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

  • Thread starter scentedsoap
  • 8,212 comments
  • 491,739 views
orphan-2009.jpg


Orphan (Jaume Collet-Serra, 2009) -- A husband and wife who recently lost their baby adopt a 9-year-old girl who is not nearly as innocent as she claims to be. I remember seeing this movie showing at a movie theater I went to not long ago and not thinkiing much of it, though I saw it because its director went to some level of film school with a friend of a friend. After seeing what his preious works include (like the 2005 version of House of Wax), I think this is a step in the right direction, even if it's really another suspense movie that follows the same line as Single White Female and The Hand that Rocks the Cradle. Because of that, it doesn't stop from being utterly predictable and a bit of a bore, but the acting is alright and the "secret" was well enough thought out. Still, worth a rental at best. 5.5/10
 
3:10 to Yuma(2007)-8/10

Overall it was a great movie. It has a good storyline, although it does feel a little flat. I wasn't exactly sure if I would like it or not since I normally am not a fan of westerns and just decided to see if this one was any good. It was good, the ending scene was really good, although the leadup was rather long.
 
Alex.
My problem is, I'm 17. I'll have guys aged 25+ slating me because I don't appreciate what an advancement in cinema the original trilogy were. Because the new trilogy depend so heavily on special effects, I see it as the norm. I wasn't around when models and puppets were used instead.
Click to expand...
I think you miss why the prequel trilogy is not as good for many of us 25+. It isn't its lack of anything ground-breaking (unless ground-breakingly bad writing is a notable achievement) but rather the fact that it was poorly written, horribly directed, and some of the worst acting I have seen. Hayden Christensen can not act. He isn't the only bad acting in the films but he managed to turn the most uncompromising and bad ass villain in cinema into a whining cry baby who pouts in the corner when he doesn't get his way. If I had seen the prequel trilogy first every time Vader killed someone I would have imagined him thinking, "You made me cry, so I'm going to force choke you!" My god, it seemed like that maybe if they had just implemented spanking of padawans at the Jedi Academy that the galaxy would have been a better place.

Episode IV: No explanation needed. The classic film. Thankfully heavily remastered for my adolescent eyes.
Click to expand...
By remastered do you mean the special edition? If so, Han Shoots First, don't believe Lucas' lies.

Alex.
Episode V: Most people see this as the best film. The settings are fantastic. Of course with the famous scene on cloud city. 8/10
Episode VI: If people don't prefer ESB, they would name this as the best SW movie. It's quite simply magnificent. A fitting send off. 9/10
Click to expand...
This can all be summed up with one debate:
 


The Children of Huang Shi (Roger Spottiswoode, 2008) -- About young British journalist who with the assistance of a courageous Australian nurse, saves a group of orphaned children during the Japanese occupation of China in 1937. Not a bad movie, though I had a bit of trouble relating to he character and believing some of the plot holes in it. The main problem with this movie is that it's just that: not bad; but when you couple that with some terrible acting, boring editing and unimaginative photography, you get a decent effort that just couldn't be any better if it tried. 6/10
 
Alex.
I watched the full set of Star Wars lately.

Episode I: Script not great, a bit draggy but some brilliant scenes. The podrace and the Darth Maul fight were epic. 6/10... blah blah blah blah
Click to expand...

Sorry what? I can't seem to keep reading after you gave Episode I a 6/10. That's 6 times more score than it deserves.
 


Woman of Water (水の女） - 2002

Don't. Stay away. I am being serious.

I would like to think I am not one of the masses who only can appreciate dumbed down film, but after viewing this film I will take the dumb stuff any day. The thing is, I really like art films, and the idea of film as art, however there comes a point when attempting to make an art film for the sake of it being an art film is too much.

The opening scene: A bloody pulled tooth being dropped into a glass of water sinks slowly. Cut to the same tooth (presumably) now clean being placed in a woman's hand. Cut to that woman walking in the rain. People look out the window and say, "It never fails"

Finally dialogue is brought into the film in the form of a young police officer and his coworker driving down a road in a downpour. This man happens to be the young woman's fiance and it's through his conversation with his partner that you discover that the young woman has, since childhood, always been followed by rain wherever she went. And because she was having her tooth pulled that day, it poured.

Next scene: Young woman's father, who runs a bath house, steps out side collapses.

Next scene: The truck the police officers are driving collides with a lorry (you don't see the collision, just the aftermath, which shows a hand on the ground next to a necklace. Remember this part...

Next scene: Hearses drive down the road. Cut to the young woman dressed in black sitting in her house. The rain starts falling in her house, apparently, to comfort her and when she thanks it, it falls (?) in reverse.

(I must state again that the only dialogue in the film so far has been the fiance.)

Young woman is a car with friend. Friend says, "Hey you're really free".

Next scene: Young woman walking along the road at the base of mount fuji. Sees something in the woods, walks in (and walks and walks all artsy shots like). Sees another woman.

Cut to: Both woman riding on motorcycle with voiceover of a conversation that must have happened only 5 minutes before. "Don't ask strangers lots of questions if you want them to be your friends." or something.

Cut to: Both woman walking in a field eating an ice cream, woman relating a story involving an indian couple (maybe it was a joke she was telling). Young woman sees a tree. Wait! It's the same tree she has been seeing constantly in her dreams, but you don't know this until she says it because the only time you have seen that tree before was as a reflection in a drop of water near the start of the movie. Young woman cries.

Young woman returns home to find a strange man has been living there while she is gone. Young man leaves, she follows him in her truck (this sequence of shots takes forever). Follows him into a cave which apparently is his home.

Cut to: "Don't. Stop." Burning candle falls from cave wall rolls down and catches something on fire, turns out to be the man's pants as they were around his ankles because he was trying to rape the woman (although both parties seemed not too involved in what was happening.)

Man gives speech about how he likes fire. Woman invites man to come live with her and run the furnace for the bath house.

They hook up. She likes young man's necklace. Turns out it is the same one that belonged to young woman's fiance that the man took off the dead body. The man was in the back of the police van because he is a criminal. (What's ridiculous about this sequence is that through terrible short edits done during a voice over where man explains necklace was his mother's they show him climbing out of the van and taking it off the ground next to the corpse of the fiance... because I, the viewer, am too stupid to have figured this out back during the accident sequence. Flashback also includes shot of young woman and fiance picking out the very same necklace) Young woman also too stupid to figure this out.

Policeman turns up with newest fugitive poster, turns out young man is an arsonist. Young woman doesn't care. Covers poster.

Do I have to continue?

That's the question my wife and I asked as we watched this film. We kept looking at the clocks wondering how much longer this film would go on. 1 hour and 53 minutes. That's how long.

The dialogue was almost non-existent and where it did exist it wasn't particularly necessary or memorable. As I watched this and how painstakingly the shots were composed it made me think of Kurosawa. Kurosawa could compose a shot and make it last far longer than you thought it did because it took you in. This movie's shots actually push you away. The long shots could be more effective if they were shorter. The short shots would do well to be longer.

Oh.. the woman of water part. See, other than the beginning when she was having her tooth pulled and it rained, this particularity of hers isn't really used in the film. Well, once when they try to do it outside in the bush it starts raining.

And at the end when young man is found out by crazy bag lady and says he must leave but instead starts climbing the large furnace chimney only to be struck by lightning and plummet (with a pause of about 30 seconds where the woman sees him through a window) to the ground below. Young woman calls for the rain to come.. and it does (of course it came, dumbass, the thunder and lighting happened only a few (drawn out) seconds ago!

Avoid at all costs!

0/10

edit: this is actually what i wanted to say.
http://www.midnighteye.com/reviews/womwater.shtml
 
Last edited:
33to50l.jpg


The Rocky Horror Picture Show (Jim Sharman, 1975) -- I guess it's one of those things you just had to grow up watching it and listening to the songs constantly. I liked the music, the sets and the scenes were hilarious. Amazing how this movie pushed the envelope in the 70s and how even today some scenes are cringe-worthy enough to make it such a cult classic. Hence, in the end, it's an enjoyable movie that should be in any film buff's collection. 6/10
 
I saw that when I was like 10. It probably was not appropriate for that age. Oddly enough it was my friends bible thumping mom that rented it for us.
 
Tom Servo
The Rocky Horror Picture Show (Jim Sharman, 1975) -- I guess it's one of those things you just had to grow up watching it and listening to the songs constantly. I liked the music, the sets and the scenes were hilarious. Amazing how this movie pushed the envelope in the 70s and how even today some scenes are cringe-worthy enough to make it such a cult classic. Hence, in the end, it's an enjoyable movie that should be in any film buff's collection. 6/10
Click to expand...
If it's not in a theater accompanied by live performers it's not the full experience. "Don't dream it - be it."

And on to my films:

5b0cd18304.jpg

Enter the Dragon (7.5/10)
I love me some Bruce Lee, but I haven't seen this since I was taking Tae Kwon Do in high school. It was on AMC about a week ago and I decided to watch it. It really is a fun martial arts film about infiltrating a criminal organization by entering a fighting tournament. I really only have two problems with this film: 1) I feel that when he has to fight and kill the henchman that was responsible for the murder of his sister it was too soon in the film. I think having him gone through much of the tournament first would have shown his abilities and willingness to not kill randomly. But instead it gets the whole vengeance angle out of the way early on and they have to kill the coolest guy not named Bruce in the film to create motivation for further vengeance. 2) The hand switching thing with the villain feels a bit cheesy these days. My mind kept making James Bond and/or Inspector Gadget jokes. But in the scene where Bruce Lee is warming up in his room and the henchman comes to get him for the tournament and he turns while keeping his just kicked foot held in that kicking pose is pure awesome. That is not an easy thing to do.



balls-of-fury.jpg

Balls of Fury (5.5/10)
The following Saturday I caught this on Comedy Central, not realizing that I was walking into an "Enter the Dragon" parody. Let's be honest. This is bad. Christopher Walken is your best actor and he is obviously just added for his quirky cult status. And this is coming from a Walken fan. But your star is a guy that doesn't even have a bio picture on IMDB. For pure stupid comedy this is OK, but George Lopez was seriously miscast and even in brain off mode I couldn't figure out why the FBI were in "Somewhere in Central America." If you want a few cheap laughs at Walken turning his quirkiness up to 11 or want to stare at Maggie Q for a bit this is worth a single watch, but it is not great by any means.

49.jpg

Gridiron Gang (6.5/10)
If you want an inspirational sports movie, this isn't it. Go watch Rudy. If you want an inspirational getting kids out of the "hood" movie go watch Dangerous Minds. It doesn't do either great, mainly because it fails to be inspirational. It seems to just be more about how sports, or any organized activity, can keep inner city kids out of gangs. It is good social commentary, but I can't help thinking that the documentary of the same name gets the point across better and that the casting of Xzibit was a bit of a distraction. This could have been handled better but is still a decent film.


2012-movie-poster-360x600.jpg

2012 (6/10)
It is refreshing to see a disaster film that doesn't preach to me about something we did to cause it all. Stuff goes boom just because natural forces happened to line up badly. Oh, and the Michael Bay "action scenes must shake" direction was a good thing to do without. That said, this is just that: A mindless action disaster film. Science was thrown out the window, and there were a few scenes where a touch of common sense could have saved lives. For example, even I know that you turn a boat into a giant wave. A cruise ship captain had better well know that fact. The acting was sub-par and Danny Glover as the emotional and guilt-ridden president was underused in the name of the common man John Cusack.

Which reminds me, why is it that in any disaster film these days the main character must be someone that has a broken relationship with their family? They tend to be divorced and out of touch with their kids, always. I think the only one that showed the main character having a strong relationship with his family was I Am Legend, but they die as part of the backstory. It only makes sense to have that broken relationship if it plays a part in their development down the line, like the relationship is bad because they are the important and busy scientist and in the end they have to make a sacrifice to save their family.

In the end this is a good "stuff goes boom, yay" movie that doesn't lower itself to the lowest common denominator. In Emmerich fashion, he feeds our inner primal desire to see stuff get destroyed, but doesn't feel the need to throw in eye candy actors and actresses at the cost of at least moderate acting. There are some odd timeline issues that I see, and the aforementioned lack of anything resembling real science or physics, but it is the kind of thing you can just roll with.

OK, one thing really, really bugged me.
Why on Earth would you design anything as important as these arks are to not turn on because the door is stuck open? I mean, seriously. And then one of the Arks couldn't go out because there was damage to the roof? It's just a big boat, not a submarine. Yes, it will get some water inside it at first, but then it will be fine, especially considering that we got to see what happens when the back door is stuck open. Just make everyone stay on the upper levels until you are in open water. Letting ~100,000 people die because you have roof damage is beyond stupid.
 
Last edited:
Tom Servo
Given my possibilities, it's the best I could do. At home in boxer shorts... :scared:
Click to expand...
At least you had the proper attire. If you didn't throw toast at your TV or put a newspaper over your head I may be disappointed.
 
I'm probably the most 'americanised' of my friends, and while we usually watch known movies, we're usually not fans of the same type of cult classics. With that said, none of them have seen TRHPS, though they've heard of it... same as me. I just went ahead and watched it, without knowing much about the actual watching it ceremony.

Just saw:



Otoshiana (a.k.a. Pitfall) (Hiroshi Teshigahara, 1962) -- If you're familiar with Hiroshi Teshigahara's work (I'm looking at you Shintaro and Speedy!), you will understand the starkness, the harsh reality, and the irony of this film. It's about about a miner who is stalked by a man in a white suit and who then is killed for reasons that do not become apparent until nearly the end of the film. Like his other works (Woman in the Dunes, mainly), it's an uncompromising look at life with a bit of fantasy added to the mix. The movie is not for everyone, but just for people who are seriously into Japanese cinema (which I am, a bit :)) Like many 50s and 60's artsy Japanese movies, be prepared for some really long scenes without dialogue, nothing really happening for some time and very weird music. 8.5/10
 
Last edited:
Tom Servo
Of course not! I saw it home, alone and really, really tired.
Click to expand...
I don't know if they put it in theaters down there still, but if not then you should find if you are ever in the US. Search You Tube for Rocky Horror Audience Participation to see what its really about. The Vogue Theater in Louisville, KY has some old videos on there. Some of them may also be Baxter Avenue Theater after The Vogue shut down.

The cult popularity of this film goes very far beyond a DVD copy.

TheCracker
A man wearing lipstick is just plain wrong.
Click to expand...
A man wearing lipstick is just the beginning of wrong.
 
Burn After Reading-2/10


I really thought this movie was going to be good, what I got was 1 1/2 hours of mind numbing crap. I would comment on the storyline, but have no clue what the storyline was. I also don't get how it's a "dark comedy" when there is no actual comedy. Sadly the funniest part was at the end when the two CIA heads were talking about the fact that there was really no point to the whole thing.

So to wrap it up, a show about nothing(Seinfeld) is brilliant and a movie about nothing is utter crap.
 
Last edited:
I went to see Shutter Island earlier today.

It's a psycological thriller from Martin Scorsese starring Leonardo DiCaprio about a federal agent who goes to Shutter Island, a small island which is home to a mental institue for violent people who have committed violent acts. His task is to locate an inmate/patient who has mysteriously dissapeared from her locked cell but over the courseof the investigation he uncovers sinister plots.

I have to say I really enjoyed this film, having not read the book I wasn't aware of any potential plot twists, everying I though came only from the movie as I was watching it and I though it was all very well paced, brilliantly acted and I didn't see the twist coming until quite late on.

I'd give it a 9/10
 


Moulin Rouge! (Baz Luhrmann, 2001) -- Can there be a musical without music, without songs? Can a musica exist without a single choreography, no dance numbers? Where is the merit, the magic, the well-doing of this type of moviemaking? This "movie" by Baz Luhrmann, who is back to making a fool of himself and of the genre like he did in Australia. Even if it includes Nicole Kidman, whom I think looks like an overtly pretentious, repulsively overloaded singer with too much makeup and too little talent. And that's exactly what this movie is about: Inconsistent acting and excessive makeup. Nothing more.

Thrown out as the conclusion of a trilogy that had little repercusion outseide Austrlia, Luhrmann invents himself a Paris from 1900 that mixes some sort of historical recreation of a mix between futuristic and MTV-istic visually shocking appearance. Here he throws in a highly sweetened love story full of ridicule topics that do nothing but insult people's intelligence: bohemian writer travels to Paris to become the new century's greatest novelist meets a stripper/occasional prostitute and falls in love. Rich but evil rival wants to buy prostitute and argumental puke ensues.

Everything is covered with such an aesthetic disgrace that I can only wonder how the critics didn't send this thing straight to late-night PBS, but it's what really carries the complete strength of the film. I've heard a lot about it being an "absolute masterpiece", "a prodigy of originality", "a treat for the senses" and "of a rhythm and visual beauty that drags the spectator, seduces him and traps him under the most beautiful love story that serves as a backdrop to a lovely musical"... they forgot to add the part where you're so dizzy about the excess of cuts, colours and acting that you feel like puking. Because this prodigy of originality rests an the excess usage of SFX, for a musical!! Nothing in the plot is original and there isn't one musical number neither innovative, modern or different. There is nothing tha can be called a choreography, not even one song that isn't a cover of some classic pop or rock tune that has been altered so it seems different and adaptable to some sort of spectacular singing technique, except for the ones written specifically for the movie, which seem to be written by the most melancholic writer from Disney.

Where is the prodigy of originality? Might it be in the usage of SFX and the destruction of the view people had of the 1900s Paris, turned into an orgy of colours, makeup, and barroque scenery embellished with too much of eveything that just leave you visually tired from trying to take it all in and just manage to become a visual blur. Is that a treat for the senses? A two hour music video in which nothing is real, with digitally enhanced makeup, a videogame Paris and a complete lack of attention to details that belong in a musical, such as choreography and dancing that are constantly covered by the dizzying camera shots and computer enhancements? Since when is that a musical? A beautiful love story? Original? Has anyone really bothered to read a bit about French romantic literature? Clearly not. This movie is too sweetened to be real, true... but it never even tried to be real. There's really a vast amount of critics with little or no demands, or in this case, very well paid.

This is such a digitally enhanced farce as well as a huge display of "I want, but I can't", that tries to cover its lack of budget for good things with computer effects with a dumbed down narrative that made me wonder just how stupid they thought the audience was. The stupiditzation of Paris where Toulouse Lautrec is reduced to a gay fairy blanketed under a collection of classic songs that are gang raped by poor adaptations, an imaginary compilation of non-existent circumstances and expresionaless androids that limit themselves to stand in front of the camera to crawl under puppets covered by tons of digital makeup and inner emptiness. All of this comes together to form one of the most unjustly overrated movies of all time. Danceless musical with an utter lack of original songs and with actors who don't act, but are rather mannequins of a parade that is nothing but an aberration and a hoax.

I'm putting up a blacklist and Buzz Lahrmann is first in it. The only redeeming feature of this movie is that some of the covered songs were already horrible to start with, though I cannot forgive the unacceptable, ridiculous, asshatted and idiot caricaturizsation of Tolouse Lautrec. In fact, the only way this movie could redeem itself was if they remade it as a new musical with the songs of The Bloodhound Gang set in a pool of hungry piranhas.

2/10
 
Last edited:
Blitz187
^^^ That was a huge review for a measly 2/10.... :lol:
Click to expand...

I had my hopes up about the movie and many of my friends said it was a really good movie. Thus, the review had to justify the measly 2.

TheCracker
The comment was aimed at Diego who's a 'friend' of mine on Facebook. I think only he would get the reference. ;)
Click to expand...

I did get it... but you're 'wrong' either way, so it was more of a self-parody ignorance.
 
I can't say I agree with much of what is a terribly harsh review of Moulin Rouge, Diego. It's very funny in parts, and some of the performances are great, esp. Jim Broadbent as Zidler and Richard Roxburgh as The Duke. As a piece of performance, MacGregor and Kidman redeem themselves from what is somewhat sub-par acting by delivering very strong singing performances. That the film is littered with modern musical references is something I found pretty novel, not to mention funny. As you allude to, you're not meant to take this film seriously - the film is as much of an over the top assault on the senses as the musical that they are staging is (which in turn reflects the plot of the film itself), and although the "life imitating art imitating life" thing has been done before and better, it still works very well in this film. It's definitely not a cerebral film, but I find it highly enjoyable nevertheless. It's nowhere near deserving a 2/10 in my opinion.
 

Similar threads

twitcher
The Japanese License Plate thread (OP updated with links)(4649)
Replies
27
Views
26K
Cytoria
Cytoria
VBR
  • Poll
Drive Hub Reviews
2 3
Replies
78
Views
74K
Clinton Ducks
Clinton Ducks
Sloppy Shades
Hard limit on number of saved setups for each car on PS4? If so what is it?
Replies
7
Views
4K
simsimsheree
S
CDailey
Do you order movies off of PPV and tape them?
Replies
14
Views
688
Rumple Foreskin
Rumple Foreskin
A
  • Locked
What have you been up to with PSN down?
Replies
27
Views
2K
KingSakery
KingSakery

Latest Posts

Back