Author Topic: Michael's random reviews  (Read 48008 times)

Najemikon

  • Guest
Re: Michael's random reviews
« Reply #105 on: March 26, 2011, 12:45:30 PM »
This is a movie with a message, which is well wrapped into a nice story with a Happy Ending, probably to make the bitter pill go down better.
You must have watched a different movie than me. While not exactly a downer, I didn't find the ending particularly "happy". but then again, it depends whose story line had you enganged more... :hmmmm:

I was thinking exactly the same!  :laugh:

Mustrum_Ridcully

  • Guest
Re: Michael's random reviews
« Reply #106 on: March 26, 2011, 12:54:40 PM »
This is a movie with a message, which is well wrapped into a nice story with a Happy Ending, probably to make the bitter pill go down better.
You must have watched a different movie than me. While not exactly a downer, I didn't find the ending particularly "happy". but then again, it depends whose story line had you enganged more... :hmmmm:

I was thinking exactly the same!  :laugh:
Well at least the two "prawns" make it back home, and I'm not entirely sure that Wikus is really unhappy with his fate.

Mustrum_Ridcully

  • Guest
Re: Michael's random reviews
« Reply #107 on: March 26, 2011, 11:44:30 PM »
Crazy Heart  





Summary:
Bad Blake (Jeff Bridges) is a broken-down, hard-living country music singer who's had way too many marriages, far too many years on the road and far too many drinks way too many times. And yet, Bad can't help but reach for salvation with the help of Jean (Maggie Gyllenhaal), a journalist who discovers the real man behind the musician.

My Thoughts:
A movie like a freight-train: Slow and Powerful

In fact this movie is more or less a One-Man-Show, granted, there are other actors and actresses appearing but what makes it exceptional is the performance of Jeff Bridges.
And what a performance this is, Bridges is giving us the down-on-his-luck musician struggling for survival with such an intensity ... it's simply breathtaking.

The, besides the acting of Mr. Bridges, best thing about this movie is what it isn't.
It isn't a movie about an alcoholic drowning in his addiction.
It isn't a movie about an egomaniac doomed to destroy himself and all that love him.
It isn't a movie about a big comeback of an almost forgotten former idol.
And best of all: It isn't a fairytale, in which the ugly frog miraculously turns into a prince.

In the end we find Bad Blake exactly where he was at the beginning of the movie, with just one important difference: In the beginning he had to be there, in the end he wants to be there.

Highly recommended to all but Pete (too much music)

My Rating: (out of possible 5)
« Last Edit: December 02, 2013, 06:25:19 PM by Silence_of_Lambs »

Mustrum_Ridcully

  • Guest
Re: Michael's random reviews
« Reply #108 on: April 01, 2011, 12:39:55 AM »
Perrier's Bounty  




Summary:
Michael (Cillian Murphy) is having a bad day. He owes money to Perrier (Brendan Gleeson), a local thug. When two enforcers demand payment by nightfall, Michael does a burglary with two others but won't be paid till morning. All he has to do is stay away from the thugs until he can get the money then give it to Perrier. But the lads catch Michael and start to deliver a beating, but Brenda (Jodie Whittaker), Michael's suicidal neighbor, shoots one. Now they must run for their lives, accompanied by Jim (Jim Broadbent), Michael's estranged father who claims to be dying and has come to reconcile with his son. Will any of the trio see the sun rise? And can Michael become enlightened, become a better man?

My Thoughts:
I bought this movie because the trailer looked very promising.
And that's exactly what this flick is: Promising. Sadly it's not willing to keep it's promises.

The movie is a mix of three genre-classics ("Lucky # Slevin", "In China They Eat Dogs" and "The Boondock Saints"), it's taking parts of these three and tries to create something new out of it. While this "Sampling" might work in music, it definitely is no good idea for movies. You find too much plagiarism to make it a hommage.
On the positive side this flick creates several good laughs (intended!) and is sufficiently thrilling to keep you entertained for the roughly 90 minutes it takes to bring this movie to it's foreseeable ending.

Nothing special, but entertaining.

My Rating: (out of possible 5)
« Last Edit: December 02, 2013, 06:25:39 PM by Silence_of_Lambs »

Najemikon

  • Guest
Re: Michael's random reviews
« Reply #109 on: April 01, 2011, 12:42:32 AM »
I loved the look of it too from the trailer, but the reviews have been very poor. Weird. Normally films like this match the trailers...

Mustrum_Ridcully

  • Guest
Re: Michael's random reviews
« Reply #110 on: April 27, 2011, 11:51:27 PM »
Antichrist  





Summary:
A grieving couple (Willem Dafoe & Charlotte Gainsbourg) retreats to their cabin in the woods, hoping to repair their broken hearts and troubled marriage. But nature takes its course and things go from bad to worse.

My Thoughts:
I bought this movie because I liked the idea for the story and was really curious what kind of movie that might be that you either love or hate.

I belong to the "Love it" side.
Watched it tonight and wouldn't dare to say that I entirely understood what von Trier is trying to say with this movie, but it's clear enough that exactly this was one of his intentions.
If you expect a movie to answer all questions it throws up, don't watch this one, in the end you'll find more open questions than answers.
And under no obligation watch this movie alone, you'll need some people to talk about it afterwards. It's disturbing, brutal, frightening and at the same time of an amazing beauty.
Probably the most important thing to say is that before watching this movie you should forget about everything you heard or read about it.

To be perfectly honest I don't know of many people that could handle this movie and I'm definitely not the one to tell if you would like it.
Watch it and you will find out, it's worth it.

Highly recommended, but for sure not easy to consume.

My Rating: (out of possible 5)
« Last Edit: December 02, 2013, 06:26:02 PM by Silence_of_Lambs »

Najemikon

  • Guest
Re: Michael's random reviews
« Reply #111 on: April 28, 2011, 12:03:46 AM »
Very interesting, Michael. Empire rated it highly, but gave the same warning that it would split an audience right down the middle. Most people that I know have seen it, dismiss it as being confused, but I like what you've said about it. I will try it one day...

Mustrum_Ridcully

  • Guest
Re: Michael's random reviews
« Reply #112 on: April 28, 2011, 12:17:38 AM »
I will try it one day...
Do so,
you will find a visual masterpiece.
This movie got me with it's opening sequence, which is so perfectly shot, lighted (B&W) and edited that I couldn't believe eyes.
Even if I wouldn't have liked the plot at all, the visual power of the photography would have gotten me.

And it has to be "confused", because not the least part of the plot is the old struggle of ratio vs. emotion.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2011, 12:21:12 AM by Silence_of_Lambs »

Offline Achim

  • Mega Heavy Poster
  • *******
  • Posts: 7171
  • Country: 00
    • View Profile
    • ya_shin's site
Re: Michael's random reviews
« Reply #113 on: April 28, 2011, 06:34:31 AM »
Watched it tonight and wouldn't dare to say that I entirely understood what von Trier is trying to say with this movie, but it's clear enough that exactly this was one of his intentions.
Exactly what kermode said :laugh:

May favorite part of Kermode's review was, where he described sitting in the cinema and thinking to himself, when things on screen got really crazy, "Oh, Lars, you mean..., really...?" :hysterical:

Did you have the impression the German version was cut or is it uncensored (I doubt it, actually, but have been surprised before)?

Mustrum_Ridcully

  • Guest
Re: Michael's random reviews
« Reply #114 on: April 28, 2011, 11:51:57 AM »
Did you have the impression the German version was cut or is it uncensored (I doubt it, actually, but have been surprised before)?
Since there are some very explicit scenes I seriously doubt that this is a cut version.

Offline Danae Cassandra

  • Heavy Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
  • Country: us
    • View Profile
Re: Michael's random reviews
« Reply #115 on: April 28, 2011, 01:53:39 PM »
You're the second really positive review I've heard (haven't read the online ones).  I picked it up a local shop after the clerk was simply raving about it.  I haven't gotten around to watching it yet, but I might have to move it farther up on the 'to-be-watched' list.
If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.
-- Thorin Oakenshield

Offline goodguy

  • Heavy Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1464
  • Colleen West never liked the first light of day.
    • View Profile
Re: Michael's random reviews
« Reply #116 on: May 15, 2011, 07:25:09 AM »
Antichrist
...
I belong to the "Love it" side.
...
It's disturbing, brutal, frightening and at the same time of an amazing beauty.

I'm sorry, but as an immediate reaction, I have to say that I'm a little indifferent about it. Of course I did flinch a couple of times during the last chapter, but that's besides the point. And while I don't deny that it often looks very beautiful, there is a falseness to its beauty (and I don't mean that in the "nature is Satan's church" sense), which makes the dedication to Tarkovsky in the end credits look like a bad joke (maybe it is - who knows with von Trier).

But thanks anyway for making me finally catch up with it.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2011, 07:30:08 AM by goodguy »
Matthias

Mustrum_Ridcully

  • Guest
Re: Michael's random reviews
« Reply #117 on: May 20, 2011, 12:36:41 AM »
Synecdoche, New York  





Summary:
Theater director Caden Cotard (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is mounting a new play. Fresh off of a successful production of Death of a Salesman, he has traded in the suburban blue-hairs and regional theater of Schenectady for the cultured audiences and bright footlights of Broadway. Armed with a MacArthur grant and determined to create a piece of brutal realism and honesty, something into which he can put his whole self ...

My Thoughts:
This might have been the shortest review I'll ever write:
 :o

But seriously:
Kaufmann is continuing his path to abstract reality.
I'm not aware of any movie this could be compared to, except for possibly Adaptation., which nevertheless is on a completely different level.
This piece of art is not easy to follow and I took a second go directly after the first and I'm still not sure if I got the message of the film (if there is any). It left me stunned and at the same time yearning for a third go which I will enjoy as much as the first two ...

My Rating: (out of possible 5)
« Last Edit: December 02, 2013, 06:26:21 PM by Silence_of_Lambs »

Mustrum_Ridcully

  • Guest
Re: Michael's random reviews
« Reply #118 on: August 06, 2011, 12:25:15 AM »
Sucker Punch (Extended Cut)  



Summary:
A young girl (Emily Browning) is locked away in a mental asylum by her abusive stepfather (Gerard Plunkett) where she will undergo a lobotomy in five days' time. Faced with unimaginable odds, she retreats to a fantastical world in her imagination where she and four other female inmates at the asylum, plot to escape the facility. The lines between reality and fantasy blur as Baby Doll and her four companions, as well as a mysterious guide, fight to retrieve the five items they need that will allow them to break free from their captors before it's too late...

My Thoughts:
I had a premiere tonight!

What happens if you give a man that adapted 2 great comic books into visually stunning movies the chance to visualize his own script?
You get a visually stunning Nothing!
The story is as (un)-complex as the Overview promises which in fact should be marked as a spoiler. The plot is easily foreseeable, probably for not distracting you from the beauty of the pictures, which nevertheless only ever look like "Sin City" with more colour.

What we see has the look and feel of a premature wet dream. Barely dressed beauties are pole-dancing while trying to collect 5 items.
The fifth item the girls have to find is the answer to the question: WHY?
I failed on my personal "Why?", which was "Why should I want to watch this movie to the end?"
I didn't find any answer and drew the matching conclusion: For the first time I stopped a movie! Hell, I even made it through Astro Boy.

It's probably as Roger Murtaugh once said: "I'm too old for this shit!"
Or (to repeat myself from another review):
Quote
A note that every director (especially this one) should have attached to his bathroom mirror is: "If you don't have a story to tell: DON'T MAKE A MOVIE!"

My Rating:
:puke:
« Last Edit: August 06, 2011, 12:38:09 AM by Silence_of_Lambs »

Offline goodguy

  • Heavy Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1464
  • Colleen West never liked the first light of day.
    • View Profile
Re: Michael's random reviews
« Reply #119 on: August 06, 2011, 04:03:49 AM »
I dismissed Sucker Punch as soon as I saw the videogame-y trailer, yet the constantly negative reviews piqued my interest. It turned out to be a flawed mess, tedious and brilliant at the same time. I take it over Nolan's Inception any day.
Matthias