Justin's Review Thread

The Innocents (Jack Clayton,1961)



Superb technical work, that's for sure. If only the rest of the film had been as flawless. The story itself is solid, but, to be truthful, I never felt any of the suspense. Sure, it was there in the lighting and photography, but we need more than that. I felt let down by the ending, which sort of left me with an apathetic feeling about the overall conclusion; not exactly the "thoughtful" ending I had wanted, even if they asked more questions. It's still worth seeing, but the "thrills" and "scares" didn't add up to enough to make the film cohesive (far too inconsistent). There were definitely great moments -- like one particular sequence that used fades very well -- but other scenes sort of fell flat.

Ummm... there were NO "dream" sequences. You really think The House of the Devil is better than this? Go to this thread please.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Well, I couldn't find another way to describe it, but I guess "dream sequence" wasn't the right choice of words. But I hope you got my point, anyway.

The House of The Devil is flawed, as well, in my opinion. The ending seemed to kill a lot of the momentum; the film couldn't quite live up to its dramatic build-up. It's not so much as "better", but accomplished exactly what it set out to do. I thought the tension was raised very well by using relatively "minor" mundane details of every day life (but certainly not all of them were mundane details, like the creepy phone call). It operated as a 70's throwback to horror films of that era, so in that way, it worked pretty well.

The Innocents is a solid film, but wasn't suspenseful enough for me. Sorry I didn't enjoy it as much as you did, mark. I liked it, and I thought the directing (like the two-shot close-ups, and the sweeping camera from close-up to close-up) and photography was solid, but it didn't completely win me over on the first viewing. So, most likely, there will be a second viewing, just to be sure.....

Is Greenburg (or anything with Ben Stiller) worth wasting a Netflix slot on?

No, it's worth seeing, especially if you like Noah Baumbach (assuming you've seen any of his work). Stiller is good and makes the film pretty watchable.

No, nothing with Ben Stiller is worth wasting a Netflix slot on.

I loved The innocents. Loved. It. There weren't any classic thrills and scares sequences, just a brilliant sense of macabre uneasiness and ambiguity. Some of the photography was kinda unbelievable considering the period it was shot. Definitely one of the biggest and most pleasant surprises of the past year for me.

__________________
http://www.last.fm/user/diezelpower/

Rhys Ifans also gets a nice serious role in the film.

Plus there's also Greta Gerwig who plays Greenberg's love interst. She seems to be a young hypenate: Writer / Director / Actor / Singer, etc, etc. This was the first time I noticed her and she's obviously super talented; and someone to watch in the future.

Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story (Todd Haynes,1987)



Told with the use of barbies dolls and symbols, Superstar is a disturbing collage concerning Karen Carpenter's struggle with anorexia. I can honestly say that it's incredibly well constructed. The barbie dolls work perfectly in relation to the film itself, where literally everything is a metaphor. Sometimes, the film will almost go into a hallucinatory trip into stock footage and symbolic imagery. Truly a very unique experiment that ultimately works very well. I highly recommend everyone see this if they haven't already; however, it is banned, so it might be a little difficult to get a hold of. But, if you can, do it.

Right now, I'm a little torn between either a "4" or a "4.5", but we'll see how it holds up after a few days.

from what ?

__________________

All copies were destroyed in accordance with a lawsuit filed by Richard Carpenter. Haynes never had clearance for any of the material that he used in the film.

So I won't be able to see it How come you have seen it Jus?

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

It's on the Internet - hell, I just typed "superstar karen carpenter story" into Google and got the whole thing courtesy of Google Video.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Hmm, yours is the only negative review of The Crazies I have read, Just. I've yet to see the film myself but I reckon it'll be alright. Still interesting to have a different perspective on it though.

Bronson (Nicolas Winding Refn,2008)



Great performance by Tom Hardy and nice, energetic filmmaking by Refn. Bronson does do well with the topic of exploitation-meets-art, but it doesn't feel cohesive. One could argue that the superficial nature of the film is intentional, where we only see a "circus" like performer, but whether or not this works completely is what is up for debate. It fails to fully engage the viewer where we're inside of his head; instead, we're sort of left out in the cold. Again, this may be on purpose, but it didn't work completely for me. Bronson is definitely good and worth watching for Hardy's engaging and psychotic performance, but it falls a little short.

Kick-Ass (Matthew Vaughn,2010)



There are some very violent scenes which may be off-putting to many, but I think the violence brings down the "superhero myth", so, in that way, it is effective. For most of the film, Dave spends his time being beaten up. This was a pretty nice touch to the film: harsh, violent reality meets comic books. Of course, many could say that this may be done to death, but Kick-Ass still brings some refreshing material to the idea. However, Kick-Ass does feel a little clunky at times; it attempts to delve into the relationship between Dave and Katie which comes off as contrived and forced, or when the voice-over basically states what is happening in the scene. Dave, as a character, is never really that interesting; he only seems to serve as an emotional backbone for the film, but it doesn't really work. But, that might not be the center of attention when one is viewing this type of film, though it does become distracting. Putting all that aside, Kick-Ass works well in entertainment and orchestrating some pretty cool action sequences.

Chloe (Atom Egoyan,2009)



Egoyan directs a pretty decent sexual thriller, but it ultimately doesn't quite live up to its full potential. All of the acting is solid, with the exception of Max Thieriot. Chloe is dramatized a little too much with saccharine music and other manipulations that feel a little too calculated. There is definitely some nice photography and a few good scenes, but the first act is bland, which doesn't altogether work. Also, there is a pretty nice touch to the story and reveal, which certainly makes things difficult for the viewer. Egoyan shows strong direction with motifs and good set design, however the film isn't nearly as powerful as his masterpiece, The Sweet Hereafter (1997). Chloe feels hurried and incomplete, but it is worth viewing, if not just for the good acting and strong theme.

I watched it in class. The teacher had a copy of it on VHS.

The Losers (Sylvain White,2010)



Incredibly dull and uninteresting. All of the jokes and one-liners fell flat, right along with the action. There are certain allowances that I'll make for action films, but the script was downright lazy; when a script is poor and underdeveloped, you can't really ignore it and make excuses. Kick-Ass, however, had a reasonably competent script that maintained a certain level of energy. The Losers was just boring.

Skip it.

Drag Me to Hell (Sam Raimi,2009) (second viewing)



Even on a second viewing, I still love this film. There is a lot to like about Drag Me to Hell, whether it be the stylistic cinematography, the over-the-top acting or the "gross out" scenes - it all leads to a fun ride into Raimi's signature style and genre. It isn't perfect, but it is definitely one of the most entertaining films I've seen in the past few years. I could watch it over and over again.

This is what he should be doing.

Will give the Losers a miss

Harry Brown (Daniel Barber,2010)



Definitely not an easy film to watch. Harry Brown's first act is undeniably solid, however, the film somehow descends into ridiculousness and excess. With the first act in mind, one is led to believe that the film is almost minimalist, but it slowly devolves into a mess. There are several disturbing scenes that could've been cut, and one scene early in the second act that could've easily been shortened. There are some good themes, but they are ultimately lost in the ridiculousness of the entire scenario in the 2nd and 3rd act.

Unfortunately the film doesn't really work. It's not a bad film, but it's not really a good one, either.