Author Topic: RossRoy's Random Viewings  (Read 174742 times)

RossRoy

  • Guest
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #105 on: May 26, 2008, 05:42:45 AM »
The Thomas Crown Affair
 
Original Title: The Thomas Crown Affair
Year: 1999
Country: United States
Director: John McTiernan
Rating: R
Length: 113 Min.
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen 2.35:1, Pan & Scan 1.33:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital 5.1, Commentary: Dolby Digital Stereo, French: Dolby Digital 5.1, Commentary: Dolby Digital Surround
Subtitles: English, French

What they say
"Pierce Brosnan and Rene Russo catch fire" ('USA Today') in this sizzling, suspense-filled thriller from the director of 'Die Hard' and 'The Hunt For Red October'.

Thrill-seeking billionaire Thomas Crown (Brosnan) loves nothing more than courting disaster -- and winning! So when his world becomes too stiflingly "safe," he pulls off his boldest stunt ever: stealing a priceless painting -- in broad daylight -- from one of Manhattan's most heavily-guarded museums. But his post-heist excitement soon pales beside an even greater challenge: Catherine Banning (Russo). A beautiful insurance investigator hired to retrieve the artwork, Catherine's every bit as intelligent, cunning 'and' hungry for adventure as he is. And just when Thomas realizes he's finally met his match, she skillfully leads him into a daring game of cat and mouse that's more intoxicating -- and dangerous -- than anything either of them has ever experienced before!

My Thoughts
I really didn't know what to watch tonight. I knew I felt like watching a movie, as opposed to playing games, but I was not in any particular mood. So what I did is I closed my eyes, and "felt" my way through my unwatched pile, and watched the movie on which my hand stopped. And so The Thomas Crown Affair it was.

So, what did I think of it? Well, I don't really know. I guess it wasn't what I was expecting. I don't know where I got that from, but I was expecting some sort of suspenseful thriller. What I got, is a thriller alright, but more a romantic thriller.

I loved the opening scene. Never having seen the original, I really didn't know what was going on. And to open on a heist to steal a painting, really sets the story in motion in a great way. Unfortunately, it kinda drags all the way through to the reveal of the painting's fate. Sure, there's a few highlights. The dance scene is nice, although both of them aren't really dancers. The sex scene is fun too, and I must say, while I never cared much for René Russo, she is strikingly beautiful in this movie. And no, I'm not saying this only because we see her topless a few times :tease:. But all in all, it is quite boring in my opinion. It plays too much like a romance movie sandwhiched between two action scenes.

You know, it could be the ultimate chick flick for boyfriend. Opens with a good action scene, develops the romance, closes on an action scene. With sex and nudity thrown in for good measure. ;)

Thomas Crown is an OK movie, but not something I'll necessarily be eager to watch again.



edit:

I forgot to mention something. The soundtrack is awesome! The choice of the songs is wonderful. It might have something to do with the fact that it is very jazz oriented, and well, I love jazz. I even let the credits roll, twice, just to listen to the song (Windmill of Your Mind by Sting)

« Last Edit: May 26, 2008, 05:49:37 AM by RossRoy »

Najemikon

  • Guest
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #106 on: May 26, 2008, 12:44:24 PM »
It is a strange film, but if you're in the mood for it, it's pretty good. I've never seen the original with Steve McQueen, but apparently that really is a snooze-fest!

RossRoy

  • Guest
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #107 on: May 26, 2008, 04:01:58 PM »
It is a strange film, but if you're in the mood for it, it's pretty good. I've never seen the original with Steve McQueen, but apparently that really is a snooze-fest!

 :phew:

When I saw you had replied, I thought I had incurred your wrath for not liking a masterpiece!  :laugh: :tease:

Najemikon

  • Guest
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #108 on: May 26, 2008, 07:01:48 PM »
When I saw you had replied, I thought I had incurred your wrath for not liking a masterpiece!  :laugh: :tease:

:hysterical: I don't think anyone is confusing either version with a masterpiece!

RossRoy

  • Guest
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #109 on: May 28, 2008, 06:27:08 AM »
House of the Dead
 
Original Title: House of the Dead
Year: 2003
Country: Germany
Director: Uwe Boll
Rating: R
Length: 90 Min.
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen 1.85:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Surround EX, English: DTS ES (Matrixed), English: Dolby Digital Surround, Commentary: Dolby Digital Stereo, Commentary: Dolby Digital Stereo
Subtitles: English, Spanish

What they say
It's Spring Break and the college kids just want to party. When they charter a boat to take them to a rave on a nearby island, they arrive only to find it deserted, except for the bloodthirsty zombies that have taken it over. A frantic search begins for weapons to use against the encroaching killers because, as nighttime falls, their only hope for survival is to win the final battle...in the 'HOUSE OF THE DEAD'.

My Thoughts
Wow, where to begin. There's so many things wrong with this, including something I really hate: the movie doesn't follow its own logic. Yes, the zombies here are a departure from what we're used to. They move fast, they can run, they swim, they are strong, can jump big distances, etc. It's made clear, during one of the first attacks, that they can break your neck one handed easily. I can live with that. Yet, during the battle at the lake, a zombie gets both hands on the neck of some girl, and the girl manages to survive!   :-\

There's also the whole "we are wimps, we don't know what to do, let's run", to the "we have gun, we kick ass, we are now fighting masters" all in what, 2 minutes?  ::)

Also, what's up with the game scenes inserted all over the place? Or the very gimmicky bullet time effects all the time? Or the camera around a character that's just been killed with the screen going red, yet not doing it for all the characters?   ???

And these are just a few examples of all the little things that are wrong in this. But you know what? Despite all this, despite the gimmicky nature of it, and all the illogical stuff going on, beyond it all, what did I find?

It is a fun movie!

Yes, I still liked it! After all, it is based on a basically storyless game, where you just shoot hordes of zombies. And at that, the movie did a great job capturing the fun of the game, and translating it to film. I'm glad I didn't listen to all the people saying that it's bad and shouldn't have been made, because I would've missed a fun movie.

Rating:

Oh, I forgot the mention. The actress playing Alicia (Ona Grauer), is HAWT!  :drooling:


And we get to see Erica Durance (Lois Lane on Smallville) topless, though it makes it obvious she got implants in-between :thumbdown:
She looked mighty fine before the implants.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2008, 06:32:44 AM by RossRoy »

Offline Jimmy

  • Mega Heavy Poster
  • *******
  • Posts: 6754
  • Yes this is me...
    • View Profile
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #110 on: May 28, 2008, 02:22:45 PM »
I'm glad I didn't listen to all the people saying that it's bad and shouldn't have been made, because I would've missed a fun movie.
That's what I've always said if you give him a chance his movies are entertainning and you pass a good time with them. Many people don't understand that it's based on a video game and no story is needed, just a lot of action. The game inserts are an hommage to the game itself, something who doesn't help the film at all...

RossRoy

  • Guest
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #111 on: May 28, 2008, 03:12:26 PM »
The game inserts are an hommage to the game itself, something who doesn't help the film at all...

Yes, but unfortunately it comes off as a very clumsy way to pay homage to the game.

Najemikon

  • Guest
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #112 on: May 28, 2008, 08:51:00 PM »
Many people don't understand that it's based on a video game and no story is needed, just a lot of action.

 :o
Wash your mouth out! :redcard: Some games have better stories than the average movie these days and they deserve to be made properly. I swear, if this guy tries to make Half-Life, I will track him down and make rude gestures at him... :tease:

Actually, that reminds me, on this very subject of plots in games and writing standards, if you come across this months PC-Zone (UK) magazine, turn to the letters page... ;) 8)

RossRoy

  • Guest
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #113 on: May 28, 2008, 11:46:34 PM »
Some games have better stories than the average movie these days and they deserve to be made properly.

I keep finding myself wondering what would the new Star Wars trilogy could've been like, had it used either the Thrawn Trilogy (Thimothy Zahn books), or KotOR's storyline (the game).

I'd also love to see Mass Effect made into a movie! Blue alien sex and all!  ;D

Offline Tom

  • Mega Heavy Poster
  • *******
  • Posts: 5976
    • View Profile
    • Cinematic Collection Viewer
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #114 on: May 29, 2008, 10:01:02 PM »
I was really disappointed, when I found out, that the title of Indy 4 is not "The Fate of Atlantis"  :laugh:
Seriously though, that would have been awesome!



RossRoy

  • Guest
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #115 on: May 30, 2008, 04:50:40 AM »
I was really disappointed, when I found out, that the title of Indy 4 is not "The Fate of Atlantis"  :laugh:
Seriously though, that would have been awesome!

Oh that brings back memories! It was a great game! They don't make them like that anymore, unfortunately. I loved those point'n'click adventures.

RossRoy

  • Guest
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #116 on: May 30, 2008, 04:58:49 AM »
Shrek the Third
 
Original Title: Shrek the Third
Year: 2007
Country: United States
Director: Chris Miller
Rating: G
Length: 93 Min.
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen 1.85:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital 5.1, English: Dolby Digital Surround, French: Dolby Digital 5.1, Spanish: Dolby Digital Surround
Subtitles: English, French, Spanish

What they say
Get ready for Thirds -- the greatest fairy tale never told continues with a whole new hilarious comedy of royal proportions. When his frog-in-law suddenly croaks, Shrek embarks on another whirlwind adventure with Donkey and Puss In Boots to find the rightful heir to the throne. Everyone's favourite cast of characters is back, along with a magical misguided Merlin, an awkward Arthur, a powerful posse of princesses, and a bundle of unexpected arrivals. Only Shrek can tell a tale where everyone lives happily ever laughter!

My Thoughts
Here's a movie from which I had seen bits and pieces, here and there, because it's one of the niece's favourite movie. But I never sat down to watch it, straight through, from beginning to end. Until now.

Well, I don't know if it's the novelty of kind of perversing the traditional fairy tales that is wearing off or what, but I found this installment lacking, as opposed to the first two. Shrek 1 and 2 rank among my most favouritest animated movies, but this third one is lacking something. And you know what, I think it's because we've seen it all before. It felt like a retelling of Part 1, but with Arthur switched out for Fiona. I mean, it is again Shrek sets out to find someone, comes back, gets double crossed, fights to regain what he's lost, wins the fight, and lives happily ever after. Rinse, lather, repeat, yawn! Next!

That's not to say it is all bad though. There are a few good flashes here and there. I like the final fight too. But the freshness of it has worn out. Guess it's time Dreamworks moved on to another franchise. They've milked Shrek for all its worth.

Rating:

Najemikon

  • Guest
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #117 on: May 30, 2008, 09:55:48 AM »
Guess it's time Dreamworks moved on to another franchise. They've milked Shrek for all its worth.

Don't speak to soon! Aren't they still working on a Puss In Boots spin-off?

RossRoy

  • Guest
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #118 on: May 30, 2008, 01:39:35 PM »
Don't speak to soon! Aren't they still working on a Puss In Boots spin-off?

Don't know about that. But a Puss In Boots spin-off would still open up new venues that aren't really available in the Shrek-centric universe.

RossRoy

  • Guest
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #119 on: May 31, 2008, 01:50:23 PM »
The Pink Panther
 
Original Title: The Pink Panther
Year: 2006
Country: United States
Director: Shawn Levy
Rating: PG
Length: 93 Min.
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen 1.85:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital 5.1, French: Dolby Digital 5.1, Commentary: Dolby Digital Surround
Subtitles: English, French

What they say
When a star soccer coach is murdered and his priceless Pink Panther diamond stolen, France is in an uproar. Fortunately, Inspector Jacques Clouseau (Steve Martin, 'Bowfinger', 'Cheaper by the Dozen') is on the case. He doesn't have a clue, but for Clouseau, that's just a minor detail. With his partner, Gilbert Ponton (Jean Reno, 'The Da Vinci Code', 'The Professional'), he careens from one misadventure to the next, leaving mayhem in his wake from the boulevards of Paris to the streets of New York. Will he seduce the pop diva, Xania (Beyoncé Knowles, 'Austin Powers: Goldmember')? Will he push Chief Inspector Dreyfus (Oscar® Winner Kevin Kline, 1988 Best Supporting Actor, 'A Fish Called Wanda') over the edge? Will he catch the killer and recover the diamond? With Inspector Clouseau, anything is possible.

My Thoughts
I was surprised by that. I didn't realise how slapstick it is. Not that I was expecting intelligent humour, but I didn't realise it was this much over the top. And I must say, this was not my cup of tea, so to speak. To me, one of the biggest problem here is that most, if not all, of the comedy is based around Clouseau's clumsiness. Now, I like scenes where a characters clumsiness creates comedy, but for a whole 90 minutes? It gets really irritating. And what makes it worse, if they reuse gags all over the movie. It's like had ideas to do a short, but had to stretch it to feature length by contract, and decided to rotate the few jokes they had, and redo them in different context over and over again.

So while I didn't hate it, it was a very forgettable 90 minutes. It is a disappointment.

Rating: