Citizen Rules...Cinemaesque Chat-n-Review

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=48380&stc=1&d=1537988871Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975)

Director: Peter Weir
Writers: Joan Lindsay(novel), Cliff Green(screenplay)
Cast: Rachel Roberts, Anne-Louise Lambert, Vivean Gray
Genre: Mystery

Premise: On Valentine's Day 1900, a group of Australian college school girls journey to Hanging Rock for a leisurely picnic in the country. On the rock a mystery happens and 3 girls and a school teacher vanish, seemingly in thin air.

Love it or hate it...Picnic at Hanging Rock is a different type of film. The film is mostly void of story, instead it focuses on people's odd reactions to the mystery of the missing girls.

The film looks great. Not just because it's filmed in a beautiful rural Australian setting but because the director takes such great care with his compositions and lighting. The director often fills the foreground and background with his subjects, which create a great depth of field. It almost looks 3D.

The lighting is beautiful, as much of the scenes are shot in early morning light when the sun's color is a warm golden yellow. To add to the dreamy, ethereal quality the school girls are shot through a diffusion filter on the camera lens. This is really a beautiful film to look at!

But does it work? Not so much for me. I could go along with the feel of the film and I was OK that the film doesn't try to solve the mystery. But it just felt pretentious at times. As if someone said, 'lets write some lofty, metaphoric lines about life's beginning and ending. Then we'll have an ominous music score as the girls disappear.' I swear the chunky girl with glasses is the same character as Piggy in The Lord of The Flies. They act alike, the lines they speak are alike, they seem to serve the same function too.

If you like a beautiful shot film with a different feel, then you might like this.

rating_2_5+++

[cricket]

I'd like to try it again in the future, but for my one viewing, I felt the same as you did about Picnic at Hanging Rock.

I look forward to seeing Downfall.

[honeykid]

I love Picnic At Hanging Rock. It's on 100. But it certainly has flaws and I do think you have to like/fall into the atmosphere that the film creates. If that doesn't do it for you, then I don't know that there's much there for a viewer beyond the beautiful composition and look of the film. So, while it's a shame you didn't go for it, CR, I can completely understand why.

[Citizen Rules]

I'm glad I watched it:) You're right Honeykid it's about the atmosphere, the film does that very well too. I guess I wanted a bit more about the girls lives. I did find them interesting.

Cricket I think you'll like Downfall. It's poignant without being uber dramatic.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=48382&stc=1&d=1537989020

The Spirit of St. Louis (1957)

Director: Billy Wilder
Writers: Charles Lindbergh(book), Billy Wilder(screenplay)
Cast: James Stewart
Genre: Biography Adventure Drama


Biography, action-drama film of Charles Lindbergh's life as seen in flash backs by Charles as he makes his historic Trans Atlantic crossing from New York to Paris in 1927.

The Spirit of St. Louis is not a well known film which is a shame, as it's enjoyable and historical. The film is based on the autobiography of Charles Lindbergh. It was shot in 1955 in the new wide screen process called, CinemaScope and in Warner color too, an early color negative process. With it's wide screen format and actual flying scenes, the film looks great. The story is pretty good too.

James Stewart plays 'Lucky Lindy' Lindbergh. It recounts his early days learning to fly an old WWI Jenny biplane. We see him doing stunt flying in his days with a traveling air show called a 'flying circus'. His early days are told by flashback. The film starts with him trying to get enough money to have a special plane built for the transatlantic crossing. The first man to do it would receive $25,000 . Several aviators had died in the attempt.

Impressive is the actual flying recreation of The Spirit of St Louis airplane. We also see real air footage over the sights of Paris, England and other real locations. As this is a CinemaScope color movie, those rare aerial glimpse are a treasure.

The Spirit of St Louis might not be the most riveting movie, but worth it just for the historical aspect.

rating_3+

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=48385&stc=1&d=1537989168Letter from an Unknown Woman (1948)


Director: Max Ophüls
Writers: Howard Koch(screenplay), Stefan Zweig (story)
Cast: Joan Fontaine, Louis Jourdan
Genre: Drama Romance

A school girl falls in love from afar with an older man who's a wealthy renowned pianist. She studies his every move, she molds herself into the kind of woman that she images he could one day love. But she keeps her love hidden from him as she matures from a schoolgirl to a young woman.

Letter from an Unknown Woman is a poignant, serious film about unrequited love. It can be very touching at times and yet somber and down trodden too.

Joan Fontaine is Lisa, a school age girl living in Vienna in 1900. Joan was 31 years old when making this film but looks and plays a school girl realistically. If you've never seen her in a film this is a good one to watch, she's a fine actress.

Louis Jordan plays Stefan the older, worldly man. A pianist who's music is renowned in Austria. He's a suave man whom women admire and Lisa loves from afar. Louis Jordan is suave on the screen too, he fits this role like a glove.

After a second watch, I still liked the film but my view of Lisa and even Stefan changed. I had previously thought of Lisa as this sweet, enduring young woman who found the love of her life but could never win him. The movie felt like a testament to unrequited love.

This time around I viewed Lisa as a sadly pathetic creature, someone with no self respect and no will power. She literally waste her entire life with her obsession for a man she doesn't even know. Lisa is even willing to destroy her husband's and son's happiness just to chase her pipe dream. In some ways she's even more pathetic than Stefan. Stefan has a one night stand with her and then moves on. But he doesn't know she's pregnant and so forgets her. When he meets her at the opera and wants her, he doesn't know she's a married woman...So he didn't deserve to be called out in a duel to most likely die. That wreck of humanity is on Lisa's head.

I now see the film as a monument to the folly of dedicating one's self to overindulges. With Stefan it's women and booze, which causes him to throw away his brilliant music career.

Lisa's downfall is her own obsession with an unhealthy dream. I believe people like her do exist.

rating_4

[Citizen Rules]

Geez, I skipped a couple of days of writing my reviews and now I need to do at least 3 of them.:facepalm:

[gbgoodies]

Geez, I skipped a couple of days of writing my reviews and now I need to do at least 3 of them.:facepalm:


I know the feeling. I've been falling a bit behind recently too, and I've been playing catch-up the last few days.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=30421&stc=1&d=1494636485

4 for Texas (1963)

Director: Robert Aldrich
Cast: Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Anita Ekberg, Ursula Andress, Charles Bronson
Genre: Comedy Western
Length: 124 minutes

I'm not really sure what the premise was, this is one of those mid 1960s zany comedies where the actual plot doesn't seem to matter much. I could have cared less about the story at any rate.

The movie is more about: comic scenes, fun action scenes and eye candy thanks to Anita Ekberg and Ursula Andress. And just for good measure the Three Stoogies make an experience. A serious story it's not.
https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=30422&stc=1&d=1494636494
Ursula Andress famous for being a Bond girl in the 007 film Dr. No, takes a comic turn as one of the four for Texas.

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=30424&stc=1&d=1494636515
Anita Ekberg is looking lovely as the other woman who's paired with Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin.

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=30423&stc=1&d=1494636506
Hey it's the Three Stooges!


Frank Sinatra seemed to be bored through out the film and I know he's capable of excellence: (From Here to Eternity, The Man with the Golden Arm, The Manchurian Candidate). Luckily Dean Martin is likable here and makes the film fun to watch. Anita Ekberg seemed bored too, perhaps because she got stuck with Sinatra. Ursula Andress on the other hand had a great part and was watching for her spirited acting. Her and Dean Martin make the film. The bad guy is played by Charles Bronson, who's good at being bad.

4 for Texas is an OK film for a rainy day.

rating_2_5

[gbgoodies]

I'm pretty sure that I watched 4 for Texas when I was working on my 1963 movies list, but I can't remember much about it anymore.

I guess it just wasn't a very memorable movie. :shrug:

[Citizen Rules]

I know the feeling. I've been falling a bit behind recently too, and I've been playing catch-up the last few days.
Ya I noticed you weren't around much. I just reviewed a film you did on your logbook, 4 for Texas, (up there^). Does that review sound about right to you?

EDIT: you beat me to the punch! I guess you answered my question. Dino was the best part of the film, Sinatra was a downer. (and I usually like Sinatra too)

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=48397&stc=1&d=1538009967

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)

Director: Kerry Conran
Writer: Kerry Conran
Cast: Gwyneth Paltrow, Jude Law, Giovanni Ribisi, Angelina Jolie
Genre: Action Adventure Sci Fi

Date line: 1939 New York City, girl reporter Polly Perkins is hot on the trail of the missing scientist, when she's handed two small vials, the contents are unknown. As she seeks out clues to the mystery, giant flying robots land in the city, wrecking havoc, lots of havoc! As the colossus machines nearly trample poor Polly, her ex boyfriend Sky Captain Joe comes to the rescue in his P-40 Flying Tiger air plane, very cool! Together they must solve the mystery before it's too late or it will be curtains for Earth. CR

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is a very unique, action adventure film set in 1939. The entire film was shot against a blue screen, this is a newer trend in film making, first used here and on: (Immortal, Casshern and Sin City). This total blue screen technique allows the film to have a very stylized and unique look to the finished film.

Even though this is set in 1939, it's a pseudo 1939, not historical accurate. What's neat about this movie is: the fashions, sets, and even cinematography look like there from 1939. The story itself is the familiar grandiose, action adventure film with an evil arch enemy held up in his secret fortress plotting the destruction of the world.

I like Gwyneth Paltrow, she comes across as wholesome & nice on the big screen. Her character is indeed likable and sweet. The movie is told from her point of view. Jude Law makes a good hero as Sky Captain. If you a fan of Angelina Jolie she has a small role in the film too, though not much screen time.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow was a much better film than I expected, thanks to the retro look and Gwyneth Paltrow.

rating_3_5

[honeykid]

I felt like this about this film,though I have to say I think I started to tire of it towards the end and I wouldn't have rated it as highly. Maybe a box less, but I remember little of it. I did like the look of the film, though.

[Citizen Rules]

I got tired towards the end too. I loved the film in the first 20 minutes, but then the story went to a huge, action adventure, edge of your seat type movie and that's not what I like. I don't care for endless battles with twist and turns. But I like Gwyneth and the look of the film.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=48398&stc=1&d=1538010023

Divergent (2014)

Director: Neil Burger
Writers: Veronica Roth(novel), Evan Daugherty(screenplay)
Cast: Shailene Woodley, Theo James, Kate Winslet
Genre: Sci-Fi Action Thriller

Premise: In some distant dystopian future, Chicago will be a walled city, split into five factions. These factions are based on a personality test. On choosing day, teens must leave their families and decide which factions they will join. Once they choose a faction they can not choose another and if they leave their faction they become outcast, living in the streets begging for food. Tris (Shailene Woodley), learns on testing day that she is a 'Divergent', a rarity where a person has various personality traits and so defies being pigeonholed holed into a class faction.

A picture is worth a thousand words. See that picture of the cast, that tells you everything you need to know about this movie. Unfortunately I went into watching this blind, I had no idea of what I was about to watch. I soon realized this was a teen movie aimed at the same audiences that liked Twilight.

If you're into watching a teenage girl: jumping and fighting and basically trying to defeat the bad guys and save the city too, well then you might like this movie. The production values were high, there was lots of stunts and CG effects... and the film looked good. But be forewarned it's long, too long. At 2 hours, 20 minutes, the movie gets tiresome. There's not much to the story, we don't really learn about life in the other factions or about what lays in the ruins land outside of the city walls.

The first 20 minutes of the film started off promising, finally it devolved into your basic CG blockbuster-action-adventure-teen-sci-fi. It does the action, fighting stuff good, so some might like it for that reason.

The lead actresses, Shailene Woodley, was actually very good. I just didn't care for the story.


rating_2_5

[gbgoodies]

I'm glad you reviewed Divergent because it's been on my watchlist since it was released, but based on your review, it doesn't sound like my kind of movie. :(

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=48399&stc=1&d=1538010137

Gray Lady Down (1978)

Director: David Greene
Cast: Charlton Heston, David Carradine, Stacy Keach
Genre: Adventure Drama

On the return voyage home a nuclear submarine, the USS Neptune collides with a cargo ship in heavy fog. Severely damaged the sub sinks in 2000 feet of water. The sub will be crushed at 1200 feet. Can the crew be saved?

Released in 1978, Gray Lady Down feels a lot like other 'disaster movies' made at that same time: (Airport, Raise the Titanic). The film is heavy on action and detailed scenes of the rescue attempt. However it's light on character development, which makes us not really care about the trapped men. There's one big plot hole: In the first scenes the submarine captain (Charlton Heston) and some of his crew are out on the sub's deck when the sub is struck by the cargo ship....in the very next scene we see the sub sinking far below the surface. Nothing explains how the men got back into the sub and sealed the hatch. And they are not even wet!

This isn't a particular good drama. After watching the film I know next to nothing about the submarine captain and what makes him tick. We learn next to nothing about the men. Instead the film focuses on the rescue procedure which is a factually showing of how the Navy at that time rescued men stranded in a sub.

The scenes that showed the submersible rescue vehicle and the Navy ship are real and so look great. I would say that is the highlight of the film. But the inside of the sunken sub is a set and looks way to big to be real, I never get the feeling of being a sub.

Just an OK movie for a lazy day, don't expect much and you might enjoy it.

rating_2_5

[Citizen Rules]

I'm glad you reviewed Divergent because it's been on my watchlist since it was released, but based on your review, it doesn't sound like my kind of movie. :( I hated that film. My wife kind of liked it. I'm sure younger people might like it, but not me.

[cricket]

I've had the DVD of Sky Captain for years, but I haven't watched it.

I had no interest in Divergent anyway, but your review and that picture you posted definitely seals the deal.

[Sedai]

I didn't care for Divergent, either. Some young Adult stuff can be pretty compelling, but this flick degenerated into an action-fest pretty quickly. Woodley seemed stranded in the role, with the rest of the players barely registering. They showed up, took their marks, and went through the process.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=48400&stc=1&d=1538010297 Anzio (1968)

Director: Edward Dmytryk
Cast: Robert Mitchum, Peter Falk, Robert Ryan, Earl Holliman, Mark Damon, Arthur Kennedy
Genre: War Action Drama
Filming Location: Around Rome, Italy

Anzio is a little known war film from the well known Italian producer Dino De Laurentiis. Shot in and around Rome, the Italian country side looks great. One can image that this is what the troops seen in WWII. An all star cast with Robert Mitchum and Peter Falk heading up things, should have made for a war film classic. But it didn't, the film falls short on many levels.

Peter Falk in his autobiography sums it up best saying: 'he didn't like the script for this movie which he thought was hackneyed and full of cliché'.

The script is a mess and the film gets off to a meandering start. We see scenes of U.S. soldiers out of control, partying in Naples and behaving more like looters. The soldiers are hanging from the chandlers of a beautiful villa and trashing the place. No wonder American audiences didn't care for this film much.

In the end of the movie, Robert Mitchum who plays a U.S. service news reporter, comments that war is about people liking to kill other people and the political sides of the war aren't important. An audacious statement coming not from Mitchum but from the Italian production staff of this movie. The film forgets that Italy once sided with the Nazis. Indeed we see the Nazis but never with Italian troops. Instead we get the Nazis rounding up nice Italian citizens and forcing them to build their Caesar Line, which was meant to stop the Allied troops.

If all this wasn't bad enough the film never shows the Anzio battle, which was one of the bloodiest battles of the European theater. What we do see is the incursion behind German lines of 767 U.S. Rangers, who then became surrounded by enemy troops. Of the 767 men, only 6 returned from the mission.

Anzio is interesting as a detailed movie about the 767 U.S. Rangers who took part in the battle.

rating_2_5

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=48401&stc=1&d=1538012367

Boyhood (2014)

Director: Richard Linklater
Writer: Richard Linklater
Cast: Ellar Coltrane, Patricia Arquette, Ethan Hawke, Lorelei Linklater
Genre: Drama

"Look at the stars...Look how they shine for you...And everything you do..."

Boyhood is an innovative film that was impressively shot over a 12 year span, using all the same actors. The child actors grow before our eyes becoming young adults. While the adult actors not only grow older but grow wiser, as they travel down life's road.

We follow Mason (Ellar Coltrane) from his childhood and through his teenage years, finally ending as he enters college. Tommy (Ethan Hawke) and (Mom) Patricia Arquette are Mason's parents who are there for the journey, making mistakes as they learn and growing older. The director's daughter plays Mason's older sister Samantha (Lorelei Linklater). Samantha too grows from an impish, precocious kid to a serious and quieter young adult.

At 2 hours, 45 minutes this is a long film...but I never lost interest. From the opening scenes to the ending, the film captivated me and held my attention fast. It was like watching someone's life, by remote. The sheer magic of that experience makes this film worth watching.

Some say there was no plot, no action, no real story. They say it was just a bunch of filmed sequences in the life of a small boy as he grew...Boyhood is not a feel good Hollywood block buster movie. Instead it's a shining example of what an Indie film maker can achieve in the art of cinema.

For those who think Boyhood is just a collection of arbitrary moments with no story. I say those moments are the story. Those moments are what life is about....

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=48402&stc=1&d=1538012372
Mason "Did you see how people always say seize the moment"?
I tend to think that is backwards. The moment captures us."


Indeed the moments of Boyhood captured me.

rating_4_5

[MovieMeditation]

Glad you liked Boyhood! And that you understood on which level the film played out on. :up: awesome!

Personally I have already seen it three times. :)

[Citizen Rules]

You know what's weird is:
I expected not to like Boyhood based on what others said, but I enjoyed it.
I expected to love Grand Budapest Hotel based on what others said, but I disliked it.

I've noticed the phenomenon of preconceived notions before too.

Generally if I expect to love a film before seeing it, I will image the film to be better than it can be and so I will be disappointed. But if I expect nothing of a film, then it can score a positive hit with me. People said Boyhood was boring with no story, so I expected nothing but was pleasantly surprised.

It was amazing seeing the kids grow and mature before our eyes, but kinda of sad to see Patricia Arquette go from being a hotty to an older lady.

[rauldc14]

Boyhood rocks! I can't wait for a rewatch and glad you enjoyed it!

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=48426&stc=1&d=1538097092

Gravity (2013)

Director: Alfonso Cuarón
Writer: Alfonso Cuarón
Cast: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney
Genre: Sci-Fi Thriller

Premise: While on a mission to upgrade the Hubble telescope, a Russian missile strikes a satellite causing a shower of space debris. The debris go into orbit around Earth destroying everything in its path. The space shuttle is destroyed stranding Sandra Bullock and George Clooney in space.

Review: And that's where they should have been left!...in space!
Gravity is nothing more than a dressed up disaster movie with one harrowing death defying escape after another, and another and another...and another! It's cliche ridden with unbelievable cartoon like characters who act so ridiculously that it's hard to buy into the movie.

Sandra Bullock is the likeable but goofy Ryan Stone. Ryan is a klutz, who's crashed the shuttle landing simulator every single time and yet NASA sends her into space anyway. She can't hang onto her space tools, can't follow an abort order and panics easily. Hardly astronaut material. But wait she's not the worst.

George Clooney is Matt Kowalski, a wise cracking space cowboy who spends his time flying around circles in space with his jet pack. Maybe he should have saved some of that pressurized gas just in case a disaster strikes and he gets stranded in space, ha. Apparently NASA didn't teach him too well.

The director, Alfonso Cuarón also wrote this film, so it's his fault. He packs his Hollywood CG block buster flix with such tiresome recycled hash as:

The dream sequence where a dead astronaut comes back to life, magically appearing at the air hatch...opening it as Sandra Bullock (who has removed her space suit), pleads, don't open it...it will kill her.

The feel sorry for her scene, where Ryan reveals to the audience her daughter was killed in a traffic accident so now she's sad and just keeps moving though life. This is suppose to tug at our heart strings, ack.

The rip off of 2001 A Space Odyssey scene where Ryan floats in a fetal position, ugh.

Gravity's main selling point is it's massive CG special effects. On the big screen and in 3-D this movie must have looked impressive with it's wall-to-wall eye candy. But there's no hiding the fact that there's no story and no character development. Just one over the top thriller-disaster-survival scene after another. As soon as Bullock escapes a near death tragedy, another pops up to challenge her. And that's called good movie making?

In the films: Apollo 13 (1995) and Marooned (1969) we also see astronauts stranded in space, the drama is told to the audiences by superb acting and it's the actors who make us believe what we are seeing is real. That's why those films work. In Gravity its all about the CG and space thrills, and believable acting and dialogue is out the window.

rating_2

[honeykid]

You're not the only one who was underwhelmed by Gravity. I saw this in the cinema and, frankly, that's the main reason I'd like to see it again because my experience was so bad that I'd like to think that it impacted my appreciation/enjoyment of the film.

[Citizen Rules]

I'd like to see it again because my experience was so bad that I'd like to think that it impacted my appreciation/enjoyment of the film. HoneyKid, what experience did you have? Do you mean someone setting close by was talking and ruined the film for you? Or did you just not like the movie?

I was bored to tears and actually rooting for Bullock's character to fall to Earth and be done with it.

[honeykid]

I thought the 3D experience (the reason I'd actually ventured into the cinema) was poor. The screen is so dark (30% light loss and all that) with those glasses on that I kept lifting them to see how much brighter it was without them. On quite a few times I found the 3D distracting. One panning shot I remember inparticular where simply panning across meant the wires and everything else we 'passed by' during the shot really stood out, taking me out of the film. I don't wear glasses, so I was very aware of them on my face and felt as if I'd been seperated from the screen (which I had, of course) and I felt that the cinema was too bright, though that was probably just because of the lack of light onscreen combined with the glasses. I know that sounds odd, but now with exit signs, lights along the asile and lights in the ceilling, there's a lot more light in a cinema than there was way back when. This isn't anything new, exactly, but I was far more aware of it with the 3D. Lastly, I didn't feel the image was as crisp as it'll be in 2D. Of course, that too could be down to the lack of light.

[Citizen Rules]

Thanks...that makes sense. I haven't ever seen a 3-D movie but I have been distracted at times by Exit signs, etc... that were real noticeable in my peripheral vision. It seems move of the glowing reviews of Gravity by fellow MoFos focus on the visual CG effects, and yah there amazing. Those reviews do all seem to agree that there's not much in character development. Anyway my wife liked the movie, I didn't and I really don't care for Sandra Bullock at all.

[honeykid]

I posted about it after I'd seen it, which was long after everyone else :D, and I said something along the lines of this is a really small film made as large as possible. You could put this on a stage at a local community centre.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=48429&stc=1&d=1538097325Death Race 2000 (1975)

Director: Paul Bartel
Producer: Roger Corman
Cast: David Carradine, Sylvester Stallone, Simone Griffeth
Genre: Satirical Sci-Fi, Action

In the year 2000...the distant future, Americans have become overly obsessed with graphic violence as entertainment (go figure!). The dictator, Mr. President, keeps the people happy by giving them what they want...he gives them the Death Race. A cross country car race where contestants score points by running down and killing pedestrian.

The returning champion is Frankenstein (David Carradine) a veteran of many Death Races who has been so badly injured in past wrecks that he must wear a mask to hide his gruesome face. His navigator is the lovely Annie Smith (Simone Griffeth) who's as talented in bed as she is working on a car's engine. Annie has more on her mind than just winning however. There's also a home bred terrorist group killing the racers in attempt to stop the violence.

From the start of the movie until the end, my attention was held fast by the satirical wit and sheer spectacle of bizarre looking racing cars and topless women which makes such a strange film satisfying. What makes Death Race 2000 work is that the movie never takes itself seriously. Because of that, the outlandish scenes of running down and killing pedestrians not only works, but works but rocks. In one outlandish scene a woman racer spots a mother with her children having a picnic in the country. Excitably she says to the race driver, “If they scatter, go for the baby and the mother.” As the mother and kids scatter the baby is left behind we hear, "GO FOR THE BABY! THE BABY!

In another quirky scene the staff at a geriatric hospital wheels out the elderly patients, lining them up for an easy hit by the racers. It has to be seen to be believed.

David Carradine who often played quirky characters in his films, is perfectly cast as the mysterious masked man, Frankenstein. Frankenstein is cynical, the thrill of running over and killing pedestrians is old hat to him. He knows he's just a character playing his part in the great Death Race, but he wants more that that. He's a man with a plan.

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=48427&stc=1&d=1538097307


Simone Griffeth and many of the actresses are just there for eye candy and they appear topless and bottomless too in this R rated movie. But Simone turns in a darn good performances as the brassy upstart with a sneaky plan up her sleeve.

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=48428&stc=1&d=1538097316
https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=48430&stc=1&d=1538097420


Stealing the movie is an over the top and hilarious Sylvester Stallone, as Machine Gun Joe, the heavy in the film and Frankenstein's arch rival... “Machine Gun Joe! Loved by thousands, hated by millions!” His female navigator does a darn good Judi Holliday impersonation. She not only looks like Judy Holiday, she sounds like her too.

Produced by the king of B budget films, Roger Corman, who gave us such gems as Attack of the Giant Leeches, Galaxy of Terror and Candy Stripe Nurses. Death Race 2000 is one of those cult classics that never ceases to amaze just how fun a movie can be when made on a shoe string budget. I'm rating this for a fun-factor.

rating_4

[Gatsby]

Damn, your positive review on Death Race 2000 is going to inflate HK's already massive (and wrong) ego. :D

As for my opinion, satire is my favorite genre and ridiculous premises and much as the next guy, but the film's execution was plainly wrong in my opinion.

[Citizen Rules]

Hi Gatsby, I'm happy to have your opinion on it and thanks for stopping by:) .
Question: what about the the film's execution was plainly wrong? How would you change the film? I'm curious.

[Citizen Rules]

NOTE: In my next review of BIRDMAN, I use spoilers and discuss the ending of the film.

So don't read my review if you haven't seen the movie.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=48636&stc=1&d=1538876183 Birdman: Or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance (2014)

Director: Alejandro González Iñárritu
Writers: Alejandro González Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone
Cast: Michael Keaton, Zach Galifianakis, Edward Norton, Emma Stone
Genre: Surrealism Drama

Premise: Rigan (Michael Keaton) is a middle aged, washed up Hollywood actor, who once was famous for playing a comic book superhero...Birdman. Twenty years after Birdman, Rigan is trying to redeem himself and relaunch his career by writing, directing and starring in a Broadway play.

Review: I went into watching Birdman with no knowledge of the film. I hadn't seen any clips or read any reviews. All I knew of the film was that: Michael Keaton was in it, the film had won a Best Picture Academy Award and there was something about tight-whitey underwear in it.

In the first 20 minutes I was unsure if I liked it. I admired the long take-documentary style of cinematography. The film looked great. I was a bit cool to the jazz drum soundtrack, at times it was overpowering. Mostly I was unsure of why and how Rigan could levitate? It seemed he had powers of telekinesis and could move objects in the room with a mere flick of a finger. The dialog with his alter ego, Birdman, was interesting. It helped define his character's neurosis. I began to enjoy the film when the camera revealed to the audience that the telekinesis was merely a visual of Rigan's mental state and no magic powers really existed.

I must say I liked the casting. Michael Keaton as a has-been, delusional actor with family issues...what a great choice. How cool to make a film about a once famous 'superhero' actor that's played by Batman's Michael Keaton. Reality based performances, that was discussed during the stage play by Mike (Edward Norton), the films seems to be written with Keaton's career in mind.

Edward Norton made a great character as Mike, the method actor that believes the stage is reality and life is fake. An interesting juxtaposition to the films subject matter of the nature of reality.

My favorite casting choice was Emma Stone who played Rigan's jaded, cynical daughter, Sam. Sam's life was messed up by her show business parents. Once drug addicted, Sam has just gotten herself clean and out of rehab. Her character looked the part. From her home bleach blonde hair to her dark make up and ratty...'I don't care what I look like' clothing. The wardrobe department deserves an award for her look.

By the one hour mark, when Rigan confronts a woman theater critic. I was loving this film. The most powerful scene is in the bar when Rigan buys the woman critic a drink and introduces himself. Flat out she says she's going to kill his play with a bad review, and she hasn't even seen it. I love how the film shows us how critics can be self indulgent, opinionated people who tout their skills by throwing out multi-syllable labels, ad nauseam and are driven by bitterness not professionalism. What a powerful scene. At this point I was thinking I would give a 5/5 rating to Birdman.

I did like the backstage theater scenes which gave a real incite into the working of a Broadway play. I've never been back stage but the sets looked very real to me. But one thing, Rigan walks down the hallway and in a little room is the guy playing the drums for the soundtrack. What? I scratched my head, shades of Monty Python.

A few minutes latter into the movie and Rigan is poised to jump off a building roof top. Then the film turned into an actually superhero film with Keaton and Birdman flying in the sky and explosions and the usually CG that goes with it. I felt let down, and thought there goes the perfect 5/5 rating.

Towards the end of the film when Rigan had shot off his nose and is laying in the hospital, I'm thinking where is the film going? Then he jumps out the window in an apparent suicide attempt...his daughter rushes to the window in horror and looks down to the street below...then looks up at the sky and smiles. I'm thinking ugh, not magical realism. The film credits role and I half expect to see Steven Spielberg's name somewhere.

rating_3

[mark f]

How did you determine that the telekinesis was his mental state and all the fantastical elements of the last part of the movie wasn't?

[Captain Spaulding]

Death Race 2000 sounds like a lot of fun. I've seen the remake with Jason Statham, which I enjoyed even though I wouldn't give it more than 2.5. It delivered on its promise of adrenaline-fueled, high-octane vehicular combat, but I don't remember any nudity. I'm glad to hear that the original meets that essential quota. :cool:

As usual, I'm the exact opposite of honeykid. Watching Gravity in IMAX-3D on opening day is the greatest, most immersive theater experience of my life. Some of the magic was gone when I watched it at home, but as long as my memory of that initial experience remains intact, I'll always be fond of the film. I don't dispute some of your criticisms, especially in reference to the script's shortcomings, but I personally thought Bullock gave an excellent, physically-demanding performance. She deserved her Oscar nomination. At times, Gravity felt more like a roller-coaster ride than a film, but I don't consider that a bad thing.

I skipped your review for Birdman since I don't want to have anything spoiled for me.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02963/boyhood-arquetteY1_2963900k.jpg

I've never really had a thing for Patricia Arquette, but she's hot as hell in that picture. No wonder that boy is jumping for joy.

[Citizen Rules]

How did you determine that the telekinesis was his mental state and all the fantastical elements of the last part of the movie wasn't? Mark, I'm not sure if I understand the context of your question fully. And of course my review is my own opinion as is any review. But here's my reply.

How did you determine that the telekinesis was his mental state... I determined the film makers were saying that his telekinesis was not a real power, but part of his delusions when...Rigan is alone in his dressing room he can move objects, flinging them against the wall with his mind (that's what the film shows), then when the theater producer walks in, we see Rigan physically throwing the objects. Which seems to me that he has no real powers.

...and all the fantastical elements of the last part of the movie wasn't I did see the fantastical elements, such as Birdman doing battle in the sky over NYC as part of Rigan's delusions. I'm not sure how his delusions would manifest the jazz soundtrack drummer in a hallway room.

SPOILER: The end where his daughter looks out the window after Rigan has apparently jumped....then she looks up at the sky and seems to smile or be content, would be her point of view. I can't image a daughter seeing her dead father on the sidewalk below and looking like she did, so my impression is she sees him flying up in the sky. (and yes I realize the film maker left that open so that we can all discuss the confusing ending)

That's just my take, others can have different opinions.

[Citizen Rules]

Death Race 2000 sounds like a lot of fun. I've seen the remake with Jason Statham, which I enjoyed even though I wouldn't give it more than rating_2_5. It delivered on its promise of adrenaline-fueled, high-octane vehicular combat, but I don't remember any nudity. I'm glad to hear that the original meets that essential quota. :cool: I didn't care for the remake at all. Yup lots of pretty topless women in the original.

...Watching Gravity in IMAX-3D on opening day is the greatest, most immersive theater experience of my life.. I bet if I seen Gravity in 3D at the theater I would have been awed! I'd say the film is about the visual thrill and not so much about the story. I watched it on a TV so less visual impact.

I skipped your review for Birdman since I don't want to have anything spoiled for me. That's wise as I do spoil the ending, which I normally NEVER do.

I've never really had a thing for Patricia Arquette, but she's hot as hell in that picture..Yup and sadly she gets much older looking in the film. :(

[honeykid]

My heart leapt for joy as I scrolled down and saw the top of that pic. I knew exactly what it was. :D As many here know, I adore that film. It's in my top 10 and I'm so glad (though not surprised) that you had such fun with it. I think I probably agree with everything you said there but this. For me, this guy steals the film.

http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l239o4TGtH1qzhiqwo1_1280.png

I love Junior. I had him as an avatar a long time ago.

[Citizen Rules]

Oh ya! great character, he cracked me up.

One thing I didn't mention was the experimental aircraft chasing Frankenstein's car. I had to slow frame the DVD, I thought maybe it was a remote control model because it flew dangerously close to the ground and the car. But it was the real deal! A very impressive stunt.

http://impdb.org/images/2/23/Dr2000plan3.2.jpg

[Gatsby]

Hi Gatsby, I'm happy to have your opinion on it and thanks for stopping by:) .
Question: what about the the film's execution was plainly wrong? How would you change the film? I'm curious.
The satirical elements were weak, and for that reason the film felt like an excuse to show a bunch of crazy car races and bizarre situations.

[honeykid]

^^Mentalist with no soul^^ :p:D

[cricket]

Completely agree with you on Boyhood, Gravity, and Death Race 2000.

Haven't seen Birdman yet.

[Citizen Rules]

I'm 3 for 3...that ain't bad:)

Birdman certainly is worth a watch. It held my attention and was interesting. I'm glad to see Michael Keaton in such a high profile film.

[gbgoodies]

I agree. You should definitely see Birdman. I would have preferred to see Whiplash win the Oscar, but if it was going to lose, at least it lost to my second choice.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=48637&stc=1&d=1538876489
12 Years a Slave (2013)

Director: Steve McQueen
Writers: John Ridley(screenplay), Solomon Northup (Twelve Years a Slave book)
Cast: Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Kenneth Williams, Michael Fassbender
Genre: Biography, Drama, History

Premise: Based on a true story of a black free man, Solomon Northup who in 1841 was tricked into traveling to Washington D.C. under the guise of acquiring honest work. There he was drugged and sold into slavery by con men. Solomon was an intelligent, educated family man of some wealth but because he could not produce papers proving he was free, he spent 12 years in slavery on Louisiana plantations.

Review: What an amazing film! It's not heart warming in fact it's bone chilling. The injustices and brutality of slavery is shocking to see. Even more so for a free black man who is ripped away from his wife and children in New York and sold into slavery. The real Solomon Northup after his 12 years in slavery wrote a detailed account of his time as a slave. This movie is then based on that book.

Chiwetel Ejiofor plays Solomon Northup. What a superb acting job he does. He could have played Solomon with rage, with broad movements and strong facial expressions. But he doesn't do that. We learn in the film that to survive Solomon must hide his intelligence and his emotions. There's one very potent scene where after being abused by a plantation carpenter (Paul Dano) he fights back. The punishment he received was too hard for me to watch. Chiwetel Ejiofor gives one of the most controlled, skillful performances I've seen.

Paul Dano who plays the vindictive and hateful Tibeats, gives new meaning to playing the heavy with realistic fervor. I wish he had more scenes.

Lupita Nyong'o who plays the slave girl Patsey also made this movie so memorable and believable. There's a scene where she risk a beating by leaving the plantation just to get a bar of soap. She pleads with the plantation owner when caught that she had to have the soap as she smelled so bad she made herself sick. So powerful.

What I admired most about this film was it's honesty in the story telling and in the production values. Another director might have over hyped it with too powerful of a music score or overly dramatic camera work. But the director, Steve McQueen keeps the production in sync with the nature of the story.

12 Years a Slave, is one of the most powerful films I've seen.

rating_4_5

[gbgoodies]

I haven't seen 12 Years a Slave, but it sounds too brutal for my tastes.

[MovieGal]

http://d97a3ad6c1b09e180027-5c35be6f174b10f62347680d094e609a.r46.cf2.rackcdn.com/cache/6e/3f/6e3f91a852da81d9ddfc2c7d08184bb6.jpg
12 Years a Slave (2013)

Director: Steve McQueen
Writers: John Ridley(screenplay), Solomon Northup (Twelve Years a Slave book)
Cast: Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Kenneth Williams, Michael Fassbender
Genre: Biography, Drama, History
Length: 134 minutes

Premise: Based on a true story of a black free man, Solomon Northup who in 1841 was tricked into traveling to Washington D.C. under the guise of acquiring honest work. There he was drugged and sold into slavery by con men. Solomon was an intelligent, educated family man of some wealth but because he could not produce papers proving he was free, he spent 12 years in slavery on Louisiana plantations.

Review: What an amazing film! It's not heart warming in fact it's bone chilling. The injustices and brutality of slavery is shocking to see. Even more so for a free black man who is ripped away from his wife and children in New York and sold into slavery. The real Solomon Northup after his 12 years in slavery wrote a detailed account of his time as a slave. This movie is then based on that book.

Chiwetel Ejiofor plays Solomon Northup. What a superb acting job he does. He could have played Solomon with rage, with broad movements and strong facial expressions. But he doesn't do that. We learn in the film that to survive Solomon must hide his intelligence and his emotions. There's one very potent seen where after being abused by a plantation carpenter (Paul Dano) he fights back. The punishment he received was too hard for me to watch. Chiwetel Ejiofor gives one of the most controlled, skillful performances I've seen.

Paul Dano who plays the vindictive and hateful Tibeats, gives new meaning to playing the heavy with realistic fervor. I wish he had more scenes.

Lupita Nyong'o who plays the slave girl Patsey also made this movie so memorable and believable. There's a scene where she risk a beating by leaving the plantation just to get a bar of soap. She pleads with the plantation owner when caught that she had to have the soap as she smelled so bad she made herself sick. So powerful.

What I admired most about this film was it's honesty in the story telling and in the production values. Another director might have over hyped it with too powerful of a music score or overly dramatic camera work. But the director, Steve McQueen keeps the production in sync with the nature of the story.

12 Years a Slave, is one of the most powerful films I've seen.

rating_4_5

Watch other films by the same director.. definitely watch "Hunger". Its great!!

[Citizen Rules]

I haven't seen 12 Years a Slave, but it sounds too brutal for my tastes. I know my review might make it sound brutal but it's not one of those movies that shows a bunch of brutality to get a rise out of the audience. There was two scenes were slaves were beaten/hung. Other than that it's more of a quiet strength type movie. I hope I didn't give the wrong impression it's really an important film.

Watch other films by the same director.. definitely watch "Hunger". Its great!! I hate to say this MovieGal, but I did start to watch Hunger but found it to disgusting. I had to shut it off. I'm sure it is a great film but just not for me, sorry.

[gbgoodies]

I know my review might make it sound brutal but it's not one of those movies that shows a bunch of brutality to get a rise out of the audience. There was two scenes were slaves were beaten/hung. Other than that it's more of a quiet strength type movie. I hope I didn't give the wrong impression it's really an important film.



I might give it chance at some point when it hits cable, but I'm not likely to buy the DVD unless I find it at a garage sale for about $1 or less.

[Citizen Rules]

I'm trying to watch all the Academy nomiated for Best Picture films. Starting with 2014 and working my way back. So I will be doing reviews on newer movies. Well some oldies too.:)

[MovieGal]

I hate to say this MovieGal, but I did start to watch Hunger but found it to disgusting. I had to shut it off. I'm sure it is a great film but just not for me, sorry.


Steve McQueen's films to deal with brutality.. Its just the type of stories he seems to capture on film. In "Hunger", there is a powerful dialog between Bobby Sands and a priest. Just as in "12 years A Slave", between Eliza and Solomon. McQueen's films have very powerful dialog... thats what makes them so great!

[Citizen Rules]

I just looked at Steve McQueen's filmography he has only 3 full length features, so far, many more shorts. Have you seen Shame?

[MovieGal]

I just looked at Steve McQueen's filmography he has only 3 full length features, so far, many more shorts. Have you seen Shame?

Yes I have.. and I know its a film Minio enjoys.... which I did enjoy it as well.... but "Hunger" is my favorite...

[Gatsby]

^^Mentalist with no soul^^ :p:D
Thanks for calling me a magician! But I have to disagree with the 'soulless' part. :p

[christine]

I know my review might make it sound brutal but it's not one of those movies that shows a bunch of brutality to get a rise out of the audience. There was two scenes were slaves were beaten/hung. Other than that it's more of a quiet strength type movie. I hope I didn't give the wrong impression it's really an important film.

I hate to say this MovieGal, but I did start to watch Hunger but found it to disgusting. I had to shut it off. I'm sure it is a great film but just not for me, sorry.

Agree with you about 12 Years. I hope you give Hunger another try in the future. I assume it was the 'dirty protest' you found disgusting? Maybe it's because we in the UK were so engrossed in that story at the time it was playing out all over the news that the film felt so powerful. It's a very good film, I think it's his best.

[Captain Spaulding]

Good review, Citizen. "Powerful" is the perfect word to describe 12 Years a Slave. It's probably the most brutal, harrowing depiction of slavery I've seen on film.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=48638&stc=1&d=1538876690 The Theory of Everything (2014)

Director: James Marsh
Writers: Anthony McCarten(screenplay),Jane Hawking(book)
Cast: Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, Tom Prior
Genre: Biography Drama Romance

Premise: A dramatized biography based on the life of Stephen Hawking, the world renown theoretical physicist, cosmologist, professor and author.

Review: Despite the fascinating subject matter of a genius who overcomes great physical obstacles to become one of the great minds of all time...the film fails to rise above mediocre. We never really experience Stephen's life. The film shows us snippets of it but fails to connect emotionally. Besides a few scenes showing him struggling, we never really get a sense of what his world of confinement must be like. Nor are we really ever shown just how amazing his mind is and the tribulations that it must have took to achieve such greatness.

The story plays out like a 'made for TV movie'. There's no real drama when he meets his future wife Jane. They meet and boom they're married. They have kids but we never find out what their family life is like. The movie glosses over all of this. The script is the real flaw here.

Both lead actors do a good acting job. Eddie Redmayne who plays Stephen Hawking, does a lot of the contorted movements which according to the actor took great physical effort. Felicity Jones plays Mrs Jane Hawking. She too is a good actor but she looked way too young for the part, she looked 14. Even when many years had past in the film and they were older, she still looked like a teen. Boo to the make up department.

In the end I came to this conclusion: if there had been no Stephen Hawking and this film was made as a purely fictional film, it wouldn't even qualify to be shown on the Hallmark channel. Professor Hawking is a great man, this film however is anything but great.

rating_2_5

[cricket]

Unless it's nominated for a tournament at some point, I don't think I'll ever watch The Theory of Everything. It just doesn't interest me.

[honeykid]

Like you, cricket, I have no interest in this at all. I only watched Hawking because it was on TV 10 years ago.

[Citizen Rules]

I was really looking forward to this movie. I've seen Stephen Hawking interviewed and discuss his theories. I thought this would be a very inspiriting, personal story, but nope...it wasn't.

I don't know if you guys noticed but I'm attempting to watch 2014 Academy nominated films, both best picture and best actor.

[gbgoodies]

I was really looking forward to this movie. I've seen Stephen Hawking interviewed and discuss his theories. I thought this would be a very inspiriting, personal story, but nope...it wasn't.

I don't know if you guys noticed but I'm attempting to watch 2014 Academy nominated films, both best picture and best actor.


I liked The Theory of Everything more than you did, but I'm not sure that it was good enough to be a Best Picture nominee.

Which Oscar nominees have you seen already, and which movies are still on your watchlist?

[Citizen Rules]

So far I've seen these:

Grand Budapest Hotel rating_3

Boyhood rating_4_5...I liked it but now that I think about it I was too generous, I would give it a 4.

Birdman rating_3

The Theory of Everything rating_2_5

Whiplash (I didn't like it so I shut it off after 15 minutes)

I still need to watch: The Imitation Game, American Sniper and Selma

[gbgoodies]

So far I've seen these:

Grand Budapest Hotel rating_3

Boyhood rating_4_5...I liked it but now that I think about it I was too generous, I would give it a 4.

Birdman rating_3

The Theory of Everything rating_2_5

Whiplash (I didn't like it so I shut it off after 15 minutes)

I still need to watch: The Imitation Game, American Sniper and Selma


It's a shame that you didn't like Whiplash. I thought it was the best movie of the year.

I haven't watched Selma yet because it just didn't interest me, but I'll probably watch it at some point when I have the time.

[Citizen Rules]

I couldn't review Whiplash because I didn't watch it. But I found the ballastic nature of the music teacher including throwing a chair at a student unbelievable. In this day in age, he would have long ago had the cops called on him by one of his disgruntled students or had the pants sued off him. His character was way over the top.

If I can't believe a characters actions as being real in the context of the film, then I can't believe the film. The movie might have gotten much better and turned out good, I don't know.

[gbgoodies]

I couldn't review Whiplash because I didn't watch it. But I found the ballastic nature of the music teacher including throwing a chair at a student unbelievable. In this day in age, he would have long ago had the cops called on him by one of his disgruntled students or had the pants sued off him. His character was way over the top.

If I can't believe a characters actions as being real then I can't believe the film. The film might have gotten much better and been a great film, I don't know.


You should try to get past that and watch the movie. It's amazing.

[Citizen Rules]

You're probably right about that.

Let me ask you did the music teacher keep up the same basaltic behavior through out the film? If not then I might try it again.

[gbgoodies]

You're probably right about that.

Let me ask you did the music teacher keep up the same basaltic behavior through out the film? If not then I might try it again.


He didn't throw things at the students throughout the movie, but he did and said a lot of mean things to them to motivate them.

[Citizen Rules]

Can you tell me in a nutshell what made you like the film so much?

[gbgoodies]

Can you tell me in a nutshell what made you like the film so much?


The intensity of the whole movie. The student who was driven to be the best that he could be versus the teacher who would do anything to have the best orchestra, regardless of how his actions affected each individual student. They played off each other perfectly.

I didn't know anything about the movie before I watched it. I actually thought it was a horror movie at first, so I was avoiding it, but I kept reading great reviews of the movie, so I decided to give it a chance. It drew me in from the very beginning, and it just never let go. The final scene is incredible, but you have to watch the whole movie to feel how intense that scene is.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=48639&stc=1&d=1538876859 The Hurt Locker (2008)

Director: Kathryn Bigelow
Writer: Mark Boal
Cast: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty
Genre: Documentary style war drama

Premise: Shot in hand held camera documentary style on the streets and desert of Jordan. The film chronicles a team of three soldiers in Bravo company, who's mission is bomb removal and detonation during the Iraq War.

Review: If you think war is the ultimate expression of waste and achieves nothing but misery...than this film is for you. The Hurt Locker is not a war buddy film and not a CG action film that glories killing and war. Just the opposite, this film endeavors to show the utter chaos and futility of war.

The film follows the last couple weeks of a tour of duty rotation of three EOD soldiers, explosive ordinance disposal. Their job is to deactivate, remove or explode IED explosives left as booby traps by Iraq insurgents. A dangerous job.

The film was shot in Jordan which lends an ultra realistic feel to this fine film. The littered desolate streets look like Iraq during the war.

The three lead actors are relatively unknown, all give naturalist portrayal of soldiers. Nothing is over the top or hammed up. This is a smaller budget indie film, but don't think that means it doesn't look good...it looks real, it feels real. Of all the Iraq war films I've seen this one is the closest to giving a feeling of what it must have been like to be there on those foreboding streets where any of the locals could be holding a remote control bomb.

This won a slew of Academy Awards for 2010 including:
Best Motion Picture
Best Achievement in Directing (Kathryn Bigelow who was the first woman director to win)
Best Writing, Original Screenplay (the screenwriter, Mark Boal was a journalist who went along with several bomb crews during the Iraq war)
Best Achievement in Film Editing

The beauty of the story is that there is no real story. The lead in the three men team is killed and is replaced with a hot shot Ranger (Jeremy Ranger) who's an adrenaline junkie and constantly puts the other two men in danger with his risk taking.

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=48641&stc=1&d=1538877351

Anthony Mackie plays a soldier who's the coordinator of communications. He's seen too much stupid stuff happening during his time in Iraq. Despite his common sense he has to follow the orders of the Ranger. The scene he does towards the end of the film where he says he is sick of Iraq was powerful.

The junior member of the team is Brian Geraghty his job is to take the point and to keep an eye out for hostiles. He's a bit green and just wants to get home in one piece. In some ways he's like we would be if we were thrust into this hostile environment.

The Hurt Locker does an excellent job of showing just how chaotic the Iraq war was. It doesn't preach, it doesn't tug at the heart strings, it doesn't pull out any of those old archetype characters. It's refreshing. If you don't like war, you should see this film. It's not perfect but it's the best Iraq war film out there.

rating_4

[hello101]

Good review. I really like The Hurt Locker, it feels like you're stepping into the boots of a soldier. Very realistic feel.

[Citizen Rules]

Thanks 101, You summed up the film perfect, 'feels like you're stepping into the boots of a soldier.' I totally agree with that.

[gbgoodies]

I usually don't like war movies, but The Hurt Locker has been on my watchlist for a while because of its great reviews. Your review might make me push it up a little bit higher on my watchlist.

[Citizen Rules]

I think you would appreciate the film GB. I don't know if you would really like it, but it's not about killing or gore and not real violent. It's not character driven, nor is it story driven...It's done as a semi-documentary style with hand held cameras and a near absent sound track. I found it refreshing, this is one of the type of film making I like.

[gbgoodies]

I think you would appreciate the film GB. I don't know if you would really like it, but it's not about killing or gore and not real violent. It's not character driven, nor is it story driven...It's done as a semi-documentary style with hand held cameras and a near absent sound track. I found it refreshing, this is one of the type of film making I like.


I never expect to like a war movie, but sometimes I can appreciate them.

[Citizen Rules]

Good point!

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=48640&stc=1&d=1538877055
Django Unchained (2012)

Director: Quentin Tarantino
Writer: Quentin Tarantino
Cast: Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio
Genre: Western

Premise: In 1858 in the deep south a German bounty hunter comes across a group of slaves. One of them is Django, the only witness to the identity of three outlaws being hunted by the German. Django is freed and joins forces with the bounty hunter. As a reward for the former slaves help, the pair travels to a notorious plantation in Mississippi to rescue Django's wife who's a slave there.

Review: If you don't care about logic or characters acting within the framework of the movie, then you just might like Quentin's nod to the Spaghetti Western. At almost 3 hours I found the movie painfully long. If you're going to make a 3 hour movie it needs to be a sweeping epic or have deep characters who's complexities grow during the length of the movie...But that doesn't happen here. Django Unchained is just a fun, shoot up film to enjoy while you guzzle your favorite beverage and eating voluminous amounts of your favorite snacks.

Django Unchained ask you to swallow a lot too, all in the name of kitsch film making. We are introduced to the film with a promising start, the German bounty hunter (Christoph Waltz) is the one interesting character in the film. The German is smart, savvy and uses the letter of the law to his own advantage. With his silver tongue and fancy vocabulary he can get out of sticky situations.

SPOILER......Yet towards the climax of the film, the German stubbornly refuses to shake the hand of the plantation owner, after being forced to overpay for a slave. Because Quentin wants to get to the blood bath scene that follows, he has the German do something stupid and out of character.... he shoots the plantation owner, then turns and says, 'I couldn't help it' as he is cut down by a gunmen in the room. But wait! the bounty hunter is a fast draw and a crack shot and he had one more shot left in his derringer, but doesn't bother to use it...very illogical.

But that's what one expects when the director has to plaster his own face in the movie. Tarantino makes fast food films. Don't expect the characters to act true to their nature. The director doesn't care and he expects the audience won't either.

After all the only thing this movie is good for is a high body count. And you'll get that. Along with an annoyingly, ecliptic movie soundtrack. What a waste, this could have been a great film, but then again it's a Tarantino written and directed piece of entertainment.

rating_2_5

[gbgoodies]

I almost watched Django Unchained because it has a great cast and it was getting great reviews, but the more that I read about it, the more I was pretty sure that it wasn't my type of film.

Your review makes me think that I made the right decision.

[MovieGal]

I almost watched Django Unchained because it has a great cast and it was getting great reviews, but the more that I read about it, the more I was pretty sure that it wasn't my type of film.

Your review makes me think that I made the right decision.

I wont watch it.. I dont need to hear the "N" word 200 times.. in a film.

[Citizen Rules]

I almost watched Django Unchained because it has a great cast and it was getting great reviews, but the more that I read about it, the more I was pretty sure that it wasn't my type of film.

Your review makes me think that I made the right decision. Body count in the movie was 64 and more blood than in a slaughter house.

I wont watch it.. I dont need to hear the "N" word 200 times.. in a film. 213 times actually! I just looked it up. Funny thing though, when Tarantino is on the screen he calls the former slave 'black', he's the only one not to say the N word.

[MovieGal]

213 times actually! I just looked it up. Funny thing though, when Tarantino is on the screen he calls the former slave 'black', he's the only one not to say the N word.

1 is to many times to hear it ....

[Citizen Rules]

I can understand that, that's how I feel about the F word being used in every single movie.

[Citizen Rules]

I think saying the N word 213 times in a movie is ridiculous and childish. I found a Utube video that has all 213 times from the movie, in a 40 second video. Needless to say I didn't want to post it.

[Optimus]

I really liked The Hurt Locker. I thought it was very exciting and suspenseful. It's also a very powerful movie and one of the best movies of 2009.

Django is liked a lot more than you. I thought it was a little long, but the cast was brilliant, and I thought the movie was very fun.

[Citizen Rules]

Optimus I can agree with you that the movie was fun. Even though I have a dim view of Quentin I did call the film fun. Christoph Waltz was brilliant in it. Even the negative reviews I read, mentioned how good Waltz was. I have never seen him in anything (that I recall) I'll have to look for some of this movies. I thought he was darn good.

[Mäx]

You haven't seen Tarantino's previous film Inglorious Basterds? He's amazing in this one, as well.

[Citizen Rules]

I did see Inglorious Basterds and reviewed it on this thread. I liked aspects of it but thought Quentin dumbed down the film with his over explanation of plot elements. That and his music score. I doubt I'll watch another of his films.

I read this online about Django Unchained and it pretty much sums up the movie.

"Quentin Tarantino is a case of arrested development at 12 who keeps on making revenge fantasy movies, my guess against bullies who picked on him as a child. This film is a combination of spaghetti western and blaxploitation. I know I am odds with others, but I don't find hearing the "N" word at least 100 times entertaining; watching two men fight to the death as "entertainment" (the hammer used to kill one of the two wrestlers); the murder of a black man by a pack of vicious dogs; constant whipping, etc., etc., etc. - and with all that said, my least favorite character, by far, was Django - he's supposed to be "hip" and manly and blah blah blah, but he's really just a despicable macho jerk. I was very disappointed by Leonardo Di Caprio's performance (I didn't see the last 40 minutes of the movie; I had enough of the constant violence).

I get that others just love guns, violence, the "N" word, and find it oh so funny when the Klu Klux Klan can't see through their sheets (hilarious - not!) - I get that others just love violence against others. Let's see: Aurora, Newtown, Columbine, drone planes murdering innocent children, women and men in countries we are not at war with - hmmm - could there be a connection? A society in love with violence can't quite reconcile the kharmic blowback that inevitably occurs.

Yes, this film is well-photographed; there is one interesting performance (Christoph Waltz); the music, while weird, has its moments - but that's it as far as I'm concerned.

Tarantino is always infuriating. If he could get away from his adolescent revenge violent fantasies he clearly has a knowledge of film history and has the money to hire fine movie technicians. But this film is a complete waste of time and money.

Did you really find all the violence "fun" to watch? It turned my stomach. Films I enjoyed had violent scenes in them but they did not glorify violence."

[honeykid]

I did see Inglorious Basterds and reviewed it on this thread. I liked aspects of it but thought Quentin dumbed down the film with his over explanation of plot elements. That and his music score. I doubt I'll watch another of his films.
Please try Reservoir Dogs before you quit. I know others will tell you that Pulp Fiction is his best film/masterpiece, but I don't think you'd care too greatly for it. Probably more than you have the other two, but not greatly. I'd also recommend Jackie Brown, but I think there's elements of that that you'd be annoyed by as you are with IB and Django.

Reservoir Dogs is Tarantino pared down to the basics. Nothing's wasted and he's not indulged. I still say it's his best film, but I've seen neither it nor Pulp Fiction for a long time and I've still to see Django (but that's not going to be his best)

[Citizen Rules]

OK, because you recommended it, I'll watch Reservoir Dogs.

I'd seen the theatrical release of Pulp Fiction way back when and I liked it. I tried watching the directors cut but didn't like the changing of the scenes around, so I shut it off.

I just now requested from my library those two films and I'll review them here in the near future.

[seanc]

OK, because you recommended it, I'll watch Reservoir Dogs.

I'd seen the theatrical release of Pulp Fiction way back when and I liked it. I tried watching the directors cut but didn't like the changing of the scenes around, so I shut it off.

I just now requested from my library those two films and I'll review them here in the near future.

There is no director's cut of Pulp that I am aware of Citizen. Sorry you didn't care for Django. I love Tarantino. Very few draw the characters and have the dialogue he does.

[cricket]

I think The Hurt Locker and Django Unchained are both terrific, although I rank the latter as only Tarantino's 5th best.

1. Reservoir Dogs
2. Pulp Fiction
3. Jackie Brown
4. Death Proof
5. Django Unchained

[Citizen Rules]

I'll be watching and reviewing

1. Reservoir Dogs
2. Pulp Fiction
Soon, I must likely will be done watching his movies. But I will give those 2 a fair viewing.

[Citizen Rules]

There is no director's cut of Pulp that I am aware of Citizen. Are you sure there wasn't some sort of extended version. Because I could swear the sequence of events were different than what I had saw before.

[Gatsby]

Django Unchained is good, but the third act goes one for way too long. Tarantino basically gets lost in his own world he created, he has fun with it but he doesn't realize that most of the audience isn't like him.

Also, CR, I am 100 percent sure there isn't a Director's cut.

[Zotis]

Tarantino... one of my first great loves in directing...

1. Pulp Fiction
2. Kill Bill
3. Kill Bill vol. 2
4. Inglorious Bastards
5. Death Proof
6. Jackie Brown
7. Django Unchained
8. Reservoir Dogs

[Citizen Rules]

The next film I'm going to review is a Film Noir that I had considered for my nomination for the Noir Hof.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=49118&stc=1&d=1540079739
Black Angel (1946)

Director: Roy William Neill
Writers: Roy Chanslor (screenplay), Cornell Woolrich (novel)
Cast: Dan Duryea, June Vincent, Peter Lorre
Genre: Film Noir Drama
Length: 81 minutes

Premise: A down and out song writer, now a drunkard (Dan Duryea) tries to see his estranged wife on their anniversary...but she refuses to see him. Later that night she's murdered and an innocent man is convicted of the crime and given a death sentence. The innocent man's wife (June Vincent) goes searching for answers to help save her husband's life, that's when she bumps into Dan Duryea. Together they try to solve the mystery.

Review: Black Angel is a little known film noir that's very different than most noirs. The film is not shot in the noir-expressionist style. There's no dark shadows, no low key lighting and no off center compositions. Instead it's shot like a traditional Hollywood film of the time. The music score is light and traditional too. But what makes Black Angel really different is that for the majority of the film it's a leisurely paced drama with romantic elements. One could almost forget that you're watching a film noir...until the dramatic ending that is.

Dan Duryea was a main stay actor in noirs. He's known for creating a unique onscreen persona of a dangerous but sniveling underhanded sneak. A role he made famous in The Woman in The Window (1944) and Scarlett Street (1945). Black Angel is one of the few films where Dan was given a starring role and he does an excellent job too.

June Vincent is the other lead, she's good but I had never heard of her before. Peter Lorre who everone knows is the devious night club owner with a dark secret and a tie to the murdered woman.

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=49119&stc=1&d=1540079751

If you're getting into film noirs don't forget to check out Black Angel. It takes the time to develop the characters and their back stories which is sort of rare for a film noir. But mostly enjoy the intelligently written ending. This is one of my favorites.

rating_4_5

[gbgoodies]

I've never heard of Black Angel, but it sounds like a good movie. I haven't seen many movies with Dan Duryea, but I like Peter Lorre, so it's definitely a movie that I'll add to my watchlist.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=49122&stc=1&d=1540080236Fury (2014)

Director: David Ayer
Writer: David Ayer
Cast: Brad Pitt, Shia LaBeouf, Logan Lerman, Michael Peña, Jon Bernthal
Genre: Action War
Length: 2 hours 14 minutes

Premise: It's WWII, April 1945 and the U.S. has entered Nazi Germany. The fighting is intense. A tough as nails sergeant (Brad Pitt) commands a five men Sherman Tank group. When one member is killed they're assigned a young nervous kid, who's never been in battle before.

Review: Fury has been called a realistic war film. Nothing could be further from the truth. Fury works as a thrilling, action adventure film but don't look for reality. As Fury is about WWII it needed to have a realistic story and action, but with director/writer David Ayer, realism is out the window. Sadly this seems to be a trend with Hollywood block buster films. Instead of anything resembling realism, the movie takes on the feel of a video game. Not surprising as many of the movie goers will be part of the video gaming generation.

What we get with Fury is American soldiers portrayed as blood thirsty savages, while the Nazi's are stumbling idiots, who can't seem to shoot straight. The first scene starts with a surrealist looking battlefield, among the smoke and darkness of night lay the smoldering ruins of many destroyed tanks. Out of a tank pops the hero, Brad Pitt locked in hand to hand combat with a German soldier. Pitt takes his fighting knife in hand and thrust it into the forehead of the German. Very video game like...That scene tells you what you need to know about the next 2 hours and 14 minutes.

One of the 'realistic' parts of the film is the tank in this photo. It's the only running German Tiger tank in existences. It should have got top billing! Unfortunately the tracer rounds that are fired in the movie glow with over zealous CG look. I thought the tanks were firing lasers!

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=49123&stc=1&d=1540080351



One of the most disturbing scenes was when the young Norman was forced to murder a German prisoner who had surrendered and was begging for his life. Wardaddy (Brad Pitt) forces poor Norman to murder the prisoner.

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=49120&stc=1&d=1540080221

Not only does Wardaddy terrorize the new guy, so does the rest of the tank crew. I expected to see this conflict come to a boiling point, that would have been interesting...but no, latter on this becomes a buddy film and all pass wrongs are some how forgotten.

I could over analyze all the tank battle scenes as they aren't believable as the Germans have the advantage in the encounters yet miss almost every single time. But lets cut to the chase...

The end scene is stupefied. The lone Sherman tank is driving down a road when it hits a land mine, blowing it's track off. The tank is stranded. The young guy Norman is sent to a top of a hill as a look out. He spots a battalion of 200-300 Waffen SS soldiers marching towards the tank, many of them are caring Panzerfaust anti-tank rocket launchers.

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=49121&stc=1&d=1540080228


Do the SS use their anti tank bazookas before reaching the tank that blocks their path, no. Do they take cover and send a few men to examine the tank, no. Instead they happily march up to the tank so that the Americans can mow them down, like shooting fish in the barrel.

Did I mention the scene with the face of a dead solder laying on the tank sidewall. Yes, it was a slice of a face with a nose and eyeball, just laying there. Or how about the scene where they go into a German town, battle...then start dancing, drinking and partying in the street...But wait, no one cleared the buildings of enemy snipers.

If you want a fun shoot 'em up, over the top action war film, then Fury is for you. If you want more realism along with a haunting story line try Saving Private Ryan or The Thin Red Line.

rating_2

[MovieGal]

hey Citizen, have you ever seen the film "The Scarlet and the Black"... I seen the dvd the other day and I remembered how good that film was.. and I havent seen it in over 30 years... if you havent seen it.. check it out!!

[gbgoodies]

I have no interest in Fury, but my father-in-law likes war movies and he wants to see it. Based on your review, I doubt it's his type of movie. :(

Hopefully I'll find the DVD for him for about $3 or less at a garage sale or flea market. :shrug:

[Citizen Rules]

hey Citizen, have you ever seen the film "The Scarlet and the Black"... I seen the dvd the other day and I remembered how good that film was.. and I havent seen it in over 30 years... if you havent seen it.. check it out!! Thanks for the recommendation. My library actually has it! So I requested it. Gregory Peck should make a convincing Monsignor.


I have no interest in Fury, but my father-in-law likes war movies and he wants to see it. Based on your review, I doubt it's his type of movie. :(

Hopefully I'll find the DVD for him for about $3 or less at a garage sale or flea market. :shrug: If you father in law is a war film buff he might like seeing the actual German Tiger tank, but might not buy the unbelievable fighting. Just tell him it's mainly an action film and he might like it.

[Fabulous]

I agree completely with Fury. It's a shame the way it ended because I liked everything leading up to it, for the most part.

[Citizen Rules]

The ending was ridiculous...It was laughable how heroic Brat Pitt is shot not once, not twice, but three times, then manages to get back into the tank and shut the hatch before dieing! Boy is he tough!....Then 2 German 'potato masher' hand grenades are dropped right beside Pitt's body, after the explosion he's still in one piece! If that wasn't stupid enough, the young American crawls under the tank to hide and is spotted by a SS officer, who then feels charitable and lets him go! The SS were just mowed down by the Americans and the SS officer lets the kid go, no way!

[Fabulous]

The ending was ridiculous...It was laughable how heroic Brat Pitt is shot not once, not twice but three times, then manages to get back into the tank and shut the hatch before dieing....Then 2 German 'potatoe masher' hand grenades are dropped right beside Pitt's body, after the explosion he's in one piece! If that wasn't stupid enough, the young American crawls under the tank to hide and is spotted by a SS officer, who let's him go! The SS were just mowed down by the Americans and the SS officer lets the kid go, no way!

You just reminded me of that scene. I remember in the cinema thinking, "NO WAY!"...

[Daniel M]

I felt very similarly about Fury, and didn't really get the hype. I had major issues with the moral stance of the film and/or its characters who I thought were all pretty despicable, and the ending felt like an unrealistic cop out. Here's my review if you want to take a look - click (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1197924#post1197924).

I haven't been active recently, so I'll have missed out on a load of reviews in this and many others thread. I'll probably go back through and leave a few more comments on other reviews too, always good to read your posts.

Edit: Nice review of The Hurt Locker. I haven't seen it but I own it on Blu-ray and have been meaning to watch it for ages.

Disappointed to see you didn't like Django Unchained, but I can see why it wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea. It's probably Tarantino's most cartoonish and ridiculous films, and I've probably seen it about five times in full now which makes me notice and think about certain elements more, but I don't think these detract from the pure comic book style feel of the film, Tarantino is having fun and he wants us to as well.

[Citizen Rules]

Hey Daniel, thanks for the link. I had already read your review and liked it. You were the only MoFo reviewer who felt the same way I did about the film.

You know I was actually cheering for the Germans to kill the American tank crew. I know that sounds bad, but that's just how despicable the tank crew was.

[Daniel M]

Hey Daniel, thanks for the link. I had already read your review and liked it. You were the only MoFo reviewer who felt the same way I did about the film.

You know I was actually cheering for the Germans to kill the American tank crew. I know that sounds bad, but that's just how despicable the tank crew was.

Yeah, I guess I could say the same. But the extended final battle scene was so formulaic that I knew there would only be once outcome. My friend who went with me to see it enjoyed the film, and I think a lot of people are happy to lap up the kind of anti-Nazi propaganda without thinking deeper about the war being more than just something played out like a video game as you describe. Norman was the only character with any real arch or redeeming qualities, but it was obvious what he was there for from the start. You mentioned Saving Private Ryan, which although still pro-American, I thought was more balanced and offered greater contrasting characters that weren't all despicable. If there was one film I'd tell people to watch in contrast to this though, I'd probably say Das Boot.

[Citizen Rules]

You mentioned Saving Private Ryan, which although still pro-American How so? The film was about Saving Private Ryan an American and a group of Americans went out to save him. Nothing pro American about it. And it was an American film made for American audiences. The Germans in the film were portrayed as soldiers, not as blood thirsty monsters, so it was more than fair to the German army of WWII.

If you remember in Saving Private Ryan, an angry American soldier executes a German prisoner of war in cold blood. Tom Hank's character is outraged by this action. So clearly that didn't show all Americans as being completely good. It's not a pro-American film, it just might seem that way to those in other countries.

[Daniel M]

How so? The film was about Saving Private Ryan an American and a group of Americans went out to save him. Nothing pro American about it. And it was an American film made for American audiences. The Germans in the film were portrayed as soldiers, not as blood thirsty monsters, so it was more than fair to the German army of WW11.

If you remember in Saving Private Ryan, an angry American soldier executes a German prisoner of war and is told off by Tom Hank's character. So clearly that didn't show the Americans as being completely good. It's not a pro-American film, it just might seem that way to those in other countries.

I didn't really mean it in a negative way like that, but I think it still has slightly certain pro-American elements, although this happens naturally when telling such a story. The beginning and the end scenes seem to reinforce this, but yeah, I was saying more that although it's based on the American side, and shown to remember those Americans that died during the war, it's still a very fair film with interesting conflicting characters.

[Citizen Rules]

No problem, there are LOTS of Pro American silly flag waving war films out there. We could probably do a thread on them:)

[cricket]

I'm not overly excited to see Fury, but I do want to see it. I'm not surprised you didn't like it based on what I have heard. I really enjoyed the mostly hated Sabatoge and Harsh Times from this director, while being disappointed in his most popular film, End of Watch. I feel like Fury could go either way for me. Great review!

[Citizen Rules]

I haven't heard of any of those films, but if you want a thrilling graphic action film, then yah Fury works.

When I was writing the review I wanted to know the exact names of the bazookas the SS carried....I found this excellent information site that is part of IMDB. Check it out.
http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Fury_%282014%29

I have a collection of vintage military weapons and it's cool to see them on that page and to see them used in the movie too....Darn I need me a M1 Tommy gun or Grease gun.;)

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=49124&stc=1&d=1540081059

Chef (2014)

Director: Jon Favreau
Writer: Jon Favreau
Cast: Jon Favreau, John Leguizamo, Emjay Anthony, Sofía Vergara Scarlett Johansson
Genre: Drama, Light Comedy

Premise: A once cutting edge chef loses his restaurant job after a hard boiled critic pans him on an internet blog. The jobless chef whips up a new career for himself when he starts a food truck business.

I liked this film for the most part. It's a simple, little indie film with the lead actor (Jon Favreau) doing triple duty as screen writer and director. I had never seen Jon before, he's completely natural on screen and his directing style is natural too, which suits the film to a tee. Indeed the movie looks like a real slice of life. I'm not into gourmet foods but the many scenes about creative cooking were actually interesting. Who knew food could be fun?

Right at the start I was interested in the Chef's life. He gets fired thanks to his pushy boss played by Dustin Hoffman, who has a small part. What really interested me was how a man who valued creativity over money, coped. Mirroring his work problems was his troubled relationship with his son. Whom he seldom got to see, thanks to a divorce. I really cared about the father-son relationship, it seemed real. The child actor (Emjay Anthony) was good too. I thought I was watching a real kid with his dad.

I enjoyed the various scenes they shot as they traveled together cross country in their food truck. South Beach and Little Havana Florida, New Orleans and Texas, we get to see a slice of America in this film.

Scarlett Johansson had a smaller role but did good fitting into the indie style production, I never though of her as a movie star, which is a good thing. However Sofía Vergara who played the chefs ex-wife was just too glamorous to believe that they were ever married. The fact that she was rich and lived in a huge estate, made her part seem more suited for a soap opera. Finally there was a bit part played by Robert Downey Jr. which was just flaky and seemed misplaced.

I cared enough about the simplicity of the story to overlook the extra extravagant characters.

rating_3_5

[honeykid]

Jon Favreau being in this is more than enough to put me off. Can't stand him. When he's dating Monica in Friends it was so hard to watch without cringing.

[Citizen Rules]

Thanks to Captain Spaulding for recommending Chef on my 2014 movie thread.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=40428

[Citizen Rules]

Wow, he was in Friends. I seen a lot of that show but don't remember him. Did he looks the same, if so I doubt he have a shot at Monica.

[gbgoodies]

Wow, he was in Friends. I seen a lot of that show but don't remember him. Did he looks the same, if so I doubt he have a shot at Monica.


Yes, he was the guy who was very rich, and he was into kickboxing, or some similar sport.

[Citizen Rules]

I'll have to watch all of Friends again some day. I only saw it in rewinds, here or there and missed many episodes.

[Fabulous]

I'm still not sold on Jon Favreau. I'm nut sure whether I like him or not yet. I don't remember him from Friends, though.

[gbgoodies]

Jon Favreau as Pete on "Friends":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMD-TWtY9lQ

[honeykid]

Yes, he was the guy who was very rich, and he was into kickboxing, or some similar sport.

You're right, he was a computer millionaire (ala Bill Gates) and he started to become a MMA fighter and that's why he and Monica split up as he was terrible but wouldn't stop until he became Ultimate Fighting champion. He's in about 5 or 6 episodes.

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DJN.rfsdfPXfXUdy7mjTPP8KVg%26pid%3D15.1&f=1
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_olsFfdGggLA%2FSwQOTgIISZI%2FAAAAAAAAAZI%2FGeeohHT83Ew%2Fs1600%2 FPete%2BBecker.jpg&f=1

[mark f]

He's been around since Rudy.
http://myfivebest.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/movies_favreau.jpg

[Citizen Rules]

You're right, he was a computer millionaire (ala Bill Gates) and he started to become a MMA fighter and that's why he and Monica split up as he was terrible but wouldn't stop until he became Ultimate Fighting champion. He's in about 5 or 6 episodes. That made me remember him.

[honeykid]

He's been around since Rudy.
http://myfivebest.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/movies_favreau.jpg

Something of the James Gandolfini about him in that pic?

[cricket]

I was really interested in Chef from what I had heard, and then I saw the trailer and kind of lost interest. I've liked Jon Favreau since Swingers.

[Citizen Rules]

Cricket, I just watched the trailer for Chef and it does show a good example of what the film was like.

Except the trailer made it look like a screwball comedy, which it's not. I didn't even think of it as a comedy, but seen it as a light drama.

[Daniel M]

I liked Chef, a good little film that was very easy to watch and enjoy. Nothing too serious and everyone looked like they were having fun and delicious food scenes are always a bonus too.

[mark f]

Genres are overrated.

[Citizen Rules]

Mark, I don't understand what you mean by that?

[mark f]

Whether a film is noir, musical, horror, comedy, drama, action, sci-fi, etc. - it shouldn't matter. Whether it's old or new, B&W or color, subtitled or not. If a film is good, it's good. People put up way too many stumbling blocks in what they will like and dislike. But this is old news, since I've been saying the same thing for 40 years.

[Citizen Rules]

That's fine, but I still don't understand what prompted you to post this?
Genres are overrated.

[mark f]

This.
Except the trailer made it look like a screwball comedy, which it's not. I didn't even think of it as a comedy, but seen it as a light drama.
You triggered my thoughts - again - on genres in general. :)

[Citizen Rules]

Oh ok.
The movie trailer had words on the screen that said Exceptionally Funny...which is odd because I never knew I was watching a comedy:shrug: I just took it as I reviewed it: a small simply Indie film about a chef, cooking, travel and father-son relationships.

[christine]

Oh ok.
The movie trailer had words on the screen that said Exceptionally Funny...which is odd because I never knew I was watching a comedy:shrug: I just took it as I reviewed it: a small simply Indie film about a chef, cooking, travel and father-son relationships.

Reminds me of a couple of weeks ago , son and me went to see White God (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2844798/) a Hungarian film - a kind of allegory using dogs as a subsitute for immigrants - anyway there's some horrible dog fight scenes as well as a touching faith by a young girl in her lost dog. We saw this film in a tiny indie cinema we'd never been to before. There was a lot of people laughing during the film at so many points that me and son looked at each other in puzzlement. Then at the end the two women behind us who'd actually been laughing probably the most, started talking about the 'tropes' in the film. Jeez I've never actually in my life heard people say the word 'trope' . What a lot of poseurs. It's going to take a lot to make me go there again!

[honeykid]

Oh ok.
The movie trailer had words on the screen that said [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Exceptionally Funny[/FONT.

That's because they've got to sell it.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=49125&stc=1&d=1540081393

Dumb and Dumber To (2014)

Directors: Bobby Farrelly, Peter Farrelly
Cast: Jim Carrey, Jeff Daniels
Genre: Comedy
Length: 109 minutes

Premise: Does it matter if this even has a premise?

Twenty years after Dumb and Dumber came out we get the sequel. Lloyd and Harry are dumber than ever and searching for Harry's long lost daughter, I hope she doesn't look like Harry!...Along the way they encounter a brilliant scientist and a Special Ops guy who tries to kill them. Lots of crude bathroom humor follows. Beavis and Butthead would approve!

As dumb as this is I still liked it. Why? Lowering of expectations. I mean who would expect to see anything decent at all in this movie...so with the expatiation bar lowered right to the floor, all the boys have to do is show up and make some goofy faces. This they did do in abundances!

But, was it funny? Yah, I laughed, I'll admit it. There was a couple of clever scenes that I liked enough to watch twice.

Jim Carrey was still looking pretty good twenty years latter and still the same goofy Lloyd. Jeff Daniels on the other hand was looking a little grizzled, but then Harry never was one for personal grooming, ha. But it was Harry's old girlfriend the town bimbo that through me for a loop! I didn't even recognize who played her......it was Kathleen Turner. I must say she had the best character in the film.

If you seen the first Dumb and Dumber then you know what to expect.

rating_2_5

[Citizen Rules]

What??? Not one post on Dumb and Dumber To? I know, I know, you guys don't want to admit you've seen it;)

[gbgoodies]

What??? Not one post on Dumb and Dumber To? I know, I know, you guys don't want to admit you've seen it;)


I still haven't seen the first one, and I have no desire to see it.

[Citizen Rules]

Not a fan of Jim Carey? How about How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000) Has it really been 15 years since that came out???:(

[gbgoodies]

Not a fan of Jim Carey? How about How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000) Has it really been 15 years since that came out???:(


I like Jim Carrey. I just don't like stupid movies, and the Dumb and Dumber movies look really stupid.

[Fabulous]

I didn't like it at all. The first one was pretty hard to top, but this didn't even come close.

[honeykid]

Sorry, CR. Not seen it, don't want to see it, never wanted to see it and I don't feel like reading something where I'm not interested in the source. :)

[Citizen Rules]

Fair enough HoneyKid:) I will come up with a new review soon!

I would have not watched Dumb and Dumber To except I bumped into it on the library shelve and as it was free, borrowed it... So far I'm not liking 2014 movies, I might have to go back to the 1940s, which is more my speed.

[Funny Face]

I am one of the people that didn't care for the first one, so I had no desire to watch the second. Out of Jim Carrey's comedies I liked The Cable Guy and Yes Man but my favorite Carrey movie is probably The Truman Show, followed very closely by Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Don't remember too many movies from 2014. The ones I liked are: The Grand Budapest, Pride and St. Vincent. Movies I still want to see: Wild, Big Eyes, and The Salt of the Earth (documentary).

Do you have a running list of the movies you have reviewed already?

[Citizen Rules]

Do you have a running list of the movies you have reviewed already? No I don't, but that's a really good idea. I'll have to make an Index on page 1 to all the films I've reviewed so far. I had planned on reviewing every film that I watched...but wow! that's a lot of work as I watch a movie every night.

Out of Jim Carrey's comedies I liked The Cable Guy and Yes Man but my favorite Carrey movie is probably The Truman Show, followed very closely by Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I loved The Truman Show, I found it humbling in the way it looked at one's life through a 'close up lens'. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, I liked that one too. The Cable Guy was the funniest Carrey film that I've seen.I never seen, Yes Man.

I never heard of, The Salt of the Earth. I see it deals with a photographers changing view of humanity over 40 years. It sounds interesting, drop me a note when you see it, I like to hear your opinion (or anyone's opinion on it.)

[gbgoodies]

My favorite Jim Carrey movies are Liar Liar and Bruce Almighty. Hubby loves The Mask, but I haven't seen it yet.

[Citizen Rules]

I like Liar Liar and Bruce Almighty, I didn't care for The Mask. I haven't seen much of his movies lately.

[cricket]

Dumb and Dumber is probably my favorite Jim Carey movie, so I do at least want to try this new one. My favorite Carey after that is Ace Ventura I'd say, then maybe Liar Liar, The Mask, Me Myself and Irene, Eternal Sunshine, and The Cable Guy.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=49127&stc=1&d=1540083073
Space Station 76 (2014)


Director: Jack Plotnick
Cast: Patrick Wilson, Liv Tyler, Marisa Coughlan, Matt Bomer, Jerry O'Connell,Kali Rocha
Genre: Dark Comedy Drama, Sci-Fi
Length: 93 minutes

Premise: What would happen if people's culture, values and styles were permanently stuck in the mid 1970s and yet it was the future on some space station...what would that future look like?

Space Station 76 is not sci-fi. It might seem like sci-fi because it's set on a space station orbiting an alternative earth but that's the end of the sci-fi part. There's no CG, no lasers, no space battles. The entire movie takes place in a few rooms inside the station and it's about people and their neuroses.

The film is based on a stage play and like many play based films it's heavy on dialogue and characters. The director described the film as a dark comedy. Comedy really isn't the right word, it's more of an expose. This is not a Space Balls or Galaxy Quest type film. The 'comedy' is dry and subtle and comes out of examining the values and personalities of these people who are permanently stuck with 1970s lifestyles. Better yet, don't think of it as a comedy at all.

The decor and set design is all fabulously done up in 1970s style. There's a lot of detail that went into making this look like an alternative history. It's fun looking at the sets and spotting styling cues from the past. How many can you see in the photo?

Space Station 76 is a small budget indie film, which dares to be different. If you go into this film with no expectations you might just enjoy it as much as I did. It helps if you're familiar with the 1970s. There's no big story arch, no huge conflicts, just a bunch of chain smoking, pill popping, drinking people who can't seem to get their lives together.

rating_4

[honeykid]

Space Station 76 is a small budget Indie film, which dares to be different. If you go into this film with no expectations you might just enjoy it as much as I did. It helps if you're familiar with the 1970s. There's no big story arch, no huge conflicts, just a bunch of chain smoking pill popping, drinking people who can't seem to get their life's together. ]
Great. Sounds like my 20's. Take away the smoking, drinking and pills and it sounds like my life now. :D

I've seen a few people mention this and it is something I think I might like.

[Citizen Rules]

Just don't let the opening credit scene, throw you for a loop.

In the first 1 minute of the film, I formed an opinion that turned out to be 180 degrees wrong.

http://es.web.img3.acsta.net/r_640_600/b_1_d6d6d6/pictures/14/08/08/16/23/418327.jpg

[cricket]

Never heard of Space Station 76 before but it sounds like something I'd like.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=49128&stc=1&d=1540083207

Big Eyes (2014)

Director: Tim Burton
Cast: Amy Adams, Christoph Waltz, Danny Huston
Genre: Biography Drama

A biopic drama about painter Margaret Keane who painted the 'big eyes' paintings that became a huge commercial success in the 1960s. It follows her struggles with her husband who claimed that he had painted her paintings and kept her from telling the truth to the world.

Big Eyes?...Tim Burton? Sounds like an insane combination! But no Mr Burton shows great restraint and tells a straight forward story of a struggling artist, Margaret Keane (Amy Adams) and her emotional and legal battles with her smooth talking, slimy business minded husband (Christoph Waltz) who steals fame and respect from his wife by claiming the paintings are his work. He goes so far as to make her sign his name to the art and keeps his wife a virtual prisoner in her home. Even her own daughter from a first marriage is kept in the dark about the paintings.

What makes this movie work is, it's true! This is one of those 'stranger than fiction' events and it actually happened to Mrs Keane. In the 1960's her art work was famous. You couldn't walk into a room with out seeing a reproduction of her art on the wall. When I was a little kid one of her lithographs of a big eyed sad dog hung in my bedroom. Tim Burton is an advent collector of her art and a personally fan of Margret Keane and for that reason he sought to tell her story.

I really liked this film and so did my wife. It's easy to watch, not to fast, not to slow, nice pacing. Both Amy Adams and Christoph Waltz are talented actors and are excellent in this. They bring the characters to life...It's the uniqueness of the story itself that makes this worth watching.

rating_4

[gbgoodies]

Big Eyes is a good movie, but you seemed to like it a little more than I did. I just couldn't sympathize with her because I thought the movie made it very clear that she knew what her husband was doing, but she did nothing to try to stop him until it was too late.

[Citizen Rules]

I too, had doubts as to if she was a victim, a willing participant or something in between. I like to see a biography documentary on her.

My main concern, and don't laugh...was the refrigerator. It was not vintage 1950s but a newer squarish model that was just painted turquoise to look old.

[gbgoodies]

I was taken by surprise by the movie because I thought it was an animated movie based on the poster.

We had some of her artwork in my house when I was a kid. My parents had a bunch of her pictures of kids with big eyes dressed as jesters.

[Citizen Rules]

big eyes dressed as jesters That rings a bell! I think I've seen that one too.

I think this might be the exact art that was in my room
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NDgwWDY0MA==/z/8i0AAOSw-W5UyubO/$_35.JPG

I did NOT like it as kid. It looked so sad and depressing...no wonder I turned out the way I did;)

[gbgoodies]

That rings a bell! I think I've seen that one too.

I think this might be the exact art that was in my room
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NDgwWDY0MA==/z/8i0AAOSw-W5UyubO/$_35.JPG

I did NOT like it as kid. It looked so sad and depressing...no wonder I turned out the way I did;)


That reminds me of the Sad Sam dog dolls.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41yttKLi9xL._SY355_.jpg

[MovieGal]

That rings a bell! I think I've seen that one too.

I think this might be the exact art that was in my room
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NDgwWDY0MA==/z/8i0AAOSw-W5UyubO/$_35.JPG

I did NOT like it as kid. It looked so sad and depressing...no wonder I turned out the way I did;)

There are other artists that do the Big Eyes style now...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/59/c4/a9/59c4a9c7e8ea85fe0292da566fef8c6b.jpg
https://cdn-img-2.wanelo.com/p/aeb/432/13d/b0232f8584278f2b1448eb4/x354-q80.jpg

[gbgoodies]

There are other artists that do the Big Eyes style now...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/59/c4/a9/59c4a9c7e8ea85fe0292da566fef8c6b.jpg
https://cdn-img-2.wanelo.com/p/aeb/432/13d/b0232f8584278f2b1448eb4/x354-q80.jpg


I don't really care much for the top picture, but I like the bottom one. Who's the artist?

[MovieGal]

I think they are both done by Jasmine Beckett Griffith..

http://www.strangeling.com/

[Captain Spaulding]

I'm glad you liked Chef, Citizen Rules, since I'm the one who recommended it. I don't think the movie is anything special, but it's the kind of simple, inoffensive, good-hearted film that does everything well. It's hard to imagine anyone disliking it, even if they may not love it or remember much about it a few weeks later. I agree with your criticism about Robert Downey Jr's role in the film. That was my least favorite part. It felt like Favreau inserted his Iron Man pal just to add some star power. Same goes for Scarlett Johansson. Their roles were pretty inconsequential, but if being able to advertise them in the trailer increased the movie's visibility then their casting served its purpose. The movie is totally pornography for the taste buds, too. They even succeeded in making something as simple as a grilled cheese sandwich look unbelievably delicious. Most of the restaurant food was far too upscale for me, but everything they cooked on the food truck had me salivating.

I like Fury a lot more than you do, but I don't necessarily disagree with your criticisms. I think you exaggerated the "video game" feel, but I wasn't expecting a realistic, Saving Private Ryan-style war film, so I enjoyed the heavy focus on action, even if most of the action scenes did strain credibility. I laughed at your comment about the tanks firing lasers, since I had the same thought while watching the movie. (In my mind I was making Star Wars-style sound effects during some of these scenes.) Fury got off to a slow start and the character archetypes are overly familiar, but I thought the second half was pretty strong. I really enjoyed the sequence with the two German women, even if the sequence did last a little too long. The showdown with the German super tank had me on the edge of my seat. And the big climactic showdown at the end was also very thrilling. I get annoyed at the reluctance of most films to kill off their heroes. I know that's less of an issue in war films, and realistically there should have been no survivors given the characters' situation, but I applaud Fury for mostly pulling no punches in that regard.

As a big fan of the first film, Dumb and Dumber To was a major letdown. There were a few funny moments, but most of it was cringe-inducing. I also think there's something inherently depressing in seeing Harry and Lloyd in middle age. I know they weren't teenagers or anything in the first film, but they were still young enough that most of life was ahead of them. Seeing that their lives are still exactly the same twenty years later and that they've seemingly gotten even dumber, their situations become more sad than funny. I had no idea until reading your review that the raspy-voiced hag in the film was Kathleen Turner. That's even more depressing. I just recently watched Romancing the Stone and Jewel of the Nile. She's very attractive in both films. I know that was thirty years ago, but she had to hit every branch of the ugly tree to transform from the sexpot she was into the unrecognizable troll she's become. Getting old sucks, man.

I've never heard of Space Station 76. Your review for it didn't quite sell it to me, but it sounds vaguely interesting. I might look up a trailer for it and see if it does anything for me.

The premise of Big Eyes doesn't excite me, but I'm one of the few who still looks forward to Tim Burton's projects, so I'll definitely rent it at some point.

It's too bad you disliked Django Unchained, but I'm not surprised given earlier comments I've seen you make about Tarantino. Before you vow to never watch another Tarantino film, please give Jackie Brown a shot. I'm sure your Tarantino bias will prevent you from loving it, but I think a lot of your misgivings about him are mostly absent from Jackie Brown, which is his most mature and sophisticated film.

Anyways, keep up the good work! I may not respond much in this thread, but I always enjoy reading your reviews.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=49129&stc=1&d=1540084478


Snowpiercer (2013)

Director: Joon-ho Bong
Writer: Joon-ho Bong
Cast: Chris Evans, Jamie Bell, Tilda Swinton, John Hurt
Genre: Action Sci-Fi
Length: 126 minutes

Snowpiercer is set in a post apocalyptic future in the year 2031...The film starts by showing us a group of forlorn, ragamuffin people who are stuck in the back tail section of a super luxury train, The Snowpiercer.

Mankind in their attempt to end global warming sprays a newly invented chemical called CW7 into the atmosphere which will lower Earth's temperature. It works too good and the planet is plunged into a deep freeze. Life becomes extinct...except on this one super train.

The Snowpiercer train is miles long and self sustaining. It comes complete with a class system. Those with a first class ticket are in the front of the train. In first class it's a life of ease and luxury. The second class ticket holders are stuck in the middle. And the forlorn ragamuffin people didn't have a ticket so they were crammed into the tail section of the train where they live in squalor, fighting for scraps of food and plotting revolution.

Their revolution is to take over the train, they want a better life, they want to be treated with dignity. Their leader is an old man (John Hurt), he needs to find a new leader from among the poor masses. His younger friend (Chris Evans) has what it takes but is not willing to lead.

One man, the engineer makes the rules, he's unseen but worshiped by 1st and 2nd class passengers and hated by the freeloaders. He's sort of a Wizard of Oz, ala train style.

This film was not my cup of tea. It varies from a deadpan gloomy Walking Dead wanna be film to a zany, colorful film with ecliptic charters reminiscent of Brazil (1985) and A Boy and His Dog (1975). With this hodge-podge style of film making, it failed to be believable. Once I fell out of the storyline I became bored. There's not much in the way of inspired acting as it's a story based film and the story wasn't focused.

rating_2_5

[gbgoodies]

Snowpiercer didn't do much for me either. The whole first half felt more like a horror movie than a sci-fi movie. :shrug:

[Citizen Rules]

I agree with that. I was just writing my thoughts on it for the Sci-Fi Hof. If I hadn't needed to watch the entire film, I would have shut it off at the point where the black-hooded ninja guys with axes, guts a live fish. That was stupid and gross.

[gbgoodies]

I agree with that. I was just writing my thoughts on it for the Sci-Fi Hof. If I hadn't needed to watch the entire film, I would have shut it off at the point where the black-hooded ninja guys with axes, guts a live fish. That was stupid and gross.


That's funny. This is an exact quote from my notes for the movie:

"This movie felt more like a horror/slasher movie than a sci-fi movie, and if it weren't part of the HoF, I probably would have turned it off during the fish/axe-figthing scene."

[Citizen Rules]

OMG! we do think a like, at least sometimes anyway.;) That is funny!

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=49143
Wild (2014)
Director: Jean-Marc Vallée
Writers: Nick Hornby, Cheryl Strayed(book)
Cast: Reese Witherspoon, Laura Dern
Genre: Biography Drama
Length: 115 minutes

Premise: Based on the autobiography by Cheryl Strayed. A woman who after the death of her mom becomes a junkie and sex addict. Cheryl decides to make a clean break from her past by undertaking an arduous 1000 mile hike on the Pacific Coast Trail.

Review: I've hiked on a small section of the Pacific Crest Trail so I thought this would be an introspective movie about one woman's conquering of the vast 1000 miles of this multi state trail. I thought we would learn how she overcame hardship to find inner strength and peace. Wild is nothing like the one man act movie Castaway which gave us deep insight into loneliness and survival. I don't think I've ever seen a more poorly executed story than Wild.

Flash backs...this movie has more flash backs inter-cut with the main hiking story than I've ever seen. The flash backs come at the most impromptu times, breaking any sense of awe and loneliness that the hiking scenes might have shown us. We don't hardly see the trail at all. Instead we get flash backs of Cheryl (Reese Witherspoon) using heroin and having multiple sex partners in a back alley. The director relies on graphic shocking scenes to give the audiences some emotional jolt. This is film making at it's poorest.

One might think there would be stunning cinematography in a film like this. Think again. The camera work is blase. Oh sure there is the natural beauty of the Pacific Crest Trail but it's not shot with any artistry.

Reese Witherspoon doesn't get to do much here and that's odd as it's a one person show. Mainly we get her mumbling to her self about how much she hates the hike. Just to add drama, the script includes her meeting up with some leering, lonely men on the trail. Practically ever cliche that can happen does.

I found this movie unrewarding.

rating_2

[Funny Face]

Oh dear, I still really want to see Wild. Haven't finished the book yet, but it seems to have a lot of flashbacks too.

I've been on a very tiny part of the PCT as well and I was hoping the movie would highlight the meditative experience a person can have when you immerse yourself in nature.

Your low rating is making me curious. I'm going to see if Redbox has this tonight.

[Citizen Rules]

Which part of the PCT where you on? In the movie she starts at Mojave, which looked very dry and hot.

I was hoping the movie would highlight the meditative experience a person can have when you immerse yourself in nature. I'd be very interested if you see that quality in the movie. That's what I was hoping to see, but didn't find it. Cool, that you're going to watch it, let me know what you think.

[christine]

Your summing up of Snowpiercer was pretty much what I thought of the film too CR, and I was looking forward to it as the director has done some decent films.
I thought about watching Wild, but thought it might be one of those films that worked much better in the original book. Is it worth reading FF?

[Citizen Rules]

Thanks:) to Honeykid for suggesting the movie for my next upcoming review.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=49144&stc=1&d=1540169194

Pulp Fiction (1994)

Director: Quentin Tarantino
Writers: Quentin Tarantino, Roger Avary
Cast: John Travolta, Uma Thurman, Samuel L. Jackson, Tim Roth, Amanda Plummer, Bruce Willis, Rosanna Arquette, Eric Stoltz
Genre: Crime Drama Action
Length: 2 hours 14 minutes

Premise: an interwoven tale of four stories involving shady underworld characters: The daily life of two hit men, a boxer involved with a gangster, the gangster's wife and a couple who rob diners. All of their stories become intermixed.

Review: The last time I watched Pulp Fiction was over twenty years ago, at that time like most people I thought it was great. I watched it for the second time, the other day. After twenty years my opinion has changed. When Pulp Fiction first came out it was a unique indie film. Now for me that uniqueness has worn off.

On the pro side the characters are still rich and lively. I mean these are some colorful people! But the scenes drag, they go on and on past the point of the average attention span. Then there's the interesting conversations about nothing much, I.E. the famous Big Mac speech. At first this seems pretty cool, as the characters are talking like real life people. But after awhile I realized Quentin is just padding the film with random dialogue. And it grows thin. First John Travolta is an expert on an inane subject like hamburgers in Europe. Then Samuel L. Jackson is an expert on foot massages and launches into his speech. Later this trend continues with Travolta and Uma Thurman at the restaurant both taking turns at their expert speeches.

Perhaps the worst part of the film is Quentin's acting role. Nothing takes you out of the world of Pulp Fiction like seeing Quentin act. It was such a strange juxtaposition of professional actors immersed in their roles (Travolta,Jackson) talking to Quentin in the kitchen scene. If this wasn't bad enough, Tarantino adds a block of dialogue about getting his good linen dirty when he talks to Harvey Keitel. This scene erases any integrity that the film had built up. Not to mention the entirely unnecessary scene in the junk yard with Julie Sweeney who seemed an odd choice for this film.

In short the movie is too long, the scenes are too long, and Quentin's on screen time is a distraction. Once this film might have seem like something interesting. Now it's just another flick.

rating_3

[cricket]

You know, I have to say that there's some merit to your criticisms of Pulp Fiction. It doesn't matter for me; I love it anyway.

I was sort of interested in seeing Wild, but certainly won't seek it out based on your review.

[Swan]

Pulp Fiction might be overlong, but if you love what you're watching it shouldn't matter. :)

[Citizen Rules]

Cricket good evening. You might like Wild much more than I did, (based on what you said in the top 10 reasons you won't watch a movie thread) And hey you get to see Reese topless!

[mark f]

We rarely agree about movies. :)

[Citizen Rules]

Who? me and you, Mark? We could be MoFo's Siskel and Ebert:) They use to argue like cats and dogs sometimes, but it was all good.

[Gatsby]

You say most of the dialouge is pointless, as a Pulp Fiction fan I would say only a small portion of it can be removed (but it shoudn't :p), you do have a good argument.

I want to refute by pointing out that all Tarantino films are an exploitation of some sort. In Pulp Fiction the thing being "exploited" is the dialouge. The dialogue of the film is a writer's nightmare- conversations pop out of nowhere and the events are out of basic order, and so on. The cleverness and daringness, almost obnoxiousness behind it is awesome.

Plus I really like when dialogue isn't used to drive the plot, instead sit back, relax, and seem to chat with the audience. It's entertaining, fresh, and way more enjoyable. It still is a revolution today.

Considering your film taste disliking parts of Pulp Fiction is understandable, just wanted to let you know that not everything thrown in the long 150 minutes is a waste.

[Funny Face]

Which part of the PCT where you on? In the movie she starts at Mojave, which looked very dry and hot.

I've been on the portion that passes through Castle Crags in Northern California. Here is a brochure: http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/454/files/CastleCragsSP_WebBrochure2014.pdf

I'd be very interested if you see that quality in the movie. That's what I was hoping to see, but didn't find it. Cool, that you're going to watch it, let me know what you think.

Watched it this afternoon and after reading your review wasn't sure how I'd feel about it. Turned out I liked it a lot.

Firstly, I’m not a hugely experienced hiker but I love it every time I’m out surrounded by nature- even when I’m a disgusting mess and I feel like I’m going to pass out or vomit from exhaustion. For me, I’m pushing myself out of my comfort zone physically but also mentally. I love hiking because of how connected I feel with myself and everything around me but what always surprises me are the random thoughts that will pop into my mind. That’s what the flashbacks during the movie reminded me of and Cheryl was reflecting on everything that brought her to where she was, as a person and in that moment on the PCT.

I may have felt a more personal connection with Cheryl because I could relate to some of the significant events in her life. My dad passed away a month after I turned 21 and it has been the most devastating event I have experienced. I won’t spoil the scene for others who may still want to view the movie, but the day after my dad died someone called extremely early in the morning; My mom and I picked up the phone at the same time but she responded to the caller first. The caller was asking my mom if she would donate my father’s eyes. I was frozen and speechless because it was such a heartbreaking conversation to have and also overhear. Needless to say, I started sobbing when I saw one specific scene in the movie.

Found this article that included most of the quotes I liked:

http://www.ranker.com/list/wild-movie-quotes/movie-and-tv-quotes

My favorite quote was: “Cheryl, if there's one thing I can teach you, it's how to find your best self and when you do, hold on to it for dear life."

There were many moments I related to but what stood out the most was how a person can become unrecognizable to others and even themselves when they are grieving.

I could probably go on and on about this film but I’m going to stop here: Wild may not be the best movie I have ever seen but I liked it a lot and highly recommend it.

Thanks CR for peaking my interest and getting me to watch it sooner! :lol:

I thought about watching Wild, but thought it might be one of those films that worked much better in the original book. Is it worth reading FF?

Haven't finished it yet, but so far it is worth reading. My best friend also enjoyed the book.

You might want to check Cheryl's Dear Sugar column from The Rumpus if you are curious to see how she writes:

http://therumpus.net/sections/blogs/dear-sugar/

[Citizen Rules]

Thanks for posting your thoughts Funny Face. I'm glad you liked it and found some personal truth in it. It seems you made a personal connection to the story that I didn't. I can only image your reaction to the eye donation scene, that must have been hard to watch for you.

On a lighter side, I did have one connection to the movie. In the scene where Cheryl takes off her shoes, then loses one as it rolls down the mountain side...happened to me. When I was in my early 20s, me and two friends were climbing in the Cascades in Washington state. We reached this rocky outcropping that was very steep and I did not want to climb it. I was nervous about it as it was a free climb (no ropes) and a fall would be deadly. So I took off my shoes and got half way up, then got stuck and accidentally dropped a shoe just like Cheryl did. It must have rolled a couple hundred feet down so there was no way I could get it. I tossed my other shoe as it wasn't no good to me, and I went to the top and back down bare foot! To make matters worse I then had to walk a mile up a gravel road to reach the car. My feet were sore! and bleeding.

[honeykid]

At least you were able to give it another go, CR. :) As others have said, I find merit in your criticism. I myself haven't watched the film for a long time now and, in part, that's because I just don't want to sit through The Gold Watch segment. Even when I absolutely adored the film I felt it was the weakest part and that degenerated down to not wanting to see it. :(

[Daniel M]

I must have seen Pulp Fiction at least ten times in full and more than twenty in parts. The last time I saw it was at the cinema last year, that was fantastic. It's a shame you don't enjoy it that much :(

[Citizen Rules]

...I want to refute by pointing out that all Tarantino films are an exploitation of some sort. In Pulp Fiction the thing being "exploited" is the dialogue. The dialogue of the film is a writer's nightmare- conversations pop out of nowhere and the events are out of basic order, and so on. The cleverness and daringness, almost obnoxiousness behind it is awesome.

Plus I really like when dialogue isn't used to drive the plot, instead sit back, relax, and seem to chat with the audience. It's entertaining, fresh, and way more enjoyable. It still is a revolution today.

Gatsby, this might surprise you but I agree with what you said about the dialogue in Pulp Fiction. I actually really liked it and for the same reasons you mentioned.... but only up to the point of the last scene in the diner where Samuel Jackson goes on and on with his speeches. That felt to me like a rehash of what Quentin had wrote earlier in the film and felt contrived. So did Quentin's scene with Harvey Keitel.


... I myself haven't watched the film for a long time now and, in part, that's because I just don't want to sit through The Gold Watch segment. Even when I absolutely adored the film I felt it was the weakest part and that degenerated down to not wanting to see it. :( Any specific part of the Gold Watch segment or all of it? I really liked Bruce Willis and Maria de Mederiros scenes together. I noticed their relationship and dialogue felt much different than the rest of the movie. They spoke to each other gently and with affection, that was believable. However the scene inside the pawn shop was just disgusting. I don't care to see a man being raped by another man. Not to mention the whole bondage thing and the Gimp character was just too over the top.

Without that scene and Quentin's scene with Harvey Keitel and the scene in the junk yard with Julia Sweeney, I would have gave the film a 4/5

[Funny Face]

On a lighter side, I did have one connection to the movie. In the scene where Cheryl takes off her shoes, then loses one as it rolls down the mountain side...happened to me. When I was in my early 20s, me and two friends were climbing in the Cascades in Washington state. We reached this rocky outcropping that was very steep and I did not want to climb it. I was nervous about it as it was a free climb (no ropes) and a fall would be deadly. So I took off my shoes and got half way up, then got stuck and accidentally dropped a shoe just like Cheryl did. It must have rolled a couple hundred feet down so there was no way I could get it. I tossed my other shoe as it wasn't no good to me, and I went to the top and back down bare foot! To make matters worse I then had to walk a mile up a gravel road to reach the car. My feet were sore! and bleeding.

That sounds like quite an experience! Hope you didn't lose any toenails! :) Do you still go out hiking? What parts of the PCT have you been on? The Pacific Northwest is beautiful. My family lived in Washington about a year before we moved to California. In the last few years I've been taking trips to Oregon and I've completely fallen in love with the state. I hope to move there one day.

Have you seen Redwood Highway? It's on my watchlist and looks like it has similar themes to Wild.

[Citizen Rules]

No lost toenails just sore feet! Do I still go hiking? Sadly I haven't in the last 3 years. After getting married me and my wife would go to Mt Rainer at least once a month for a good hike. I'm long over due.

I don't remember what part of the PCT trial it was. I was on another trail and it intersected the PCT trail and I seen the sign and though it was cool, but I don't remember where. I really like Oregon too. I have thought about moving there. What part of Oregon do you want to move to?....I haven't seen Redwood Highway.

[honeykid]

The scenes between Willis and de Mederiros the only scenes which worked pretty well in that segment, IMO, but really, the whole segment doesn't really work for me and I feel the writing is the worst of the three segments, too. The scene with Quentin in the house is silly, but I quite like it and once Keitel turns up and starts ordering the hitmen about, he steals the whole scene and makes it work well for me.

Don't get me wrong, the first 10 or 20 times I saw PF, though it was always me least favourite part, it didn't dread it like I do now.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=49145&stc=1&d=1540169468

Pollock (2000)

Director: Ed Harris
Cast: Ed Harris, Marcia Gay Harden, Tom Bower
Genre: Biography Drama
Length: 122 minutes

Premise: A biography of the life and career of acclaimed American painter Jackson Pollock. The film follows him from his early days as a struggling artist, through his success and recognition as an avant garde painter. Finally ending in his demise, as he falls out of favor with the critics and his personal life falls apart.

This is a sincere look at Jackson Pollock. Directed and starring Ed Harris who not only physically looks like Pollock but as a skilled actor gives us a frank look at one of the most important painters to come out of America. Don't expect high drama, the film is shot in realistic style. The music score when present is light and none obtrusive. There's no attempt by Ed Harris the director or Ed Harris the actor to tug at our heart strings or invoke sentimentally. This is a clean film. Some might find it dry. I found it refreshing.

Ed Harris is a fine actor and as he's directing himself he really gets to shine. And yet he keeps the reins on his emotions, that's his strength as an actor.

Marcia Gay Harden is Lee Krasner a unknown painter and confidant of Pollock. Latter she moves in with him and becomes his wife. She's the rock to his rocky personality. She's good in this role as she too looks and feels like the real deal.

One of the high points of the film is seeing Pollock create his art. He was famous for the free form, drizzle method in which the canvas is laid on the ground and he drizzles paint onto it. There are many scenes that show the processes that went into creating his art.

Pollock was a quiet man, so in a way he remains an enigma in the film. He appears to suffer from some form of mental or emotional difficulties. One thing is clear he had a drinking problem that not only effected his marriage but held back his artistic endeavors.

Ed Harris shows us the sad, but brilliant reality of Jackson Pollock.

rating_4

[Funny Face]

I really like Oregon too. I have thought about moving there. What part of Oregon do you want to move to?....I haven't seen Redwood Highway.

I love Bend, but realistically I'm thinking Portland because there may be more opportunities for me there careerwise; Also, only a 3 hour drive to Bend so I could visit easily (vs the 6.5 hour drive I have now!). Any specific areas of Oregon you like?

I'm adding Pollack to my watchlist! Marcia Gay Harden is a great actress.

[Citizen Rules]

I really like just about every spot in Oregon that I've been in. But I haven't been to the eastern side. I've been camping there quiet a bit on the west side.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=49146&stc=1&d=1540169610

Time After Time (1979)

Director: Nicholas Meyer
Cast: Malcolm McDowell, Mary Steenburgen, David Warner
Genre: Sci Fi Adventure, Drama, Romance
Length: 112 minutes

Premise: In London 1893 inventor H.G. Wells has gathered together a group of his friends to tell them of his latest invention, a time machine. Elsewhere, Jack the Ripper has struck again. Fleeing the police he manages to steal the time machine, escaping into the future, 1979. Wells then pursues the Ripper to San Francisco in attempt to stop him.


Review: The art direction of Victorian era London was well done. One could almost feel like you were there. We see cobble stone streets, covered in eerie fog, with puddles of water afoot. The lamps are gas lamps, you can see them flicker.

The opening shot starts with a first person perspective from behind a low, wrought iron fence. Then as a prostitute walks down the street, the camera approaches her, as if it was the eyes of her unknown stalker. We even see the hands of this first person come into the frame. Reminiscent of the film noir Lady in the Lake (1947).

When the mystery man finally speaks to the prostitute she seemed to recognize him which cleverly throws the audience of guard. Another good touch was the Rippers musical pocket watch that the camera cuts to as he 'rips' her.

Cheers to Malcom McDowell who pulled off playing the intelligent free thinker, Victorian gentlemen H.G. Welles...he played him to a tee.

This was Mary Steenburgen second major film and she does have a weird way of talking in this film. She spoke very slowly, almost like she was dazed or dimwitted. But her character was supposedly a smart, self made woman. I liked her in this film anyway. Her and Malcom had good chemistry. In fact they married shortly after this film.

Perennial bad guy character actor, David Warner plays the infamous Jack the Ripper. A man of taste and intelligence but lacking a conscious. Warner is a strong point in this film and the perfect juxtaposition to McDowells H.G. Wells character.

The time machine looked good too. It was different than the time machine used in the The Time Machine (1960). The special time travel effects were pretty bad even by 1979 standards. Oh well, the movie isn't about effects, it's about romance and about ideas and adventure too.

The film had an underlying theme...in the beginning of the film Wells tells his house guest that the future will be a peaceful utopian society. This then sets the stage as the idealistic dreamer Wells, meets the fast pace, aggressive late 20th century.

There were a few plot holes that bugged me as Wells goes about matching wits with Jack the Ripper. Overall it was an enjoyable ride.

rating_3_5

[gbgoodies]

I'm glad you enjoyed Time After Time. I think every time travel movie has some plot holes, but you just have learn to look past them sometimes. :shrug:

[Citizen Rules]

Hi GBG, no I don't mean time travel holes. I mean

the scene where Amy has seen a newspaper with her own death in it. Then back in her apartment Wells tells her to check into a hotel so that the Ripper can't find her. What does she do? She takes a Vallium and drinks some booze and then takes a nap!

[gbgoodies]

Hi GBG, no I don't mean time travel holes. I mean

the scene where Amy has seen a newspaper with her own death in it. Then back in her apartment Wells tells her to check into a hotel so that the Ripper can't find her. What does she do? She takes a Vallium and drinks some booze and then takes a nap!


Yeah, that wasn't the brightest thing to do, but remember, Wells didn't expect to get arrested and detained by the police. He was supposed to be back to protect her long before the Ripper was supposed to show up there.

[Citizen Rules]

I know the script writer had her sleeping so that the Ripper would have time to catch her in her apartment, making a suspenseful scene as the door handle turns.

OK here is my modified version that achieves the same thing.

The scene starts the same way with Wells telling her to meet him in the hotel but instead of taking Vallium, she hurriedly gathers a few things to leave. She fumbles around in a desk drawer trying to find keys, having a hard time finding them she gets nervous. Then she grabs her purse and then drops it as starts to leave the room. She is so scarred that she quickly heads for the door and trips, banging her head and knocking her self out. She only comes too when the door handle turns and awaken her.

That achieves the same thing and is more exciting and fits more with the story. But as I tell my wife I'm 36 years to late to rewrite the movie;)

[gbgoodies]

I know the script writer had her sleeping so that the Ripper would have time to catch her in her apartment, making a suspenseful scene as the door handle turns.

OK here is my modified version that achieves the same thing.

The scene starts the same way with Wells telling her to meet him in the hotel but instead of taking Vallium, she hurriedly gathers a few things to leave. She fumbles around in a desk drawer trying to find keys, having a hard time finding them she gets nervous. Then she grabs her purse and then drops it as starts to leave the room. She is so scarred that she quickly heads for the door and trips, banging her head and knocking her self out. She only comes too when the door handle turns and awaken her.

That achieves the same thing and is more exciting and fits more with the story. But as I tell my wife I'm 36 years to late to rewrite the movie;)


Yes, that would have worked too, and it would have made more sense than what she did.

I thought he should have brought copies of his books back with him. That would have made it much easier for him to write them. :lol:

[Citizen Rules]

Ha! But...the book idea would be a temporal paradox.:D

[gbgoodies]

Ha! But...the book idea would be a temporal paradox.:D


Yes, but every time travel movie should have a good temporal paradox. That's what makes them so much fun.

[Citizen Rules]

http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l458/glvalentine/questionabletaste/misspettigrew/15.jpg

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day (2008)

Director: Bharat Nalluri
Cast: Frances McDormand, Amy Adams, Ciarán Hinds
Genre: Screwball comedy, romance
Length: 92 minutes

Premise: In 1939 London, Miss Pettigrew is a middle aged governess who finds herself with no job, no food and no luck. She decides to take matters into her own hands when she poses as a social secretary and lands a job with an American actress, Delvsia Laffose, who lives in a posh world of glamor and glitz.

Review: What a wonderfully fun film to watch. It's made in a style that was popular 80 years ago, the screwball comedy. And what a history this film has! In 1938 Winifred Watson's book Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day was published and became a smash success. It was planned to be turned into a movie starring Billie Burke but World War II brought a halt to production and the film idea was forgotten. In 2000 the book was republished which brought the idea of making the movie back to life.

Director Bharat Nalluri does a wonderful job of remaking the classic screwball comedy. The characters, the sets, the situations, the dialogue and story...all would be right at home in a Carol Lombard film. If this was shot in black and white, one might think it was a lost classic. It is a lost gem, a story from 1938 that took 70 years to get made.

Frances McDormand is Miss Pettigrew, she does just a wonderful job of playing the 'straight character', which give the other cast members a chance to play off. She makes us care about her character.

http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l458/glvalentine/questionabletaste/misspettigrew/large_343291.jpg


Amy Adams is quickly becoming one of my favorite modern actresses. She plays the ditzy aspiring actresses and singer Delvsia Laffose. It is almost like watching a performance by Carol Lombard when you watch Amy. She just glows effervescently.

The period piece sets are exquisite, ever detail is there. The ultra posh apartment looks like something out of a glamor Hollywood movie circa 1930s. The costumes and even the lingerie are period correct. But it's the fun, engaging story that makes this movie work.

This is a gem of a movie. I'm so happy that the director paid homage to the great screwball comedies of the 30s.

rating_5

[seanc]

You had me at Mcdormand and Adams. You lost me at screwball comedy. I may give it a look sometime. Weird I don't remember it being on my radar at all.

[Citizen Rules]

I just seen Amy Adams in Spielberg's Catch Me if You Can (2002). Have you seen that one?

[rauldc14]

Adams is one of my favorites, so I'll have to check it out sometime

[seanc]

I just seen Amy Adams in Spielberg's Catch Me if You Can (2002). Have you seen that one?

Yeah, a couple of times. It's pretty great. I love DiCaprio in it.

[Citizen Rules]

Ya, DiCaprio is great in Catch Me if You Can, I really liked it. It did not seem like a Spielberg movie.

[seanc]

Ya, DiCaprio is great in Catch Me if You Can, I really liked it. It did not seem like a Spielberg movie.

He has a couple that don't seem in his comfort zone which I guess means they are. What's your favorite Spielberg films?

[Citizen Rules]

Good question, Sean

Really liked these:
2002 Catch Me If You Can
2002 Minority Report
1998 Saving Private Ryan
1993 Schindler's List
1985 The Color Purple
1987 Empire of the Sun
1982 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
1981 Raiders of the Lost Ark
1977 Close Encounters of the Third Kind
1971 Duel (TV Movie)
1975 Jaws

Luke warm to these:
2012 Lincoln
2005 War of the Worlds

Hated these:
2001 A.I. Artificial Intelligence
2011 War Horse

[seanc]

I mostly agree, but a couple would switch spots. Raul and I are going to finish up Spielberg in our thread this week. I will put together a list tomorrow or Tuesday there.

[Citizen Rules]

I'll take a look at your thread. I bet you would move Lincoln up from luke warm to really liked. A lot of people like that one. I guess I've seen other performances of Lincoln and have an idea of how he should be portrayed in my head and Daniel Day Lewis didn't cut it for me. But the film wasn't bad at all.

I liked the other Lincoln film about the trial of the conspirators ( I can't remember what its called right now.)

[Funny Face]

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day was so much fun! Strong cast and characters and the chemistry between Delysia and Michael was very sweet. Amy Adams is such a great actress to watch all the way from Drop Dead Gorgeous and Enchanted to Julia & Julia and dramas like The Fighter. Movie also has Ciarán Hinds, who is one actor that will make any film more watch-worthy in my eyes. Glad you enjoyed this movie and as always, nice review! :up:

[Citizen Rules]

Thanks for mentioning Drop Dead Gorgeous, Enchanted and The Fighter. I hadn't seen any of those, but now I want to!
I just looked up Amy Adams films and she was in some really good ones, I've seen these and thought highly of them:

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day
Big Eyes
Doubt
Catch Me If You Can
Leap Year
Sunshine Cleaning
Julie & Julia

[gbgoodies]

Great review. I've never heard of Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day, but it sounds like my kind of movie. I added it to my watchlist. :up:

[honeykid]

I've had this sat on my shelf for years. Another one I really must get around to seeing. :)

[Citizen Rules]

HK, I watched another of your recommendations the other day and liked it, I'll write a review soon.

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day....I hesitate to use the term screwball comedy as it evokes visions of Adam Sandler:eek: it's nothing like that. It's not wacky and not in your face, no gags, no bananas....but lots of fun.

GBG I think you would like it. I also liked the fact it was only 90 minutes. I don't know why movies are getting longer and longer these days.

[seanc]

I liked the other Lincoln film about the trial of the conspirators ( I can't remember what its called right now.)

The Conspirator. I thought that was okay. I would have to see it again to rate it.

[rauldc14]

Interesting you really like Big Eyes Citizen. I really wanted to, but I had really high hopes for it.

[seanc]

Thanks for mentioning Drop Dead Gorgeous, Enchanted and The Fighter. I hadn't seen any of those, but now I want to!
I just looked up Amy Adams films and she was in some really good ones, I've seen these and thought highly of them:

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day
Big Eyes
Doubt
Catch Me If You Can
Leap Year
Sunshine Cleaning
Julie & Julia

Did you see American Hustle CR?

[honeykid]

Have you seen Miss Potter, CR? I can't remember if I asked you this before or not, so I thought better safe than sorry. :D

[Gideon58]

Django Unchained (2012) https://logankrum.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/django-unchained-movie-2012.jpg
Django Unchained (2012)

Director: Quentin Tarantino
Writer: Quentin Tarantino
Cast: Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio
Genre: Western
Length: 2 hours 45 minutes

Premise: In 1858 in the deep south a German bounty hunter comes across a group of slaves. One of them is Django, the only witness to the identity of three outlaws being hunted by the German. Django is freed and joins forces with the bounty hunter. As a reward for the former slaves help, the pair travels to a notorious plantation in Mississippi to rescue Django's wife who's a slave there.

Review: If you don't care about logic or characters acting within the framework of the movie, then you just might like Quentin's nod to the Spaghetti Western. At almost 3 hours I found the movie painfully long. If you're going to make a 3 hour movie it needs to be a sweeping epic or have deep characters who's complexities grow during the length of the movie...But that doesn't happen here. Django Unchained is just a fun, shoot up film to enjoy while you guzzle your favorite beverage and eat voluminous amounts of your favorite snack.

Django Unchained ask you to swallow a lot too, all in the name of kitsch film making. We are introduced to the film with a promising start, the German bounty hunter (Christoph Waltz) is the one interesting character in the film. The German is smart, savvy and uses the letter of the law to his own advantage. With his silver tongue and fancy vocabulary he can get out of sticky situations.

SPOILER......Yet towards the climax of the film, the German stubbornly refuses to shake the hand of the plantation owner, after being forced to overpay for a slave. Because Quentin wants to get to the blood bath scene that follows, he has the German do something stupid and out of character.... he shoots the plantation owner, then turns and says, 'I couldn't help it' as he is cut down by a gunmen in the room. But wait! the bounty hunter is a fast draw and a crack shot and he had one more shot left in his derringer, but doesn't bother to use it...very illogical.

But that's what one expects when the director has to plaster his own face in the movie. Tarantino makes fast food films. Don't expect the characters to act true to their nature. The director doesn't care and he expects the audience won't either.

After all the only thing this movie is good for is a high body count. And you'll get that. Along with an annoyingly, ecliptic movie soundtrack. What a waste, this could have been a great film, but then again it's a Tarantino written and directed piece of entertainment.

rating_2_5




I agree with a lot of what you say about Django Unchained, but I wasn't bothered by the running time at all...I was so intrigued by going on that I didn't feel the length of the film at all.

[edarsenal]

I had seen a trailer for Miss Pettigrew some time ago and it looked very worthwhile, and after reading your review and comparing it to an old Carole Lombard movie, i will DEFINITELY be picking this one up at my local library this week.

THANKS for both the review and the reminder of a very good movie to watch.

[Citizen Rules]

Interesting you really like Big Eyes Citizen. I really wanted to, but I had really high hopes for it. It had 3 things that I really like in a film: Period Piece, Bio Pic, Interesting true story.

Did you see American Hustle CR? No I haven't seen it. I read about it and wasn't sure if it was my kind of film...but now that I see it has Amy Adams, I might just watch it:)

Have you seen Miss Potter, CR? I can't remember if I asked you this before or not, so I thought better safe than sorry. :D I don't think you did mention it. I did see Miss Potter, I liked it too. My wife loved it.

I agree with a lot of what you say about Django Unchained, but I wasn't bothered by the running time at all...I was so intrigued by going on that I didn't feel the length of the film at all.I'm kind of use to old films 1930s-50s and most of them were 90 minutes. Some of the early 1930s films were only 60 minutes. It seems films are getting longer and longer. That's OK if they need the time to tell the story but sometimes they end up padding the movie too much. Django Unchained, was a fast paced movie so I don't remember being bored.

[Citizen Rules]

Thanks to Honeykid for recommending the next movie I will review. I liked it too.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=40428

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=49155&stc=1&d=1540221935

The Hundred-Foot Journey (2014)


Director: Lasse Hallström
Cast: Helen Mirren, Om Puri, Manish Dayal, Charlotte Le Bon
Genre: Drama Romance Comedy
Length: 122 minutes

Premise: The Kadam family is a close knit Indian family who have a small open air restaurant in India. When it burns down they move to the country side in southern France. There they buy an old run down restaurant and start up a business specializing in Indian cuisine. One hundred feet away is a renowned Michelin Star restaurant, famous for serving traditionally French cuisine.

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=49158&stc=1&d=1540221955


Review: An interesting and fun little film, set in gorgeous southern France. Through this film we learn of another life, that of the restaurateur and aspiring chiefs who serve in the kitchen. Hassan played by Manish Dayal is a young man who understands that food has a spirit. His training is informal at the tutelage of his mother but his skill as a cook is unparalleled. In France however he's just another cook as he hasn't worked his way up to chief by the time honored methods. It's not an easy task either for this young Indian transplant to win over the traditional French.

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=49156&stc=1&d=1540221941

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=49157&stc=1&d=1540221947


Across the street is the highly acclaimed and award winning restaurant owned by the prideful Madame Mallory, played to perfection by Helen Mirren. She will go to any lengths to insure that the new upstart restaurant won't succeed.


Working at Madame Mallory's is another aspiring chief, Marguerite played by Charlotte Le Bon. She catches the eye of the young Hassan, but is hesitant to help out someone who could be her revival in the world of fine cuisine.

If this sounds silly, it's not, thanks to the director everything is kept in the believable range. A very lovely film to look at and the characters were accessible thanks to skillfully acting and direction.

rating_3_5+

[honeykid]

Glad you liked it, CR. :)

[Citizen Rules]

It's an easy film to like....and I like Indian cuisine too. Did Charlotte Le Bon look like a young Winona Ryder or what?

[honeykid]

She does a bit, but she's really reminding me of someone there and I can't place who it is.

[seanc]

She looks like Rose Byrne in the eyes. I see Winona too.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=49159&stc=1&d=1540222515

The Thing (1982)

Director: John Carpenter
Writers: Bill Lancaster(screenplay),John W. Campbell Jr(story)
Cast: Kurt Russell, Wilford Brimley, Keith David
Genre: Sci-Fi Horror


Premise: In the dead of winter in Antarctic an alien spacecraft is found frozen under the ice by a Norwegian research team....Later, some sort of alien creature-thing invades the U.S. research station. The men can't tell who's human and who's the Thing.

Review: I first watched The Thing in 1982 when it was released at the theater. On the big screen The Thing blew me away. The story was creepy and suspenseful and the setting in a remote Antarctic research station made the movie forbiddingly desperate. Kurt Russel is really cool in this one too. Without him I'm not sure if the movie would have worked as well as it did. I always considered this one of the greatest sci-fi films made.

It had been 15 years since I last seen it. Last night I revisited The Thing and I seen a different movie. Perhaps the 32 year old special horror effects just didn't stand up. Yes, I know it's not fair to judge an old movie by today's CG standards. But the close up horror/creature scenes were a distraction to me and got in the way of the real story, which is one of suspect, paranoia and suspense. The scenes in the Norwegian camp, and in the dog kennel were effective and added to the suspense, but some of the other scenes were over the top. As the camera zoomed in for a close up of the creature, I couldn't help but see the props as fake. There's an adage in film making 'show horror elements in brief, dark scenes'. I wish that had been done here.

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=49161&stc=1&d=1540222531


John Carpenter has style and a knack for flair, but he doesn't pay close attention to details. Had he been more detailed orientated, he could have made a tighter film. It's the small details that could have been changed that would have made this into a 5 star film.

The other aspect of the film that bugged me was the poor dialogue and characterizations. Some of the dialogue sounded like first draft stuff. Especially after they find a spaceship, and then find a dead mutant alien... then they see a dog transform into a hellish looking creature!...that's when we get the scene where Childs is playing the antagonist by calling BS on the idea that the Thing is from another world. Hell! he just seen a dog mutate into a monster, how much more convincing does he need?

On the plus side I wasn't bored, the movie is exciting and suspenseful...The Thing held my attention and I enjoyed it. Is it a master piece no, a fun flick, yes!

rating_4

[gbgoodies]

The Thing (1982)
John Carpenter is not the greatest director.



Be careful. Those sound like fighting words on this forum. :eek:

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=49425&stc=1&d=1541202170
Brazil (1985)
Director: Terry Gilliam
Writers: Terry Gilliam, Tom Stoppard
Cast: Jonathan Pryce, Kim Greist, Robert De Niro
Genre: Sci Fi
Length: 132-142 minutes

Premise: In an overly bureaucrat future a low level administrator tries to save the girl of his dreams by fixing an administrative error. His attempts are mistaken for terrorist activities, putting his life in peril.

Brazil...Is a highly stylized film by director Terry Gilliam. If you like Gilliam's work you'll love this one.

I loved the sets, they're the films strength. Brazil's unique view of the future with mundane items like old TVs and typewriters being retro-modified to have new 'futuristic' functions was very cool to see. The dark cavern like sets that seemed to go on forever added ambiance & atmosphere. The cinematography is well suited to the look and style of the film. This films stylish look set trends in movie & advertising and is still being emulated today.

But I didn't care for the story and was bored. I found myself checking how much longer the film had to go...and it was a long film! Too long at almost 2.5 hours. I could have done without the dream scenes. They took too much time and creating confusion as to what was real and what was a dream.

I felt like I never was introduced to the lead character, sure I knew he was a clerk stuck in a dead end job who dreamed...a lot! But I have no idea who or what he was about. There was a romance with a hard boiled woman who seemed an odd match for this simple clerk. Perhaps there's deeper meaning here. People claim there's hidden meaning in Gilliam's films, so you might need to watch this one more than once.

rating_3_5

[gbgoodies]

Brazil (1985)
People claim there's hidden meaning in Gilliam's films, so you might need to watch this one more than once.



I didn't hate Brazil, but I didn't like it enough to watch it a second time either. :shrug:

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=49426&stc=1&d=1541202374
The Weapon (1956)

Director: Val Guest
Cast: Steve Cochran, Lizabeth Scott, Herbert Marshall, Jon Whiteley
Genre: Suspense Thriller
Length: 77 minutes

Premise: In post war London among the bombed out ruins, a boy (Jon Whiteley) finds a hidden gun. Scared the boy runs away and goes into hiding. The gun turns out to be the missing clue in a 10 year old murder case. Both an American Army investigator (Steve Cochran) and a shady underworld man chase the boy down. Meanwhile his mother (Lizabeth Scott) is frantic to get her son back.

Review: What a neat find this film was! The Weapon is a little known British film, shot on location in the bombed out ruins of post war London. It's a tight, well done, unpretentious suspense thriller. Hitchcock fans and those who love classic British suspense films should definitely watch it. The story is told straight forward without the usual twist and turns. The opening scene powerfully hits the viewer straight in the gut.

The Weapon was Lizabeth Scott's second to last feature film. Lizabeth was a mainstay in film noirs playing the throaty, blonde femme fatale. She expertly plays a heartbroken mother who's wrought with worry over her missing son.

Jon Whiteley plays the hapless boy who's running scared. He doesn't have many lines, he doesn't need them...his facial expressions relay what we need to know.

The male lead is Scott Cochran, who does an fine job in his role. As does the British actor Herbert Marshall.

What I enjoyed most about the film was the tight story line, the acting and the actual scenes of post war London. This little known gem deserves a closer look.

rating_4

[Funny Face]

Yay! You're back! I hope you had a wonderful vacation! Missed your reviews!

[Citizen Rules]

Hi Funny Face! and Thanks!...I'm glad to be back it was a great vacation. Remember we discussed hiking, I did a good long hike in Alaska and wow was it beautiful. I'm going to make a thread about it as soon as I get my photos in order.

[Funny Face]

Looking forward to seeing your pictures! I'm looking up hikes for my next (and overdue) trip to Oregon. Did you go on a zipline when you were in Alaska? I feel like everyone I've spoken to that went on an Alaskan cruise talked about going on a zipline at some point.

[Citizen Rules]

Nope! I seen one and it was huge, very high and very long...but expensive like $135 for a few minute ride. That's more than I could afford.

This is the one I seen, Icy Strait Point zip line which is advertised as the world's longest at 5330 feet long, 1300 elevation drop.

A short 1 minute video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-Q-dYUdbvM

[Funny Face]

That is expensive but looks amazing!

[mark f]

Lizabeth Scott was actually 33 years old when she filmed The Weapon. :)

[honeykid]

But... The Thing was always a B-movie creature feature? I don't understand the putdown?

[Citizen Rules]

Lizabeth Scott was actually 33 years old when she filmed The Weapon. :) Thanks Mark, I suck at math, no kidding. I will edit my review to make her the correct age.

But... The Thing was always a B-movie creature feature? I don't understand the putdown? HK hi, I don't know why you and Sci-Fi slob thought I was putting down The Thing? I liked it! I gave it a rating_4.

I tend to be harsher in my critiquing on HoF films and films that are highly acclaimed. I would easily list The Thing in my top 50 sci fi films, maybe even top 25.

I don't think of The Thing as a B budget film only the several close up scenes of horror props felt B budget to me, but not the entire film. Deathrace 2000 is B budget. The Thing is an A list film (IMO). I just don't think Carpenter is the kind of director who polishes every last aspect of his film, the film could have had a few changes that would have made it better. But I'm not knocking it.

[Citizen Rules]

My next review will be thanks to a recommendation from GBgoodies,

This was part of my 2014 films recommendation thread.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=40428

[honeykid]

Sorry, when I hear B-movie it's usually a putdown. But The Thing is a B-movie. Pretty much all sci-fi and horror is B-material. It's not about budget.

[mark f]

Well, B-movie in that they're genre films. Basically all film noir are B-movies then too.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=49427&stc=1&d=1541202638
Predestination (2014)

Directors: Michael Spierig, Peter Spierig
Writers: Michael Spierig, Peter Spierig
Cast: Ethan Hawke, Sarah Snook, Noah Taylor
Genre: Sci-Fi Drama
Length: 97 minutes

Premise: A Temporal Agent travels through time to stop criminals before they can act. On his last assignment, Ethan Hawke pursues the Fizzle Bomber who has killed 1000's. While undercover in a bar he meets an unusual person who holds the key to stopping the bomber.

Review: The first five minutes of this film is a slick, fast paced, action sequence with rotating camera shots and ultra quick edits, ala Christopher Nolan style...After that one brief action scene the film settles down into a deep reflective drama that takes place in a bar between two unusual people.

For a bar bet the customer tells the barkeep their amazing life story. Through well crafted flash backs we see this person's life unfold on the screen. We see their unique and painful life, starting as an abandoned child growing up in an orphanage. We see the life changing experiences that alter this persons very being.

This is one of the few films that has held me spell bound. I swear I had to remind myself to breath as all of my attention was deeply focused on this most unusual story.

Ethan Hawke is fine as the barkeep, he keeps the emotional level low which brings focus to Sarah Snook's fine performance. She won an AACTA Award for Best Lead Actress for this role...and she deserved it. I can't tell you much of the story without revealing the surprising elements, but her performance alone is worth watching.

The third act, at the end of the film departed from the core feeling of the movie. It had more of a Hollywood twisting big ending feel to it. Not a bad ending but it lacked the power that most of the film exhibited.

I give the opening 5 minutes and the last scenes, 3.5 stars. I give the core of the movie a strong 5 stars. Overall my rating is
rating_4

[gbgoodies]

I'm glad you liked Predestination. I liked it a lot, and I thought that you would probably like it too.

[Citizen Rules]

Sorry, when I hear B-movie it's usually a putdown. But The Thing is a B-movie. Pretty much all sci-fi and horror is B-material. It's not about budget.
I'll try to remember for future reviews that some view the term 'B-movie' as a putdown. I have my own meaning, but if I don't make myself clear then I didn't do a good job at writing.

Personally, I agree B movie is not about a cheap budget (but it often includes low budget films). To me a B movie is a feeling that the film is not trying to be high-brow or great, but is trying to be fun and doesn't take itself serious. DeathRace 2000 is to me a great B movie. I don't find The Thing to be a B budget movie as it seemed to be way more serious than that.

But there is no wrong or right definitions of B movie just our personally definitions.

I will edit my review on The Thing so it can more clearly reflect want I wanted to relay to the reader.

[Citizen Rules]

I'm glad you liked Predestination. I liked it a lot, and I thought that you would probably like it too. In the first few minutes it was a bit graphic and I wondered if I had gotten the same movie you had watched. But then it got good. Oh and my wife liked it too.