On January 03 2011 17:57 ZapRoffo wrote: The Invisible Man (1933)
Pretty awesome, some things are dated but Claude Rains in the title role is brilliantly twisted, worth seeing for him alone.
that movie looks brilliant if its the one im thinking of, i have no clue about how they managed to make those effects in 1933. AVGN covered it on his monster madness series.
I watched pirates of the caribbean trilogy, The good the bad and the ugly, Scarface and Fear and loathing in Las Vegas.
we've got Clint Eastwood being awesome, Al pacino acting like hes from another planet and Johnny Depp doing his weird thing.
I recommend that you watch these movies if you havnt done that already :d
This movie is heavy. At the same time.. I wouldn't say its a bad movie its.. pointless. It's a different kind of bad movie. A bad idea well executed.
Quality acting compared to anything modern, obviously pales in comparison to the original. Doesn't really have a point either. Speads itself too thin over various plotlines.
I wouldn't agree with zizi that it's terrible. It's just not a comedy. A pleasantly paced teenage drama that you can watch when u just absolutely have to kill a couple of hours.
it's like vinnie the pooh. Extremely childish.
No shrek either but slightly easier to enjoy if youre older then 10.
Again simply not funny. Very bareable to watch and odette is super hot but only for wasting time if you suddenly woke up at 3 am.
Documentary about fracture drilling for natural gas in US and the environmental consequences (mainly regarding drinking water), done by a guy who was offered 100k for drilling contract on his families 20 acre farm and went around US to get an idea of what it would entail. A very interesting watch. Has become quite a controversial movie.
Great scene where you watch a man light his drinking water on fire straight out of the tap due to the gas leaking into the water supply due to the drilling techniques.
A casual viewing (with expectations of a typical movie-goer) would lead to extreme boredom. With the right mindset and intelligence, however, one will realize that this is at ruly a remarkable film. Makes every other movie ever made seem trivial.
I saw the devil (2010)
I was expecting more from this film since it featured a very good cast (including star of oldboy) and a good director. In the end, it was definitely disappointing since it was only an above-average revenge-thriller flick. Compared to solaris, this movie seems positively childish.
6/10
Inglourious Bastrerds
3.5/10
Now this was an absolute tripe, IMO. It is one of the most self-indulgent, egocentric films I have seen. It was mildly entertaining but that was literally the only redeeming feature. If it took Tarantino 10 years to come up with this excuse of a script, I am really now starting to think that Pulp Fiction was a real fluke (a 8/10 movie IMO).
Watched a while ago:
Black swan 6.75/10 Decent movie. Nothing remarkable however.
Requiem for a dream
5/10 This is one of the most overrated films of all time, IMO. Extremely hollow film, despite all the flashiness.
Can someone tell me why this movie is viewed so favorably? One of the worst movies I have ever seen. I just could not care less what happened to any of the characters when they remind us 20 times every minute that this is fictional. Maybe it's because I just watched The Chaser before that and in comparison....
Can someone tell me why this movie is viewed so favorably? One of the worst movies I have ever seen. I just could not care less what happened to any of the characters when they remind us 20 times every minute that this is fictional. Maybe it's because I just watched The Chaser before that and in comparison....
it relied more on special effects than avatar did. so i agree with you there. i actually walked out since my expectations were so high. my friends were like, "dude kick-ass is nothing compared to it." ugh, disappointing, especially cause its by the guy who did shaun and hot fuzz. i dont know what all the fuss is about.
Had its moments but overall was too drawn out and had too many drama fillers. Had to pause at least twice to go and make a tea, smoke etc. Couldn't really handle it in one sitting.
On January 05 2011 15:25 phosphorylation wrote: + Show Spoiler +
Solaris (1972)
9.5/10
A casual viewing (with expectations of a typical movie-goer) would lead to extreme boredom. With the right mindset and intelligence, however, one will realize that this is at ruly a remarkable film. Makes every other movie ever made seem trivial.
Could you elaborate what about it is remarkable and makes other things trivial? I consider this one one of the most self-indulgent films I've seen. It barely adapts its novel at all and instead sticks on one aspect of it (the least unique parts too) yet still drags forever because every shot and scene are absurdly long. By the end of each of them since you've just looked at the same thing for minutes at a time, you are left at quite a blank place since nothing new has been presented in that time, whatever thoughts you decide to fill your mind up with. There's no justification for it most of the time other than pure indulgence. Whatever's going on in Tarkovsky's mind when he looks at these scenes might be fascinating to him, and people can read whatever into it that might be interesting, none of it's actually there outside of a ghost story/guilt thing.
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghia.com/TheTopics/On_Solaris.html Interesting read on it. Tells Tarkovsky's perspective and Lem's perspective in their own words. I really think Tarkovsky misread or didn't understand some of the main themes of the novel, and his approach to it is very self-centered, especially with how he did it, with the blank periods of nothing happening. If you are going to depart from the source so drastically into your own interpretation, you have to give the viewer more cues or you aren't really giving an interpretation, you are giving a giant nothing that's doesn't represent the novel or your interpretation of the novel. It's more like "The Wanderings of Andrei Tarkovsky's Mind In Response to Solaris Captured on Film." It may spur interesting thinking, but it may not, and I don't get how that's really a good movie.
Also: Vampire's Kiss
This is either one of the most hilariously bad movies (in my top 3 and I watch a bunch of that kind) ever or a brilliant dark comedy which subtly imitates a horrible movie that's so bad it's funny. It's really, really hard to tell, which makes it absolutely fascinating. Plus my brother and sister and I had all been quoting lines/mournful wails from it all winter vacation so far since we saw the youtube video "Nicolas Cage Losing His Shit", which by the way, is a must watch (right now) if you haven't seen it. It's gripping and hilarious at the same time. And tonight my sister just called me in and was like "that vampire movie from Nic Cage losing his shit is on!" so we watched, and it was even more insane and hilarious that the clip makes it seem. And this was like one of his breakout roles. Afterward my reaction was just like "wait did that movie actually happen?"
Loved it. Awesome entertainment. Much better than Avatar in every aspect too if you ask me.
I saw it too.
It was quite enjoyable but the ending/story telling was just pure garbage.
Dues ex Machina ending... nuf said there.
WTF was up with the Tron character? They built him up as this super bad-ass all movie long, this silent but deadly, mysterious, ninja warrior guy.....and then just suddenly killed him with no explanation or purpose. WTF?
WTF was up with the white light cycle? They bring it up several times, it's described as the fastest one of all time, they have that awesome light cycle duel, etc. When we see him take the "fastest bike ever" alone into the heart of the enemy city.....you're thinking, fark yeah, epic battle coming up. Heck no, he just hands it over to some random hobo, never to be seen again.
Zeus.......wtf was he? They just suddenly introduce this really interesting character out of nowhere, and then with nary an explanation or justification, just kill him right off. Really?
Again, highly entertaining movie....but I think the director handed the script over to his 9 year old child to finish.
My mind was blown by this. Its a spanish movie blending fantasy, drama and war movie into one genre. Transitions between those are so seemless that it never becomes implausible.
The plot is set in the fascist spain of 1944, where the young stepdaughter of a general escapes in a fantasy world to protect herself from the horrors taking place around her. I dont want to spoiler anything, because the less information you have the more its going to surprise you.
The movie starts out slow but bear with it, because some of the greatest fantasy of the last decade is going to unfold upon you. Its R rated so be prepared for some scenes being hard to stomach.
Unfortunately the movie is in spanish and according to imdb there is no translated english version but there are english subtitles. However there is a translated version of the movie in german and french.
Four Lions. A British black comedy about terrorists in London. I thought it was pretty funny. Tough to understand their accents a few times because it was like...British mixed with Pakistani. It gets pretty serious though at the end...it is about terrorism. But it was worth seeing.
On January 07 2011 05:51 MrMotionPicture wrote: Four Lions. A British black comedy about terrorists in London. I thought it was pretty funny. Tough to understand their accents a few times because it was like...British mixed with Pakistani. It gets pretty serious though at the end...it is about terrorism. But it was worth seeing.
That movie is really funny. Then the end slaps you in the face with a sadbag .
I haven't read the book so my perspective is different, but I definitely think you should let the movie stand on its own -- and it certainly can. In other words, don't consider it an adaptation, rather that it just took inspiration from the book.
What you describe as "indulgence," I viewed it as economy of words. Instead bombarding the audience with images and sounds, the director carefully chooses and controls the each scene, like an artist filling a canvas. An extreme example of this is when he chooses to move from BW to color in certain scenes; he considered even "color" to be overwhelming and controlled its screen time. I was personally moved strongly by the grandeur of the slow methodical shots -- combined with exploration of profound yet very human themes -- but if you weren't, you have to at least admit that the cinematography was brave and bold. In particularly, I thought the scene where the couple is floating in zero gravity was heart-breakingly beautiful.
There's much more to write about why this movie is so remarkable, but I have work to do. It is also true that some of it just need to be "felt" -- and no words suffice. In each medium of art, I maintain that there is a unique realm that cannot be encroached by another medium -- and therefore, can only be expressed properly by its own means. In this case, I cannot satisfactorily put some of its greatness into prose, since Tarvkosky really explores many of such "realm" exclusive to cinema -- which is not the case for most movies today.
But I am willing to admit that this movie would do absolutely nothing to certain audience.
Now this was an absolute tripe, IMO. It is one of the most self-indulgent, egocentric films I have seen. It was mildly entertaining but that was literally the only redeeming feature. If it took Tarantino 10 years to come up with this excuse of a script, I am really now starting to think that Pulp Fiction was a real fluke (a 8/10 movie IMO).
Glad someone else sees this movie for what it is. Bad acting, bad plot, ect. Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) was the only developed character in the movie and Waltz did an amazing job but even he couldn't make up for Brad Pitts horrible southern accent and T's bland and pointless script.
I thought this was a really funny movie. Paul Rudd is becoming one of my favorites, not mention Steve Carell and Zach Galifianakis. Critics are saying Carell's character is too dumb and unbelievable. If you can take the movie for what it is than I think you will have a fun time.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.obscurehorror.com/the_invisible_man.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.horrorlair.com/movies/images/hard-candy-onesheet.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.azreporter.com/news/media/admin/20100923-Wall_Street_Money_Never_Sleeps.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.impawards.com/2010/posters/easy_a.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.worstpreviews.com/images/despicableme.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.thetechnologyblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HowToTrainYourDragon.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:RRIACN7L74B1UM:http://www.impawards.com/2010/posters/you_again.jpg&t=1)
![[image loading]](http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2010/Jun/gasland_image001.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/w1GdQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://dinca.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/solaris-tarkovsky-film-poster.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://lohandbehold.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/kim.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/inglourious-basterds-poster-official.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/14/Scott_Pilgrim_vs._the_World_teaser.jpg/405px-Scott_Pilgrim_vs._the_World_teaser.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_eAHJZKOfg98/TAIk1QVg1HI/AAAAAAAAAAs/yuIpHZHc4_8/s1600/the-warlords-toumingzhuang-poster-7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51W2046CWTL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://filmonic.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Tron-legacy-poster.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_A-uoPBewVAM/SVzje2AxNXI/AAAAAAAAFy8/YwJ_bXNn3Z8/s1600/pans_labyrinth_ver6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://clockworkmovies.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Four-Lions_featured.jpg)
.![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/pylZK.jpg)
