

My favorite of all-time might be A Christmas Story. There is a 24 hour marathon on TBS every year, and I watch it all night christmas eve and all day on christmas. It competes with It's A Wonderful Life, but certain brilliance places it higher as far as holiday classics go.

Mathor, oh, you should read the book; it's a short one...I really loved it.

I have that movie as well..."A Christms Story" - hilarious! Love the part where they go to the Chinese restaurant and they all sing "Fa Wa Wa Wa Wa"....just cracks me up everytime! Such a great classic film! Maybe I will watch it tonight. Cool on the marathon...should be fun to see all those Christmas themed movies again.

[Veho]

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
I'm not really sure how to rate it.

Most of the reviews I've read have praised Ledger's performance and cringed at the story. I found Ledger's performance uneven with moments of nice casual humor, but the praise comes from his death and not what's put on screen. There is more of Ledger than the reports led me to believe. Out of the three actors that volunteered to complete Tony's story, Colin Ferrell , Jude Law and Johnny Depp: Johnny Depp is the only one that is consistent with what has come before.

I found Lily Cole's performance flat, Tom Waits' odd, Andrew Garfield's promising and Verne Troyer is surprisingly funny as a George Costanza type.

There are some great looking set pieces. Terry Gilliam blends the real and fantastic, something that he has done before and better in pictures like The Fisher King.

If I were to recommend this film it would be for Christopher Plummer as Doctor Parnassus and the very interesting take on his relationship with Mr. Nick.

This was a completely random film. I wasn't fond of it.

[DanielBenoit]

Inglorious Basterds - I think we all know by now that Tarantino has a knack for story-telling. Film critic Roger Ebert once said that Tarantino could "make a bad film, but never a boring one." That sums up Tarantino. His films reek of cinema, they embrace cinema, they are about cinema, they are cinema in the purest sense possible. One appretiates Tarantino the more and more one sees other movies, for he just having so much goddamn fun with his movie geek knowledge, and if you have seen the right films, you can play along too.

First, the opening. From the very first credit I was enthralled with joy at Tarantino's passion for movies, for the opening credits are done in the style of a nostaligic blaxpotation film from the seventies, stylish titles and all. He even has the old-fashoined Universal logo. Oh, and there's also the film which plays at the movies climax which is a nod to the works of Eisenstein, with many visual refferences, through this Tarantino creates a sort of irony with an entire audience of sadistic Nazi's laughing their asses off.

Tarantino's films are beyond catagorization because they are so masterfully messy. When Pulp Fiction first came out critics were enthralled at Tarantino's simultanious ability to be masterfully controlled and yet spontaneous and even messy at the same time. Tarantino's films presents one of the few cases in which messy is good, it is style. His juxtapositions are probably very discomforting for a mainstream American audience, a certain percentage entering the theater expecting a fun-filled action flick, others expecting a black comedy, and others expecting straight-up war drama. It is far and away none of those three, for it is too delightfully talky to match its advertising, too cruel and violent to be pure comedy, and far too self-consiously fun and absurd to be a war drama. Like all great directors, his films are purely Tarantino.

The plot? Oh **** the plot. I could hardly explain Pulp Ficiton in one paragraph, much less one sentence. Like the great Alfred Hitchcock, Quentin Tarantino proudly prefers style over substance. But that doesn't mean that his films are empty excersizes, just as much as any of Hitchcock's masterpieces are, they are just all and all about themselves. But Tarantino seems to have matured since Pulp Fiction, and in a sense has lost some of his youth. For while Inglorious Basterds deals with very deep issues concerning morality and torture, it is not as vibrant and exciting as Tarantino's first three masterpeices were (Resevoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown). Those films had a gritty rebelliousness to them which could only be found in the magic of independent cinema. Don't get me wrong, Inglorious Basterds is the best work Tarantino has done since Pulp Fiction, but after the sucsess of that great film, with the high production values of Kill Bill, Grindhouse and this one, the excitment of watching a Tarantino film in all its glorious youth has been toned down a little.

That said, Tarantino is no less a wirter or director than he was fifteen years ago and has made yet another near-perfect film. The joys of watching his camera, listening to his dialouge and recognizing his hommages, is like rexperiencing cinema history all over again. This film probably most explicitly of Tarantino's films exists on three different levels; a postmodern epic, an exaggerated hommage to Dirty Dozen-esque films which in itself becomes one, and on a more philosophical level, a series of long drawn-out scenes concerning characters in extreme moral choices.

Probably the most deepest scene in the film may also the most sadistic. It is one in which one of the Basterds, Aldo Raine tries to get a POW Nazi to give him information concerning the location of German tanks. He "respectfully refuses". Another Basterd comes out known as "The Bear Jew" and pounds his head to a pulp. The next POW is more cooperative. In this age of Guantanimo Bay, American audiences are aware of the implications this scene holds, and while the apolitical Tarantino stays out of creating a message, the audience are respectfully given the decision on what they make of it.

It's also funny how such a cinematic vaudvillean and playmaster like Tarantino would provide his audience with subtle insights on the nature of evil. I may be deriving this conclusion myself, but the film really made me think about the difference between killing a Nazi soldier and killing a Nazi general.

But enough of this seriousness. We need more directors like Tarantino who value cinema too much to carry themselves away in morality plays, and in the end save the subtle ethical dilemas in the story.

Now I must get to Christopher Walken's performance which is masterful in that it is both cunning and evil, friendly and comedic at the same time. He is one of the top SS men and is known as "The Jew Hunter" due to his uncanny ability to detect gentiles hiding Jews. He is a master observer and trickster. To sum up his character in his own words (in slight paraphrase) "Oh I'm only kidding, I'm being rough on you." He says that at a point in which its characters are at a fragile moment in the plot and are under the danger of being found out. His friendly throw-off is vital to his character, for his interrigations are done like a wolf in sheeps clothes, or rather, a wolf in a very friendly and uninquiring guests clothes. He won at Cannes and deserves a nominatoin at the Oscars.

This is an infitintley fun and clever film done at the highest levels of entertainment, just as Pulp Fiction was, with sharp-edgy writing in perfectly balanced scenes which at times last for over ten twenty minutes and have the play and irony of a Shakespearean comedy. Speaking of comedy, Brad Pitt delivers one of the biggest laughs I've ever had from a non-comedic film with his use of Italian. Inglorious Basterds possesses all of the aspects you could ever want out of a Tarantino film, sharp and intelligent dialouge, endless talking, merciless violence, postmodern patiche, a non-linear narrative, great characters played greatly. Now that's a film. 9/10

[SleepyWitch]

Avatar 3D - 10/10

I was a bit sceptical, because I'd read some very weird reviews that made it sound like the guy was playing a computer game or getting connected to some virtual fantasy world instead of a 'real' planet. But then the story turned out to be rather intelligent, as animated movies go, and I was surprised at how it criticized war and genocide.
The visual effects where absolutely overwhelming and towards the end I got really drawn into the world of Pandora and didn't want to leave. Normally, I don't get drawn into stories that easily, but in this case I was happy to suspend my disbelief.

[Shalot]

Inglorious Basterds - I think we all know by now that Tarantino has a knack for story-telling. Film critic Roger Ebert once said that Tarantino could "make a bad film, but never a boring one." That sums up Tarantino. His films reek of cinema, they embrace cinema, they are about cinema, they are cinema in the purest sense possible. One appretiates Tarantino the more and more one sees other movies, for he just having so much goddamn fun with his movie geek knowledge, and if you have seen the right films, you can play along too.

First, the opening. From the very first credit I was enthralled with joy at Tarantino's passion for movies, for the opening credits are done in the style of a nostaligic blaxpotation film from the seventies, stylish titles and all. He even has the old-fashoined Universal logo. Oh, and there's also the film which plays at the movies climax which is a nod to the works of Eisenstein, with many visual refferences, through this Tarantino creates a sort of irony with an entire audience of sadistic Nazi's laughing their asses off.

Tarantino's films are beyond catagorization because they are so masterfully messy. When Pulp Fiction first came out critics were enthralled at Tarantino's simultanious ability to be masterfully controlled and yet spontaneous and even messy at the same time. Tarantino's films presents one of the few cases in which messy is good, it is style. His juxtapositions are probably very discomforting for a mainstream American audience, a certain percentage entering the theater expecting a fun-filled action flick, others expecting a black comedy, and others expecting straight-up war drama. It is far and away none of those three, for it is too delightfully talky to match its advertising, too cruel and violent to be pure comedy, and far too self-consiously fun and absurd to be a war drama. Like all great directors, his films are purely Tarantino.

The plot? Oh **** the plot. I could hardly explain Pulp Ficiton in one paragraph, much less one sentence. Like the great Alfred Hitchcock, Quentin Tarantino proudly prefers style over substance. But that doesn't mean that his films are empty excersizes, just as much as any of Hitchcock's masterpieces are, they are just all and all about themselves. But Tarantino seems to have matured since Pulp Fiction, and in a sense has lost some of his youth. For while Inglorious Basterds deals with very deep issues concerning morality and torture, it is not as vibrant and exciting as Tarantino's first three masterpeices were (Resevoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown). Those films had a gritty rebelliousness to them which could only be found in the magic of independent cinema. Don't get me wrong, Inglorious Basterds is the best work Tarantino has done since Pulp Fiction, but after the sucsess of that great film, with the high production values of Kill Bill, Grindhouse and this one, the excitment of watching a Tarantino film in all its glorious youth has been toned down a little.

That said, Tarantino is no less a wirter or director than he was fifteen years ago and has made yet another near-perfect film. The joys of watching his camera, listening to his dialouge and recognizing his hommages, is like rexperiencing cinema history all over again. This film probably most explicitly of Tarantino's films exists on three different levels; a postmodern epic, an exaggerated hommage to Dirty Dozen-esque films which in itself becomes one, and on a more philosophical level, a series of long drawn-out scenes concerning characters in extreme moral choices.

Probably the most deepest scene in the film may also the most sadistic. It is one in which one of the Basterds, Aldo Raine tries to get a POW Nazi to give him information concerning the location of German tanks. He "respectfully refuses". Another Basterd comes out known as "The Bear Jew" and pounds his head to a pulp. The next POW is more cooperative. In this age of Guantanimo Bay, American audiences are aware of the implications this scene holds, and while the apolitical Tarantino stays out of creating a message, the audience are respectfully given the decision on what they make of it.

It's also funny how such a cinematic vaudvillean and playmaster like Tarantino would provide his audience with subtle insights on the nature of evil. I may be deriving this conclusion myself, but the film really made me think about the difference between killing a Nazi soldier and killing a Nazi general.

But enough of this seriousness. We need more directors like Tarantino who value cinema too much to carry themselves away in morality plays, and in the end save the subtle ethical dilemas in the story.

Now I must get to Christopher Walken's performance which is masterful in that it is both cunning and evil, friendly and comedic at the same time. He is one of the top SS men and is known as "The Jew Hunter" due to his uncanny ability to detect gentiles hiding Jews. He is a master observer and trickster. To sum up his character in his own words (in slight paraphrase) "Oh I'm only kidding, I'm being rough on you." He says that at a point in which its characters are at a fragile moment in the plot and are under the danger of being found out. His friendly throw-off is vital to his character, for his interrigations are done like a wolf in sheeps clothes, or rather, a wolf in a very friendly and uninquiring guests clothes. He won at Cannes and deserves a nominatoin at the Oscars.

This is an infitintley fun and clever film done at the highest levels of entertainment, just as Pulp Fiction was, with sharp-edgy writing in perfectly balanced scenes which at times last for over ten twenty minutes and have the play and irony of a Shakespearean comedy. Speaking of comedy, Brad Pitt delivers one of the biggest laughs I've ever had from a non-comedic film with his use of Italian. Inglorious Basterds possesses all of the aspects you could ever want out of a Tarantino film, sharp and intelligent dialouge, endless talking, merciless violence, postmodern patiche, a non-linear narrative, great characters played greatly. Now that's a film. 9/10

This is a good post. It is very well-written and it makes me want to go back and watch the movie again with what you said in mind. I did want to add that Brad Pitt's character is from Maynardville TN, which is very close to where I live. For a time, I lived in the same county and I have to say that he did NOT nail the Maynardville accent. He did pick up on the Maynardville persona though so his performance was good, with the exception of the accent.

[DisPater]

The Lovely Bones --- piece of crap, two wasted hours.

[qimissung]

Taking WoodstockIt made me want to do drugs, that's all I can say. It got off to a very slow start, but I loved the small, behind the scenes, 'anthill with voices of thunder' look at iconic Woodstock. 8/10

[grace86]

Avatar 10/10 Even though the story line has some familiarity to it, I thought it was super cool fantastic (yes I know I sound like a kid). I haven't seen a movie that I was so drawn into like that in forever! I even peeled it apart anthropologically and it was great. Yes, I am a nerd.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

One of the perks to getting older is that Santa has quite a few notches on his naughty or nice slide rule allowing him to gain a better understanding of what makes us twitch. In addition to three wonderful books, I discovered “The Brain that Wouldn’t Die” under the tree, not the brain itself, but the movie.
Produced in 1962, (written and directed by Joseph Green) The Brain That Wouldn’t Die features Dr. Cortner (Herb Evers) and his quest to find a suitable voluptuous body for the head of his fiancé; Jan (Virginia Leith) to satiate his unethical rogue attempts at transplant surgery. I say “head”, due to the fact that the rest of her body was separated in a horrible automobile wreck that left her in multiple pieces while the doctor, who was driving, walks away with nary a scratch. The doctor runs back to the burning car collects the head and makes his way to his remote lab.

The lab is typical for 1960’s low budget horror flick, complete with a smattering of beakers with bubbling liquid, stretched steel springs to mimic tubes(?) or wires(?), an actual tube inside of which flows the mystery serum that gives life to the head. Oh yes, his fiancé’s head (i.e., the brain that wouldn’t die), well it sits in a pan, much like a turkey roasting pan filled with the life sustaining mystery serum. Of course, you can’t have a lab without an “Igor” and a misshapen creature (the result of a previous botched experiment) locked up in an adjacent room. We are kept suspended in curiosity as to what the creature looks like throughout most of the movie. All we know of the creature is that it emits sounds something like the grunting of a pig and hissing of the Gorn creature from Star Trek. Eventually the creature breaks free toward the end of the movie and we see that it appears as a grotesque form of “Cone Head”. Perhaps Saturday Night Live sought inspiration from this movie.

Anyhow, while the head is being kept alive, the doctor, who is an incurable cabaret lounge lizard, goes out in search of a buxom beauty in which to seduce, decapitate and salvage the body on which he intends to attach his fiancé’s head. While away, the head and the closet creature learn to communicate and conspire.
The climax is reached when the head commands the creature to kill the assistant, then struggles with the doctor, who had just arrived with the drugged body of a sexy model he was to decapitate, leading to a fire in the lab and the escape of the cone head with the drugged tart in his arms. The closing scene shows the doctor dead on the floor followed by the camera “panning” in on head that remains seated in the roasting pan surrounded by flames.
Are we to presume the brain burned up?, but then the title would suggest that the brain never dies. Hmmm… I will check to see if there were any sequels.

Summary:
What was the last movie I saw? : “The Brain that Wouldn’t Die”

Rate it: In the real world 2/10. In my deranged world of classic horror flicks – 5/10. (Using “Night of the Living Dead” or “The Killer Shrews” as a perfect 10 benchmark)

High lights: There is a saucy scene where two of the buxom lounge dancers wrestle each other in a jealous fit over the doctor.

Recommendations: This movie is a “heady” undertaking. It is fine for background conversation piece during a fete.


http://www.oldies.com/i/boxart/large/40/089218405470.jpg

[Lynne50]

Last night saw Up In the Air with George Clooney. I enjoyed it alot, plus the soundtrack was good too. I wouldn't go to see it if you've recently been laid off...too close for comfort. Some of the opening scenes were of people that had been laid off and you can understand all the emotions that are involved.
George Clooney was as good as ever. His performance was a little more controlled, not as much banter as usual, but still he had some good moments.
Very well written. My husband and I also saw recently, A Christmas Carol with Jim Carrey and The Fantastic Mr. Fox. Both of course were animated. We enjoyed them as well, but it was nice to see real people in a low key movie for a change.

[Idril]

Summary:
What was the last movie I saw? : “The Brain that Wouldn’t Die”

Rate it: In the real world 2/10. In my deranged world of classic horror flicks – 5/10. (Using “Night of the Living Dead” or “The Killer Shrews” as a perfect 10 benchmark)

High lights: There is a saucy scene where two of the buxom lounge dancers wrestle each other in a jealous fit over the doctor.

Recommendations: This movie is a “heady” undertaking. It is fine for background conversation piece during a fete.


I believe I saw that movie in an episode of Mystery Science Theater! It is the definition of the term, 'awesomely bad'! :lol:

[Janine]

One of the perks to getting older is that Santa has quite a few notches on his naughty or nice slide rule allowing him to gain a better understanding of what makes us twitch. In addition to three wonderful books, I discovered “The Brain that Wouldn’t Die” under the tree, not the brain itself, but the movie.
.......
Summary:
What was the last movie I saw? : “The Brain that Wouldn’t Die”

Rate it: In the real world 2/10. In my deranged world of classic horror flicks – 5/10. (Using “Night of the Living Dead” or “The Killer Shrews” as a perfect 10 benchmark)

High lights: There is a saucy scene where two of the buxom lounge dancers wrestle each other in a jealous fit over the doctor.

Recommendations: This movie is a “heady” undertaking. It is fine for background conversation piece during a fete.


http://www.oldies.com/i/boxart/large/40/089218405470.jpg

Gilliatt, thanks for that writeup - it's really witty and fun. I think I saw this film once, too...total camp...it's funny as heck. I love your rating system. I have actually never seen "Night of the Living Dead"...wonder if Youtube has it.

[littlewoman]

Corpse Bride by Tim Burton- 9 stars.
XOXO

[Janine]

I've been watching plays on DVD this week, since I bought a boxes set of Chekhov by the BBC....well worth the money and contains a lot of plays and some radio plays and narrated short stories, as well. I was lucky to spot it onsale on Amazon.

So far I have watched two productions of "The Cherry Orchard" - both with Judi Dench...early one is b/w TV production and Judi (much younger) plays the daughter; second side is the older production, where she plays the mother. Both were very good; but I particularly liked the second. I might add, the first one, the mother is played by Peggy Ashcroft, a fine actress. Many noted stars appear in this production such as John Gielgud, Ian Holm (very young), Anton Lesser, Timothy Spall (also young), etc.

Two night ago I watched "The Seagull" and found that to be very good and quite complex; the characters are quirpy and interesting; story relies more on character development and relationships than on any set plot. It starred Anthony Gates, Michael Gambon, Stephen Rea, to name a few.

The flip side of the DVD was the production of "An Artist's Story" taken and adapted by Chekhov from one of his short stories. I find now I have the desire to read that story. It starred a much younger Patrick Stewart as the brooding artist.

[NickAdams]

Gummo - Some may say that director Harmony Korine is unfair and condecending towards his characters, presenting them as dumb, racist white trash, and while the extremity of this film may create a convincing argument for that (for its content is not gracious or subtle) it is too shallow an interpretation in this otherwise haunting and hypnotically strange and disturbing film.

Way too shallow. It assumes that all filmmakers approach a project the same, but the fact is that the film is the thing and production information is outside of it. People may look at the chair wrestler and the racist teens and think that this is what Korine thinks of the Midwest, but that was real. It's in the film, because it exist and not because Korine wrote it. I love this film.

[The Comedian]

Saw the newest Harry Potter -- pretty dumb and hard to follow, like most movies. 4/10

[NickAdams]

500 Days of Summer
This movie is hard to rate, because I liked and disliked things that ran throughout it.
I enjoyed it overall. There is a mixture of honest moments and characters and movieness and genre stock. I liked the soundtrack, but was unenthusiastic about the score. The narrative and it's mosaic style is refreshing for a Hollywood picture (it's nothing new if you a familiar with French cinema), but the glossiness of the picture always distracted me; one could argue that it reflects Tom's job, but ... eh. lol

[Taliesin]

Avatar.
The visuals were pretty nice. Too bad you can't say the same for the plot.
4/10