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

[DanielBenoit]

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

Probably Herzog. Anyone remember the dancing chicken from Stroszeck?

[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

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

[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.