Meatwadsprite's Slow Review Thread

→ in
Tools    





Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
I'm giving you a big for that review. That's even higher than I rate it, but I don't mind. Have you seen The Incredibles again recently? Apparently, you didn't like it, but that's difficult for me to believe if you love Ratatouille.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



I'm giving you a big for that review. That's even higher than I rate it, but I don't mind. Have you seen The Incredibles again recently? Apparently, you didn't like it, but that's difficult for me to believe if you love Rataouille.
I've seen the incredibles way too many times - and really don't enjoy it at all. The dialouge and characters are incredibly cheesy. I really didn't connect with like many people (and you) did I guess.

But i'm glad we can agree on Ratatouille being a great film.
__________________



A Clockwork Orange (2 viewings)



Plot : Teenager Alex and his friends that he calls his "droogs" - go around killing and raping people : but it isn't a horrible crime to them - it's just a bit of fun.

Story : The first half of the movie is all about Alex and his friends - with scenes of them killing and raping people set to simple cheery music. Your also introduced to Alex's parents (he lives with them) and a little into his past. One day Alex hits one of his droogs in public to "teach him respect". So his other friends decide to betray him. That's where the second half begins - right as Alex escapes from a house where he killed a woman , his friends hit him on the head with a glass of milk : and that's where the story loses it's emotion. Alex is caught by the police and forced to watch violence and misery with his favorite composer Beethoven for the soundtrack. Somehow this manipulates his brain into not ever being able to commit acts of violence again. Once he is released out of jail after a embarrassing self controll test , people he atacked or hurt in the first half of the movie : have their revenge on him in a number of ways. The thing about the second half though - is it's huge lack of music : and focus on other characters. Unlike the first half and more like Kubrick's other films I've seen it's just boring and useless to the story.

Visuals and Action : The movie is visually brilliant as well in the first half and then super boring to look at the second half. So i guess the film does a good job at sucking us into how much life sucks for Alex after he gets arrested *the world he inhabits is no longer visually stunning* - but that dosen't matter because really it's just not a good enough excuse for the visuals to be bland. The first half on the other hand features crazy designed houses and very weird public places : like where they start off in a bar type of place , with naked women as tables and milk machines (not real women of course). Also , there are prashes and words printed all over the bar , none which i understand : but it still gives that visuall effect. The action scenes also are pretty intense as well : and most of the time played out with fun music - but one thing you gota hate , is the horribly fake looking green screen car scene.

Sypnosis : Amazing first half filled with though provoking material and characters that are very real and very full of life - followed by an emotional-less second half with boring visuals and no music.




I thought the behaviour modification stuff in the second half was far from boring I have seen this movie many times and never tire of it I still have to look away in the rape scenes
__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha



Thursday Next's Avatar
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Once he is released out of jail after a embarrassing self controll test , people he atacked or hurt in the first half of the movie : have their revenge on him in a number of ways. The thing about the second half though - is it's huge lack of music : and focus on other characters. Unlike the first half and more like Kubrick's other films I've seen it's just boring and useless to the story.
I don't think you can really dismiss the entire second half of a movie as 'just boring and useless to the story'! The second half is the story, it is about the punishment and whether it is right and the reactions of Alex's victims, especially those who campaign to help him. The first half is merely scene-setting and character-introduction. That said, the first half is a lot more interesting, it is where we get all the visuals you like, the scenery and the overall weirdness of the dystopian world. The effect of this wears off by the second half, with the prison scenes almost not weird enough.

The 'lack of music' in the second half is surely deliberate, though - Alex has had aversion therapy to music as well as to rape and murder.

I thought it was interesting that you called the 'self control test' embarrassing. Did you mean for Alex, or the viewer (or even Kubrick?) This is the real weak point of the film for me, as the treatment of the woman being paraded in front of him was little better than the rapes Alex committed earlier. Perhaps this, too, is deliberate, as the morality of the police and psychologists in subjecting Alex to the aversion therapy is clearly under question. However, it seemed to me that the camera is complicit in the misogyny on display and this put me off the film quite a bit.



O Brother Where Art Thou ? (1 viewing)



Plot : Three escaped convicts go on a crazy adventure for a huge treasure.

Story : Everett (George Clooney) , Pete (John Turturro) , and Pete (Tim Nelson) escape from their rock smashing days and journy onward toward a magnificent treasure. They encounter many odd situations and twists untill they end up in a bigger scale of importance than they ever thought they would. On their journey they encounter a hitchhiker/guitar player who says he sold his soul to the devil to learn to play his instrument , the same devil who then hunts down the main characters the rest of the movie (though very breif his scenes are). Some themes of trust and religion are thrown in there to enhance the characters further - keeping it a pretty great story to keep you watching to the end.

Humor : The movie's entire plot and themes are very funny in a subtle way with some laugh out loud parts throught the movie - it never gets dark for a long period of time : and you'll probably never fear for the characters : with such a funny essence about them.

Ending : One of the biggest - out of nowhere - endings . Two other main characters aren't even shown in the ending , but it's a lot more in place than others : because of it's continuing theme of the characters not ever progressing "and when they do it's by extreme luck".

Visuals : Out of the Coen films i've seen so far , this is easily their visual best. Amazing cinemetography for the majority of the movie , although it's colors dominated by pretty boring dusty settings : will continually visually awe you.

Sypnosis : Although it's story is a lot more straightforward than the majority of the Coen films , it still missing some big developments like many great stories : though the visuals and humorous style of it won't let you down on. (I've never read The Odyssey by the way)




You're entitled to your opinion, but I admit, once again I can't make any sense of your reasoning. What do you mean by "missing some big developments"? The movie is one significant event after another, but even so, it's not as if movies even need "big developments" to be good; it all depends on what they're about, and what type of film they're trying to be.



You're entitled to your opinion, but I admit, once again I can't make any sense of your reasoning. What do you mean by "missing some big developments"? The movie is one significant event after another, but even so, it's not as if movies even need "big developments" to be good; it all depends on what they're about, and what type of film they're trying to be.
Nothing ever happens to the characters by the end - aside from being free from prison : which they are in the entire movie. Also , a story without big developments really isn't a story - it's a description of a still setting.



Nothing ever happens to the characters by the end - aside from being free from prison : which they are in the entire movie.
All these things happen to the main characters (in no particular order):

WARNING: "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" spoilers below
  • Pete's cousin tries to turn him in
  • Pete and Delmar are baptized
  • Pete and Delmar are beaten and robbed
  • They're pardoned
  • They become famous musicians
  • They befriend Tommy, who sold his soul to the devil
  • They infiltrate a KKK meeting to save Tommy
  • They meet an infamous bank robber
  • Everett wins his wife back
Oh, and if that's not enough, their actions inadvertantly secure the reelection of the Governor.

Why do these things not qualify as "big developments"? What would qualify as a "big development"?

Also , a story without big developments really isn't a story - it's a description of a still setting.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean, and I can't come up with any meaning that accurately describes O Brother, Where Art Thou?.

As I pointed out before, however, movies don't just have to be about events. They can be about emotions. They can be character studies. These are stories just as much as a film full of twists and turns. If you don't have the patience or preference (or both) for such films, that's fine, but your critique then becomes a statement about you, and not about the film.



More reviews coming soon (with predictions)
---------------------------
No Country For Old Men - going to see it tomorrow


Oceans Eleven - have rented out


Die Hard 4 - going to rent


Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2007) - going to rent


Jackass : The Movie - going to rent



All these things happen to the main characters (in no particular order):

WARNING: "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" spoilers below
  • Pete's cousin tries to turn him in
  • Pete and Delmar are baptized
  • Pete and Delmar are beaten and robbed
  • They're pardoned
  • They become famous musicians
  • They befriend Tommy, who sold his soul to the devil
  • They infiltrate a KKK meeting to save Tommy
  • They meet an infamous bank robber
  • Everett wins his wife back
Oh, and if that's not enough, their actions inadvertantly secure the reelection of the Governor.

Why do these things not qualify as "big developments"? What would qualify as a "big development"?


I don't know what this is supposed to mean, and I can't come up with any meaning that accurately describes O Brother, Where Art Thou?.

As I pointed out before, however, movies don't just have to be about events. They can be about emotions. They can be character studies. These are stories just as much as a film full of twists and turns. If you don't have the patience or preference (or both) for such films, that's fine, but your critique then becomes a statement about you, and not about the film.
All these events have such little impact on the story though - the film has a way of sweeping aside such important things (like how they are supposed to be escaped criminals , but then are never chased beyond the begining of the movie). Also , his wife is seemingly mad at him again : because he didn't get the ring , and we don't even see the other 3 characters at all in the ending.



All these events have such little impact on the story though
They are the story.

the film has a way of sweeping aside such important things (like how they are supposed to be escaped criminals , but then are never chased beyond the begining of the movie)
Yes, they are. Remember the scene where the barn is on fire? That's the authorities trying to smoke them out. Remember when they have to abandon their car because the authorities discover it? Remember when they have to wear false beards to hide from the authorities? Remember when the authorities try to hang them at the end of the film?

Honestly man, sometimes it feels like you just don't like something about a movie, and then try to come up with reasons to justify it.

Also , his wife is seemingly mad at him again : because he didn't get the ring , and we don't even see the other 3 characters at all in the ending.
Yes, his wife got mad at him. I'm not sure I see your point there. We see the other two characters right up until the very last scene. Do we need to see them all walking off together for some reason?

And again, I ask: what are "big developments," and why do all films need to have them? Why can't some films just be about people and relationships? Are you saying you simply don't like those sorts of films?



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
I think it's pretty clear that Meaty likes his films with easily identifiable plots and straightforward action that you can see on the screen, and I like those kind of movies too. But trust me, Meaty, the longer you stick here, the more you will like other kinds of movies, so don't give up on us and I will not give up on you. Just open up that big head of yours and realize that story, plot and synopsis are all the same thing. Now, what is the movie about? That's totally different than those other three.



I think it's pretty clear that Meaty likes his films with easily identifiable plots and straightforward action that you can see on the screen, and I like those kind of movies too. But trust me, Meaty, the longer you stick here, the more you will like other kinds of movies, so don't give up on us and I will not give up on you. Just open up that big head of yours and realize that story, plot and synopsis are all the same thing. Now, what is the movie about? That's totally different than those other three.



They are the story.


Yes, they are. Remember the scene where the barn is on fire? That's the authorities trying to smoke them out. Remember when they have to abandon their car because the authorities discover it? Remember when they have to wear false beards to hide from the authorities? Remember when the authorities try to hang them at the end of the film?

Honestly man, sometimes it feels like you just don't like something about a movie, and then try to come up with reasons to justify it.


Yes, his wife got mad at him. I'm not sure I see your point there. We see the other two characters right up until the very last scene. Do we need to see them all walking off together for some reason?

And again, I ask: what are "big developments," and why do all films need to have them? Why can't some films just be about people and relationships? Are you saying you simply don't like those sorts of films?
It's clear you don't see the film the same way I do , no reason to argue about it back and forth : you think of it as a story with very important events that impact the characters a lot , and i think of it as a sort of movie that has important events but dosen't ever change the character's (a great example is when they get saved by the dam - and then he changes his mind that he dosen't belive in god - this however just adds to the funny tone of the movie , but knocks it from having a great story)

I know a movie dosen't have to follow a specific standard every time , but this is one I feel should have characters that change.



Bee Movie (1 viewing)



Plot : A bee who refuses to accept his role as a worker in the hive - defies all bee laws and boundries to find a bigger thing to do with his life.

Story : The characters are paper thin , is defintly the first thing you should know before walking into this movie. Barry B (Jerry Seinfield) has just graduated from his 3 days of school and is now thrown right into the honey making industry where he will work the same job for the rest of his life . Unconvinced by this job he flies outside of the hive and meets a human woman who befriends him. Only soon into their relationship he finds out about the mass marketing of honey and goes to court to sue all the honey corperations. Now this story is pretty off the wall in terms of what you would normally expect out of a seemingly predictable movie like this , but it's characters are useless - they're just pods for the dialouge to come out from : with no emotions (aside from the main character Barry who actually has some in the beginning).

Humor : I never laughed out loud ever during the film , maybe I was going in with too high expectations - but there are some funny parts throughout the film : and some general themes about the preservation of life (bees in the movie accept death amazingly well).

Visuals : It's cool gigantic first person bee flying sprees are fun to watch , but when you compare this to the recent Ratatouille : the 3D is quite laughable. Tons of amazing detail that you have come to expect from Pixar studios is obviously lacking here.

Sypnosis : Fast paced out of controll story (with a couple cliche's thrown in there) with no characters and a lacking visual punch.




No Country For Old Men (1 viewing)



Plot : A man out hunting one day comes across the conclusion of a shootout where he finds a huge amount of a money , meanwhile a killer with nerves of steel tracks him down - killing anyone he meets along the way.

Story : Defintly a mixed bag of suspense and characters - though it's lack of music and extremely extended scenes do not help move the story faster. A simple man who finds a lot of money somehow knows he's being followed and makes a plan to escape with his wife - but this turns into a coincidence filled failure as this killer tracks him down time and time again. The cop investigating this (Tommy Lee Jones) never seems to help at all , he's just there as a super pointless character that never changes anything. Though the amazing use of the coin flip and fun suspense is thought provoking and fun the first time : i can't say it would be much of any fun the second time watching this movie.

Action and Suspense : As I stated before there is no music at all to be found in this film for the most part (maybe one song plays for 20 seconds) , which really is a horrible choice for any film : but it defintly brings the suspense to a whole new level for this first viewing. Gunshots and explosions always make a big impact - with so much silence in the movie , but again - your not going to be suprised by them as much when you watch the movie a second time.

Ending : Another film that seems to be leading up to something and ends out of nowhere. It dosen't conclude anything and just further developes the incredible out of place character : the cop.

Visuals : Top notch cinemetography for the most part with some breathtaking scenes that will blow your mind. Though the tired and boring desert setting sure gets anoying by the end of the film : and there fail to be any "mind blowing" scenes after the half way mark.

Sypnosis : So many bad ideas combinde into some breath taking visuals and brutal action scenes. The weakest Coen brothers film I've seen - defintly didn't live up to the hype : with such a bland ending and pointless characters.