Thor; 3/10. Thor was played as an arrogant fool for the entire movie, with no likeable traits. I have no enthusiasm for Captain America, and any excitement I got after the first Iron Man has died off after the terrible sequel.
Thor; 3/10. Thor was played as an arrogant fool for the entire movie, with no likeable traits. I have no enthusiasm for Captain America, and any excitement I got after the first Iron Man has died off after the terrible sequel.
Now, I disliked the character of Thor a lot, but he does have qualities. He's brave, loyal and very trusting. Agreed on being arrogant and foolish though. Also pretty violent, but that's to be expected of Thor.
I don't even know what to say about this one. I'd say it wasn't what I expected except I didn't know what to expect. It may not make the list of my favorite movies (or it wouldn't if I got off my lazy ass and wrote said list), but I did enjoy it and it was well worth the watch.
Now, from what I hear, I may be making a mistake here, but it was the two movie set that someone made me borrow...
Ghostbusters II - 7/10
After everything I've heard about this movie, I expected it to be inferior to the first. In my opinion, it wasn't. Like the first, I wouldn't put it on my list of favorite movies ever, but I enjoyed it.
Good movie. Makes you think, and that's always a positive.
I loved that movie too. Especially the ending. Its pretty moving how Andrew shows signs that he is capable of recovery, and is at least partially aware of everything thats happening around him, but chooses not to as he blames himself for his wife killing his children, and despite what she did, he still loves her to the point that he can't live his life without her, and hides behind the agent persona he built as a way of acting out his physical and emotional frustrations (removing the blame and guilt he would experience if he lashed out in his normal persona). He lets himself be lobotomised because its easier for him than facing the truth
I feel so sorry for the therapists too. The role-play was them doing absolutely everything to help Andrew. Obviously they knew the tale off by heart, they care for the man, his violence had meaning.
If it was up to them, its likely they would have put up with him, but outside pressure had to force them to up the treatment.
They gave him a choice, the final ultimatum, and he chose a living death.
for instance the imprisoned dragons being tamed in a second. Wild animals take longer to tame, even the tamable ones. And the fact that it was so easy kinds of makes all the other vikings looks incredibly cruel and stupid for never being able to before
I feel that many of the characters were superfluous, for instance Astrid doesn't really have a point other than being the hero's interest, and even that is very much in the background of the friendship story between the hero and the dragon.
I really liked how in the end
he loses his leg. Made it more realistic, and showed that you can have a happy ending that's not 100% perfect. Plus you don't see many handicapped characters in children cartoons, especially handicapped children.
I'm not 100% happy about the shift
so instead of the dragons being the bad guys, there is a mega dragon who is? How do we know this one wasn't tamable? They didn't even try. It sounds like they just wanted a boss battle and a big villain instead of ending in a note of "we can all work together".
I liked the interactions between the characters. The dragon looked a bit like Stitch to me. I was very surprised when we first saw him ("he's ugly! I can't believe they didn't go for a cute dragon!") but it was awesome that they showed creatures that aren't cute can be good. Plus along the movie you get used to the way he looks and by the end he's cute.
I found it unrealistic that the main character, who's a blacksmith aid, is so scrawny. Seems to me that years of that job should have given him some muscles. On that note, the other kids too, mostly Astrid. I kept expecting her to break apart, she's so frail and weak-looking. I wish they had given her some muscle, that kind of thinness worked well for the kids because they have the face for it to look like it's their natural build, but for her she just looked malnourished to me.
It's not mean to be super deep or anything, so if you just take it for its entertainment value it's a really enjoyable movie. And as I said I liked how it broke some conventions a bit, even if for the most part it's predictable and following the same formula as other similar movies.
Oh, another thing I didn't like is how violent Astrid is. If it was a guy punching a girl then kissing her, people would consider it assault. That the genders are reversed doesn't make it fine in my book. I wish they didn't feel they had to make her aggressive for her to know she's tough.
S. Darko - 2/10: I suspected that this film would be a stinker (afterall Donnie Darko is hardly the type of film that warranted a sequel) and having watched it I was right. It plays out more as a remake of the first film, except without any of the elements that made that film work so well. You know, things like good acting, an outstanding soundtrack, creepy imagery and a well writen script. More than anything though, it's just so dull and monotonous, I literally had trouble staying awake whilst watching it and I wasn't even tired!
However, It does gain a couple of points for being well directed from a purely aesthetic point of view and also they got the same actress to reprise her role as Samantha Darko, which is cool... I guess. Yeah, I'm really struggling with the pros here. Overall, I would highly recommend this film to sufferers of insomnia.
'Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides' - 94% - I am incredibly happy with what I've just seen. I pretty much couldn't have asked for a better sequel. I went in with insanely high expectations, and to have those expectations met was just great. This movie had decent action without being overblown, it had interesting new characters, it had great visuals, it had great performances, and the humour was just top-notch. I actually think that I enjoyed the humour of 'On Stranger Tides' more than in any of the other films. There's great slapstick humour, witty banter, and a number of great quotable lines. Classic 'Pirates' in this aspect.
This movie also had all the excitement and fun that I've come to expect from the 'Pirates' films. Of course, it can never quite have the same impact as the first film had, because the first film did it first; it was original and surprising to us back then. And though this film doesn't quite take us by surprise as much as the first film did, I think it certainly presents itself in an equally good manner. I thought the swordfighting, choreography and action sequences were just as interesting as in the first two films.
Everything about this film felt like your classic 'Pirates of the Caribbean' film, but without rehashing or borrowing too much from the previous three films. It provided the same quality and atmosphere but managed to feel fresh and original at the same time. Overall, it was just a terrific action/adventure/fantasy movie, and it was a return to form for the series.
I was over the moon after seeing this movie; I was just so happy that it was so good. It's one of the few films where I've actually walked out of the cinema with a genuine grin on my face; I loved this movie.
P.S. I understand that this film hasn't been receiving the best reviews, which may lead you to wonder why I have enjoyed it so immensely. The reason for this, I believe, is due to the fact that I went into this movie with an [almost] entirely positive attitude, which I feel is somewhat necessary if you want to enjoy this film to the full. I'm guessing, since this is the fourth film in a franchise that was originally a nicely wrapped-up trilogy, many viewers/reviewers went into it with a sort of cynical (and perhaps entirely negative) approach. If you go into the film feeling like this, then the film's few problems will stick out like sore thumbs, and you'll probably completely miss the many enjoyable aspects of it simply because you're too busy being critical. Treat this film as you treated the first film; go into it with a positive mindset, and you will enjoy this movie.
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides - 7/10
If you like people running away from things and poking at each other with swords, you'll almost certainly like this movie.
Chase scenes and swordfights probably make up the majority of the screen time. Even so, I feel like the people behind PotC:OST made more of an effort to flesh out some of the characters in this film than they have in previous entries in the series.
Angelica in particular seems quite well-rounded (*snicker*) - she's fiery and duplicitous in some circumstances, but anything involving her father shows she can be hopelessly devoted and easily manipulated by someone who can push the right buttons.
I always enjoy watching Captain Jack (Johnny Depp), but Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) was actually the quiet stand-out for me this time around.
Blackbeard (Ian McShane) was well done too and served as a nicely sinister counterpoint to Jack's flouncing. And if we're talking Monkey Island parallels, Blackbeard feels a lot more like LeChuck than Barbossa ever did for me, particularly with the voodoo element.
At times it seemed like there was a little too much going on
(TRIAL-CHASING-FIGHTING-ZOMBIES-FIGHTING-VOODOO-MERMAIDS-FIGHTING-CHASING-POISON-CHASING-FOUNTAIN-FIGHTING!). The Spaniards, for example, felt almost superfluous.
All up it's a decently enjoyable adventure. It does lack that sparkle of surprise and delight I got from the very first PotC film, but I don't think any subsequent PotC movie will manage to live up to that. Seems they've left things plenty open for another sequel though, so if this installment does well they'll probably get the chance to try.
All right mate - I'll give it a fair shake of the sauce bottle, but I'll be claiming 106 minutes of my life back if it ain't fair dinkum.
Sorry, I don't speak Spanish.
But excellent excellent my dearest Sheila, try get Mr 94% above you there a bit of encouragement there as well. Give him a tin of Fosters sealed by a cork attached to a hat, or sing Waltzing Matilda to him or whatever it is you lot do with each other.
But excellent excellent my dearest Sheila, try get Mr 94% above you there a bit of encouragement there as well. Give him a tin of Fosters sealed by a cork attached to a hat, or sing Waltzing Matilda to him or whatever it is you lot do with each other.
Alright, I'll give it a watch sometime soon as well .
Also, any beer-drinking Australian will tell you that Fosters is the crap of the crop.
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides: - 7.75/10
A very nicely put together film that made use of the 3D only when necessary (which sets it apart from films that use 3D poorly like Thor or Clash of the Titans) and keeps to the heart of the other three films. As usual, Rush and Depp give amazing performances and keep the film moving. Cruz and McShane surprisingly managed to keep up with Depp's energy and mold two more enjoyable characters to add to the franchise.
It's refreshing to know that the third sequel to an original film can still be pulled off.
It was just another Pirates sequel, really. Really big and impressive sets, nice CG, a good soundtrack, great dialog and characterization, but the entire rest of the movie has to battle with Jack Sparrow running around and being impressive. It's down to a science now, to the point that these films feel like a really long trailer for a Pirates film, in a sense. That is, you show a bunch of the fan-pleasing things like Jack running about and being a dickhead and returning characters doing the things they've done before, but now it's a whole film and none of the rest of the new elements have any room left to breathe, let alone get fleshed out.
All in all, the great elements battle with the terrible elements to leave the film with an entierely middling score for me. I left the theater fairly amused, I didn't feel like my time was wasted and I wasn't mad at this production(other than it being another piece in the machine that worked to butcher the original ride), but I also didn't leave it with the prevailing joy that many people seem to experience with these. I haven't particularly enjoyed ANY of the Pirates sequels, though, and this certainly scores a bit higher than those would, albeit not all that significantly, due to the actual existence of a coherent plot.
Formulaic to be sure, but I don't feel that's necessarily a bad thing. It's basically the first movie again, with a new location and way more audacity. And really, what else would you want or expect from a sequel to The Hangover? Whether or not a sequel was needed is debatable, but it did exactly what a sequel to that movie needed to do. If you liked the first one, you'll like this one.
That all said, this was possibly the worst movie imaginable to see as a midnight premiere, and I wouldn't have gone if I hadn't been invited and had my ticket paid for. The theater was full of people who were drunk and/or high, and in all seriousness, I did come home and take a shower immediately.
It was just another Pirates sequel, really. Really big and impressive sets, nice CG, a good soundtrack, great dialog and characterization, but the entire rest of the movie has to battle with Jack Sparrow running around and being impressive. It's down to a science now, to the point that these films feel like a really long trailer for a Pirates film, in a sense. That is, you show a bunch of the fan-pleasing things like Jack running about and being a dickhead and returning characters doing the things they've done before, but now it's a whole film and none of the rest of the new elements have any room left to breathe, let alone get fleshed out.
All in all, the great elements battle with the terrible elements to leave the film with an entierely middling score for me. I left the theater fairly amused, I didn't feel like my time was wasted and I wasn't mad at this production(other than it being another piece in the machine that worked to butcher the original ride), but I also didn't leave it with the prevailing joy that many people seem to experience with these. I haven't particularly enjoyed ANY of the Pirates sequels, though, and this certainly scores a bit higher than those would, albeit not all that significantly, due to the actual existence of a coherent plot.
I mostly agree with this statement. I enjoyed it for what it is... a blockbuster movie. To be frank, I can't get my head around those who rave about PotC: OST and rate it either 9 or 10 out of 10. It's a money making machine that happens to be entertaining. It's a movie, not a film and is therefore somewhat disposable by its very nature. Also, such high scores would suggest that it's a movie experience on par with Raiders of the Lost Ark... puh'lease! Can people not try to be a little more discerning, lest we endure a future of cinema ruled by shallow, albeit amusing movies.
As you can probably tell I'm having a bad day and I now sit awaiting the backlash of a thousand and one angry fanboys.
The Hangover - 9/10
Rewatched it today and it was much better than I remembered. I cried laughing at one point.
The Hangover Part II - 7.5/10
It was... well, a lot of the same stuff. Almost to the point where it seemed like they just ripped out pages of the script from the first movie and reused them. Alan is more of an asshole than a manchild in this movie and that made me mad.
The Hangover Part II - 7.5/10
It was... well, a lot of the same stuff. Almost to the point where it seemed like they just ripped out pages of the script from the first movie and reused them.
This has been the general response amongst fans and critics alike. I liked what MovieBobhad to say on the topic the most.
The Hangover Part II - 7.5/10
It was... well, a lot of the same stuff. Almost to the point where it seemed like they just ripped out pages of the script from the first movie and reused them. Alan is more of an asshole than a manchild in this movie and that mad me mad.
Agreed. I wasn't a fan of what they did to Alan's character either.
It really felt like a carbon copy of the original. One thing that really got to me was the
Vietnam photo spoof.
Personally, I found it in bad taste but I suppose comedy has no limits. That aside, I thought the film was decent but not nearly as funny as the original.
Documentary film about natural gas production in the United States, in particular the practice of hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") and its impact on environment and people.
As with any documentary like this I'd be wary of blindly accepting everything at face value, but there was plenty in there to get me riled. Far too much to do justice in a summary here (and there probably aren't many who'd care to read it), but I would strongly recommend a watch to anyone with an interest in environmental concerns (be prepared to withstand some shaky camera work).
Blackbeard's Ghost - 5.5/10
Sort of an underdog sporting team movie crossed with a "save this historical building from evil developers" movie. And a pirate. A pirate that's less like a proper scary pirate and more like what a pirate would be like if he was actually a drunk teddy bear with a sword.
It was pretty cool to see that much gambling and hard liquor in a 1960s Disney movie. Overall I didn't love it, but I didn't hate it with a fiery passion either. Although I got a couple of laughs I suspect it would look better through nostalgia goggles.
Role Models - 7/10
What can I say, I love Paul Rudd. And this movie has Paul Rudd dressed as
Starchild from KISS
.
The premise is two 30-something losers have to mentor a couple of kids for community service, or face prison. It's good fun, kind of starts a little slow but picks up the pace to roll into a nice finish. Some bits are stupid but there are some little gemstone lines in there, such as:
Danny: Pick us up in a couple of hours.
Kid: Fuck you, Miss Daisy.
I wouldn't recommend it to my mum, but I had an enjoyable time watching it with my flatmates.
This is the Coen Brother's first feature film. It's a tale of a revenge backfired and it full of misunderstandings which lead to further tragedy. M. Emmet Walsh's portrayal of a creepy, slimy private dick for hire is sublime and every scene he's in makes for gripping viewing. The moment where a character is buried alive (following having been shot in the chest) is highly unsettling and brilliantly done so that the viewer is unable to take their eyes off the screen during this dialogueless scene.
The direction, cinematography and editing is second to none (as might be expected from a Coen Brother film). The final shot in the film shows the Coens in a playful mood, following a final scene of intense tension. It's the same off-beat sense of humour that the writer / directors would go on to display with the likes of Barton Fink's final shot.
All in all, this is one of my favorite Coen Brothers films, second only to The Big Lebowski. That means that I'm rating this film higher than most of their other classic films; Raising Arizona, Miller's Crossing, Barton Fink, The Hudsucker Proxy, Fargo, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, The Man Who Wasn't There and No Country for Old Men. With a list like that you know that Blood Simple is a fantastic piece of work and it should be required viewing for anyone who considers themselves a fan of film.
This is a rare experience for me. Usually, I'd love a movie, such as Dark Knight, Iron Man 2, or Inception, but I never really want to watch it more than once. However, I barely enjoy Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, but I kept watching it, over and over, just... because.
It's not a bad film. It's just a strange blend of "My God, I can't watch!" and "I can't stop watching!". There are just scenes that I love simply for being in the movie, such as the opening with Tobey Maguire. They're not particularly funny, amazing, poignant or anything. They're just there, and I love them for it.
I remember I loved Blackbeard's Ghost as a kid. I wonder how it would hold up nowadays. I remember I hated The Ugly Dashundt though (they're associated in my mind so I assume the lead actor is the same).
It was one of these "lots of gags in which good guy is punished, until the end where he isn't punished, but all the injustices from before still aren't recognised or made up for". Except the guy in there is a dog I guess. These always make me cringe so much, I never find them funny, only infuriating.
A movie is a product primarily produced as a form of shallow entertainment and/or for financial profit. Examples of poor movies include "Skyline" or "AVP: Requiem". An example of a average to good movie is "Pirates of the Caribbean". An example of a great movie is "Raiders of the Lost Ark". The experiences offered by movies is one focused entirely on attracting a mass audience, where elements of the movie are tailored to appeal to as many of the main demographics as possible (e.g. women and men, young and old, black and white etc.).
These movies are often focused on action, romance and other base themes and are, when made well, good popcorn-munching fun but ultimately they are mostly disposable or forgettable once you're through watching.
A film on the other hand, is an experience which originates from a purely creative place. A film is likely to be unconcerned with appealing to as many people as possible and unafraid to broach subjects that may be controversial. A film is liable to delve deep in to the pyschi's of its protagonists and leave you with deep questions regarding issues of life and morality long after watching. A good film can watched time and time again, having enough subtext and background details to warrant repeat viewings.
Naturally, there are exceptions but the above is the general rule of thumb. From your post it sounded like you don't often stray from the path of massmarket Hollywood. If this is the case, then I implore you to widen your horizons. There's a wealth of classic cinema beyond the likes of Iron Man 2.
Further more, I'm going to do something I don't often do and quote myself. This comes from the "Is Star Wars Overrated?" thread...
The fact is that most people don't ever leave their junk food Hollywood bubble and so have no concept of what's actually out there. Allow me to recount a personal experience; my best friend from some years ago was a huge fan of music (the kind of music with real artistic credibility), whereas I couldn't stand music (having been exposed to nothing but chart crap for so many years). My friend introduced me to Pink Floyd and for the first time I felt a wonderful shiver travel down my spine. I now own a large collection of CDs and haven't looked back since.
My friend on the other hand was exactly the same with his attitude towards film. One day he asked me "Ed, how come you purchase DVDs, as opposed to going to the cinema or renting them?", I asked him what he meant exactly and he elaborated; "I enjoy watching movies but once I've watched one, there's no great need to watch it again". I asked him which films he had watched and he went on to list countless blockbusters. I lent him some of my favourite films. He now owns a large collection of DVDs and hasn't looked back since.
So, for those of you who consider Star Wars to be the greatest film of all time; I urge you to heed the wise words of Obi-Wan Kenobi by taking your first step into a larger world.
It was funny but not too much make a lot of laugh. some joke...I don't make sense.
Just saw it as well. While it's funny at times and all, it feels like they just lifted everything that happened in the first one, altered it slightly and moved it to Thailand, and did it again. Plus they kept saying wolfpack over and over.. ugh.
A film on the other hand, is an experience which originates from a purely creative place. A film is likely to be unconcerned with appealing to as many people as possible and unafraid to broach subjects that may be controversial. A film is liable to delve deep in to the pyschi's of its protagonists and leave you with deep questions regarding issues of life and morality long after watching. A good film can watched time and time again, having enough subtext and background details to warrant repeat viewings.
I feel the same way with Terry Gilliam's Brazil and The Big Lebowski. I dunno if those count, though. When I said that Fear and Loathing is a rare experience, I don't mean that I like watching it several times, because there are plenty of movies that I'd watch several times that I like. What I mean is that it's a movie that I felt indifferent about, but I just can't stop watching. I understand what you said about the differences between a movie and a film, and I agree mostly, but I also believe that blockbuster movies can also have enough subtext and background details to warrant repeat viewings.
...Personally, I felt The Last Crusade was a more complete film(than Raiders). Some questions answered, some weren't; all the characters were reintroduced(so you didn't HAVE to see the previous 2); more action, more wit, better actors. One of my top 10 of all time to be honest. Looking at my favourites, I must conclude that in my opinion, a great film is one that successfully mixes genres while not straying from a strong narrative.
Comments
Now, I disliked the character of Thor a lot, but he does have qualities. He's brave, loyal and very trusting. Agreed on being arrogant and foolish though. Also pretty violent, but that's to be expected of Thor.
Ghostbusters II - 7/10
After everything I've heard about this movie, I expected it to be inferior to the first. In my opinion, it wasn't. Like the first, I wouldn't put it on my list of favorite movies ever, but I enjoyed it.
Good movie. Makes you think, and that's always a positive.
I feel so sorry for the therapists too. The role-play was them doing absolutely everything to help Andrew. Obviously they knew the tale off by heart, they care for the man, his violence had meaning.
If it was up to them, its likely they would have put up with him, but outside pressure had to force them to up the treatment.
They gave him a choice, the final ultimatum, and he chose a living death.
Very interesting movie that seemed to act as a case study on the title character. I really enjoyed the plot and felt that it was extremely well done.
I enjoyed it. Some things were a bit too much,
I feel that many of the characters were superfluous, for instance Astrid doesn't really have a point other than being the hero's interest, and even that is very much in the background of the friendship story between the hero and the dragon.
I really liked how in the end
I'm not 100% happy about the shift
I liked the interactions between the characters. The dragon looked a bit like Stitch to me. I was very surprised when we first saw him ("he's ugly! I can't believe they didn't go for a cute dragon!") but it was awesome that they showed creatures that aren't cute can be good. Plus along the movie you get used to the way he looks and by the end he's cute.
I found it unrealistic that the main character, who's a blacksmith aid, is so scrawny. Seems to me that years of that job should have given him some muscles. On that note, the other kids too, mostly Astrid. I kept expecting her to break apart, she's so frail and weak-looking. I wish they had given her some muscle, that kind of thinness worked well for the kids because they have the face for it to look like it's their natural build, but for her she just looked malnourished to me.
It's not mean to be super deep or anything, so if you just take it for its entertainment value it's a really enjoyable movie. And as I said I liked how it broke some conventions a bit, even if for the most part it's predictable and following the same formula as other similar movies.
Oh, another thing I didn't like is how violent Astrid is. If it was a guy punching a girl then kissing her, people would consider it assault. That the genders are reversed doesn't make it fine in my book. I wish they didn't feel they had to make her aggressive for her to know she's tough.
However, It does gain a couple of points for being well directed from a purely aesthetic point of view and also they got the same actress to reprise her role as Samantha Darko, which is cool... I guess. Yeah, I'm really struggling with the pros here. Overall, I would highly recommend this film to sufferers of insomnia.
This movie also had all the excitement and fun that I've come to expect from the 'Pirates' films. Of course, it can never quite have the same impact as the first film had, because the first film did it first; it was original and surprising to us back then. And though this film doesn't quite take us by surprise as much as the first film did, I think it certainly presents itself in an equally good manner. I thought the swordfighting, choreography and action sequences were just as interesting as in the first two films.
Everything about this film felt like your classic 'Pirates of the Caribbean' film, but without rehashing or borrowing too much from the previous three films. It provided the same quality and atmosphere but managed to feel fresh and original at the same time. Overall, it was just a terrific action/adventure/fantasy movie, and it was a return to form for the series.
I was over the moon after seeing this movie; I was just so happy that it was so good. It's one of the few films where I've actually walked out of the cinema with a genuine grin on my face; I loved this movie.
P.S. I understand that this film hasn't been receiving the best reviews, which may lead you to wonder why I have enjoyed it so immensely. The reason for this, I believe, is due to the fact that I went into this movie with an [almost] entirely positive attitude, which I feel is somewhat necessary if you want to enjoy this film to the full. I'm guessing, since this is the fourth film in a franchise that was originally a nicely wrapped-up trilogy, many viewers/reviewers went into it with a sort of cynical (and perhaps entirely negative) approach. If you go into the film feeling like this, then the film's few problems will stick out like sore thumbs, and you'll probably completely miss the many enjoyable aspects of it simply because you're too busy being critical. Treat this film as you treated the first film; go into it with a positive mindset, and you will enjoy this movie.
If you like people running away from things and poking at each other with swords, you'll almost certainly like this movie.
Chase scenes and swordfights probably make up the majority of the screen time. Even so, I feel like the people behind PotC:OST made more of an effort to flesh out some of the characters in this film than they have in previous entries in the series.
I always enjoy watching Captain Jack (Johnny Depp), but Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) was actually the quiet stand-out for me this time around.
At times it seemed like there was a little too much going on
All up it's a decently enjoyable adventure. It does lack that sparkle of surprise and delight I got from the very first PotC film, but I don't think any subsequent PotC movie will manage to live up to that. Seems they've left things plenty open for another sequel though, so if this installment does well they'll probably get the chance to try.
This is one of my favourite childhood films; Peter Ustinov, Dean Jones and a smooth operating bad guy called 'Silky Seymour' what's not to love?
All right mate - I'll give it a fair shake of the sauce bottle, but I'll be claiming 106 minutes of my life back if it ain't fair dinkum.
Yes, this is a wonderful movie. I still prefer Pirates though.
Sorry, I don't speak Spanish.
But excellent excellent my dearest Sheila, try get Mr 94% above you there a bit of encouragement there as well. Give him a tin of Fosters sealed by a cork attached to a hat, or sing Waltzing Matilda to him or whatever it is you lot do with each other.
Alright, I'll give it a watch sometime soon as well
Also, any beer-drinking Australian will tell you that Fosters is the crap of the crop.
It was a good movie, it kept me entertained and I laughed.
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides: - 7.75/10
A very nicely put together film that made use of the 3D only when necessary (which sets it apart from films that use 3D poorly like Thor or Clash of the Titans) and keeps to the heart of the other three films. As usual, Rush and Depp give amazing performances and keep the film moving. Cruz and McShane surprisingly managed to keep up with Depp's energy and mold two more enjoyable characters to add to the franchise.
It's refreshing to know that the third sequel to an original film can still be pulled off.
It was just another Pirates sequel, really. Really big and impressive sets, nice CG, a good soundtrack, great dialog and characterization, but the entire rest of the movie has to battle with Jack Sparrow running around and being impressive. It's down to a science now, to the point that these films feel like a really long trailer for a Pirates film, in a sense. That is, you show a bunch of the fan-pleasing things like Jack running about and being a dickhead and returning characters doing the things they've done before, but now it's a whole film and none of the rest of the new elements have any room left to breathe, let alone get fleshed out.
All in all, the great elements battle with the terrible elements to leave the film with an entierely middling score for me. I left the theater fairly amused, I didn't feel like my time was wasted and I wasn't mad at this production(other than it being another piece in the machine that worked to butcher the original ride), but I also didn't leave it with the prevailing joy that many people seem to experience with these. I haven't particularly enjoyed ANY of the Pirates sequels, though, and this certainly scores a bit higher than those would, albeit not all that significantly, due to the actual existence of a coherent plot.
Formulaic to be sure, but I don't feel that's necessarily a bad thing. It's basically the first movie again, with a new location and way more audacity. And really, what else would you want or expect from a sequel to The Hangover? Whether or not a sequel was needed is debatable, but it did exactly what a sequel to that movie needed to do. If you liked the first one, you'll like this one.
That all said, this was possibly the worst movie imaginable to see as a midnight premiere, and I wouldn't have gone if I hadn't been invited and had my ticket paid for. The theater was full of people who were drunk and/or high, and in all seriousness, I did come home and take a shower immediately.
That actually sounds pretty appropriate.
I mostly agree with this statement. I enjoyed it for what it is... a blockbuster movie. To be frank, I can't get my head around those who rave about PotC: OST and rate it either 9 or 10 out of 10. It's a money making machine that happens to be entertaining. It's a movie, not a film and is therefore somewhat disposable by its very nature. Also, such high scores would suggest that it's a movie experience on par with Raiders of the Lost Ark... puh'lease! Can people not try to be a little more discerning, lest we endure a future of cinema ruled by shallow, albeit amusing movies.
As you can probably tell I'm having a bad day and I now sit awaiting the backlash of a thousand and one angry fanboys.
I thought it was pretty cool.
Rewatched it today and it was much better than I remembered. I cried laughing at one point.
The Hangover Part II - 7.5/10
It was... well, a lot of the same stuff. Almost to the point where it seemed like they just ripped out pages of the script from the first movie and reused them. Alan is more of an asshole than a manchild in this movie and that made me mad.
This has been the general response amongst fans and critics alike. I liked what MovieBob had to say on the topic the most.
Agreed. I wasn't a fan of what they did to Alan's character either.
It really felt like a carbon copy of the original. One thing that really got to me was the
It was funny but not too much make a lot of laugh. some joke...I don't make sense.
Documentary film about natural gas production in the United States, in particular the practice of hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") and its impact on environment and people.
As with any documentary like this I'd be wary of blindly accepting everything at face value, but there was plenty in there to get me riled. Far too much to do justice in a summary here (and there probably aren't many who'd care to read it), but I would strongly recommend a watch to anyone with an interest in environmental concerns (be prepared to withstand some shaky camera work).
Blackbeard's Ghost - 5.5/10
Sort of an underdog sporting team movie crossed with a "save this historical building from evil developers" movie. And a pirate. A pirate that's less like a proper scary pirate and more like what a pirate would be like if he was actually a drunk teddy bear with a sword.
It was pretty cool to see that much gambling and hard liquor in a 1960s Disney movie. Overall I didn't love it, but I didn't hate it with a fiery passion either. Although I got a couple of laughs I suspect it would look better through nostalgia goggles.
Role Models - 7/10
What can I say, I love Paul Rudd. And this movie has Paul Rudd dressed as
The premise is two 30-something losers have to mentor a couple of kids for community service, or face prison. It's good fun, kind of starts a little slow but picks up the pace to roll into a nice finish. Some bits are stupid but there are some little gemstone lines in there, such as:
Kid: Fuck you, Miss Daisy.
I wouldn't recommend it to my mum, but I had an enjoyable time watching it with my flatmates.
This is the Coen Brother's first feature film. It's a tale of a revenge backfired and it full of misunderstandings which lead to further tragedy. M. Emmet Walsh's portrayal of a creepy, slimy private dick for hire is sublime and every scene he's in makes for gripping viewing. The moment where a character is buried alive (following having been shot in the chest) is highly unsettling and brilliantly done so that the viewer is unable to take their eyes off the screen during this dialogueless scene.
The direction, cinematography and editing is second to none (as might be expected from a Coen Brother film). The final shot in the film shows the Coens in a playful mood, following a final scene of intense tension. It's the same off-beat sense of humour that the writer / directors would go on to display with the likes of Barton Fink's final shot.
All in all, this is one of my favorite Coen Brothers films, second only to The Big Lebowski. That means that I'm rating this film higher than most of their other classic films; Raising Arizona, Miller's Crossing, Barton Fink, The Hudsucker Proxy, Fargo, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, The Man Who Wasn't There and No Country for Old Men. With a list like that you know that Blood Simple is a fantastic piece of work and it should be required viewing for anyone who considers themselves a fan of film.
This is a rare experience for me. Usually, I'd love a movie, such as Dark Knight, Iron Man 2, or Inception, but I never really want to watch it more than once. However, I barely enjoy Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, but I kept watching it, over and over, just... because.
It's not a bad film. It's just a strange blend of "My God, I can't watch!" and "I can't stop watching!". There are just scenes that I love simply for being in the movie, such as the opening with Tobey Maguire. They're not particularly funny, amazing, poignant or anything. They're just there, and I love them for it.
This is because they are movies.
This is a film.
There's a difference.
It was one of these "lots of gags in which good guy is punished, until the end where he isn't punished, but all the injustices from before still aren't recognised or made up for". Except the guy in there is a dog I guess. These always make me cringe so much, I never find them funny, only infuriating.
Ooh. Explain.
A movie is a product primarily produced as a form of shallow entertainment and/or for financial profit. Examples of poor movies include "Skyline" or "AVP: Requiem". An example of a average to good movie is "Pirates of the Caribbean". An example of a great movie is "Raiders of the Lost Ark". The experiences offered by movies is one focused entirely on attracting a mass audience, where elements of the movie are tailored to appeal to as many of the main demographics as possible (e.g. women and men, young and old, black and white etc.).
These movies are often focused on action, romance and other base themes and are, when made well, good popcorn-munching fun but ultimately they are mostly disposable or forgettable once you're through watching.
A film on the other hand, is an experience which originates from a purely creative place. A film is likely to be unconcerned with appealing to as many people as possible and unafraid to broach subjects that may be controversial. A film is liable to delve deep in to the pyschi's of its protagonists and leave you with deep questions regarding issues of life and morality long after watching. A good film can watched time and time again, having enough subtext and background details to warrant repeat viewings.
Naturally, there are exceptions but the above is the general rule of thumb. From your post it sounded like you don't often stray from the path of massmarket Hollywood. If this is the case, then I implore you to widen your horizons. There's a wealth of classic cinema beyond the likes of Iron Man 2.
Further more, I'm going to do something I don't often do and quote myself. This comes from the "Is Star Wars Overrated?" thread...
Just saw it as well. While it's funny at times and all, it feels like they just lifted everything that happened in the first one, altered it slightly and moved it to Thailand, and did it again. Plus they kept saying wolfpack over and over.. ugh.
I feel the same way with Terry Gilliam's Brazil and The Big Lebowski. I dunno if those count, though. When I said that Fear and Loathing is a rare experience, I don't mean that I like watching it several times, because there are plenty of movies that I'd watch several times that I like. What I mean is that it's a movie that I felt indifferent about, but I just can't stop watching. I understand what you said about the differences between a movie and a film, and I agree mostly, but I also believe that blockbuster movies can also have enough subtext and background details to warrant repeat viewings.
Allow me to reassure you; yes, fuck yes. Brazil and The Big Lebowski are arguably two of the greatest films of all time.
I also highly recommend the other Coen Brother films, particularly the following...
Blood Simple
Raising Arizona
Barton Fink
The Hudsucker Proxy
Fargo
I wouldn't bet on Godolphin to start with the letter G!!