Jump to content

Movie Review Thread


Accelerated

Recommended Posts

Arvy, did you see "Broken Flowers"? That was my last movie experience. If you did, did you think that it was trying too hard and ended up as a pseudo-intellectual mambo-jumbo, void of meaningful dialogue and a "shocking" praise for Bill Murray’s current choice of monotonous characters with monotonous facial expressions. It was just totally pompous.

 

I want to see your list of favorite old movies. In fact everyone should post their favorite old movies. Do we have a link like that?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

I think people get bored too easily. This movie is very consistant with Jim Jarmusch. He hasn't strayed from his film-making style to copy other Bill Murray movies. He's always been about atypical characters and how they react to their surrounding and to eachother.

 

I think those who criticize it would say "psuedo-intellectual" only because he decided to put in long uncomfortable silences. I don't mind those in the least and as long as people aren't too quick to jump on the claiming-pseudo-intellectualism bandwagon they can see that it was effective and meaningful.

 

Meaningful dialogue... well I don't quite know what that means. All dialogue is meaningful if it suits the story's purpose, whether it makes grande poetic social commentaries or not. That said, Jarmusch loves what comes in between dialogue. The dialogue doesn't carry the story; it just creates the necessary situation for the reactions and the reactions tell the story. People's eyes, lips, and fingers tell the story. That's great stuff to me.

 

When it comes to Bill Murray, he is great for these roles and I like seeing him in them. But I will loosen up here to some degree. Although I do enjoy his performance, I have not been compelled to call it brilliance. I think he's very good at subtlety, restraint, and the deadpan expression and I accept that that quality is uncommon and dificult to emmulate. But there is only so much credit I can give him for that at this point.

 

 

 

If you create a thread about favorite old movies (making sure to specify what you mean by old so we don't get any late 80's/early 90's stuff thrown in) I'll work on compiling a list. You have to understand how difficult it will be for me to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 432
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 3 weeks later...
I think people get bored too easily. This movie is very consistant with Jim Jarmusch. He hasn't strayed from his film-making style to copy other Bill Murray movies. He's always been about atypical characters and how they react to their surrounding and to eachother. 

 

I think those who criticize it would say "psuedo-intellectual" only because he decided to put in long uncomfortable silences. I don't mind those in the least and as long as people aren't too quick to jump on the claiming-pseudo-intellectualism bandwagon they can see that it was effective and meaningful.

 

Meaningful dialogue... well I don't quite know what that means. All dialogue is meaningful if it suits the story's purpose, whether it makes grande poetic social commentaries or not. That said, Jarmusch loves what comes in between dialogue. The dialogue doesn't carry the story; it just creates the necessary situation for the reactions and the reactions tell the story. People's eyes, lips, and fingers tell the story. That's great stuff to me.

 

When it comes to Bill Murray, he is great for these roles and I like seeing him in them. But I will loosen up here to some degree. Although I do enjoy his performance, I have not been compelled to call it brilliance. I think he's very good at subtlety, restraint, and the deadpan expression and I accept that that quality is uncommon and dificult to emmulate. But there is only so much credit I can give him for that at this point.

If you create a thread about favorite old movies (making sure to specify what you mean by old so we don't get any late 80's/early 90's stuff thrown in) I'll work on compiling a list. You have to understand how difficult it will be for me to do that.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Interesting, I would like to comment on this later. I thought of that during the movie, but it was not enough to capture me. This movie had a pompous and artificial feel.

 

Recently I saw "Crash." I really wanted to like it because I thought it had great potential. It started off really well, interesting concept, and a very serious one that many aren't willing to talk about. However, after the two college educated blacks decided to steal cars, with Ludicrus being the brain of the operation I was rather put off. It seemed so unnatural. Then there was the extreeeeeemly melodramatic moment of the asshole racist cop saving the black woman he groped, before the car exploded. The scene lasted for far too long to almost guarantee a tear drop. Then there was the exaggerated scene in the car, when the black boy was shot and his little saint figurine being the cause of it. I thought that was so ridiculous. I was slapping my knee and going "Oh, COME OOOON!"

 

But most of all, the horror, the disgrace, the irritation of that eternal ENYA music in the background to pull the little emotional harp strings of our hearts. Give me a freaking break. If the direction and cinematography is fantastic and moving on its own, you don't kneed some "Gregorian Chants" to let you know that this is heartbreaking moment. How cheesy. Overall, I was very upset, I thought it was a great concept, I thought this could be it for racism exposure but it was all just moldy cheese. Hollywood gimmick. Shame.

 

On the other hand, Arvy, you must watch "Dekalog" by a Polish director, simply riveting and so artistic! I was very impressed and completely engrossed. Now here is an example of directing so superb that you don't need "Felicity" music to inspire emotion, there is no soundtrack, just silence, like in real life. Check it out.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092337/

 

My favorite episode is #4 "Honor thy father and thy mother"

Edited by Anileve
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, I would like to comment on this later. I thought of that during the movie, but it was not enough to capture me. This movie had a pompous and artificial feel.

 

Well, hurry up with the comment so I can tell you how ridiculous and wrong you are.

 

Recently I saw "Crash." I really wanted to like it because I thought it had great potential. It started off really well, interesting concept, and a very serious one that many aren't willing to talk about. However, after the two college educated blacks decided to steal cars, with Ludicrus being the brain of the operation I was rather put off. It seemed so unnatural.  Then there was the extreeeeeemly melodramatic moment of the asshole racist cop saving the black woman he groped, before the car exploded. The scene lasted for far too long to almost guarantee a tear drop. Then there was the exaggerated scene in the car, when the black boy was shot and his little saint figurine being the cause of it. I thought that was so ridiculous. I was slapping my knee and going "Oh, COME OOOON!"

 

But most of all, the horror, the disgrace, the irritation of that eternal ENYA music in the background to pull the little emotional harp strings of our hearts. Give me a freaking break. If the direction and cinematography is fantastic and moving on its own, you don't kneed some "Gregorian Chants" to let you know that this is heartbreaking moment. How cheesy. Overall, I was very upset, I thought it was a great concept, I thought this could be it for racism exposure but it was all just moldy cheese. Hollywood gimmick. Shame.

 

I never saw Crash. Well, not this one anyway. Cronenberg's Crash spanks posterior but they're completely unrelated.

 

...

 

Is it possible to be partially unrelated? I suppose not.

 

Anyway, I never wanted to see this Crash because it seemed like a film that would impress people who only watched Hollywood flicks. It seemed like people who normally watch foreign films and arthouse stuff would find it ridiculous. But hey, I never saw it.

 

2046! 2046! 2046! 2046! 2046!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, hurry up with the comment so I can tell you how ridiculous and wrong you are.

I never saw Crash. Well, not this one anyway. Cronenberg's Crash spanks posterior but they're completely unrelated.

 

...

 

Is it possible to be partially unrelated? I suppose not.

 

Anyway, I never wanted to see this Crash because it seemed like a film that would impress people who only watched Hollywood flicks. It seemed like people who normally watch foreign films and arthouse stuff would find it ridiculous. But hey, I never saw it.

 

2046! 2046! 2046! 2046! 2046!

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I liked Cronenberg's "Crash". It was a much more superior movie.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115964/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Wendy is fantastic! I loved that movie! Nothing very complicated but very interesting nonetheless. I have to see more from Vinterberg. And Lars von Trier's story and script were great. One thing I love about Lars von Trier is how his stories take place in our world but not quite in our world and how he makes his point by dragging concepts into absurdism. And also how he can make you appreciate characters whether through pathos or empathy even though they live in a completely different world. You can identify with people that not only don't exist but can't exist. He uses humor in a clever way to pull you into the logic of the film. And Vinterberg understood this very well.

 

9/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, my recent film experience. For some unknown reason I was passing by the foreign film section at Blockbuster's and this movie captured my interest. By the way the reason unknown was referring to the movie selection not to my interest in the foreign section, just to clarify this important detail. And so it goes.

 

Late Marriage.What can I say it was shocking from the start until finish. It starts with a Georgian Jewish plump woman washing her overly hairy husband (for a minute I was in a state of disbelief that he wasn't Armenian :P) who had so much jewelry that he looked like Armenian Mr. T. A story of hypocrisy and traditions in the Middle Eastern society (I consider Armenia a part of that classification, I don't care what anyone thinks). At first it looked as if it was going to be a comedy, however the movie was very grim and shocking, the ending was unexpected and acting was terrific. Georgian Jewish family tries to marry off their 31 year old attractive son, who is simply not interested in any of the girls (one of which was 17!). Soon they find his secret in a form of an attracted divorcee with a child. A tragedy to his traditional and strict family. No, they don't fight for their love, happiness doesn't prevail. Like father like son, hypocrisy and twisted morals dominate the stage, during the final scene which leaves you with a "HUH?????!!!!" My first thought was "Oh great, another "Greek Wedding," couldn't be more wrong. I think all of you should see it, very similar to Armenian culture, happy to say that not in everyone's family, hopefully not in any of yours. Great movie, the only thing that was a little difficult was the Hebrew language, it's just so unpleasant to my ear. I felt like screaming out "Cough up that hairball already!"

 

7.5/10

 

============

 

By the way, why is it that I can't edit or delete my older posts? Ain't I "Nobility?" How can't I be royalty if I can't have any power over the destiny of my own thoughts?

Edited by Anileve
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marat / Sade

 

I don't know why I suddenly felt like reviewing this film. It has been a while since I have seen it so I can't remember everything, but I'm going write a blurb based on how I remember feeling after viewing it. One aspect of the movie was brilliant and another was poor.

 

The movie was generally boring to me and I fault the director for that. It felt like a filmed play, which may have been the intention, as it was originally a play. But I don't think it worked. The most engaging performance was that of Patrick Magee, who was already a seasoned film actor at the time, and I truly believe he helped bring much of the cinematic qualities. The rest of the performances felt amateurish, relatively, since portraying those who are mentally disturbed allows for more suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience. The pacing needed to be more dynamic but it wasn't. And I would have liked it to be more pleasant to the eye with better photography and set design -- some eye candy to keep the interest. I say that because what ends up happening is that words become the main focus. Focusing entirely on words takes away the essence of a film. You have the opportunity to include so much subtlety and such a unique perspective and to not have it seems a shame.

 

But now there is the other side. The screenplay, the story and the concepts are nothing short of phenomenal. It is highly academic but not arrogant and is very rewarding if the investment in understanding the history relied on is made. So interesting was the commentary and the philosophy it asserted and so clever was the manipulation and method by which it was illustrated. I give great credit to all of the writing involved.

 

Although, I was not impressed with this film either cinematically nor in the sense of a significant number of the performances, the rest was enough for me to award it a seven out of ten. I feel it was enough to make it worth viewing and I would love to see the play if directed as cleverly as the words deserve. It was smart and different... two commendable qualities that are in short supply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stallone sets stage for "Rocky" comeback film

 

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Down but never out, actor

Sylvester Stallone is forging a movie comeback for the unlikely boxing champion, Rocky Balboa, who sent Stallone's star soaring and won

Oscars nearly 30 years ago, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer said on Monday.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Stallone, 59, will reprise his role in the sixth "Rocky" film, titled "Rocky Balboa," playing the Philadelphia boxer who is lured out of a long retirement to fight a championship bout while dealing with personal tragedy outside the ring.

 

"'Rocky Balboa' is about everybody who feels they want to participate in the race of life, rather than be a bystander. You're never too old to climb a mountain, if that's your desire," Stallone said in a statement.

 

The original "Rocky" in 1976 told of a lowly club fighter in Philadelphia who gets his one shot at the championship title and wins. It proved to be a box office smash, raking in $117 million and winning Oscars, the U.S. film industry's top honors, for directing, editing and best film.

 

Stallone, who also wrote the screenplay, was nominated for best actor but lost to Peter Finch for "Network."

 

Most successor films proved strong with fans as a parade of high-profile pugilists battled Rocky, including actors Mr. T and

Dolph Lundgren. But "Rocky V" failed to excite fans and earned a meager $41 million at U.S. and Canadian box offices.

 

MGM President Dan Taylor said he was convinced that "a whole new generation of filmgoers (is) ready to be introduced" to Rocky Balboa and his life in and out of the ring.

 

The new film will begin production early next year and is backed by MGM, Columbia Pictures, and Revolution Studios.

 

MGM is owned by an investor group led by Sony Pictures Entertainment, a unit of Sony Corp (NYSE:SNE - news). Columbia is a division of Sony Pictures, and Revolution is privately held.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Simon Abkarian who played Gorky in "Ararat" is in this film.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381717/

 

I am looking forward to watching this one over the weekend. Social, political, cultural differences in a relationship between a Western woman and a Middle Eastern (Abkarian) man. This is a love story with a dialogue. So if you are into action, this is not for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
Just saw "A history of violence". I give it 9 out of 10. Its a great film, u must seee it. David Cronnenberg is by far a better director than Atom Egoyan (my personal opinion)... the cast is great, acting superb, music - perfectly written and performed. I read some reviews, some complain about minor mistakes, really, why dont they see a bigger picture. I really recommend it - and do share what you think of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...