What movies have you seen lately? Now with reviews!Movies 

  • Thread starter scentedsoap
  • 8,212 comments
  • 493,151 views
thewrestlerposter2.jpg


The Wrestler (2008)

Incredible performance by Mickey Rourke, as much for his physical ability as for his acting, which was excellent throughout... Pretty much as I expected though, and not exactly unpredictable by any stretch of the imagination. But it's believable, well acted, and an interesting watch, even if it doesn't spring many surprises. Something tells me that this film's rating as #117 on the IMDB Top 250 is perhaps a bit misleading. But I expect that it may merit a place in there, albeit a bit lower than it's current place! 8/10

life-of-brian-blu-ray.jpg


Life of Brian (Blu-ray edition) (1979)

The best just got better, and the film looks great in HD. It's not perfect, though - the image is still slightly grainy, and it doesn't look as good as many other films I've seen on Blu-ray. However, the improvement over the DVD version is huge. Many scenes look fab now, and I noticed alot more detail, even after having seen the film on video and DVD so many times.

The Blu-ray comes with a one-hour documentary about the film and the controversy it caused, which has some great archive footage and exclusive interviews with the cast, which is incredibly funny in places. There are also two commentary tracks by the Pythons themselves which I have yet to listen to, as well as a handful of deleted scenes, including the infamous character Otto (the Nazi Jew!). Sadly, the "making of" film included on the DVD and made while they were making the film in 1979 is missing, so it looks like I'll be holding on to my DVD version after all...

As for the film, what else can I say except that this is Monty Python at their supreme best, and comedy doesn't get much better than that. The film remains controversial for some people, and even I don't fully buy the idea that the Pythons weren't taking the pee out of religion (yeh, and 'Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds' is about a painting, gotcha!), but the manner in which they do it is so brilliant and funny, you'd have to have had a serious sense of humour bypass not to enjoy it. All in all, despite the slight shortcomings in picture quality and the lack of the short film from '79, this is an easy 10/10
 
I might have to see the Wrestler now. I've been interested in seeing it, but just not enough to actually get it. Diego gotta know how that is, considering the numbers of films he goes through.
The rest of the movie was a let down.
Noooooo! :lol:
 
Let The Right One In



A vampire horror and romance story, but not in the conventional Hollywood sense. Set in Sweden during the early '80's this is quite a bleak film, but one with a warming heart. It revolves around a 12 year old boy, largely ignored by his busy, separated parents and picked on at school by bullies. His life is quite lonely until he meets the similar aged, but slightly odd, girl whose just moved in next door.

As a horror it's neither gruesome or jumpy. It's very low budget, has little in the way of plot twists or shocks and the acting by the two young main characters is quite down beat. What it does have is originality and charm.
8/10
 
I think I've already gone over my share of vampire movies of this lifetime. I'll have to see it and see why you've given it an 8 after such an negative review.



Clockwise (1986) -- Kind of a light comedy, which really offers little else and lacks a complete sense of reality. Most of it seems like a bunch of comedy sketches spliced together with a common theme, though not much in the ways of plot. Also, the movie seems to end in the middle of itself. My guess is that by then they were already at the 90 minute mark and rather than make a 3 hour feature, they decided to leave it at that. John Cleese plays the headmaster of a high school in England where he sets himself, his staff and pupils very high standards. On the way to a conference at which he is to talk, all manner of disasters strike. The movie isn't that bad, but it's thanks to Cleese and the fact that he's a funny guy. The rest of the movie is a one-way road to mediocriville. 5.5/10
 
Cracker's vampire film, I've been coming close to seeing it for several weeks now. :lol:

It's on my Netflix instant watch, so I can watch it "on demand". It has very high rating from the renters on there as well. 👍
 
I got a few movies today:
  • Byôsoku 5 senchimêtoru (2007)
  • Anything Else (2003)
  • Ôdishon (1999)
  • Happy-Go-Lucky (2008)
  • The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009)
  • The Hangover (2009) (had to buy it!)
 
Yeah, I'm practicing my Japanglish :D And it is indeed Miike's one.




Happy-Go-Lucky (2008) -- A look at a few chapters in the life of Poppy, a cheery, colorful, North London schoolteacher whose optimism tends to exasperate those around her. And when I say she's happy, I mean she's annoyingly happy, insanely cheerful, depressingly optimistic and psychotically 'Up!', most of the time. Then there's Scott, Poppy's driving instructor. Scott is the very antithesis of happy. Scott is rigid, angry, frustrated, impatient, knotted up and racist. A borderline OCD sufferer, who is tortured by who-knows-what in his past. Scott is the most bitter and overwhelming character ever. Though the movie doesn't center on Scott, it does on Poppy and everything that goes on around her, of which Scott plays a little part. That being said, the movie is too "meh" at times, though the actor who plays Scott (Eddie Marsan) deserves a huge tip of the hat... amazing performance. I'd be tempted to give this movie a higher rating were it more conclusive, but it's not. So 6/10
 
Last edited:
I think I've already gone over my share of vampire movies of this lifetime. I'll have to see it and see why you've given it an 8 after such an negative review.

Didn't mean it to sound negative. Just tried to distance it from your usual vampire flick, because it isn't really one. To be fair it's a very European style relationship film, quite slow moving and reflective, it just happens to have a strong vampire element in it too, but not your usual fare.

It's been a couple of days since i've seen it now and on reflection i might ave given it a 8.5 or 9.
 


Jabberwocky (1977) -- Sheesh, what an absolute bore! I've always been a fan of Terry Gilliam, but he made this movie right after Monty Python and the Holy Grail, but tries to draw so much of the Grail attention into this one that it's just sickening. Whereas Grail was like a series of sketches interwined with a common theme and all scenes were very funny alone, and hilarious when in the whole movie; Jabberwocky is an attempt at making it all one movie with no sketches in between. The result is an utterly boring and predictable comedy that imitates Grail in almost every way but relies on stupidity and awkwardness to be funny, rather than the script, dialogues and characters. Jabberwocky has one central character (Michael Palin) who is surrounded by unfunny characters trying to steal the show. I can't seem to find anything positive about this movie. 2/10
 
I somehow watched 15 minutes of Kung Pow Enter the Fist. I know they were trying to make fun of kung fu movies, but did they have to make it so cheesy?


(btw is was just one of those local movie of the week things on a local channel)
 
I somehow watched 15 minutes of Kung Pow Enter the Fist. I know they were trying to make fun of kung fu movies, but did they have to make it so cheesy?


(btw is was just one of those local movie of the week things on a local channel)
Have you seen Kung Fu Hustle? Pokes fun at Kung Fu movies, too, but still keeps to actual fighting, just put in a far-fetched way. :P
 
That was pretty good, but I liked the Shaolin Soccer better.



Hmmm. I remember it being much funnier.
 
Last edited:


No Man's Land (2001) -- Set in Bosnia and Herzegovina during 1993 at the time of the heaviest fighting between the two warring sides. Two soldiers from opposing sides in the conflict, Nino and Ciki, become trapped in no man's land, whilst a third soldier is becomes a living booby trap. Like many Euro movies, the lines in characters isn't pretty blurry here, since there's no real good or bad guy; one moment you're rooting for one guy, the next for the other. However, the soldiers are presented as human beings who are real and fight for their country, though they're pretty hazy as to what their country or their religion is. The movie is also about the many ups and downs of bureaucracy and the UN's role in aiding countries at war by deciding to remain neutral and just stand by as other kill each other. It's basically in Bosnian with few parts in English, French and German, so if you're going to watch it, go for the subtitles. 7.5/10
 
My wife and I watched a couple of movies this weekend:

The soloist - (9/10)
A journalist writes about a homeless musician and they form a relationship. This is well done. I really question whether Robert Downey Jr. or Jamie Foxx had the ability to truly pull this off. Their attempts at serious roles often come off a bit odd, but they pulled this off nicely. It is a good story that is well acted and well presented. The only complaint is that it slows down a lot in the middle and I felt it lost focus on the music and talent and spent time mainly on the writer's own growth. This could have been done better, because the film was not designed to make us really care about the writer, at least it doesn't feel that way.

Green Lantern: First Flight - (8.5/10)
It is good, but there is something missing when you have an origin story and an arch villain rivalry all happen within ~90 minutes. It just felt a bit rushed and so we had very little time to get to know our characters. The inevitable betrayal lost its effect because we hadn't grown attached to the character. And in the end we know very little about Hal Jordan on Earth. I think a two part storyline would have been better. Movie one being about the origin and Hal needing to stop a threat to Earth, and then the second movie following the Green Lantern Corps defeat tale.

One thing I can say about the DC animated movies that I have seen so far is that they haven't taken the route of updating the origin stories to present day. Justice League is during the Cold War and now Green Lantern is in an undated post WWII, pre-space race age. All Marvel animated stories have taken on the Ultimate version, which is a more updated telling. The only non-change being Captain America's WWII backstory. They still work well and prevent confusing new fans created by the recent live-action films, but us old school comic fans miss out on our golden and silver age backstories.
 
Milk-tf.org-free-2008.jpg


Milk (2008)

Was looking forward to this after hearing some good reviews, and although I enjoyed it, I was slightly disappointed. For someone who didn't know the story or who doesn't know much about the gay rights activist movement in 1970's America, it is an interesting true story, with some familiar parallels to issues that continue to resonate today. As such, it's an important film with a worthwhile message. The highlight of the movie is undoubtedly Sean Penn's Academy Award-winning performance in the lead role - once again, Penn proves himself to be one of the finest actors of his generation, and he brings the character to life. The supporting cast are also strong, even if the movie doesn't engender much in the way for interest in any of them except Milk and Dan White... It is a very good film, but it doesn't quite reach the emotional peaks that it tries to attain. 7/10
 


Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) -- Probably one of the best stoner movies in history and further proof that 1998 was a great year for movies (like The Big Lebowski ;)). For those who don't know what it's about, I suggest watching it, now. It's about an oddball journalist (johnny Depp) and his psychopathic lawyer (Benicio del Toro), who travel to Las Vegas for a series of psychedelic escapades, and the whole thing is about so many drug-induced trips. It's also directed by Terry Gilliam, so you know you're in for a very psychedelic experience. Especially when these two guys go to Vegas with:
...two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a saltshaker half-full of cocaine, and a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers... Also, a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether, and two dozen amyls.

Great movie. 8,5/10




The Adventures of Bob & Doug McKenzie: Strange Brew (1983) -- So there's these two guys, eh; and they like, drink a lot of beer eh and they're from Canada eh? And they like to do some stuff, eh... but they like to do it with beer eh?

Much like Tremors, and Rocky Horror, some people love this film, some people hate this film, the rest haven't seen it yet. Definite cult classic and wrong in every way, but very enjoyable as long as you don't take anything seriously. The movie suffers from what any 80s (almost) B-movie comedy suffers from and that's lack of funding (mainly), so people act horribly, the effects are defficient and almost 30 years later, the movie doesn't hold. But, as I said, it's fun, eh? 6/10
 
Wow Bob & Doug McKenzie, now there is a duo I haven't heard about in a long time. I don't think I ever saw that film though, might be worth a look though as I like cult classics.
 
Slightly off-topic, but since this thread is the main one where we talk about IMDb movie ratings, it is relevant :D I am a tad suspicious of many IMDb movie ratings, especially new movies which tend to score much more highly than they should - probably because they get more votes than older films, but IMDb insist that their rating system accounts for such factors and is a good reflection of popular opinion. Here, ladies and gentlemen, is definitive proof that there is something wildly awry with how IMDb calculate their scores:

bondmovieimdbrankings.gif

Now, my taste in Bond movies is probably not that widely shared, but surely "Casino Royale" (2006) is not really the best Bond movie ever made? And, without a shadow of doubt, "Quantum of Solace" is not the 6th best Bond movie ever made... :ill:

I wonder, is this just people voting with their feet? Is it because the older films are slightly dated now? Or is it just the volume of people who have seen the films, or who have seen the films on the big screen? Either way, there is surely something wrong when Casino Royale (2006) is top, and Quantum of Solace outranks Diamonds Are Forever..?!
 
I wonder, is this just people voting with their feet? Is it because the older films are slightly dated now? Or is it just the volume of people who have seen the films, or who have seen the films on the big screen? Either way, there is surely something wrong when Casino Royale (2006) is top, and Quantum of Solace outranks Diamonds Are Forever..?!
Older people, like my dad, do not go there and rate movies, yet he is a die hard Bond fan and dislikes the new Casino Royale.

If I had to guess, the majority of these ratings are by people who haven't watched the older movies before being pulled in by the past decade's films.
 
Casino Royale (2006) is the best bond movie ever made. I've gone back and watched some of those older ones since, and I think IMDB has it right.
 
@TouringMars: IMDb ratings come from everyone but most voters are below 45 years old, so that's definitely got to count towards something. Also, while I've seen most of the movies in the Top 250 (:D), I have to say I don't agree with many, or rather the position of many. For instance, The Shawshank Redemption, though it's a good movie, I don't think it's the best movie ever made (it fluctuates between #3 and #1 all the time). Votes towards the Top 250 are taken from "regular" voters, but that's another issue.

But it also happens that IMDb's scores are taken from user's votes mainly, so while critics may rave about how good or bad a movie is, it's the votes that count in the scoring.




Brüno (2009) -- I'm still not sure how much I liked this one. Though I had the same 'insecurity' about the score with Borat until I gave it a second chance. I think I had more laughing bursts with Borat, but this one pushes the envelope as much or even more than Borat did and I'm not sure yet if that was positive for the movie or not. The 'awkward moments' are much more abundant here, but only because Sascha Baron Cohen seems to exploit homophobia among people who tend to be more backward than the average American (IMO). Although Borat is hugely crude, he's also very funny and it's easy to relate to the people he tricks, but Brüno didn't really rely on doing funny things, but just doing very gay things and seeing people's reactions to them. And in the end, I think that's the issue: Brüno just isn't as funny as Borat. I'll give it a 6.5/10 for now.
 
Last edited:
24Feb2009_215940-i-love-you-man.jpg


I Love You Man 👍👍

Simple premise, good results. The idea is to take the normal romantic comedy and turn it on its head. Guy has no trouble meeting girl. Guy has trouble meeting guy friends. Hilarity ensues.

It's a straightforward movie that refuses to take itself too seriously. Lots of very funny moments. The drama that was added to move the plot along wasn't particularly interesting, but they don't dwell on it.

Good fun. Definitely recommended.

retail-therapy-confessions-of-a-shopaholic.jpg


Confessions of a Shopaholic 👎👎

Pain.

From one end of the film to the other, this movie stinks. The dialogue is horrific, characters aren't consistent, the drama is trumped up. More than that, the fundamental character flaw that the movie is based on - addiction to shopping - is just so incredibly difficult for me to relate to, that I just came off thinking that the main character was a moron. You're supposed to have some level of sympathy, but I couldn't.

I'll give you an example of writing that doesn't make sense. There's a scene in which a girl is supposed to be humiliated by the fact that she shows up to a party wearing a very similar outfit to the servers. She gets handed a tray and is told to go serve her co-workers food. When she (for some inexplicable reason) shows up at the table, she is embarrassed to be serving food to her co-workers. One of her friends at the table "saves the day" by getting up and taking the tray from her and serving everyone himself - saying that he used to do it in college.

Does that make any sense to anyone? How on earth it makes anything less embarrassing for her I have no idea. It didn't offer any resolution whatsoever, but somehow we're supposed to think that he got her off the hook.

The movie was filled, from one end to the other, with this sort of nonsensical writing. Yuck.

howls-moving-castle-hayao-miyazaki.jpg


Howl's Moving Castle 👍👎

It's original, that's for sure. The movie is about a magician who is fighting against both sides of a war. And... well... it's complicated. He has a moving castle, and lots of magic goes on.

This movie fails on many levels. Almost nothing is properly motivated. Why is there a war going on? Dunno. Why does Howl care about it? Dunno. Why do certain characters get forgiven and others do not? Dunno. Why does Howl get into his predicament in the first place? Dunno, they answer how, but not why. Why can some things be done with magic and others can not? Dunno. How does the magic work? Dunno. Where does the boy come from? Dunno. What fundamentally causes the resolution in the film? No clue.

I'm ok with some of those questions being unanswered. But a few too many of them were left hanging out there, leaving the me confused and irritated.

But on some level, this movie just works. Not sure exactly why. Some of the characters had enough charisma to pull it off I guess. The voice acting is solid (they hired brand-name actors). The music is quite good. And there's just so much creativity in this film, that you almost can't help but keep watching out of wonder for what's going to happen next.

I wouldn't call it an excellent film, but it was certainly entertaining. I'm not unhappy that I saw it.

district9-poster.jpg


District 9 👎👎

Pain.

Obviously this movie is not on DVD yet. It was the first time I'd been to the theater in over a year, and it was not at all pleasant. I went because I had no power at home and was bored. I think I might have been better off sitting in the dark.

This movie worked on so many levels. Good plot, fantastic acting, awesome special effects, good dialogue, and an excellent overall feel. It didn't have good music, but that's because it was a documentary-style film, so I was willing to overlook the soundtrack.

What I was not willing to overlook was the horrific shaky cam throughout the movie. I thought I was going to puke before it was over. I literally had to look away from the screen for extended periods of time to avoid having to run out of the theater to hurl. As I explained in the district 9 thread, the camera constantly swayed. Even in scenes where someone is laying perfectly still in the grass, the camera is moving. I could have held the camera more still if I were balancing on a ball while juggling chainsaws. The camera man could not have been over the age of 6 years, and he delighted in making the camera work just as violent as the scene. So if that character was walking, the camera would bounce a little. If the character was fighting with someone, the camera would whirl around so much that deciphering what was happening was completely impossible.

I have never seen such a good movie ruined by something so completely unnecessary, but that is exactly what happened - the film was ruined. I don't recommend that anyone see this movie in the theater, and I'm not sure whether it would work on DVD.

duplicity.jpg


Duplicity 👍👍

Smart, fun, well acted. Certainly not amazing, the movie had flaws. It was hard to really get invested in any of the characters, because they all had major flaws. It was also hard to get invested for the same reason that the characters were having trouble getting invested - nobody knew who to believe. That was simultaneously an intelligent, interesting aspect of the movie, and a drag, because forced you to keep the characters at arm's length.

I didn't particularly care for the end. I thought the movie outsmarted itself a bit. But I'm willing to overlook it. Clive Owen has some real charisma, and Julia Roberts... well.. they could have gotten somebody I'd enjoy more, but she was passable. Overall the film was definitely enjoyable.

species_ver3.jpg


Species 👍👍

Way better than expected.

The movie is dated at this point, that's for sure. And it was pretty one-dimensional. But it's a good dimension. The basic premise is that a team of experts is tracking down a beautiful alien woman who is killing off bachelors. The real premise is something a little more intelligent than that, but I don't want to ruin anything for anyone.

I believe this movie needs to be remade. The execution could have been much better, and with today's special effects they could have a lot more fun. The plot is quite solid, and intriguing.

mulholland_drive.jpg


Mulholland Drive 👎👎

W...T...F....

Ok. I think I understand the plot (after looking it up on wikipedia when the movie ended - I needed a translation). But this movie was really freaking bizarre. I think I might have enjoyed it more if I'd known the punchline going into it.

I had about a thousand problems with it up until the half-way point, when I realized that I wasn't watching what I thought I was watching and the problems that I had were actually quite intentional. Then I spent the rest of the movie trying to figure out what was really going on.

When wikipedia tells you what was actually going on (and I do think they got it right), it turns out to be an intriguing premise for a movie. But only because of the creative twist. If this movie were told in a straightforward fashion it would be about as dull as possible.

If you want to see something pretty far out in left field, go for it. If you want a story that's interesting in its own right, and not just because its told in an incoherent, stream-of-consciousness fashion.... well... this movie is not for you.
 
Last edited:
Dan, are you "experienced" in David Lynch's movies?

I've seen about 4 of his movies and can't say I like his style one bitand don't enjoy any of his movies, but there's a few users here who like his movies a lot and most of them would place Mulholland Drive among the top 3 of Lynch.

As for Miyazaki's work (Howl's Moving Castle), pretty much all of his movies don't ever get into explaining why or how things happen, but they just do. Have you seen Spirited Away? That's arguably Miyazaki's best movie and it never explains why things happen (or why the fantasy world is like it is or where it comes from), yet the whole magical aura of the movie is what makes it great. Sorry for not going further into explaining what the movie is about, but I don't want to ruin it for you if you haven't seen it. I think Howl is a good movie, though not the best. Also, if you're so inclined, check out My Neighbor Totoro and Porco Rosso, both by Miyazaki as well... they also never explain why tings happen, they just do.

Haven't seen the rest of them, though I can't say I'll be watching the Julia Roberts one. I really dislike her.
 
most of them would place Mulholland Drive among the top 3 of Lynch.
That's like when my friend said that Transformers was the best Michael Bay movie ever. It only means something if you like the director.
 
mmm yeah, but my point is you have like Lynch. I understand I wasn't specific enough, though. Let me clear it up: most people I've met, who like David Lynch's movies, would place Mulholland Drive in their general Top 10
 
Dan, are you "experienced" in David Lynch's movies?

No, and I don't think I'll be going for any more of them. I've read that this one is pretty much tops - and that's very bad news.

As for Miyazaki's work (Howl's Moving Castle), pretty much all of his movies don't ever get into explaining why or how things happen, but they just do. Have you seen Spirited Away?

I've seen Princess Mononoke, and I remember it getting pretty strange toward the end.

princess-mononoke-9.jpg


But I think I liked Mononoke more than Howl.
 
True, Mononoke starts out pretty straight forward... somewhat. I'd recommend you give Spirited Away a try.
 


Salinui chueok (a.k.a Memories of Murder) (2003) --Korean movie about a serial killer and the investigaton to find him. At first it appears as it's going to be another take on the classic "bad cop/worse cop/not so bad cop", but as the movie progresses, it's soooo much more. Further investigating about the movie led me to realise it's in Quentin Tarantino's Top 20 of all time and that it's based on a real story. With that said, the movie is very good, has an excellent casting and is very well acted and filmed. Everything in this movie was thought out, unlike the impression I sometimes get from Asian movies. The movie does take a few traits from classic cop films and as a downside, it can feel long, though it's not too long (130 mins). Very recommendable 8.5/10
 

Latest Posts

Back