• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

FILM: Mini-reviews of a bunch of random movies

I am sort of writing these as I take a break from a boring, monotonous task.... :\ I saw Spiderman and Sum of All Fears during their opening weekend....so I am running behind, as you can see.
Sum of All Fears I am not really into Tom Clancy stuff, either. But Sum of All Fears held my attention pretty well. Ben Affleck, doing a much better job than he did in Changing Lanes, plays the role of Dr. Ryan. He works for the CIA as a junior level analyst writing reports about foreign political situations. Dr. Ryan is thrust into a more active role when the man he predicted would be the next Russian President suddenly takes office. Morgan Freeman is great as the wise ol' spook who takes Ryan under his wing. Meanwhile, halfway around the world, a missing nuclear weapon goes on the black market. A pro-Nazi terrorist group buys the bomb and has plans to trick Russia and America into exterminating each other. The movie is fast paced, most (but not all) of the plot twists are believable and there are a couple of deft "character developments" (as I call them). I have heard other people, referring to the possibility of a "mad man" terrorist getting hold of a nuclear bomb, say: "Wow, Sum of All Fears really made me think!" I wouldn't go that far, but it was a very enjoyable way to spend a couple hours. Go to the theater if you want a good action/suspense flick, or give this a chance when it comes out on video. 6.5/10
[ 17 June 2002: Message edited by: Catch-22 ]
 
Windtalkers I enjoyed watching this movie. I walked into the theater not knowing what to expect....I enjoy John Woo's early films, but some of his Hollywood stuff (Broken Arrow, anyone?) has left a lot to be desired. Usually I really dislike Nicholas Cage, but he was actually tolerable in Windtalkers. The plot revolves around America's battles in the Pacific during WWII. The USMC decides to design an "unbreakable" code based on the Navajo language to facilitate battlefield communication. Two Navajo men leave their Arizona reservation to volunteer for service, and Nicholas Cage and Christian Slater are two Marine officers who are given the responsibility of protecting the Navajo code. Presumably they are body guards for the code talkers, but they are actually under orders to never let their Navajo man be taken hostage. Both officers are uneasy with the prospect that they might actually have to kill a fellow Marine. Nicholas Cage's character (as usual for him!) is a broken man, scarred by his previous battles and becoming immune to the brutality of war. Christian Slater's character is more easy going and likeable. While Slater befriends his Navajo subject, Cage tries to remain distant and detached from "Ben" (his assignment). As with a lot of John Woo movies, beneath the rampant violence and endless shootouts lies some subtle character development. Cage begins to respect Ben when they realize how similar they are. Windtalkers has a few subplots that work and a few that suck. I thought the racism that the Navajo men face from the other Marines was realistic and added depth to the story. The romance between Cage and a pretty nurse, however, was downright silly. John Woo continues to have some problems adapting his style to Hollywood, but I thought this was an improvement over Face/Off. Certain parts of Windtalkers seemed like second generation copies of The Killer and A Better Tomorrow, but I still think this one was a winner. 7.5/10
[ 18 June 2002: Message edited by: Catch-22 ]
 
Yay! I am finally caught up with my movie reviews....no more backlog! Today is also the 6th month anniversary of the beginning of this thread, so I am putting this war horse out of its misery. Be on the lookout for v3.0, but feel free to keep posting any reactions or comments about movies already discussed in this thread.
___
*kell*: Diane Lane has always been hot! Check out an old movie she was in called Lady Beware. Mmmmm.... Also, Unfaithful was directed by Adrian Lyne of 9 1/2 Weeks, so the steam was to be expected. And yeah, definitely similar to In the Bedroom.
SugarCandy: Sorry, I still say Vanilla Sky left me thinking for a few days afterwards. I think Cruz and Diaz are very attractive ladies, but they aren't hot enough to make me enjoy a sucky movie. I know Vanilla Sky is a remake, but I just found the story very interesting.
These two young boys so uninterested by life...making up rules but totally disregarding them...caring for nothing but sex, drugs, parties etc...riding in a car with a women who loved, lost...and was dealing with a deep dark secret that she dare not share...did you even think that was gonna happen at the end??
Very well said, SugarCandy!
shannabanana: I agree. I had never thought that Robin Williams was that good of an actor, but he did a really nice job being the bad guy.
Click to expand...
 
The Others - Starring Nicole Kidman. This is kind of a freaky movie, not the scariest in the world, but worthy of rent if you have a "Rent One Get One Free" coupon or something. The movie deals with spirits living in this house, and surprise house guests who are actually dead themselves who speak to these 2 kids (who are allergic to sunlight). For some reason, I rented the DVD and it was really hard to hear what the characters were saying. The people speak with an English accent, and "half-whisper" through the whole movie. Even with my Onkyo Receiver set to Dolby Digital 5.1, I still found myself turning up the volume to hear dialect, and turning it down when music came on.
I'd give it 7.5 / 10
 
Dogtown and Z-Boys (IMDB info: http://us.imdb.com/Title?0275309 )
Writer/Director: Stacey Peralta
Narrator: Sean Penn
Relase: 2001
This documentary chronicles the birth of modern skateboarding. It's been making the rounds in second-run theaters and art houses recently. Sean Penn narrates and Stacy Peralta gets credit for writing/directing (that's right, Peralta as in Powell/Peralta skate company).
-------------------------------------
In the 70s, skateboarding was on its way to a quiet death after having almost passed by as no more than "another of those crazy fads" of earlier years (picture the hula hoop). Skateboarding style at that time was nothing like what most of us have always known of it. Picture the difference between rollerskating and hardcore blading and you'll begin to have an idea just how big the difference was. In the 50s, 60s, and into the 70s the only street style for skating had been on a flat, smooth stretch of pavement ... and the only way ramp skating had crossed anyone's mind was for straight down-hill speed.
The Z-boys were the Zephyr skate crew, from the Dogtown area near Santa Monica in SoCal. They had taken up skating in their time out of the water, but their style made its radical turn when they began translating their surf style to asphalt. I got the whole gist of what this meant from a shot of a surfer doing a cut-back imposed over one of the Z-boys doing exactly the same move on a skateboard. The replication was incredibly almost perfect.
These are the kids who first took skating to pools, curbs, anything that looked like it could provide an interesting new challenge. They brought with them as well the modern skater's "I don't give a fuck" attitude, another thing which didn't exist before they emerged.
I doubt many people are aware of this particular bit of modern culture's history. Whether you ever skated or not, the film is worth seeing. A few included notables: Stacey Peralta, George Powell, Tony Alva, C.R. Stecyk, Jay Adams.
"Two hundred years of American technology has unwittingly created a massive cement playground of unlimited potential. But it was the minds of eleven-year-olds that could see that potential."
-- C.R. Stecyk III
Click to expand...
 
tonyalva.jpg

Tony Alva back in his day.
:)
 
Spiderman I disagree
I have been into comics at one point a year ago or so but not spiderman mutch, more Alan Moore stuff like watchmen and V for Vendetta. Brian Michael Bendis is good too.
Anyway, Spiderman could have been so much better. I don't think the story is that awful. I think the growing insanity of the green goblin could have been done far more interestingly. Peter's emotions when he found that his best friend (and one of his only friends) should surely have been more extreme than just "oh well i've been betrayed".
He gets rediculously mature in a short space of time (see the ending of the film).
The dialogue, especially between Parker and Mary Jane is incredibly cheesy and unrealistic.
It caught me slightly, I didn't care much though. I was suprised (I don't know the spiderman comic) at the ending, but no more. If it had been done properly I would have been shocked and appaled and basically thinking what a fucking idiot Peter is while also respecting him for such a decision.
Anyway the CGI, effects and combat are all fine 5/10
 
Divine Secrets of the YaYa Secrethood - something makes me think we won't see a review of this from catch, but here are my thoughts: I watched it by myself and I quite enjoyed it. I really like a good "chickflick" now and then, and this is my new Beaches. Mainly, I thought that Ashley Judd and Ellen Burstyn were terrific. Judd's portrayal of a woman on (over) the edge gave me chills. Sandra Bullock, however, was nothing special. Anyone could have played her part, as far as I'm concerned.
I won't actually rate the movie because, well, I can't rate movies, it stresses me out (should I rank it based on entertainment value?? acting?? insightfulness?? etc).
But I would recommend seeing the movie.
 
Well, apparently I can't rate movies either, shannabanana! :\
Last night I was talking to someone about movies so for the first time I went through and read this thread from beginning to end. Oh my....
My number rating system is all over the fucking place! I say a movie is "great" and give it an 8/10, and then three months later I say a movie is "okay" and give it 8.5/10.
No, I am not on crack and have actually been drug free for over a year. So...hmmm...I just didn't have a very standard way to do my numbering system.
I am actually gonna rank all the movies I have seen in this thread from best to worst, and then try to come up with a little more reasonable way to rate future movies as I see them. :\
So, I justed wanted to clearly say that although my written reviews might be reasonably consistent, the actual score at the end has been very irregular. Big room for improvement in v3.0....
 
Look catch-22 whatever minor inconsistencies are there you are doing great work here
 
Well, I think the comments are way more valuable than the number anyway. We all know that everyones tastes in movies are very different, so I'd rather know why/what you liked/disliked than how you rated it. Keep up the fantabulous work! (Lamest word I know, hahahhaha)
 
"THE FAST RUNNER: ARTUNARJUAT" is a film like no other--and thats not just hyperbole. Its a shot on digital video feature made by & about the Inuit people who live in the northernmost point of Canada. It easily could've been an "eat your spinach its good for you" movie but it is SO much more: its a grand epic, a thriller, a love story, a chase film & a ghost story. Be warned it IS three hours long & the 3 hours do not fly by BUT the slowest part is the first 30 minutes during which the viewer is imersed headfirst into the Inuit culture.
And what a culture it is! Remember the old adage that "Eskimos have 30 words for snow but no word for war"? BULLSHIT!! Their entire lives are spent in a war; war with the elements & with eachother. Sort of like the Klingons from "Star Trek". The film is based on a 1000 year old legend of the Inuit & is an examination of the lifestyle & psyche of this closed & self contained world. See it with no expectations & be prepared to be blown away.
 
GET THE FUCK IN
I cant believe someone else watched that
yes that is an amazing movie
I watched it at Edinburgh film festival and was blown away.
I'm really happy you watched that evsid.
I mean I even shouted yes when I saw what movie you were talking about!!
I'm not sure I would take it to be a perfectrepresentation of the iniuts but it is an amazing film that everyone should watch.
If you ever get the chance to see a documentary movie called southern comfort about a transexual watch it. I saw it like 4 days later at the film festival and it was even better.
[ 20 June 2002: Message edited by: Setarcos ]
 
I think I've seen Southern Comfort...wasn't it a doc about a female-to-male transsexual married to a male-to-female transsexual, and the f2m was dying of cancer? They showed it on HBO. Very well done, I agree. :)
 
K19: The Widowmaker I hadn't been to the theaters in a while, but I had seen the previews and was pretty excited for the chance to see K19. Harrison Ford plays a Russian submarine captain given a critical mission during the Cold War era: Take an experimental submarine to sea and fire a test missile. The submarine is not ready to sail and there is a lot of chaos, but they are under pressure from the communist party to successfully complete their mission. The submarine crew is not too thrilled about the mission, and even less pleased that the uptight Ford has displaced their former captain (who must now serve as second in command to Ford). A very intense Ford drives the men almost to the point of mutiny with his repeated "drills" and aloof demeaner, which is in stark contrast to the former captain's charisma and laidback manner. The turning point comes when the ship's nuclear powered engine malfunctions. The core temperatures are rising and they must solve the problem before they go *kaboom*. K19 is based on real events, and I was definitely drawn into this movie because of the very believable human elements. A submarine is a very claustrophobic setting, which effectively increased the "pressure" between Ford and the crew. I found the middle-level officers loyalty to their original captain (now second in command) to be very well executed, but I also identified with the Harrison Ford character's drive for perfection. I don't really know how to make comparisons because the stories were so different, but I think K19 is a much better movie than U571. There are a few hokey elements (the nuclear captain's fiance, the sailor's little pet mouse) but the movie was pretty much free of crap. I think the action/adventure parts of the movie were great, but the characters and story-telling were my favorite parts of K19. 8.5/10
[Excuse me, I am a little rusty at writing these reviews!] ;)
 
Signs
Well, I am a huge fan of scary movies, GOOD ones, so I am always up for seeing them... but I expect that movies that advertise themselves as scary go about 1/10, if that, for being something that is quality and scares me. I kind of got dragged along to see this one, because while it looked scary, alien movies also usually turn out to be dumb.
I thought this movie was VERY VERY well executed until the last ten minutes (more on that later). The characters became dear to me after only a little while. The little girl made me go "awww" every time I saw her, and each character's quirky little traits made them interesting and kept the plot moving. Also, the director keeps you in absolute suspense as to what is actually going on here. Are nerds getting together on a wide scale and making crop circles (this sounds scary to me ;P) or is it aliens? If it's aliens, what do they want? Then when the aliens finally appear, they continue to be scary because you never see them, only glimpses of a something in the shadows. VERY VERY well-done suspense, and they make it even worse by relaxing it from time to time and letting you laugh and cry with the characters...then BAM! more scary.
And then... sigh, the explanation for what's going on, and you finally see the aliens. This sucks. I don't know what I was expecting to happen, but it wasn't what actually happened, and it was kind of a let down after the adrenaline trip of the movie. So even though I LOVED the whole movie until then, I walked out of the theater with a bit of a let-down feeling.
But I still went to bed a little afraid of the dark and wanting to board up my windows that night.
I give it.... 9/10? because the bulk of the movie was good. Best scary movie I've seen in a while.
 
Signs I pretty much agree with Alf. I was gonna see this movie one way or the other, but I didn't know whether to expect The Sixth Sense or Unbreakale. Mel Gibson plays a former minister who has abandoned the church and his faith. Gibson is sort of a scattered/lost man, trying to take care of his two kids after his wife is killed in a freak accident. Joaquin (sp?) Phoenix does a great job playing Gibson's younger brother, a former athlete who has moved into older brother's rural Pennsylvania farm to try to help. One day the foursome wakes up and finds a crop circle in their corn fields. Amidst some great suspense, events continue to unfold in the unlikeliest of ways....culminating in the world being under attack from aliens. There are a lot of scary moments that are well worth the price of admission. I think the middle part of the movie, where there are some clues adrift in terror and disbelief, was the most gripping. The film is well shot to give a claustrophobic feel that recalls Night of the Living Dead, The Mothman Prophecies and Predator. Our good buddy M. Night seems to enjoy having very tidy movies where every loose strand is resolved into an over-perfect plot. In that regard Signs falls somewhere between Sixth Sense and Unbreakable in effectiveness, but I think he was just trying to humanize the characters. M. Night has his style and will use it, so can't fault the guy for doing things the way he wants. Just for the fright and the suspense, I have to give Signs a 9/10.
I am writing this at the gym, standing up with sweat dripping off me, but I did the best I could. ;) (excuses, excuses)
[ 06 August 2002: Message edited by: Catch-22 ]
 
Full Frontal Ah, yes! The little independent movie shot on digital by Steven Soderbergh for a mere US$2,000,000. Yeah, fuck it, he is still cutting edge after making Oceans 11. Just check it out! All the actors did their own makeup. Everyone just wanted to collaborate and make a really cool film. 8) Hmm...so the result was kind of uneven. Full Frontal is definitely an interesting way to spend a couple hours. The story revolves around about eight adults who will be going to a dinner party. The plot is (deliberately?) a big convoluted mess with four subplots. Subplot A is the movie within a movie within a movie involving Blair Underwood and Julia Roberts. This was sort of boring and did not really catch my interest. Subplot B revolves around a director trying to bring his independent play, a historic comedy involving Adolf Hitler, to the stage. There are some solid laughs as he tries to handle his egomaniacal leading man (Hitler). Subplot C covers an unhappily married couple. The wimpish man is fired from his job at a Maxim-esque magazine, while the bitter women is a movie producer who enjoys teasing a series of hapless employees. Subplot D involves the bitter women from Subplot C and her sister, a masseuse who is carrying on an internet affair with the director from Subplot B. Oh, and the bitter women is also the producer for the film within a film that comprised Subplot A. ;) All right, so what do we have here? We have some complete shit with subplot A, some solid laughs with subplot B, a decent story with subplot C and some character development stuff with subplot D. At different times I was bored, laughing and wondering how everything could fit together in the end. Strictly hit and miss, but Full Frontal is an interesting project. Do not waste US$7 like I did! Instead, wait for the chance to rent it from the video. You will lose nothing in the translation. It was fun, but I wouldn't bother with a repeat viewing. 6/10
[ 24 August 2002: Message edited by: Catch-22 ]
 
Okay, I got a few more minutes to kill, so let's empty off the backlog! ;)
Blood Work Egads, this was the shittiest movie I have seen in years. We are talking worse than Halloween H20....ugh, I don't even know where to start. Clint Eastwood plays a retired FBI profiler who just received a heart transplant. The sister of his heart donor comes to visit him. Whoa, she wants him to track down her sister's killer! Of course, that pushes the limits for a 70+ year old guy with a brand new heart. Clint awkwardly hobbles about trying to solve this mystery, which had the depth of a typical Scooby Doo plot. The shit was so obvious that the simpleton behind us in the theater was guessing shit 30 minutes ahead of time. The "witty" dialogue between Clint and the police was just downright crappy. The casting was appalling. There were so many cliches it became painful. I was actually wondering: "Damn, I will feel sorry for Clint Eastwood if this is his last movie." The pacing oscilated between plodding and silly. Some scenes were just cumbersome to sit through, because you already knew the point of the scene and were just waiting for it to be over. I began to feel guilty for having dragged two friends to sit through this with me. It was a complete trainwreck. The ending is so hokey and corny that you began to feel sorry for anyone who spent part of their life making Blood Work. Yeah, I paid my US$7 but at least it was over for me when the credits rolled. 0.5/10
__
Note: 0.5 out of 10 is the lowest score I have ever given a movie!
[ 24 August 2002: Message edited by: Catch-22 ]
 
ok........ my observation of SiGNS tends to be along the lines of M.Night's directorial style.
M.Night likes to use situations that make you wonder if the main character is dreaming or not.
is Bruce Willis DREAMING after being shot...?
is Bruce WIllis DREAMING after surviving the trainwreck....?
is Mel Gibson DREAMING that the world as he knows it is being torn asunder by aliens...?
The signs pardon the pun, are all there...
1) The first scene is Mel waking up rather abruptly. When he finds his daughter in the field, she asks "daddy, are you in my dream, too...?" When Mel goes to answer "This isn't a dream..." he is cut off before he can say "dream".
2) lots of fish-bowl lense work for close-ups.
3) in the final flashback, the guy that accidentally killed Mel's wife (played by the director, of course) has a jacket on and a bloody wound on the left side... when Mel confronts him outside his house, the guy has the same jacket on, but a wound on his right... is this simply the fact that he was attacked by the alien, or was it a distortion of memory that dreams tend to do...
Again, there are simple answers to these questions...
1) Mel was simply interupted.
2) Director likes fish bowl lenses.
3) M.Night's character was simply wearing the same jacket and attacked by the alien.
But there's this underlinging sense of "no, it can't be THAT simple..."
In fact, I think it WAS that simple. I think M.Night wanted to show that you coudl take over-used themes and character types and make a solid movie without gimmicks or his "end with a twist"...
There was no twist.
And people are still talking about it, trying to find it... that's what makes this movie brilliant.
M.Night ever fucks with his own proven gimmick of colour..... in this one, every now and again, you'd notice that Jauquin Phoenix's character was the only one not wearing the same colour as everyone else. He wore alot of red, when the other main characters were dressed in neautral and brown plaids... was it Mel's dream or Phoenix's dream...?
Again, it's M.Night just fuckin' with us.
It was a great movie b-c of this... well, this and the suspense... and the comedy... and the cute kids... and the FINE AS HELL Mr. Phoenix... and the well-written script/cinematography/direction.
I can't wait for his next one.
-physix
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top