Post by: Touti on February 17, 2008, 12:19:58 AM
The rules are simple, I'm gonna watch whatever I can, whenever I can and talk about that.
First in list.
Godsend
When I started watching it I realized that I had seen it before although I though I hadn't when I "Blind bought" it. It's an interesting movie. I thought I would start remembering and get bored but I didn't which is good. It means the movie is well written and nothing is obvious and foreseeable before it happens.
Without selling the punch, it's a thriller movie involving parents and their son. I find interesting that they chose the father to be the one who finds there's something wrong going on and starts digging to find out. It would have been easy to do like most movies and put everything on woman intuition while making the father a dumbass who things everything goes well but they didn't. That's an approach to should be taken more often.
Overall score: 3.9/5
Post by: addicted2dvd on February 17, 2008, 12:29:13 AM
Post by: Touti on February 17, 2008, 02:45:21 AM
(http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/82/821575141154.3f.jpg)
I don't really know what to say about this movie. I was completely lost during the whole movie. I think the british accent of the main character may have something to do with it. Coling Firth speaks fast and not very clearly, with the accent I couldn't understand half of what he was saying and this DVD doesn't have subtitles.
It wasn't until the end that I understood what the story, maybe it's because it's well done and that has nothing to do with the accent after all.
Overall I enjoyed it, I don't regret buying it.
Score: 3.5/5
Could someone use the spoiler tag and tell me what's with the ants :shrug:
Post by: Touti on February 17, 2008, 04:46:57 AM
First time seen
(http://www.getreligion.org/wp-content/photos/1247602_The_Fog_Posters.jpg)
I always find it difficult to review horror and thriller movies. Since they're only meant to be watched and enoyed without asking yourself too many questions there isn't much to say after.
That's a good movie, I enjoyed watching it and it kept my attention all along. It's gonna be interesting to compare with the original when I get it.
4/5
Post by: Najemikon on February 17, 2008, 12:42:32 PM
Coling Firth speaks fast and not very clearly, with the accent I couldn't understand half of what he was saying and this DVD doesn't have subtitles.
Colin Firth? Doesn't speak "clearly"? And what's this rubbish about an "accent"? He's English! He doesn't have a sodding accent! How very dare you. It's come to something when a Canadian (who thinks he's French) claims the Mother-tongue is difficult to understand. Kettle? Pot? :devil: :tease:
:suicide:
****Lovemunkey. Come in Lovemunkey. Backup required. I think I just did something very silly. Fellow Brit in hostile environment. Help? Richie? Anyone with a proper flag? Erm.... oh.****
Post by: Touti on February 17, 2008, 01:16:27 PM
Colin Firth? Doesn't speak "clearly"? And what's this rubbish about an "accent"? He's English! He doesn't have a sodding accent! How very dare you. It's come to something when a Canadian (who thinks he's French) claims the Mother-tongue is difficult to understand. Kettle? Pot? :devil: :tease:
:suicide:
****Lovemunkey. Come in Lovemunkey. Backup required. I think I just did something very silly. Fellow Brit in hostile environment. Help? Richie? Anyone with a proper flag? Erm.... oh.****
:o How dare you, calling me Canadian ??? Who thinks he's french :o. :voodoo: I am Québécois moi Monsieur, I am from the pays of the "poutine" and "des oreilles de crisse". As our great Monsieur de Montcalm said to your little Mr. Wolfe, (please note that I'm having the courtesy to translate it for you.......and that I am writing it with no accent :whateva:), "Mister I will answer you through the mouths of my canons".
Allright so Montcalm lost the battle and died but I think that is irrelevant.
I will be waiting for you at dawn Mister, at "La porte du Nord" to settle our difference (and eat a big mac). Your weapon will be mine :gently_slap_in_fhe_face_with_a_glove_smiley:
And for the record, Colin Firth does mumble
Post by: Najemikon on February 17, 2008, 01:56:49 PM
And that, Sir, is why you shall always lose. For I shall now produce a weapon that history has proved to be the most effective of British contributions to the art of gentlemanly warfare. Feared throughout the world!
Snooker ball in a sock.
Don't bother to run! You'll only die tired. Cannons, my arse. :devil:
Post by: Touti on February 17, 2008, 02:17:06 PM
Note: The sponsors of this event would like to take this opportunity to remind children that throwing rocks or using their socks for anything else than cover their feet is very very very very so very bad. We now return to our regular broadcast
We, Monsieur, will now leave you to spend your last hours with your loved ones.
Our supply of small and portable rocks being very low at the moment, we would greatly appreciate it if you, Monsieur, would courteously agreed to change our field of battle to something closer to our supply of heavier rocks.
Post by: Touti on February 17, 2008, 06:46:41 PM
All about Eve
First time seen
(http://www.legalmoviesdownloads.com/still-frames-movie-pictures/all-about-eve/all-about-eve-box-cover-poster.jpg)
It's been a while since I watched one of these old movies. I had forgotten how "Over dramatic" actors tried to be at the time, not very natural. It took me some time to get into the movie because of that but in the end I enjoyed it although I found it a little long (2:18).
I had not checked the cast before and was a bit surprise when I saw Marylin Monroe in a supporting role with only 2 short appearances. A good movie to watch when you're in the mood for some drama from the 50's
Post by: Touti on February 17, 2008, 10:27:51 PM
First time seen
(http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/NewArts/GentlemansAgreement.jpg)
Now that was a very interesting movie. Filmed in 1947, only 2 years after the 2nd war, it talks about antisemitism. It's the story of a reporter who's asked to write on the subject but as the editor wants something from an angle that was never used before, the reporter decides to pretend he's a Jew for a while and see how they are really treated.
The movie brings an interesting POV about people who say they are not antisemite, that they despise it but still let go along. One very interesting thing is that you would expect the movie to have references to the war and the nazis but it actually doesn't. There's a military who's a Jew and a friend of the reporter but the war is hardly ever mentioned and the holocaust is not mentioned at all.
It is strange that a movie filmed only 2 years after the war and les than a year after the end of the Nuremburg trials would ignore it completely. Was this an attempt to educate the american people, maybe most Americans in 1947 weren't aware of antisemitism and Zionism and the intended purpose of the movie was to try to change that ?
I really don't know but it surely is interesting to see things haven't changed in 60 years because what's showed in that movie still happens today.
Post by: Touti on February 18, 2008, 01:47:44 AM
First time seen
(http://www.utoronto.ca/stmikes/kelly/images/howgreen.jpg)
Boring, Boring and Boring. :thumbdown:
Post by: Touti on February 24, 2008, 09:03:42 PM
Get Carter
(http://img.listal.com/image/productsus/100/0790750716/dvds/get-carter-99191.jpg)
I didn't watch it all last night because I was very tired and I couldn't really concentrate. I went to bed and finished watching it today because I wanted to give it all the attention that (I thought) it deserves.
I know I'm not gonna make any new friends in the british community with my review but if it lacks the admiration that some of you show, it will at least be honnest.
First, I want to say it's a good movie, not a great movie but a good movie. I remember when I watched the Sylvester Strap-Ons version that I was all confused because it starts with a guy showing up somewhere and who starts investigating something by being violent with people. I found it completely stupid at the time (I would probably still) but I didn't know it was a remake, I didn't know it was from a apparently well known movie and book and that I was expected to already know the synopsis.
I was pleased with Caine's performance but then I always am. I think he's one of the (if not the) best british actor. The only time I've seen him in a bad performance was in Jaws 3 and I've always felt the movie was to blame for it.
The plot of the movie is interesting but not extraordinary either, typical for the genre in early 70's. In all honesty, if Get Carter really is one of the best british thriller ever then I really hope I'll never have to watch the worst one.
I will soon be on my way to change my name, move into a new country and adopt a "low profile" life style and try never to be found by Najemikon.
Post by: Najemikon on February 24, 2008, 09:33:50 PM
You're right that it is typical of the 70s, but I would stick my neck out and say that this film was so influential, it was early enough to be the first of its kind.
You have to take a step back from a film like this and try and forget all the pretenders that have repeated it endlessly. You also have to realise the sort of films that were coming out of Britain at the end of the 1960s; this was a dose of grim reality that no-one had seen before. It's brutal and unforgiving, nothing is sugarcoated or resolved neatly. It was all new and fresh for cinema then, but nostalgia aside, nothing has come up to its high standard since, bar The Long Good Friday.
I think perhaps you ruined it for yourself by watching Sly's version first? I don't know. Maybe you just don't like British thrillers. I'm interested to know if you've seen any others, like The Long Good Friday, or even Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, which simply wouldn't exist without either of these films.
Simply because they put it better than I, check out Empire's review: Empire Essay (http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=132853)
I'm not trying to get you to like it, because that was always a possibility, but it will never be a film that can be simply dismissed as just another 70s thriller. It is THE 70s thriller... :training:
Post by: Touti on February 24, 2008, 10:11:09 PM
Although, as I already said, I don't remember much of the Stallone remake, I think I was expecting something quite different from it, maybe because you called it "best thriller" which, by my definition of it, this movie is not. I consider it more of an Action movie than a Thriller so I guess I expected more "Suspense".
It is also possible and even probable that I had high expectations after you've spoken so highly of it. I am not a big fan of the 70's, wether it'd be movies, musics or anything else. I think it's a period in which societies and people weren't really themselves. It was the sex revolution, a new era for music, movies and arts in general, it was also a period where people would do drugs and start over analyzing everything and tried to do different things not because they were inspired by anything but only because they wanted to be different.
Artists and young people wanted a straight cut with the old ways, the religion, the authorites and the government and they were trying to be as "bad" as they could to make sure they were completely opposite to what was generally considered acceptable.
This, in my opinion, has "fathered" many movies that are considered today to be "best ever" and I still fail to see why. If you re-read my review of "Taxi Driver" you'll see that I wasn't much impressed either and I still don't understand what's the big fuss about it. Maybe I should just refrain from watching movies from the 70's.
Post by: Najemikon on February 25, 2008, 01:43:40 AM
I can't claim any first hand experience, but I think people entered the 70s like they were having a hangover and realised there were consequences to the swinging carefree 60s. That's what Get Carter says to me. It was certainly going downhill here in the UK. By the end of the 70s I believe we were in a bit of a state. Everybody going on strike, no-one had any money. It's very fashionable to make fun and say how awful Maggie Thatcher was and how shallow times were under her as PM, but the fact is she pulled this country back together at the end of the decade and this new forward thinking, "everyone can be a winner" Britain is what forms the backdrop to The Long Good Friday.
That's why both films are so potent even now. They evoke a realism that everything since can't identify with. Even young 'uns like me can see it and from my point of view the 70s were great (Space Hoppers! Lego!) and the 80s weren't bad either (Transformers! Zoids!).
In America, I think it was a similar situation plus the added joy of Vietnam as a slap in the face. That's where Taxi Driver comes from. Again, I was 1 when it came out, I'm not American, and everything about Vietnam I learned from Tom Cruise and Oliver Stone, so what do I know! But that movie works and shows me an America rundown and in torment.
Post by: Touti on March 05, 2008, 12:57:55 AM
Synopsis
A murder victim with the same DNA as Christ. A serial killer mimicking the deaths of the 12 Apostles. Inspector Niemans (Reno) and a young, rebellious detective team up with a beautiful expert in religion to crack the case before their elusive suspect completes the cycle of terror, paving the way to an even bigger bloody catastrophe.
My Thoughts
Since I first watched "Crimson Rivers" I've been looking forward to watching this sequel but I couldn't find it on DVD so when I did not long ago I was thrilled and couldn't wait to watch it. Between the time I ordered and received it I got comments from a few people saying it wasn't as good as the first one and I was a bit apprehensive when I sat to watch it because I was afraid I'd be disappointed.
It was the complete opposite, I was completely hooked withing 5 seconds, seriously, and I loved every second of it. It may be a paradox but although I don't believe in god and I'm completely against any religion I'm actually a big fan of movies that deal with spirituality and religions. I really love movies like "Stigmata", "Amen", "The Ninth Gate" etc.
"Angels of the Apocalypse" was no disappointment, if you like thrillers based on religions this movie is for you.
I give it a perfect score.
Post by: Touti on April 12, 2008, 07:32:36 PM
I've always been intrigued and interested by movies based on real serial killers like "Jack the Ripper" and "The Boston Strangler" (Not sure that's the correct title though).
This version of JTR however left me on my appetite, I found it totally uninteresting, the script isn't very good and the quality of sound and image are very low.
Score:
Post by: Touti on April 12, 2008, 11:09:02 PM
I think it would be a very good movie to discuss if we were to give another go at our "Movie Analysis" attempt. Although I believe this movie is most probably far far away from what really happened, it brings up many questions about how 2 families can live together in hiding for over two years, cramped up in a small loft that they can never leave and having to be totally silent for 8 hours every day.
Good movie.
Score:
Post by: Touti on April 13, 2008, 01:26:11 AM
Blind buys can often be disapointing so it's actually very exciting when you end up with great movies. Mr. Brooks is a very good suspense/thriller, I enjoyed every minute of it. It's insanely brilliant.
(click to show/hide)
Score:
Post by: Touti on April 13, 2008, 04:14:32 AM
What's there to say except that I hate the catholic church a little bit more than I did 2 hours ago..........I didn't think that was possible. A great reminder of why "organized" religions shouldn't exist, they are not required for one to have spirituality anyway.
Film Score:
Church Score:
:thumbdown:
Post by: Touti on April 13, 2008, 10:49:54 PM
Not a great a movie but not bad either.
Score: I would normally give it
but because I like Celtic music and their choices were particularly well suited to each scene I'll give a 
.
Post by: Touti on April 25, 2008, 09:35:09 PM
Will post my comments and make Jon angry later :hysterical:
Post by: Najemikon on April 25, 2008, 10:18:11 PM
You won't make me angry. You'll either be right or wrong, end of discussion... ;)
Post by: Touti on May 24, 2008, 09:23:37 PM
Summary: Pauline went on a trip from which she never came back. Her fiance, Simon, will do anything to find her until he learns that she was found dead in some distant country but as he's emptying her apartment he begins finding troubling information.
My thoughts: The story is very good, well written and the viewer doesn't really get what's happened to Pauline until the end of the movie. The visual side however is not very interesting in my opinion. Most (if not all) of the movie takes place in Pauline's apartment but it's not very appealing. It's much like a Peace & Love apartment of the 60's with strange colors and dark rooms. I think the story would have been better served by giving it a more "modern" flavor.
My score:
Overall it is still a good movie, I don't regret buying it. Would probably watch again.Post by: Touti on May 24, 2008, 09:31:50 PM
Summary: Academy Award®-winner Juliette Binoche (1997, Best Supporting Actress, 'The English Patient') stars in CACHÉ, a psychological thriller about a TV talk show host and his wife who are terrorized by surveillance videos of their private life. Delivered by an anonymous stalker, the tapes reveal secret after secret until obsession, denial and deceit take hold of the couple and hurl them to the point of no return. CACHÉ is director Michael Haneke's dark vision of a relationship torn mercilessly apart by the camera's unblinking eye.
My Thoughts: This is another very good thriller. Binoche and Auteuil are as good as ever. A very well made movie, I enjoyed watching it and would watch again although I'm puzzled by the end and don't quite understand why the director finished it the way he did.
My score:
Post by: Najemikon on May 24, 2008, 09:33:08 PM
Tonight's the night !
Will post my comments and make Jon angry later :hysterical:
Did you ever finish this? It's called the Long Good Friday, not the Bloody Long Good Friday :tease:
Post by: Touti on May 24, 2008, 09:39:25 PM
Tonight's the night !
Will post my comments and make Jon angry later :hysterical:
Did you ever finish this? It's called the Long Good Friday, not the Bloody Long Good Friday :tease:
I've recently made the decision of changin my DVD watching habits. I realized that I was feeling forced to watch certain movies at a certain times because of the Marathons and other discussions we have here.
I've decided to got back to what I've always done before, watch what I feel like and when I feel like it. I have been wondering for a while how come I wasn't liking anything anymore. I even wondered if maybe I just didn't like movies anymore and went as far as thinking for 1.3 seconds that I could sell my collection :o
After thinking about that I realized the reason I was hating everything was because I wasn't watching what I wanted to so from now on I'll do just that.
For the marathons, it seems just impossible for me to run them, with my relatively small collection it's difficult to find enough titles that I haven't seen and that I would feel like watching.
As for "The Long Good Friday", I'll watch it again when I'm in the mood for that kind of movie and I bet I'll like it, I'm probably going to rewatch "Get Carter" one day or another and also like it.
Post by: Najemikon on May 24, 2008, 09:45:03 PM
Post by: addicted2dvd on May 24, 2008, 09:53:36 PM
Tonight's the night !
Will post my comments and make Jon angry later :hysterical:
Did you ever finish this? It's called the Long Good Friday, not the Bloody Long Good Friday :tease:
I've recently made the decision of changin my DVD watching habits. I realized that I was feeling forced to watch certain movies at a certain times because of the Marathons and other discussions we have here.
I've decided to got back to what I've always done before, watch what I feel like and when I feel like it. I have been wondering for a while how come I wasn't liking anything anymore. I even wondered if maybe I just didn't like movies anymore and went as far as thinking for 1.3 seconds that I could sell my collection :o
After thinking about that I realized the reason I was hating everything was because I wasn't watching what I wanted to so from now on I'll do just that.
For the marathons, it seems just impossible for me to run them, with my relatively small collection it's difficult to find enough titles that I haven't seen and that I would feel like watching.
As for "The Long Good Friday", I'll watch it again when I'm in the mood for that kind of movie and I bet I'll like it, I'm probably going to rewatch "Get Carter" one day or another and also like it.
This is basically the reason I do not participate in the same marathons as a lot of people here do for the site... I just can not enjoy a movie unless I am watching it when I am in the mood to watch it. That is why I do my own marathons that I want to do... when I want to do them. :P
Post by: Najemikon on May 24, 2008, 10:17:41 PM
Post by: Touti on May 24, 2008, 10:28:29 PM
Quote
I will certainly never watch a film if I'm not in the mood for it though.
I know you would understand "Oh you the one with great wisdom".
Now talking about watching what we feel like. I've been looking forward to tonight for quite a few days now because I'm preparing for a "Ocean X" marathon.
As you probably remember this box set jumped in my hands at Future Shop recently.
These are 3 movies that I have never seen and I plan on watching all three this week-end.
Post by: Najemikon on May 24, 2008, 10:42:44 PM
QuoteI will certainly never watch a film if I'm not in the mood for it though.
I know you would understand "Oh you the one with great wisdom".
Now talking about watching what we feel like. I've been looking forward to tonight for quite a few days now because I'm preparing for a "Ocean X" marathon.
As you probably remember this box set jumped in my hands at Future Shop recently.
These are 3 movies that I have never seen and I plan on watching all three this week-end.
At last you recognise me! :tease:
Good luck with this marathon. I mean that. Your resolve will almost certainly falter halfway through Ocean's 12, but stick with it cos 13 is great. :training:
Post by: Touti on May 24, 2008, 10:50:12 PM
Good luck with this marathon. I mean that. Your resolve will almost certainly falter halfway through Ocean's 12, but stick with it cos 13 is great. :training:
:suicide:
Will do my best. At least now I know after 11 I can go watch 12 in bed and fall asleep on it without having remorse tomorrow morning.
Post by: Jimmy on May 24, 2008, 10:52:57 PM
I realized that I was feeling forced to watch certain movies at a certain times because of the Marathons...I agree with you here Eric. I won't use the word force but program watching as we do with television viewing. My marathon this month doesn't go very well, but I don't look like the only one. I watch the movies, but not as much as I do usually. I pass 2 or 3 days without watching anything and I have no inspiration for my review (usually I wrote them every couple of days). Maybe I will restart watching whatever I feel to watch and my inspiration will come back...
Post by: Touti on May 25, 2008, 04:24:35 AM
Summary: I guess this is not necessary, most people probably know what this movie is.
My Thoughts: Rather entertaining. Since I am not particularly a huge fan of Clooney it's kind of good that I liked that. These movies are usually all about the heist itself, how brilliant the plan is and how well it's executed etc. In this case I find it well done except for 1 or 2 things that I believe were mistakes.
(click to show/hide)
Score:
Post by: Touti on May 25, 2008, 04:30:10 AM
Summary: Same as above.
My Thoughts: Following Jon's comment I was expecting I wouldn't like it much and get really bored after one hour of watching. I actually found the first part to be funnier than the first movie. Ocean's 11 was more subtle and more entertaining but I find 12 to be more humorous.
(click to show/hide)
My Score:
because the first 75-80 minutes were actually amusing and more enjoyable than 11 otherwise I would have given it a because of what I wrote in the spoiler.
Post by: Achim on May 25, 2008, 04:41:58 AM
(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Touti on May 25, 2008, 04:46:44 AM
Wow, tough rating, especially on the first one...
You think ? I wouldn't say I was generous but I don't find it tough. I gave it a 3, I would probably have given it a 3.5 it our scoring system allowed for it. They're good movies but I don't think they're great which would have called for
or very great which would be worth a
Post by: Achim on May 25, 2008, 05:35:10 AM
They're good movies but I don't think they're great which would have called forNot sure if that actually applies to you here, but it reminds of my own voting process. I occasionally look at the film more objectively, which usually lowers the rating a bit, meaning a "guilty pleasure" could never score high with me that way... What I mean is, at that moment I am not thinking "how much did I like the film?" but more like "was this a good film?".
I try to get away from that though...
Post by: Najemikon on May 25, 2008, 11:44:33 AM
I'd rate 11 as a full 5 out of 5. Technically superb and perfectly balanced. 12... 2? Maybe? :laugh:
Post by: goodguy on May 25, 2008, 01:02:12 PM
Following Jon's comment I was expecting I wouldn't like it much and get really bored after one hour of watching. I actually found the first part to be funnier than the first movie. Ocean's 11 was more subtle and more entertaining but I find 12 to be more humorous.
I would say that O12 is better than O11. O11 is too much about the clever details of the heist, which gets a bit boring, even the first time around. O12 has not only one, but several heists, and it refreshingly doesn't give a damn about their plausibility. O13 is still mildly entertaining, but nowhere near as good as the other two.
(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Najemikon on May 25, 2008, 01:08:18 PM
Post by: Touti on May 25, 2008, 01:36:10 PM
My rating however is more a general evaluation of my viewing experience and I alway do it in comparison of other movies that I've watched.
Ocean's 11 and 12 are good movies, I liked them but never nears as much as many other movies so I can't give them a perfect score because I've seem many movies that I liked much than that.
As an example I would give a
score to "The Lord of the Rings", "Amadeus", "A Beautiful Mind", "Pollock", "Others", "The Hours" etc.Ocean's 11 and 12 aren't nearly as good as these movies so I can't give them the same score. 3/5 is a good score coming from me, it means it's a good entertaining movie that I'm happy I bought and would watch again.
Post by: Najemikon on May 25, 2008, 03:02:32 PM
Using this scale, I can't see a difference between 5 stars for say Raiders of the Lost Ark and Schindler's List, even though Spielberg probably found Raiders much easier than the latter. The latest Indiana is a bit lazy in general, so would get a 3, except for the sheer brilliance of some sequences that rival earlier instalments. That special something.
Post by: Touti on May 25, 2008, 10:37:06 PM
Summary: Most probably not required.
My Thoughts: Not much to say except that I think it's the best of the three.
My Score:
and a half.
Post by: Najemikon on May 26, 2008, 01:14:20 AM
Have you ever seen the original Ocean's Eleven (note the spelling ;)) with Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin and the rest of the Rat Pack? I'd say the new version is the better film, but the Rat Pack were great fun with cracking dialogue and, if so inclined, great music too. And there's at least a nice twist at the end.
Post by: Touti on May 27, 2008, 12:17:08 AM
Summary: Detective Tom Spellacy (Duvall) and Catholic Monsignor Desmond Spellacy (De Niro) find their worlds colliding amidst a flurry of political finger-pointing and public outcries over a scandalous, headline-making murder. As Tom hunts down the elusive killer, his investigation threatens to expose secrets that could ruin his brother... and rock the foundation of his beloved church!
My Thoughts: Interesting movie. One can almost feel the discomfort between the cop and the priests concerning the death of this girl. It brings an interesting theory about the possible killer (the real murder was never solved). The movie also raises the never ending conflicts of interest the church is constantly involved in.
My score:
Post by: Touti on May 30, 2008, 03:51:38 AM
Summary: Academy Award® winner Jon Voight (Best Actor, 'Coming Home', 1978), Terence Stamp and Trent Ford star in this film based on the true story of the Mountain meadows Massacre -- the brutal murder of 120 men, women and children on September 11, 1857, as their wagon train passed through Utah on its way to California. The question of whether the attack was carried out by local Paiute Indians or by a renegade sect of the Mormon church remains unresolved to this day.
Set against the breathtaking beauty of the Utah mountains, 'September Dawn' explores what might have happened when the ill-fated settlers stopped near Cedar City to rest before completing the last leg of their journey. Local Mormon Bishop Jacob Samuelson (Vought) is suspicious of the group, so he dispatches his eldest son Jonathan (Ford) to spy on them. Jonathan soon falls in love with an angelic member of the wagon train, the minister's daughter Emily (Tamara Hope), and is horrified when he discovers that his father thinks the settlers are enemies of the church and is planning an attack on them.
While Jonathan makes plans to escape with Emily, his father sets in motion a chain of events, fueled by revenge and fanaticism, which culminates in a violent and tragic ambush.
My Thoughts: This is truly a wonderful movie. Because it tells the massacre of 120 people one would expect it to be done in Hollywood's way with lots of blood and "show off" special effects but the director in this case did a beautiful job at being moderate and making it look realistic. Every battle of killing scene was done in a way that made it look like that's it would have happened. Jon Voight's performance is extremly good and he makes is character truly credible. Filmography is also beautiful and the massacre scene it just unbelievable with a mix of normal speed ans slow motion, some parts of it with no sounds but music, others with full sounds. The music in that scene is also very beautiful and plays a huge part in making that scene beautiful. Anyone who liked movies like "The Last of the Mohicans" (Although this is much less violent) or "Open Range" will really enjoy "September Dawn". I defenitely recommend it.
My Score:
Post by: Touti on May 31, 2008, 03:37:02 AM
Summary: Something terrifying has come to Earth, something that attacks us while we sleep and turns us into soulless replicants. The clock is ticking as Washington, DC psychiatrist Carol Bennell (Nicole Kidman) and her colleague Ben Driscoll (Daniel Craig) embark on a heart-stopping journey into a nightmarish world where the only way to stay alive is to stay awake. No one can be trusted. No one is safe in producer Joel Silver's bold new take on Jack Finney's classic novel 'The Body Snatchers'.
Don't fall asleep! 'The Invasion' is here.
My Thoughts: It's a good thriller with a good level of action and rebounds. The special effects are well done. The 5.1 mix is also well done, I'm usually not a big fan of 5.1 which I find distracting but in this case they didn't overuse use it or made the rear channels too loud so it doesn't interfere. I'm glad I bought this movie and I will certainly watch it again one day.
I'm probably gonna get copies of the previous versions soon to watch and compare them.
My Score:
Post by: Touti on June 01, 2008, 01:08:19 AM
Summary:The legend of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table receives its most impressive screen treatment in 'Excalibur', from visionary moviemaker John Boorman (‘Deliverance’, ‘The General’).
All the elements of Sir Thomas Malory's classic 'Le Morte Darthur' are here: Arthur (Nigel Terry) removing the sword Excalibur from the stone; the Round Table's noble birth and tragic decline; the heroic attempts to recover the Holy Grail; and the shifting balance of power between wily wizard Merlin (Nicol Williamson) and evil sorceress Morgana (Helen Mirren). With Patrick Stewart, Gabriel Byrne and Liam Neeson in notable early screen roles, Excalibur serves up, 'The New Yorker's' Pauline Kael wrote, "one lush, enraptured scene after another."
My Thoughts: To my defense for what I'm about to write I must remind everyone that I am not a fan of fantasy movies. I do enjoy true masterpieces like LOTR but it's not a genre I am particularly fond of. I totally hated the first 20 minutes of that movie, to me it was preposterous and I actually laughed a few times at what I thought was gonna be 2.5 hours of complete ridicule.
The first battle scene however caught my interest. There you see men fighting with swords in their armors but unlike what we're used to in movies they're not all gracious and impressive in their movements. On the contrary they are slow to move and react, they are always out of balance and falling after hitting an adversary because the weight of their armors and weapons pull them forward. I really liked that because it look real, in the 13th century these armors were probably extremely heavy and knights must have had limited movements because of them. From that point on I stopped lauging at it and decided to give it a chance.
Although I would probably not watch this again I have to say that I liked it, I found some parts of it pretty annoying and long but other parts totally kept my attention. Especially when Helen Mirren comes into the picture. The movie is made in a style that resembles a theater piece but I found most (if not all) the other actors and actresses to be poor at it. Mirren however does a great performance and her character is credible, most of her scenes made me feel like I was watching a play. She does exactly as it's supposed to be done, with this "lyrical" way of saying things that you would expect from a Shakespeare play.
As I have never read any writings about Arthur I cannot say whether this movie is close to the actual legend or not but it covers all I know of it including the sword in the stone, the query for the grail, Merlin and Morgana (Mirren) and the final battle with his own son.
I must however question the choice of some of the scores. It it mostly well suited but in most of the scenes where you see Arthur and the Knights riding their horses on their way to battle they chose Carl Orf's Carmina Burana. That really bothered me as I find it totally out of place both geographically and in its significance.
Carmina Burana are mostly drinking and dancing songs written in German, French, Latin and some English by the Goliards, a group of clergy, in protest to the growing contradictions in the church like the failures of the crusades and the financial abuses. In my mind there is absolutely no relation whatsoever between those songs and an army of Knights riding to battle to defend their King which they believe was made such by God.
My score:
, I'm sure most people who like the Fantasy genre would give it a
Post by: Najemikon on June 01, 2008, 02:28:15 AM
The movie is made in a style that resembles a theater piece but I found most (if not all) the other actors and actresses to be poor at it. Mirren however does a great performance and her character is credible, most of her scenes made me feel like I was watching a play. She does exactly as it's supposed to be done, with this "lyrical" way of saying things that you would expect from a Shakespeare play.
As I have never read any writings about Arthur I cannot say whether this movie is close to the actual legend or not but it covers all I know of it including the sword in the stone, the query for the grail, Merlin and Morgana (Mirren) and the final battle with his own son.
As the synopsis says, it is based on Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur and that is the legend. He was the one who introduced all the fantastic elements that are featured here. I think your description of the style is right. As I was saying in the other [hijacked!] thread, much as I love the story, I could never get on with this version and you're right, it such a theatrical style. You either love it or hate it. And with the OTT score as you also mentioned, I'm definitely in the second camp...
Post by: Touti on June 01, 2008, 04:30:11 AM
Summary: Posing as hardboiled jewel broker Donnie Brasco, FBI agent Joseph D. Pistone (Johnny Depp) gains entry into the brutal mob family of fading hit man Lefty Ruggiero (Al Pacino), who treats Donnie like a son. As their association deepens, Pistone's life begins to spiral downward, placing everything that's meaningful to him - his marriage, his career and his life - in jeopardy. From acclaimed director Mike Newell ('Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire') and with a spectacular supporting cast, including Michael Madsen, Bruno Kirby, James Russo, and Anne Heche, DONNIE BRASCO is "a first-class Mafia thriller!" (Mick LaSalle, 'San Francisco Chronicle').
My Thoughts: I don't know what to say about it except that I loved every minute of it. Depp's and Pacino's performance are just great. I just can't come up with anything to say that would do it justice.
My score:
, 5/5, 10/10, 5 stars and whatever else you can think of. If you have never seen that movie you've got to watch it.
Post by: Kathy on June 01, 2008, 05:04:21 AM
Post by: Touti on June 01, 2008, 01:13:46 PM
But even now, 23 years after the even, I find it surprising that he would come out and do this. I thought that Mob's contracts on someone were for life and that he would be living under protection and a different identity for the rest of his life.
After "sleeping" on it and thinking about the movie, I wish they had gone a few steps further, either in the film or at least in the extras of this DVD and gave us some details of what happened after Pistone was pulled out. With all the recordings that they had and what he could tell them, the FBI must have had enough to hit Sonny Black's gang and arrest them all. Although I understand that the movie is about Donnie Brasco and not the fight against the mafia, I would like to know if his "sacrifice" led to any results, after all he was undercover with those guys for 6 years.
Post by: Najemikon on June 01, 2008, 02:19:41 PM
Post by: Touti on June 02, 2008, 01:24:36 AM
Summary: Jessica Lange delivers the performance of her career as Frances Farmer, the notorious 1930's movie star whose impassioned opinions and outspoken behavior created scandal throughout the industry. But when she was betrayed by the studio system and committed to an insane asylum by her domineering mother, Frances descended into a madness that revealed the most horrific abuses of mental illness and exposed the cruelest consequences of Hollywood fame.
Kim Stanley and Sam Shepherd co-star in this tragic true story that shocked the world. FRANCES is now presented in a stunning new transfer from original film materials and is packed with startling new bonus features exclusive to this edition.
My Thoughts: This is the typical story of a woman who was born in a time where she couldn't settle for what society allowed her to be. Truly beautiful, intelligent, opiniated and strong minded, she became an actress in a Hollywood who wanted nothing else from women than be beautiful and do as they were told. Unfortunately for her, Frances was not of that type and she lived a life full of frustrations and deceptions. Child of a controlling mother, probably schizophrenic, who wanted to live through her daughter the life that she never had, the only place where Frances could ever seek refuge ended up to be the most damaging to her. Unable to control her emotions, she often had outbursts of rage which got her labeled as mentally sick and institutionalized. After receiving monstrous treatments that were common in her time she had a lobotomy and was released from the institution. She worked in television and died in 1970.
That is a very good movie, for me it was one of those blind buys that turn out to be such a nice choice. Jessica Lange and Kim Stanley both give extremely good performances. Some of their scenes together are shockingly good. I really really liked that movie and very strongly recommend it.
My Score: 10/10, I want use my regular scoring system because this movie is worth much more than just a stupid smiley with a thumb up ;) (But that comment is worth a stupid smiley with an eye closed).
A featurette on the DVD shows pictures of Frances Farmer, the film doesn't when painting her a very beautiful woman, see for yourself.
(http://jeffreykauffman.net/images/ff.jpg) (http://dvdtoile.com/ARTISTES/8/8782.jpg)
(http://minotaure.m.i.pic.centerblog.net/h5zjcvpx.jpg)
(http://77.img.v4.skyrock.com/774/mylenefarmer016/pics/733730633.jpg)
Post by: Touti on June 04, 2008, 01:01:32 AM
Summary: Hoke Colburn sits in the front seat with his hands on the steering wheel, but the driver's seat is behind him. That's where Miss Daisy sits. She doesn't want a chauffeur and she won't give in. Neither will Hoke.
Alfred Uhry's moving Pulitzer Prize-winning play became 1989's Academy Award®-winning Best Picture. 'Driving Miss Daisy' tells of genteel but strong-willed Atlanta matron Daisy (Best Actress Oscar® winner Jessica Tandy) and her patient but equally determined chauffeur Hoke (Morgan Freeman). For two so different, they have a lot in common. And the bumpy road they travel leads to the friendship of a lifetime. From the film's nine Oscar® nominations, it drove off with two more awards: Best Adaption Screenplay (Uhry) and Makeup.
My Thoughts: Very nice movie, no wonder it won the best picture Oscar in a time where they were still giving it to the best one and not to the most different or innovative....good or bad. Jessica Tandy and Morgan Freeman both gave very good performances but that alone doesn't make the movie what it is. There is more to it than just acting, the tone, the colors were there to make you feel the story. The only down side is Dan Aykroyd as Tandy's son, I always found him to be an average actor and his performace in that movie didn't change my mind, in my opinion the man simply can't play any dramtic role, I don't find him credible, to me all his dramatic characters seem like caricatures. Fortunately he doesn't have have a big part in the movie so it wasn't much of an annoyance.
The final scene where
(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
My Score:
or 9/10
Post by: Touti on June 21, 2008, 03:21:12 AM
Summary: Diane Arbus is an American Photographer whose influence is considerable. She contributed in imposing the idea of Photography as Art. The movie is a completely invented tale of what could have been the life of Diane Arbus during a period of her life of which we know nothing.
My Thoughts: It's a very beautiful and artistic movie which I also find poetic in certain ways. Through a dialogue which is simple only in appearance and nice photography we are invited to live through the process of a series of changes in someone's life that lead to her becoming the artist she was meant to be. I highly recommend it.
My score:
Post by: Touti on June 27, 2008, 10:14:31 PM
Click the picture for details
Some time ago, when SailorRipley still liked us (trying to guilt him into posting if he reads this), he wrote an interesting article on dvd's he wanted to buy and for what reason. Black Book which I had never heard of was one of them and since I considered SailorRipley a "connaisseur", if figured if he has an interest in it then it can't be a very bad movie to anyone. It was however quite expensive so I waited until recently to get it and watched it last week-end.
I have to say I was not disapointed. I had the chance in my life to be close to someone (a romanian jew) who's been a prisoner in a nazi concentration camp. I consider it a chance because such a person can make a teenager aware of the world, the different cultures and society. He had quite an influence on my life and because of him and the amazing things he did and lived through, I've always had a great interest in the resistance movements in different countries of Europe during the WWII.
Black Book is the story of a young Dutch woman who works as a spy for the Resistance in Netherlands. It is not a true story but the director claims that many of the events are true. If you like that kind of movies I highly recommend it, I enjoyed every second of it.
Rating:
Post by: Touti on June 27, 2008, 10:22:37 PM
Click the pic for details
I've once heard an actress from Québec (Mahée Paiement) say on TV that this was her favorite movie. Although she is quite pretty and sexy and I wouldn't describe her as the brightest star in the sky so knowing this his her favorite movie led me to having preconceived ideas about it being real chicky and therefore totally unworthy of my watching time.
Then sometime later while at my sister we were talking about movies and actors with her husband and while somebody mentioned Clint Eastwood and that movie came out again and was said to be very good. Since Eastwood isn't a bad actor and Meryl Streep is a very good one, I figured maybe it was worth watching even if it's only to enjoy the performance of these two.
It is an interesting movie although not a great one in my opinion. As I expected it is chicky and it's not something I would rewatch because I'm a real man :training: but I wasn't disapointed by Streep's performance. If you like romance, Eastwood and/or Streep, it's a good movie to watch, especially for M. Streep performance, she's as good as ever.
Rating:
Post by: Touti on June 27, 2008, 10:29:45 PM
Click the Pic for details
Sometimes we feel like watching a movie but we don't want something that's gonna require us to think hard or concentrate, we just want to sit, be fed and enjoy. I was in that mood when I watched "Pay it Forward" as I expected it to be a bit "easy".
To my surprise it wasn't as much as I expected. Although the premise of the movie is a bit simplistic revolving around a boy who thinks he can make a difference in the world by helping people and as them to "Pay forward" instead of "Paying back".
It turned out to be an interesting movie dealing with many problems and struggles of modern society such as love, sex, alcoholism, unemployment, low education etc. Kevin Spacey and Helen Hunt both give a fair performance and I'll have to admit I didn't mind spending two hours watching Hunt in short skits and tight tops :bag:
Rating:
Post by: Touti on June 27, 2008, 10:32:57 PM
Click the pic for details
I don't really know what to say about that movie and since I always say that there's nothing wrong with shutting the f. up when you have nothing to say I'm gonna do just that.
Rating:
Post by: Touti on June 27, 2008, 10:38:59 PM
Click the Pic for Details
I'm really not a big fan of Leonardo, I actually think he's a pretty bad actor and I disliked most the movies of his that I've seen. However IMO Nicholson and Damon are just about as good as one can be so that was enough to make me watch this movie although I knew I would have to suffer through DiCaprio's scenes.
This is quite an interesting movie where just everybody is a rat and/or double agent. The idea of having a police agent who infiltrated a criminal group and a criminal from that group who infiltrated the police chasing each other without knowing who's who opens up endlessly possibilities of rebounds and surprises which are very well exploited in that movie. I think however that the movie would have been just as good with a little less violence and blood.
Rating:
Post by: Touti on June 27, 2008, 10:44:06 PM
Click the Pic for Details
This movie is classified as a comedy but although it is funny in style, it still deals with some interesting drama. There isn't much to say about it except that it's very well done. I particularly liked the way they did the SMS exchanges. Most of the actors in this movie are unknown to me except for Caroline Dhavernas (Wonderfalls) who's a very talented (and pretty) young actress and Véronique Leflaguais who's one of our bests and I was happy with both their performances.
Rating:
Post by: Najemikon on June 27, 2008, 10:52:11 PM
The Departed
This is quite an interesting movie where just everybody is a rat and/or double agent. The idea of having a police agent who infiltrated a criminal group and a criminal from that group who infiltrated the police chasing each other without knowing who's who opens up endlessly possibilities of rebounds and surprises which are very well exploited in that movie. I think however that the movie would have been just as good with a little less violence and blood.
That last comment is very telling. I enjoyed The Departed and thought it was excellent. However, I prefer the source film, Infernal Affairs. It seems to be about half the length, glossy and focused. Far more Michael Mann style. I loved it. The story is almost identical except I don't think there was an equivalent Mark Whalberg character. I did think he was fantastic in The Departed.
While IF is shorter and more focused as I said, it's two sequels expand the story brilliantly into something huge.
Post by: Jimmy on June 27, 2008, 11:15:47 PM
I've once heard an actress from Québec (Mahée Paiement) say on TV that this was her favorite movie. Although she is quite pretty and sexy and I wouldn't describe her as the brightest star in the skySince Eric had decided to tease you with her, this is what she looks like
(http://img26.picoodle.com/img/img26/4/6/27/f_Clipboard01m_700e50e.jpg)
Not really my genre of girl, but everyone in my province seem to find her beautifull.
Post by: Touti on June 27, 2008, 11:20:58 PM
Post by: Touti on June 27, 2008, 11:23:26 PM
The Departed
This is quite an interesting movie where just everybody is a rat and/or double agent. The idea of having a police agent who infiltrated a criminal group and a criminal from that group who infiltrated the police chasing each other without knowing who's who opens up endlessly possibilities of rebounds and surprises which are very well exploited in that movie. I think however that the movie would have been just as good with a little less violence and blood.
That last comment is very telling. I enjoyed The Departed and thought it was excellent. However, I prefer the source film, Infernal Affairs. It seems to be about half the length, glossy and focused. Far more Michael Mann style. I loved it. The story is almost identical except I don't think there was an equivalent Mark Whalberg character. I did think he was fantastic in The Departed.
While IF is shorter and more focused as I said, it's two sequels expand the story brilliantly into something huge.
Hold on now. You and me agreeing on something ? That's plain wrong :yellowcard:
Post by: Najemikon on June 27, 2008, 11:30:07 PM
Hold on now. You and me agreeing on something ? That's plain wrong :yellowcard:
:tease:
I'm looking forward to what you think of Notes on a Scandal and seeing your comments to my original, glowing, enthusiastic review!
Post by: Najemikon on June 27, 2008, 11:33:10 PM
Not really my genre of girl, but everyone in my province seem to find her beautifull.
:hysterical:
In English, we only ever use "genre" in reference to art, so I just found it particularly hilarious used here! :laugh:
Post by: Jimmy on June 27, 2008, 11:39:09 PM
"Not my kind of girl"
I was sure that "genre" or "kind" were the same thing. Anyone can be use with the same result :whistle:
Post by: Touti on June 28, 2008, 12:02:02 AM
Click the Pic for Details
This movie is nothing but absolutely beautiful. Although it shows some people who really existed, I don't think it can be seen as a biography. In fact, there's a note at the beginning of the movie stating something about the characters having nothing to do with the real ones and the paintings and sculptures seen in the movie aren't from the real artists.
With that in mind, one can sit and enjoy this brilliant movie which is a piece of art about artists. There is a long scene toward the end about a painting competition in which Modigliani and Picasso are participating that is astonishing. The photography, sets, music, acting, everything are just extraordinary, I can't find the words to describe it. That's definitely a movie I'm gonna watch again.
If you have any interests in early 20th century arts and artists then do yourself a favor and buy this.
Rating:
by my usual rating method but I would also give it 5 stars or 10/10.
Post by: Touti on June 28, 2008, 03:38:14 AM
Click the Pic for Details
Good movie, directed by a woman and with the women who were involved in the real case as counsultants which means that the people who did it can understand what was at stake.
Rating:
Post by: Achim on June 29, 2008, 07:09:50 AM
That last comment is very telling. I enjoyed The Departed and thought it was excellent. However, I prefer the source film, Infernal Affairs. It seems to be about half the length, glossy and focused. Far more Michael Mann style. I loved it. The story is almost identical except I don't think there was an equivalent Mark Whalberg character. I did think he was fantastic in The Departed.I think almost more of an adaptation than a pure remake. But Marty knows what he is doing and he is doing it well here (sorry Eric, but the violence just comes with the territory...).
Quote
While IF is shorter and more focused as I said, it's two sequels expand the story brilliantly into something huge.Interesting you should say that (as I value your judgment of movies and we very often agree). Many people consider the sequels, while still maybe o.k. movies, to be far inferior to the first film. I just thought I should mention this for Eric... Personally I enjoyed the other two as well (own them on DVD) and would recommend them as a supplement without doubt. BTW, Eric, they function as sequel and prequel.
Post by: Touti on June 29, 2008, 10:07:28 PM
Click the Pic for Details
I'm writing this as I am watching this movie, it is "only" the 6th or 7th time I pause it to check for new posts here or new emails. More than half of the movie has passed and the only satanic part referred to in the reviews I've read was a dream from Rosemary that lasted a few minutes.
Rating (so far): :surrender:
And there goes another movie from the 60's and 70's.
Edit: What a boring movie, how can people talk so highly of it ? It's supposed to be a horror movie but there's no suspense whatsoever, just 2 hours of total boringness.
Rating:
Post by: SailorRipley on July 05, 2008, 07:18:33 PM
Some time ago, when SailorRipley still liked us (trying to guilt him into posting if he reads this), he wrote an interesting article on dvd's he wanted to buy and for what reason. Black Book which I had never heard of was one of them and since I considered SailorRipley a "connaisseur", if figured if he has an interest in it then it can't be a very bad movie to anyone. It was however quite expensive so I waited until recently to get it and watched it last week-end.
I have to say I was not disapointed. I had the chance in my life to be close to someone (a romanian jew) who's been a prisoner in a nazi concentration camp. I consider it a chance because such a person can make a teenager aware of the world, the different cultures and society. He had quite an influence on my life and because of him and the amazing things he did and lived through, I've always had a great interest in the resistance movements in different countries of Europe during the WWII.
Black Book is the story of a young Dutch woman who works as a spy for the Resistance in Netherlands. It is not a true story but the director claims that many of the events are true. If you like that kind of movies I highly recommend it, I enjoyed every second of it.
Rating:
:redcard: Peoooople, the Sailor likes you all and is still pretty much alive & kicking.
Yes, work has been a bitch during all these months with almost no time to drop in, but apparently things will get much easier, so I'll plan on giving you hard times with my usual rambling on a more constant basis. You've been warned. :training:
So... what have I missed?? Guess I better start reading, eh?
And BTW, Black Book rocks in every level!
Post by: Najemikon on July 05, 2008, 08:57:48 PM
Post by: Sanuye on July 05, 2008, 11:09:43 PM
Post by: Touti on July 06, 2008, 12:18:45 AM
(http://fjcruiserquebec.com/Smileys/classic/celebrate.gif)
Post by: RossRoy on July 06, 2008, 05:46:54 AM
He's back ! He's Back !
(http://fjcruiserquebec.com/Smileys/classic/celebrate.gif)
Yeah! Welcome back Sailor! :yahoo:
Post by: Achim on July 06, 2008, 10:12:54 AM
Post by: Touti on July 26, 2008, 06:24:19 PM
Click on the pic for details
BTK: Bind Them, Torture them, Kill them. That's the definition of BTK that this serial killer from the 70's gave of his "name". This movie depicts the true story of the BTK Killer, a sick man who killed 10 people in mid 70's and then disappeared. He resurfaced 30 years later, in 2004, when he sent a letter to a journalist. Shortly after the police was able to find him and arrest him.
This seems to be a low budget movie, no known stars and no stunning effects. The story was approached from two different angles. The movie begins with the police investigator character narrating his story. Then the movie switches back and forth between the BTK killer in court who tells the judge details of the murders after pleading guilty and the view of the events that lead to his arrest. Throughout the movie we see some flashback shots of the murders.
Although it is not a great movie and it is a bit "simplistic" in the making it is still a very interesting story and the movie is not boring. I don't want to talk to much about it because I would like some of you to watch it so we can discuss it in the "Movie Analysis" thread. I believe we could have a very interesting discussion trying to understand what's going in the mind of this man.
My Score: Because the writing s very good but the making of the movie is bit simple I'll have to give it separate scores.
Story/Writing:
Movie:
Overall I guess I'd have to give a
and a half.
Post by: Touti on September 06, 2008, 09:56:32 PM
Click on the pic for details
:hmmmm:
I kind of agree with Jon that this movie is flawed but I'm not sure I do so for the same reasons (meaning I'm not sure I fully understand his).
This movie isn't what I expected it to be. When watching something called "The Last King of Scotland" wihch is supposed to be about Idi Amin Dada I'm expecting to see a movie about............Idi Amin Dada (Silly me :slaphead:).
The thing is that this is not abou Idi Amin, it's about his scottish doctor. The main character is the doctor, not Idi Amin and the plot is all about him, his dealings with Idi Amin and his regime and, toward the end, his strugle with it as he discovers that what he sees from the inside is nothing like the ugliness of the outside.
Where I agree with Jon in saying that the movie is flawed is just that. That it's supposed to be telling us about Idi Amin Dada and his regime but it doesn't. It barely scratches the surface, using it only to support the story of the doctor.
It is a wonderful movie, Idi Amin is brilliantly played by Whitaker and I believe it is quite impressive that an actor can be that good when he's supposed to be the main character but is only in a supporting role with a counterpart which is definitely not up to the task.
I give this movie a
because if I judge it strickly from a movie enthusiast and entertainment point of view it's a very good movie. I can't however put aside my interest for history and I don't feel like I've really watched the biography of a dictator and the story of a bad regime. Frankly, I was very surprised to read at the end that between 1971 and 1979 over 300,000 Ugandians were killed by Idi Amin Dada's regime because the movie didn't show me that. I'm glad I bought it but in the end..........I'm left on my appetite !
Post by: Najemikon on September 07, 2008, 12:04:19 AM
I kind of agree with Jon that this movie is flawed but I'm not sure I do so for the same reasons (meaning I'm not sure I fully understand his).
I think we've come to the same conclusion! As I said before, I like the idea of following a small character in a big story. It takes the pressure off the other elements and helps you see the big picture. However as you say, the story seems to be just about the Doctor. If you think about narrative in the classic sense of "cause and effect", McAvoy's character was given a bit too much cause and credited with far too much effect!
I do also think he was a rather spoiled character, thinking too much about himself...
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Touti on September 07, 2008, 12:46:49 AM
Click the pic for details
This movie is based on the true story of the Lafayette Escadrille which was a french squadron composed of american pilots who voluntarily joined the WWI before the United States did.
I really enjoyed this movie from beginning to end and I highly recommend it. In certain ways, although very different, it could be compared to The Battles of Britain. The specials effect of flight and combat scenes are spectacular and although there is many of it I never got tired. It almost makes you feel like watching an IMAX movie at times.
My score:
Post by: Touti on October 04, 2008, 05:44:27 PM
Click the pic for details
Based on a true story that took place in Minnesota and North Dakota in 1987. The opening credits claim that the names of the survivors were changed but that "in respect for the deads the rest is told exactly as it occured".
It's about a frustrated loser who hires 2 guys to kidnap his wife and get his wealthy father in law to pay a ransom he will then keep. The story is interesting and I had never heard of it.
The movie however is not very good. It was obviously done with a small budget but I don't think it excuses everything. The thing that bothered me is that the characters from Minnesota and North Dakota all looked kind of "idiotic". They look cold, like nothing ever surprise them, almost like Zombie. They also say "Yeaaaaah" at least once per sentence, often more, but pronounced almost with a German or Dutch accent. I don't know if people in Minnesota really say "Yeah" all the time but in the movie it's very annoying, almost like the writer sometimes makes them say something totally useless just to squeeze another "Yeah" in there.
This is bad IMO because there's a scene in the movie where all those one word sentences with people answering "yeah" all the times makes the whole thing look like some parody that isn't even funny.
They may have told things exactly as they happened by respect for the deads but they could also have shown respect for the people involved by not depicting them as idiots.
My score:
, but if you find it somewhere for less than 5$ bucks it can still fill a snowy saturday afternoon if one has nothing else to do.P.S: After writing this review I checked the movie on Rotten Tomatoes. To my surprise it got very good critics and scores averaging 85% by critics and 94% by the community so I guess one should base his decision on getting this movie or not on my review.
Post by: Tom on October 04, 2008, 05:49:51 PM
They may have told things exactly as they happened by respect for the deads but they could also have shown respect for the people involved by not depicting them as idiots.Fargo is famous for it, that even though it claims that it is based on a true story in the beginning, in reality it is all fictitious.
Post by: Touti on October 04, 2008, 05:54:46 PM
And to confirm what Tom says: http://www.snopes.com/movies/films/fargo.asp
Post by: Touti on October 04, 2008, 06:25:07 PM
Chain Reaction
Click the pic for details
Not much to say about this movie except that it proves that putting big names together doesn't automatically mean success.
My score:
because I always find Rachel Weisz very pretty otherwise I would have given a
Post by: Najemikon on October 04, 2008, 08:03:32 PM
I just looked it up on IMDB and I'm even more surprised than I have been by the score at RT. I'm surprised this movie won Academy Awards for best writing. I don't get it.
And to confirm what Tom says: http://www.snopes.com/movies/films/fargo.asp
Harumph! :redcard: You obviously don't read your own forum! :tease: I was discussing this with Matthias only last week in relation to the strange habits of the Coen brothers; fake DVD extras, claiming stories are true, etc. That was while I was defending The Big Lebowski, which he really didn't like at all. I can't remember what he said about Fargo, but I don't think he was enthusiastic about that either.
I find it fascinating that you've been able to go into Fargo completely blind. I'd say it must still be the Coen's most famous work, even in the face of No Country for Old Men and it was unavoidable for a time. Suffice to say, I (and most of the planet as you've noted through other sites! ;)) adore these magnificent films. I think they are simply wonderful.
However I'll say the same here as I told Matthias, the Coen's films generally fall into two types. Lebowski, Fargo and Burn After Reading (I assume from reviews) falls into one type, linked by the fact they are usually about idiots. O Brother Where Art Thou is also about idiots, but something stops me from lumping it in with the others. However it definitely doesn't belong with Blood Simple, No Country for Old Men and Miller's Crossing, which are certainly not about idiots. Old Men was fantastic, but Blood Simple, their debut, is still possibly their most genuine noir. Basically your opinion about one of their movies will not help you at all when it comes to some of the others.
Post by: Touti on October 04, 2008, 08:31:14 PM
I'm probably not doing myself a favor by admitting this but I don't even know who the Coen brothers are.....and I don't care. I'm interested in movies, it doesn't really matter to me who makes them so I only know the really really big names like Spielberg, Cameron or Lucas.
Under those circumstances, it is not surprising that I knew nothing of Fargo. I thought I was watching a movie telling me a true story in which 6 people have died and I felt it was badly done. Had I know it was all make up and none of it was true, my judgment would probably have been different and more favorable.
And while I'm admitting to behaving badly.........nope, I haven't read my own forum lately because I had too much to do with my 4x4 run in Maine.
Post by: Najemikon on October 04, 2008, 08:52:22 PM
Not only was it my first Coen film, but I thought it was a true story for several years. :-[ I just checked Empire's review which I must have read at the time and they don't discount it until an essay version they published some time later.
Post by: Touti on October 04, 2008, 09:01:38 PM
I actually like that, going into a movie without knowing anything about it. This way my view of it isn't affected by what others say or by the history of the movie when it's an old one. I usually don't read the overview and I don't check them on internet.
I really like knowing nothing about it and discovering it as it plays. Sometimes I'm disappointed as was the case with Fargo and I would have enjoyed it more had I known it wasn't true but most of the time it pays to start watching it blind and it makes it much more enjoyable. I have good memories of movies I watched this way and found totally delightful. "V for Vendetta", "Dolores Claiborne", "Misery" and many many more.
Post by: Touti on October 04, 2008, 09:14:22 PM
Click the pic for details
What's to say about this movie, everybody knows it and I'm probably the last one on earth who had not seen it yet except for any unborn.
My score:
Post by: Najemikon on October 04, 2008, 09:17:22 PM
Ok, if you knew Fargo was fiction, maybe you'd have enjoyed it more, but knowing too much can ruin it. I always wish I could have experienced From Dusk Till Dawn not knowing about the second half. It was unavoidable for me because I never wander into a cinema without knowing something, but some people do and pick films just by the title and stars. I heard some great stories about people freaking out during that one!
Hope that wasn't a spoiler... :slaphead:
Post by: Tom on October 04, 2008, 09:24:54 PM
About once a month we go to the cinema in a group where each time one of us has to choose a movie. The one deciding doesn't tell the others at all, what movie he/she picked. The usual choice is nothing too mainstream. Usually stuff most weren't even aware of.
The rest is then only told which movie will be watched, when we meet at the cinema and the tickets are already bought.
Post by: Touti on October 05, 2008, 04:39:24 AM
Click the pic for details
What a good movie. This is the perfect example of what I was saying before. I started watching it knowing absolutely nothing about it and I was fascinated all along, only to discover at the end that it's a true story.
Freedom Writers is the story of a new teacher who takes charge of a class of young black and latino people involved in gangs and violence. Once she realize that the school doesn't really care about educating them because the directors think there's nothing to get from them, she decides to do something herself and takes on extra jobs to buy them books and take them on trips to museum and other places.
I really enjoyed Hilary Swank's performance in this movie. We're use to seeing her in weird and special characters (Million Dollar Baby, The story of the necklace, The Gift, etc) but rarely in the role of a normal person. She's very good in this movie and her performance alone was worth watching it.
I think everyone should see this movie.
My score:
Post by: Touti on October 12, 2008, 08:16:24 PM
Click the pic for details
In 1960 Jean Lesage became Prime Minister of the province of Quebec. That marked the beginning of what was to become "La Révolution Tranquille" (The Quiet Revolution) in Quebec.
Just like the rest of the world, in the sixties Quebec was going through big social changes. Jean Lesage create the ministry of Education and took education away from the church, the nationalist (sovereignist, separatists or whatever some want to call it) movement was gaining in popularity, people were concerned by the Vietnam war, the Peace & Love movement was popular with the youth and the "differences" between French and English Canada were exploding.
"Histoire de famille" uses the story of a french family in the province of Quebec from 1960 to 1976 to revisit this period of our history. Throughout this 3 hours movie we see how this family evolves and copes with the social and political changes of the "Revolution Tranquille).
I truely enjoyed that movie from beginning to end. The director did a wonderful job at mixing archive footage and music from that period. The performances of the actors/actresses are very good and "right on the spot".
"Histoire de Famille" is a beautiful way of revisiting and understanding the huge changes that French society in Quebec went through during the sixties and early seventies.
I highly recommend it, even to non-french speaking people who don't mind watching movies with sub-titles.
My score:
Post by: Touti on March 15, 2009, 08:29:40 PM
(http://media.movieweb.com/news/03.2008/bb.jpg)
My Thoughts:
It's been a while since I watched a Batman movie and I was not really impressed with the previous one which I found a bit weak compared to the first and second ones of the "modern era" so I was a bit apprenhensive about this one. It turned out that I had no reason to be afraid as I really enjoyed the movie.
I particularly like the first 30-45 minutes because they really showed you the beginning. It's only after almost one hour that you finally see Batman. They could have made it another action pack from beginning to end Batman movie with a young Batman, fortunately they didn't fall into that trap which IMO makes it a good movie.
Of course ones batman showed up then it was the usual action pack stuff which is very well done if you like that kind of things. One thing that really bothered me is the close up moving cameras..........god do I hate that. I know it's supposed to make me feel like I'm part of the actions but I'm not and I know it. I'm sitting on my butt with a remote in one hand, a beer in the other one and bowl of pop-corn on my thighs. Nobody's hitting me, nobody's shooting at me, nobody's trying to kill me and no matter what they do I will not feel like I'm part of the action because I ain't that stupid. However when I sit to watch a movie I would very much like to see it and those very close and moving cameras really don't show you anything. You see there's a lot going on but you don't really know what.
Anyway, that of course is a matter of taste and although I prefer a more conversational method of filming I did enjoy the movie and I recommend it.
One thing that I can't leave uncommented. Although it's a not the same movie as the first one, not the same actors, not the same director and not the same anything we can think of. It is the same character and it is the story of the same man. in the first movie, there's a flash back scene where you see Wayne's parent being killed. That scene takes place outside after they went to a movie, as I recall Bruce Wayne even still has pop-corn in his hand. Then his parents get killed by the Joker who then points a gun at him and asks him if he ever sings with the wolves at night or something like that, I don't recall the exact sentence.
In Batman Begins, his parents get killed after a night at the opera, not a movie. Then the killer just runs away, he doesn't point his gun at Bruce Wayne and doesn't ask the wolves question and it's unlikely that it was the Joker because the movie shows you that they're killed by some common thief.
Writers should be more careful about continuity in sequels.
Post by: Tom on March 15, 2009, 08:36:16 PM
Writers should be more careful about continuity in sequels.
Batman Begins is not a sequel, but a complete reboot ;)
By the way, the murder of the parents by a random thug is what happens in the comic (of what I heard). That it was the Joker was the invention of the first Tim Burton Batman movie.
Post by: Najemikon on March 15, 2009, 09:26:47 PM
Writers should be more careful about continuity in sequels.
Batman Begins is not a sequel, but a complete reboot ;)
By the way, the murder of the parents by a random thug is what happens in the comic (of what I heard). That it was the Joker was the invention of the first Tim Burton Batman movie.
Yup, I think that's right. Basically it was important that it was a random attack, not a recognisable target for Bruce Wayne, but a symptom of a much larger epidemic. While I still think Burton's style is closest to the general mood of the comic, Nolan has righted several wrongs. I don't mean he is slavishly following the comic stories, because he isn't, but I feel that having The Joker be the catalyst for Batman betrays the very point of Batman existing. It makes it too obvious and cliched.
Nolan's take on The Joker was far better and a clearer representation of what I think may have been intended in the comics. Batman is established, fighting crime and understanding the morals of all involved while understanding the lines can be blurred and how he plays that knowledge is one of his strengths. Then comes The Joker and manages to tip all that upside down because he isn't following the rules, no matter how far they could be bent anyway. No-one knows who he is or why. That mystery is essential to the character. Nicholson played him as a pissed off mental case gangster with revenge issues. Post-Dark Knight Returns, that doesn't hold up for me.
Post by: Touti on March 15, 2009, 09:34:03 PM
I much preferred reading Spiderman and the Fantastic Four, those were real men (and woman) :thumbup:
Post by: Najemikon on March 15, 2009, 10:02:54 PM
I never read the Batman comics as a kid, I thought he was a frustrated looser who had issues with boys. Face it, a grown up man his age, hanging with a teenager, both dressed with leggings...............there's got to be something there :tomato:
I much preferred reading Spiderman and the Fantastic Four, those were real men (and woman) :thumbup:
:laugh:
But they wore leggings too? And Peter Parker is just a moody teen firing sticky stuff all over walls... ;)
Post by: Touti on March 15, 2009, 10:11:06 PM
But they wore leggings too? And Peter Parker is just a moody teen firing sticky stuff all over walls... ;)
But at least spiderman's were red, not powder blue. Then of course in Fantastic Four there's this guy who goes out all the time wearing only ripped underwear and who's hard as Rock.......:hmmmm:
Post by: Najemikon on March 15, 2009, 10:21:44 PM
Anyway... did you hear about when Superman was flying around Metropolis, a bit bored? He spotted Wonder Woman on the roof of a skyscraper, sunbathing nude. He thought, "I fancy a bit of that!" and flew down, shagged her faster than a speeding bullet and flew off again. "WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT?", Wonder Woman squealed. "I have no idea...", said the Invisible Man. "But it really hurt!"
:dance:
Post by: Touti on March 15, 2009, 10:59:27 PM
:-X
Oh let it out......you know you wanna !
Post by: Achim on March 16, 2009, 05:39:30 AM
I know it's supposed to make me feel like I'm part of the actions but I'm not and I know it. I'm sitting on my butt with a remote in one hand, a beer in the other one and bowl of pop-corn on my thighs. Nobody's hitting me, nobody's shooting at me, nobody's trying to kill me and no matter what they do I will not feel like I'm part of the action because I ain't that stupid.That reminded me of that skid from Kentucky Fried Movie, where theater patrons get an improved experience by people doing things to them that match the action on screen... :laugh:
Post by: Kathy on March 16, 2009, 06:09:20 PM
Post by: Touti on June 09, 2009, 11:54:08 PM
I'm gonna watch them on my BR player so I can also comment on the quality of the transfer when played in HD mode.
Will be back in a couple of hours with my comments on Lethal Weapon 1.
Post by: Touti on June 09, 2009, 11:58:45 PM
I will try the other 3 movies on BR but I'm switching to SD 480p viewing on my "old" player for this one.
Post by: Tom on June 10, 2009, 12:23:24 AM
Well.............that BR part of the Marathon didn't last very long I guess. This is one of the shittiest image I've ever seen. Sorry for the bad word but it's true.
The best HD upscaler cannot do anything against shitty DVDs. My Lethal Weapons DVDs were released 2000, and as most DVDs from that time, they look not so great.
Quote
It is unbelievably "grainy" and and it seems to be off center or something. On the left edge of my TV there's a vertical white (or amber) line from top to bottom that is very annoying.
This is probably from the fact, that you have it set your TV to "Just scan", "1:1" or whichever your TV calls it (it's available for HDMI connections). This will show everything exactly is it is on DVD, and it will show stuff you wouldn't have noticed with your old DVD players because it is in the overscan area.
My TV has two options to avoid this (though I only had to use it once so far):
Either switching to standard 16:9 (and not "Just Scan" as it is called on my TV), or moving the picture in "Just Scan"-mode to left, right, up or down.
Post by: Touti on June 14, 2009, 01:04:00 AM
When playing in 480p from my regular player the quality of the image was much better, the colors didn't seem as nice but the grainy problem was gone. I still had the line on the left however so it I came back here to write about it and read Tom's reply. It turns out that my TV has a setting where I can choose between "Size 1" and "Size 2". It's not quite like a zoom in that it doesn't loose on the quality of the image but it changes the size a bit and the line disappeared. That was the first time I had this problem since I bought this TV last winter.
Not much to say about the movie, in the genre it's good and I enjoyed it.
Time or not......tonight I'm watching movies. My bad week was due to a very bad toothache after a tooth that broke 3 weeks ago. Had to go to an emergency dental clinic and see a dentist I don't know. I don't know wtf he did to me either but I can tell you it was quite painful.
So although I have a lot to do I've decided to just sit down, take my pain killers and watch movies. I rented "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" and "Pachendaele", two movies I know nothing about except the title. I haven't read any reviews so it's a complete blind watch.
Post by: Najemikon on June 14, 2009, 02:40:50 AM
My bad week was due to a very bad toothache after a tooth that broke 3 weeks ago. Had to go to an emergency dental clinic and see a dentist I don't know. I don't know wtf he did to me either but I can tell you it was quite painful.
Been there. Done that. Sympathising. :-X
Couple of years back, I had developed a "food trap" between my two upper back teeth. It hurt occasionally, so "we'll just pull it out", the dentist said. "Those teeth just pop out really easy", the dentist said... "won't hurt a bit!", the dentist said. Oh yeah, turns out my back teeth are special limited edition, wedged in nice and tight, and when you pull on them, they snap. "Ouch", I said. :weep:
It left the nerve exposed so he had to sort that out, then wait for the tooth to grow so he had something to grip. Bastard.
Salt water was a relief for me. Swill it and that really soothes it.
Post by: Jimmy on June 14, 2009, 03:51:09 AM
Post by: Touti on June 14, 2009, 04:35:57 AM
Does that friggin movie ever ends ?
Post by: Najemikon on June 14, 2009, 01:41:00 PM
I've been quite looking forward to seeing that! Apparently it is the same author as Forrest Gump? As way of a guage, do you like Gump?
Post by: RossRoy on June 14, 2009, 02:13:14 PM
:hysterical:
I've been quite looking forward to seeing that! Apparently it is the same author as Forrest Gump? As way of a guage, do you like Gump?
Same writers you say?
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/35b0167b17/the-curious-case-of-forrest-gump
;)
Post by: Touti on June 14, 2009, 03:59:17 PM
But all these movies have action scenes or funny scenes that give you a little boost when you start dozing off. "The CC of BB" doesn't have that so I found it very very long, I started switching position on my seat and hoping for the end to come after about 2 hours.
I think the movie could use a few "wake the crowd" scenes or some cutting here in there. I can't imagine sitting 2:40 in a theater watching that.
It's still a good movie, the makeups are outstanding, I had a hard time recognizing Cate Blanchett at the beginning.
Score:
Post by: Touti on June 14, 2009, 04:04:08 PM
:hysterical:
I've been quite looking forward to seeing that! Apparently it is the same author as Forrest Gump? As way of a guage, do you like Gump?
Same writers you say?
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/35b0167b17/the-curious-case-of-forrest-gump
;)
That's quite interesting Seb. I didn't know it was the same writer and frankly, had I known, I don't think I would have seen the similarities in the canvas of the two movies but the people who did that clip are quite right, it does look a bit like a 2nd version of the Gump script.
Post by: Touti on August 16, 2009, 03:42:33 AM
I've been watching it for 55 minutes now and I after 30 minutes I was already bored. It's a nice story and visually it's beautiful but it's just soooooooooooooooooooo sloooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwww. I'm gonna watch it 'til the end this time but I hope it gets a litlle more "catchy". I think they should have made it shorter and give a little bit more rhythm, that would keep my attention. Right now I keep wandering away, every scene seems longer than the previous one and appears to take forever to get the point.
Post by: Najemikon on August 16, 2009, 12:04:46 PM
Once again I come here to share my despair while I'm watching a movie. This time it is "Cold Mountain". I've tried watching it over a year ago and couldn't make it to the end, since most people give good reviews and ratings I thought maybe I just wasn't in the mood for it so I kept it on the ice until now.
I've been watching it for 55 minutes now and I after 30 minutes I was already bored. It's a nice story and visually it's beautiful but it's just soooooooooooooooooooo sloooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwww. I'm gonna watch it 'til the end this time but I hope it gets a litlle more "catchy". I think they should have made it shorter and give a little bit more rhythm, that would keep my attention. Right now I keep wandering away, every scene seems longer than the previous one and appears to take forever to get the point.
Interesting. I've never watched Cold Mountain, but had the exact same reaction to The English Patient, also by the late Anthony Minghella. It's frustrating because the story is brilliant, the actors perfectly cast and it looks gorgeous. But damn, it's ponderous! And as you know, my favourite film is Dances With Wolves, so I don't mind a film taking its time.
Post by: Touti on August 16, 2009, 03:31:25 PM
Interesting. I've never watched Cold Mountain, but had the exact same reaction to The English Patient, also by the late Anthony Minghella. It's frustrating because the story is brilliant, the actors perfectly cast and it looks gorgeous. But damn, it's ponderous! And as you know, my favourite film is Dances With Wolves, so I don't mind a film taking its time.
Right on the spot Jon. "The English Patient" was one of the very firsts DVD's I owned, within the first 10 I acquired. I sold it recently when I started letting go of my collection. I tried to watch it 3 times in all those years I've owned it and could never get to the end. Just like you I have no problems with movies taking their time, on the contrary, I always found Kevin Costner not to be a very good actor but I love watching his movies because they're always long.
All my favorite movies are long ones. Amadeus, Mutiny on the Bounty (Brando one), Dances with Wolves, Braveheart, Wyatt Earp etc. I can sit there and watch those movies from beginning to end without a pause but "The English Patient" and "Cold Mountain" have or miss something that prevents you from falling in.
Post by: Najemikon on August 16, 2009, 03:53:00 PM
Quote
The problem with The English Patient is that to enjoy it, you have to be either English or patient. So said Joe Queenan, as he delivered his pithy proscription on director Anthony Minghellaís multiple Oscar-winner. Well, Minghella was at it again last year, chiding those who are neither patient, nor, in this case, American; those unable to endure the ponderous, painful roads down which his characters invariably wander.
Post by: Touti on August 16, 2009, 04:12:50 PM
I'm really not that knowledgeable when it comes to directors, until you mentioned his name I had never heard of Minghella and obviously had no idea what movies he had done but I just checked on IMDB for the fun of it. It's funny but I was not really surprised to see he also directed "The talented Mr. Ripley", another movie I found hard to watch 'til the end and that is, imo, also ponderous. Maybe not as much as Cold Mountain and The English Patient but still, it has that slow pace and characters that don't really seem to be there like the other 2 movies.
I guess I'll have to remember from now on that Minghella movies aren't my cup of tea...................or should I say, being french canadian, my bottle of beer.
Post by: Najemikon on August 16, 2009, 05:08:51 PM
Post by: Touti on August 16, 2009, 08:44:05 PM
Post by: Najemikon on August 16, 2009, 08:52:00 PM
Post by: Dragonfire on August 17, 2009, 08:27:07 AM
I did see The Talented Mr. Ripley back after it came out to rent. Parts of it were ok, but I remember being hugely bored by most of the movie. I haven't watched it again and have no desire to watch it again.
I have also seen Cold Mountain. I actually went to the theater to see it with my mom..she loved it. Me..not so much. I didn't hate it..but...well. It was a well done movie that I didn't like that much. Again, there are decent elements, but it did drag out too long. I didn't care for the way things worked out either. To me, that was just depressing. I have only seen the movie once, and I will never watch it again.
Post by: Achim on August 17, 2009, 10:41:37 AM
For The English Patient I am right with Marie, it never seemed interesting to me in any shape or form. Same is true for Cold Mountain.
Post by: Kathy on August 17, 2009, 03:01:33 PM
Post by: Touti on August 17, 2009, 08:55:33 PM
Oh dear, these are on my unwatched pile. I think they may stay there quite a bit longer.
Give them a try Kathy, you never know. Just because nobody in the whole world liked them doesn't mean you won't :hysterical:
But seriously, we all have our tastes, maybe you will like them but if I were you I'd start with The Talented Mr. Ripley. If you find it ponderous (gotta use my new learned words :)) chances are you won't like Cold Mountain The English Patient much either.
Post by: richierich on August 17, 2009, 11:04:37 PM
Post by: Touti on August 17, 2009, 11:25:36 PM
Post by: Najemikon on August 18, 2009, 01:32:17 AM
Post by: Touti on August 18, 2009, 01:36:29 AM
Post by: Najemikon on August 18, 2009, 01:57:54 AM
Wish you liked them but like hating them Jon ?
Not in this case! I reserve such things for rubbish like Alien 4, where something was squandered. No, all I want from a film is honesty and integrity, and if it has those things and I still don't like it, it must just be me. Que sara and all that. Hence my disappointment because Minghella was a wonderful filmmaker and not in the slightest overrated. I'm a lesser person for not getting The English Patient.
It's like fantasising for years about sleeping with Kylie Minogue and when it finally happens, it just doesn't "click" and you have to say, oh well, no-ones fault, so back to the slappers.
Still, I'd like to be in a position to make that call... :devil:
Post by: Touti on August 18, 2009, 02:13:28 AM
Then when I'm done analyzing everything and come to the conclusion that there's nothing wrong with me and that I just didn't like it there will almost every time be someone to tell me "You didn't like that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTF is wrong with you?"
Post by: richierich on August 18, 2009, 02:56:34 AM
Wish you liked them but like hating them Jon ?
It's like fantasising for years about sleeping with Kylie Minogue and when it finally happens, it just doesn't "click" and you have to say, oh well, no-ones fault, so back to the slappers.
:hysterical: :hysterical:
Or on to her sister :drooling:
Post by: DJ Doena on August 18, 2009, 07:48:36 AM
I know the feeling. When I dislike a well done movie that most people like I always wonder what's wrong with me, did I look at it the wrong way, is there something I'm just not getting, is it a 2nd or 3rd degree thing and I'm just obtuse and got stuck at the 1st degree ?
Then when I'm done analyzing everything and come to the conclusion that there's nothing wrong with me and that I just didn't like it there will almost every time be someone to tell me "You didn't like that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTF is wrong with you?"
I am way beyond this stage now. Since most of my packages are delivered at work, my collegues have always an eye for what I got this time. And I've gathered so many strange looks I can't count them anymore. Partly it's the choice of my guilty pleasures but sometimes it's simply the content of the package, for example when you get Braindead and Pretty Woman in the same package.
But I don't care, I watch what I like and if the rest of the world doesn't like it that it's simply a case of me being right and the world being wrong. :tease:
Post by: Touti on September 27, 2009, 12:24:26 AM
Thanks to Jimmy I own an impressive total of 6 Horror movies. Without his contribution I would only have 2. Last year he gave me this set which contains 4 Japanese Horror movies which I never watched but didn't sell because it was a gift. My goal is to watch 1 a week for the whole month of October.......I did say small contribution......
:training:
Post by: addicted2dvd on September 27, 2009, 01:10:49 AM
Post by: Touti on September 27, 2009, 01:14:05 AM
Post by: addicted2dvd on September 27, 2009, 01:31:15 AM
Post by: Touti on October 10, 2009, 11:40:06 PM
Overview: C'est l'histoire de Babine et aussi celle des gens de son village : Toussaint Brodeur l'éleveur de mouches, le Forgeron amoureux de la Veuve de St-Barnabé qui le trompe avec le Vieux Curé, Méo le coiffeur qui maganne la tête de ses clients parce que toujours pompette, Madame Gélinas enceinte depuis vingt ans qui n'arrive plus à faire lever ses gâteaux, la belle Lurette qui pleure son amoureux parti pour la guerre et effeuille sans cesse des marguerites et bien sûr Babine le fils de la Sorcière aux prises avec l'intransigeant Curé Neuf. Ce film c'est l'univers de Fred en images, celui où un taureau est amoureux et où on sème une montre de poche pour y voir pousser une horloge.
My Thoughts: A nice little fantasy, Fred Pellerin (the writer) is very well knows in Quebec for his tales and the poetry he puts in them. Luc Picard's directing is very and the young actor who plays "Babine" is excellent. I will definitely watch this again and I think that for the first Fantasy movie ever made in Quebec the result is very good.
My Score:
P.S: I'm sorry for the french overview but there's no profile in DVDP with the english one and overviews are written so small on BR covers that I can't read it :-[
Post by: Touti on October 10, 2009, 11:51:46 PM
Overview:Academy Award® winner Kate Winslet (Revolutionary Road) delivers a dynamic performance in this "tale of eroticism, secrecy and guilt" (Claudia Puig, USA Today) set in turbulent post-Nazi Germany. Bringing to life the celebrated international novel, Winslet is riveting as Hanna Schmitz - a lonely, working-class woman who experiences a brief but intense affair with a teenage boy. Years later they meet again: Hanna now a defendant in a notorious case and her ex-lover, now a law student, holding the secret to her salvation. Directed by three-time Academy Award® nominee Stephen Daldry (Billy Elliot, The Hours) and featuring Ralph Fiennes (The Duchess) as the grown man still reeling from Hanna's influence, The Reader is a "moving, romantic and poignant story" (Roger Friedman, Fox News) about the difficult distance between truth and reconciliation.
My Thoughts: I didn't read the overview on this so I really had no idea what it was about. I bought it as part of my signup with Columbia House and I only picked it because of Kate Winslet. I had only seen "Titanic" and "The Life of David Gale" from her before and my feelings about here were 50/50. I don't think much good of Titanic which is nothing more than an expensive chick flicks but she was good in "The Life of David Gale" so I wanted to see more of her.
For the first 45 minutes or so I thought it was another chick flicks about a 15 year old boy who falls for a 40+ year old woman who makes him discover love and blah blah blah...........as we've already seen way too many times in movies. But then.................surprise...........................out of nowhere we see this woman in a trial for having been a SS and things related to auschwitz (note that I didn't mistype anything here, I don't use capital first letters for name of places built to kill people). This was not only a nice and unexpected surprise (granted that all surprises are unexpected by their very nature :whistle:) but it also takes the movie in a completely new direction in a snap. Since I've always been extremely interested with everything related to the holocaust I drank every every scene from that point on all the way to the end.
(click to show/hide)
My Score:
Post by: Touti on October 10, 2009, 11:58:22 PM
Overview: His life changed history. His courage changed lives. Academy Award® winner Sean Penn stars in this stirring celebration of Harvey Milk, a true man of the people. Based on the inspiring true story of the first openly gay man elected to major public office, this compelling film follows Milk's powerful journey to inspire hope for equal rights during one of the least tolerant times in our nation's history. With a stunning all-star cast, including Josh Brolin, Emile Hirsh, Diego Luna and James Franco, it's the emotionally charged story that was proclaimed the Winner of The New York Film Critics Circle Best Picture Award!
My Thoughts: All I knew about this man is the very litle I've seen and heard in trailers and critics when the movie got all its nominations for the Oscars. I had never heard of Harvey Milk before. I've always enjoyed well made movies that allow me to learn about true events and this one was no disappointment. "Milk" runs for over two hours but I didn't feel it long at any time. The story great, the movie is great and Penn is just extraordinary.................fuck is he good actor.
My Score:
Post by: richierich on October 11, 2009, 05:06:55 PM
Post by: Touti on October 11, 2009, 05:20:14 PM
Post by: Touti on October 11, 2009, 05:26:14 PM
BTW: I know my last 3 reviews have nothing to do with Horror but unfortunately Columbia hasn't shipped my order yet so I have no Horror to watch.
Post by: Jimmy on October 11, 2009, 07:28:42 PM
Columbia hasn't shipped my order yet so I have no Horror to watch.(http://www.touti.net/collection/images/thumbnails/787364768790f.jpg)
:whistle:
Post by: Touti on October 11, 2009, 07:34:26 PM
I had the feeling you were going to point this out Jimmy. I've already watched one and posted my review and I will watch the other 3 before the end of the month but I wasn't in the mood for subtitled Japanese movies this week-end.
Post by: Touti on November 14, 2009, 08:13:01 PM
Otis
  |
Overview: This dark comedy about a serial killer stalking a typical suburb is a cynical take on both American culture and family dynamics. When a young girl is taken prisoner by a sadistic killer, she uses her wits to escape. But her freedom is just the beginning of the gruesome, and oddly hilarious, downward spiral her family takes when they decide to get even with her abductor. It's a twisted ride that will leave audiences torn between laughing and covering their eyes.
My Thoughts: Sometimes on a thin line between horror and comedy this an enjoyable movie to watch. Some scenes are a bit more on the real horror side and actually made me feel bad but some other parts are hilarious. I'm glad I bought it.
My Score: 3.5
Post by: Touti on December 20, 2009, 02:40:48 AM
  |
When I bought it I thought this was gonna look amazing in HD.............I was right :clap:. Definitely worth buying since since it cost just about the same price as the popcorn and yogurt I had while watching it ;D
This is the HD-DVD movie I watch and so far I'm very happy I went for it.
Post by: snowcat on December 20, 2009, 10:50:54 AM
Post by: Touti on December 22, 2009, 04:23:46 AM
 |
Overview: Academy Award® winner* Chris Cooper, Ryan Phillippe, Academy Award® nominee** Laura Linney and Dennis Haysbert star in this spellbinding thriller. Eric O'Neill (Phillippe) is assigned to work with renowned operative Robert Hanssen (Cooper), the sole subject of a long-term, top-secret investigation. Determined to draw this suspected double agent out of deep cover, O'Neill finds himself in a lethal game of spy vs. spy, where nothing is as it seems. Critics are hailing Breach as "electrifying" (Peter Travers, Rolling Stone) and "suspenseful" (Ty Burr, The Boston Globe).
*2002 Best Supporting Actor, Adaptation.**2000 Best Actress, You Can Count on Me; 2004 Best Supporting Actress, Kinsey.
Review: This movie is based on the true story of Robert Hansenn who, as an FBI agent, betrayed his country for over 22 years by leaking information to the soviet union, including giving out the names of russian agents recruited by the FBI who were then called back to Moskow and shot. It's quite a good thriller keeping you wondering throughout the movie if Hanssen has spotted the agent they put on his tail as his new assistant.
Hanssen is depicted in the movie as extremely religious.........yet perverted in many ways including sexuality. He is a bizarre character making people around him uncomfortable with his constant preaching, the movie conveys that feeling to the viewer and I found myself uncomfortable as well most of the time. Breach is a good and effective suspense.
Post by: Critter on December 22, 2009, 05:01:11 AM
Post by: Jimmy on December 22, 2009, 06:22:11 AM
Post by: Critter on December 22, 2009, 06:47:09 AM
Post by: Jimmy on December 22, 2009, 06:56:41 AM
I think that the biggest difference is the fact that the HD-DVD aren't region code. I'm sure that someone else will give a more complete answer ;)
Post by: Critter on December 22, 2009, 06:58:12 AM
Post by: Jimmy on December 22, 2009, 07:10:02 AM
And yes that's annoying, since it's a relic of the past... :thumbdown:
Post by: snowcat on December 22, 2009, 09:30:37 AM
its was HD vs Blu-Ray and Blu-ray won, however they were almost identical.
I have a HD DVD player so I but alot of HD DVD's they are very cheap now, I got mine from EBay and Amazon.
Post by: Touti on December 22, 2009, 01:40:56 PM
Some of the reasons for saying that are:
1: HD-DVD specifications are final, Blu-Ray's arent so if you buy a Blu-Ray player now it may not play future movies (I believe this is no longer the case).
2: HD-DVD is not region coded
3: Producing HD-DVD Players and discs is cheaper than Blu-Ray and should therefore be cheaper to buy.
I know many people refuse to buy into an obsolete format but I look at this differently. A movie in HD is a movie in HD regardless of the color of the case, if I can get HD movies for a good price I see no reason not to do it just because they're going out, that's what makes them so cheap.
If one doesn't need a big investment to be able to play them then it's worth it. I already had a separate Blu-Ray player and I've had a computer with a wireless keyboard connected to my HDTV for years. I only needed to replace the DVD player for a HD-DVD one and you can get those on eBay for less than 50$ now.
With shipping & tax my Toshiba player cost me $60 CAD. I bought 21 HD-DVD's, all but two were under 5$, many at only 2.49$, in total it cost me 83$ for all of them. That comes to an average price of 6.81$. There's no way I could have gotten all of those in Blu-Ray at 7$ each, many are still well over 20$.
As for Inetvideo. They use to specialize in OOP and hard to find movies, now they've apparently changed that and became a regular online store which is not to be confused with the store I walk in sometimes. It's the same owners bu they're actually separate businesses, the HD-DVD's are available online but not in the store. They have offices in Canada and the United States and they ship worlwide.
InetVideo For Canada (http://find.inetvideo.ca/search?p=Q&lbc=inetvideo-ca&uid=632432240&ts=customv2&w=blu-ray&af=price:21&method=and&view=grid〈%3den&isort=price)
InetVideo For USA (http://search.inetvideo.com/search?p=Q&lbc=inetvideo&uid=851584914&ts=custom&w=*&af=price:21 format:bluray&method=and&view=grid&format=genre&isort=price)
Post by: Tom on December 22, 2009, 01:47:52 PM
This is why I waited out the format war before going blu. At a time I was also on the side of HD-DVD, but now I don't care which format has won. I am just glad that the winner has been decided.
Post by: Touti on December 22, 2009, 02:07:42 PM
But for now, I got 21 HD movies to watch for my 2 weeks Christmas Holiday for 143$ so I'm happy with that.
Post by: RossRoy on December 22, 2009, 02:39:11 PM
That way, if your HD DVD player gives, you can remaster them as Blu-ray, or at the very least, watch them from the HDD
Post by: Touti on December 22, 2009, 03:13:13 PM
Post by: Touti on December 22, 2009, 05:14:21 PM
I would love to be able to rip them and just play them for windows media center and although I haven't tried it yet, this could be the solution. I'm particularly curious about their Windows Home Server program which is free.
http://www.mymovies.dk/products.aspx
Post by: Touti on December 27, 2009, 03:35:31 PM
What they say:Who knows what American journalist Jake Geismer (George Clooney) expected to find in postwar Berlin? Peace, maybe. Or at least a story. But certainly not Lena (Cate Blanchett), his beautiful, embittered one-time love. And not the trail of secrecy and deception that leads from Lena to the scheming young corporal (Tobey Maguire) who's her new lover... and to a murder no one seems interested in solving. Except Jake. Steven Soderbergh directs three of today's top talents in this zigzag thriller that's both an atmospheric homage to 1940s filmmaking and a deft modern film noir. 'The Good German' is "haunting and hypnotic, it's pure moviegoing bliss" (Peter Travers, 'Rolling Stone').
What I think: So you take a few good actors, a good director and a good story, you throw in a few million dollars and that gives you a good movie right ? Well......not always, making a good movie also requires that little something that is missing here. "The Good German" is an attempt at making a film noir as in the 1940's and at that it is very successful. The atmosphere is there, the actors performances are right on the spot. Unfortunately the good stuff ends there and the story is told in a boring way. My feeling at the end of the movie was that they've put too much effort into the style and not enough on the story.
Post by: Najemikon on December 27, 2009, 03:38:20 PM
Post by: Touti on December 27, 2009, 03:44:02 PM
That seems to be the view most people ended up with...
Apparently so Jon, I just checked RottenTomatoes and most reviews aren't very good. And to be honest........having most of the first 30-45 minutes based on a charater played by Tobey Maguire didn't help it.
Post by: Touti on January 03, 2010, 03:29:21 AM
 |
What they say:Academy Award® winners Russell Crowe and Renée Zellweger star in this triumphant, powerfully inspiring true story. In a time when America needed a champion, an unlikely hero would arise, proving how hard a man would fight to win a second chance for his family and himself. Suddenly thrust into the national spotlight, boxer Jim Braddock would defy the odds against him and stun the world with one of the greatest comebacks in history. Driven by love for his family, he willed an impossible dream to come true.
What I think: What a good movie........frankly I don't know what to say, I just feel like rewinding the DVD and watch it again. Just another example of Ron Howard's genius at making movies, we should all thank god he didn't stick to acting.
A perfect score:
Post by: Touti on July 04, 2010, 10:36:57 PM
Can 2012 be summarized in one word ? Yes........................crap !
And if you haven't watched the alternate ending on the DVD thank yourself for that, it just makes it even worse.
Post by: Dragonfire on July 05, 2010, 12:05:34 AM
I have no desire to ever see it again, let alone watch an alternate ending.
Post by: Touti on July 05, 2010, 12:12:06 AM
Post by: dfmorgan on July 05, 2010, 12:20:21 AM
2012
Can 2012 be summarized in one word ? Yes........................crap !
And if you haven't watched the alternate ending on the DVD thank yourself for that, it just makes it even worse.
Oh dear I gave it a 3. I quite enjoyed it, please note that I did remove my brain before watching though, always do that for this type of film. Yes the alternate ending was bad.
Dave
Post by: Touti on July 05, 2010, 12:27:11 AM
Post by: dfmorgan on July 05, 2010, 12:39:49 AM
I can live with some "no brain required" type of films but not that much. Sophie wrote in her review that she didn't know if the director wanted us to take the movie seriously or not but it alternates between serious stuff and lame jokes. That's what I don't like in movies, when that putting dumb humor everywhere and take away all credibility. It makes me feel like I'm watching a movie whose target are teenagers.
Thanks, I went and had a look at the other reviews from Sophie, Marie and Sébastien. They seem to agree with your view. Must be me, maybe I need to raise my expectations.
Dave
Post by: Dragonfire on July 05, 2010, 12:44:06 AM
Well I watched that alternate ending...sheesh...just when I thought it couldn't get more stupid.
Post by: dfmorgan on July 05, 2010, 01:06:48 AM
I've liked other movies like this before...even some by the same director. This one was just too much like his previous movies...cities being destroyed and all that...the reason is different, but so much else is the same. The characters fit the same types too. He needs new material.
I know what you mean Marie.
I think maybe it is my problem though in another thread about anime Emma remarked about some anime fans liking anything anime whereas she tended to be more selective and I replied that I had managed to like much of what I had seen. Maybe my expectations are too low and I do end up liking a lot of dross. But what the hey that is me and I continue to like what I like and dislike that that I don't like.
Dave
Post by: Dragonfire on July 05, 2010, 01:10:05 AM
My step dad liked 2012. He tends to like any disaster movie.
Post by: Touti on July 05, 2010, 01:26:56 AM
I know what you mean Marie.
I think maybe it is my problem though in another thread about anime Emma remarked about some anime fans liking anything anime whereas she tended to be more selective and I replied that I had managed to like much of what I had seen. Maybe my expectations are too low and I do end up liking a lot of dross. But what the hey that is me and I continue to like what I like and dislike that that I don't like.
Dave
You don't have low expectations Dave, you're just easy public. I am too and I usually like movies that some (if not most) here didn't find that good. I also often dislike stuff that many find great. There's nothing wrong with liking stuff that others didn't like. I've seen a few movies that aren't that much better than 2012 and I liked them. In the case of 2012 there's just too much "kid stuff" for me, that took me out of the movie a few times.
What really puts me off is when characters become too caricatural, like the crazy guy in Yellowstone park, that is just too much, crazy characters don't have to be turned into caricature all the time. Same was done with the weird scientist in Independance Day.
(http://www.nanarland.com/Chroniques/independenceday/independenceday5.jpg)
They turned him into a caricature, so much that it wasn't even funny.
Post by: Jimmy on July 05, 2010, 03:40:09 AM
2012Eric I don't know if it's an official review, but I add it to the list anyway. I like the fact that you place all my impression of the trailer in 2 words ;D
Can 2012 be summarized in one word ? Yes........................crap !
Post by: Achim on July 05, 2010, 04:32:19 AM
The fact that they are so successful (same as Bay) with the crap they produce these days shows us the sad state of affairs Hollywood is in.
Post by: RossRoy on July 05, 2010, 04:35:25 AM
Emmerich (and Petersen for that matter) have become worse with every year they make films in the US. Emmerich started out as a popcorn-movie maker, where Petersen tried to implant some ambition into his films.
The fact that they are so successful (same as Bay) with the crap they produce these days shows us the sad state of affairs Hollywood is in.
I don't think Hollywood itself is the problem. I think the average movie going people are the problem.
Case in point (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=twilight%20reaction)
(wait until you've watch a few "genuine" ones before watching the one by the collegehumor guys)
Post by: Achim on July 05, 2010, 04:48:16 AM
I don't think Hollywood itself is the problem. I think the average movie going people are the problem.Ofr course you are right. In that respect I apologize for having seen 2012 (and Transformers 2) at all, as I have contributed to that sad state affair :weep:
Post by: RossRoy on July 05, 2010, 06:12:00 AM
I don't think Hollywood itself is the problem. I think the average movie going people are the problem.Ofr course you are right. In that respect I apologize for having seen 2012 (and Transformers 2) at all, as I have contributed to that sad state affair :weep:
:P
Post by: Najemikon on July 05, 2010, 07:20:55 PM
Hence, we get 2012. :shrug:
Post by: Touti on July 05, 2010, 08:56:45 PM
But then, it's often the case in action/sci-fi movies, Armageddon and Independance Day had their share of it too.
Post by: Najemikon on July 05, 2010, 09:17:37 PM
Post by: goodguy on July 06, 2010, 01:30:13 AM
Eric I don't know if it's an official review, but I add it to the list anyway. I like the fact that you place all my impression of the trailer in 2 words ;D
In case someone doesn't know the Four Word Film Review site yet: http://www.fwfr.com/ (http://www.fwfr.com/)
For 2012, I especially like:
Grosse Pointe Sank.
Maya happen, Maya not.
Post by: Touti on July 08, 2010, 01:55:07 AM
5150, Rue des Ormes
I've spoilerized part of the back cover blurb because they go too far. They almost spoil the whole movie right there (good thing I hadn't read it before watching the movie!) Part of the power of the movie is not knowing what's going on and having it be revealed as the movie moves along, and that back cover blurb above spoils most of it ::)
I'm gonna watch this tonight and I read your review Seb. Thanks for "spoilerizing". Your comment above worries me though, I read the book only 2 weeks ago so I do know what's going to happen. I hope I haven't spoiled the movie by reading the book.
Post by: RossRoy on July 08, 2010, 02:14:21 AM
I'm gonna watch this tonight and I read your review Seb. Thanks for "spoilerizing". Your comment above worries me though, I read the book only 2 weeks ago so I do know what's going to happen. I hope I haven't spoiled the movie by reading the book.
Well my sister is a big fan of Patrick Senecal so she had read the book. She enjoyed the movie too, but as is often the case, she thought the movie paled a bit to the book. In a sense, she thought I was lucky to see the movie without having read the book.
Post by: Touti on July 09, 2010, 07:26:33 PM
I finished watching it last night, Wednesday I had to stop because my living room was just getting too hot with the plasma TV running, I was dying in there.
"5150 Rue des Ormes" is definitely not the greatest movie of all times. The acting is good but not great, the set is nice but nothing extraordinary and the very little special effects they use is a tad "cheap" which I guess comes with making movies without having Hollywood's insane budgets. That however doesn't make it a bad movie and I think that those who like the genre will enjoy it if they don't know the story because what's interesting in this movie isn't the movie itself but how the story unfolds and, as Seb already said, the suspense of waiting to see what's gonna happen and how it's gonna end.
Unfortunately much of it is taken away if you already know the story from the book and since the movie itself isn't that great the only interest becomes the comparison between them and on that there's a lot to say. I wouldn't say it's completely different than the book as some of it is pretty much the same but some liberties were taken in adapting certain scenes while others have been completely changed. They also added a thread which is followed throughout the movie that didn't exist at all in the book.
I also felt that the wife character wasn't as submissive as I had pictured her in the book but that's obviously only my interpretation.
** Warning: The spoilers contains stuff about the book so if you plan on reading it then stop reading here.
(click to show/hide)
Althoug there's a differences between the book and the movie they are definitely spoilers for each other and it really wouldn't be a good idea for anyone to watch the movie before reading the book.
Post by: Jimmy on July 09, 2010, 07:31:20 PM
Post by: Touti on July 09, 2010, 07:35:50 PM
Post by: Touti on July 13, 2010, 11:43:27 PM
I watched disc 4 of season 2 last week-end and I'm gonna watch the last one later this week. I found the story a bit hard to follow from one episode to the next on disc 4. I had the "Recap" on and even in the pre-episode clip that shows you what happend "Last time on....." there seemed to be things I had not seen before.
I'm just wondering, did they have to skip some episodes to bring closure to the series when the plug was pulled ?
Post by: Tom on July 13, 2010, 11:52:11 PM
I'm just wondering, did they have to skip some episodes to bring closure to the series when the plug was pulled ?I didn't have the feeling. And as far as I know they only knew about the cancellation after they already shot all episodes (or at least after all episodes were written). The series finale was only supposed to be a season finale.
Post by: Touti on July 13, 2010, 11:54:36 PM
Post by: goodguy on July 14, 2010, 12:27:51 AM
If you refer to DVD (not Blu-ray), Disc 4 would be:
2x13 Earthlings Welcome Here
2x14 The Good Wound
2x15 Desert Cantos
2x16 Some Must Watch While Some Must Sleep
2x13 was the midseason finale and started the Sarah-centered "desert quest" episodes, which a lot of people (not me, though) didn't like. They are a bit more introspective even for TSCC standards, but I didn't find them especially hard to follow. 2x16 is a bit of a WTF episode, but you haven't seen that yet.
Achim and I did an TSCC S2 marathon a while ago and discussed the individual episodes quite a bit (spoilers!). Maybe you will find that interesting or even want to add your own comments.
http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,5899.0.html (http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,5899.0.html)
Post by: Touti on July 14, 2010, 12:57:57 AM
There's one episode in particular that got me confused more than others,
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Achim on July 14, 2010, 06:06:22 AM
Seriously though, some episodes have a challenging structure, but so do many good movies. Across episodes I often can't remember myself. However, at least outside the recaps, they often give you flashbacks which show stuff they actually hadn't shown before, it's just part of the structure.
Post by: Touti on July 16, 2010, 05:23:54 AM
I didn't think it was possible after Wonderfalls but after watching Terminator:TSCC I dislike Fox more than before. I haven't looked it up so I don't know why they pulled the plug on it (although I'm confident my educated gue$$ would be right on the $pot) but it's a real shame. They stopped it right when it was getting really good.
Post by: Touti on July 28, 2010, 03:23:31 AM
(http://www.pitstop.net.au/upload/products/11833.jpg)
I have no idea what possessed me today but I actually felt like watching a movie from the late 60's or early 70's. I don't know what it was competing with but it's no surprise to me that Bullit won the Oscar for best film editing. As some of you know, I really dislike the dialogs in movies from that period and I was expecting Bullit to be the same but surprisingly it's the opposite.
The movie has many long scenes with nothing but the "normal" sounds, no dialog, no dramatic music, no scary sounds, just the sounds that you hear in real life. This is particularly successful in the long car chase scene where you only hear the sounds of the cars.
There is also no unnecessary talking, people say what they have to say, no more, no less and when there's nothing that needs to be said they're just quiet and the viewer is allowed to enjoy it as if he/she was really present. I actually felt more "involved" in that movie that with any of today's surround tricks that are supposed to make you feel like you're in the movie.
I really enjoyed Bullit and I give it a
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Kathy on July 28, 2010, 03:37:47 AM
Of course...that's what I'd have to do since he's dead! :laugh:
Post by: addicted2dvd on July 28, 2010, 03:39:02 AM
Post by: Najemikon on July 28, 2010, 02:45:35 PM
The French Connection is also notable for it's use of sound. I think nerdy film term "diegetic" is apt at this point... ;)
Post by: Touti on July 28, 2010, 03:01:43 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullitt
Bullitt is probably best-remembered for its car chase scene through the streets of San Francisco, regarded as one of the most influential car chase sequences in movie history
That scene is really good, the part of it where the 2 cars go down the hills in San-Francisco's street is amazing with the camera on the back seat. There was a few times when it gave me nausea just as if I had been in the car.
....and was nominated for Best Sound
That's not surprising but I find I see a little irony in the movie being highly praised (and rightly so) for its sound when what makes it so good is in fact the lack of it. Bullit proves that sometimes there's no need to add sound to make a scene more dramatic.
Jon, I know "The French Connection" is a very good movie and if I'm not mistaking it's generally considered as one (if not THE) best movie of Gene Hackman but somehow I just never got to watching it. Maybe that's something I should remedy.
The Yakuza: I have never heard of it but will check it out.
Post by: Najemikon on July 29, 2010, 08:46:42 PM
Bullitt is probably best-remembered for its car chase scene through the streets of San Francisco, regarded as one of the most influential car chase sequences in movie history
That scene is really good, the part of it where the 2 cars go down the hills in San-Francisco's street is amazing with the camera on the back seat. There was a few times when it gave me nausea just as if I had been in the car.
This is exactly why I recommended The French Connection. Both films are considered the pinnacle of car chases and I don't think anyone has quite decided which is best. Bullitt is more edited and led to very famous mistakes (when you see it again, watch out for the green car! ;)), whereas Gene Hackman isn't chasing a car, but a train. That's being picky though, just to make a difference between them, because they are both utterly superb. I think only Ronin and Bourne have come close since.
I just love McQueen's style... "you work your side of the street; I'll work mine." :thumbup:
The Yakuza has no car chases, sadly, but otherwise, I reviewed it recently for the alphathon: http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,6515.msg119052.html#msg119052
I think I remember Achim saying he liked that movie too.
Post by: Touti on July 29, 2010, 09:00:43 PM
Post by: Najemikon on July 29, 2010, 09:06:33 PM
As you might expect, I will be writing a review, so probably better I get stuck in there. :training: But suffice to say, this is film at it's most artistic, enigmatic and perhaps abstract. Daniel Day Lewis' performance is nothing short of magnificent. It bears more than a passing resemblance with Citizen Kane and I find it just... stunning.
Post by: Touti on July 29, 2010, 09:20:44 PM
Not sure why but I feel compelled to compare it with "The assassination of Jesse James by the coward Robert Ford" which I think overall is better because although it is slow it's got a bit more "hmmphf" here and there.
Post by: Najemikon on July 29, 2010, 09:30:47 PM
Post by: Touti on July 29, 2010, 09:39:02 PM
The comparison with The Assassination of Jesse James (etc!) is not a lazy one....
Not sure what you mean by that Jon.
Obviously it's a matter of taste and yes, pace is in the eye of the beholder. There will be blood is not an exception for me, I never really like movies that are so slow. Do you remember me posting "Does that freakin' movie ever ends" while I was watching The curious case of Benjamin Button ?
Post by: Najemikon on July 29, 2010, 10:02:47 PM
You said you wasn't sure why you were thinking of Assassination and There Will Be Blood together; I simply meant you being perceptive and there was a lot to link them. It's interesting actually, that I was going to suggest that fans of one should try the other (and No Country For Old Men) as they would probably like it.
I'll think a bit more on that idea! :whistle:
Post by: Antares on July 29, 2010, 10:03:43 PM
Eric, I'm in shock! :) But this is the sort of 70s movie I like. I think I can safely send you in the direction of The French Connection and The Yakuza.
The French Connection is also notable for it's use of sound. I think nerdy film term "diegetic" is apt at this point... ;)
Also try The Seven-Ups, The Friends of Eddie Coyle and The Taking of Pelham 123. :thumbup:
Post by: Touti on July 29, 2010, 10:28:19 PM
Jon I haven't seen No country for old men yet, I'll give it a try and see how it copes with me in comparison with Jesse James and The will be blood.
Post by: Najemikon on July 29, 2010, 10:32:04 PM
Oh, and good spot on Pelham! Antares, that could have been nasty! :laugh: The original is one of my favourite films. That might sound like saying "I like breathing", but honestly, in my top personal faves, easily.
Post by: Antares on July 30, 2010, 01:50:29 AM
Post by: Antares on August 03, 2010, 09:04:28 PM
Post by: Touti on August 04, 2010, 02:39:43 AM
Post by: Achim on August 04, 2010, 02:42:28 AM
Just remembered another good 70's film in that vein...Charley VarrickAh, yes, I remember it. Good stuff. Don Siegel directing Walter Matthau...
Post by: Antares on August 04, 2010, 02:49:38 AM
Post by: Najemikon on August 04, 2010, 02:59:39 AM
Post by: Antares on August 04, 2010, 03:03:30 AM
The Sugarland Express, Spielberg's best film, next to Duel, in my opinion.
OK...two then. :whistle:
Post by: Eric on June 19, 2011, 11:58:48 PM
This was a busy week-end for me.
1: I install a CB radio in my truck
2: I patched a hole I Ô so stupidly drilled in my gas tank
3: I watched one and a half movies (I thought this could be relevant here :))
The Half: A single man.
After reading his review I know Jon will disagree with me and probably call me names :) but I just found it incredibly boring. I can live with a slow paced movie but that one isn't slow..................it's slooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwww. Way to sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwww for me. I do however have to say that Firt's performance for the 40 minutes or so that I watched is outstanding. I haven't seen The King's Speech yet but I have not doubt that he deserved his Oscar because the man is always good..........mumbles a bit too much for my taste sometimes but he's an extremely good actor nonetheless.
The One: The greatest game ever played.
That's the kind of movies I like after a hard week when I'm tired and just want to sit and watch a "I'm gonna turn me brain off" type of movie. Disney are masters in the genre and this one is no exception. It's interesting, not boring, moving at times, funny now and then, it keeps your attention but never asking you to "work". I had a good time watching this and I'm always happy when I learn about real people.
Post by: Eric on July 30, 2011, 06:28:00 PM
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1194263/
(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTY3MjUxNDUwNl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzk1NDk1Mw@@._V1._SY317_CR2,0,214,317_.jpg)
What they say: A movie spun out of equal parts folk tale, fable and real-life legend about the mysterious, 1930s Tennessee hermit who famously threw his own rollicking funeral party... while he was still alive.
What I think: Nobody would claim, nor expect, this to be among the greatest movies of all but it is nonetheless and interesting one that is worth watching. As Jon commented on my Google+ post (https://plus.google.com/u/0/105411498181145673906/posts/28HMK3HUKsb), "Merely having those actors in the same room with what is clearly a nostalgic story should be enough to guarantee a very satisfying film". And this is exactly what is is, a very satisfying film. The tale part of the movie slowly unfolds before you as you are wondering where and how that is gonna end. The viewer is lead believing that Felix Bush (the man on which the story is based), while organizing is own funeral party, has some hidden agenda which is revealed later while keeping the motives hidden for another while.
I enjoyed watching this movie, it all comes together pretty well and it's always a pleasure for the eyes and ears to watch Robert Duvall. The only thing that bothered me a little is Bill Murray, not that he is not good, he actually gives a good performance but seeing in a dramatic role was a first for me and I found it a bit not to think of all his comedies everytime he had a scene. That of course is not his fault and I'm not holding a grudge as I did like his performance nonetheless.
The right stuff: It would be impossible to talk about the real story vs the movie without spoling the movie. I think anyone who's interested in seeing the movie should do so before reading anything about the real Felix Bush. If you have already seen the movie or are not interested but want to know more about the man then you can check out this page.
http://www.clanbreazeale.com/UncleBush/index.htm
Post by: Najemikon on July 30, 2011, 06:34:07 PM
Post by: Eric on July 30, 2011, 06:46:37 PM
But macho jokes aside, I really liked Lost in Translation. You see the problem isn't with movies being slow, it's when they're overly long AND slow.
Lost in Translation: 102 minutes........good slow
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: 166 minutes.................bad slow
And yes Jon, I think you would like Get Low.....even if it's only for the few scenes with Spacek and Duvall alone.
Post by: Eric on August 19, 2011, 08:27:00 PM
Which one do I pick ?
I'm sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo confused !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Achim on August 20, 2011, 03:09:37 AM