Definitely. Wasn't downing on First Class at all, loved that movie and was not expecting to see Wolverine at all.
I was hoping when we seen Wolverine he was going to come and help them maybe Professor X goes and tells him about what they are trying to do but spoiler alert Wolverine is not in it again.
Question to you guys. Hunger Games, good movie or no?
It was definitely worth the two bucks that I paid to see it.
Basically, it did a very good job of staying true to the books. If you enjoyed the books, you'll probably enjoy the movie about as much. Well cast, well acted. And best of all, they kept the mood of the books.
I'm sure other people would have different opinions on it, but I'd say it's a pretty solid film. Did what it came to do and did that well.
Kate Beckinsale needs to get a new job. Maybe a waitress. She's so damn awful in this. Why the hell does Len Wiseman keep hiring he-
Wha...
Wha...what?
OH SHIIIIIIII- that explains it.
But yeah, Wiseman is really starting to remind me of Paul WS Anderson with his shitty mediocre action movi-
Eh?
Wha?
Noooooo.....
How freaking whipped and lame do you have to be to...no...no....these women are the directors, not the guys. They're calling the shots. The guys are just there in name only. I'm convinced now. Sheesh, why couldn't we replace these guys with a couple more guys half as talented as Steven Spielber-
Can we all agree that if the director is married to one of the main stars of a film, it will automatically suck balls?
God that'd save reviewers a good couple of hours a year.
How freaking whipped and lame do you have to be to...no...no....these women are the directors, not the guys. They're calling the shots. The guys are just there in name only. I'm convinced now.
That Milla Jovovich, eh? I wonder if there was another director she had around her finger for two ye...
...ah, forget it.
Thank god they caught Kristen Stewart while she tried the same thing.
Guy Pearce plays a wrongfully accused government agent who has a chance at freedom if he rescues the president's daughter from a maximum security prison in outer space...
Despite that plot synopsis, this is surprisingly a very entertaining action thriller. Guy Pearce is great as a wise cracking anti-hero. It's sort of a cheap thriller, but uses it's low budget very effectively.
Awesome rental.
V/H/S
This is a very low budget anthology of random found footage clips. Some are better than others, but all of them are a little creepy and pretty different from each other. Most of them are supernatural.
It's nothing high quality, but much more imaginative than your typical cash in found footage movie these days. I'd only see this if you enjoy the genre. And I would watch this at home with the lights off. It's going to be a better rental and big screen experience.
Not out in the states yet, but it's out there...
The Apparition
This was a bit of false advertising. The movie is supposed to be about making an entity or ghost appear if enough people truly believe in it. Well one experiment like that happens in the opening scene, but the rest of the movie is just about a couple being haunted and terrorized by that same entity.
It's pretty boring and awful. Nothing really happens or is ever explained, even though they try to, it falls horribly flat.
Avoid, avoid, avoid.
The Campaign
Caught this a few weeks ago. It's pretty funny. Will Ferrel is great in this role. Zach GalatheguyfromtheHangover is as well, but I'm not sure it needed an entire movie. The movie is a critique the political process, rather than the issues, but it might have been better as a series of vignettes aired by funnyordie rather than a story.
Does it have a liberal or conservative slant? Well it attacks the Koch brothers, but that's about it. Neither the Democratic or Republican candidate bring up any real issues or have any differences from each other.
Just ew. I mean, I thought I wouldn't like it. But I didn't think I'd hate it this much. It just looks and feels awful.
And for a good chunk of the movie I was focused on one thing. A small detail from one scene. It is of no consequence to anything. Where the hell did Leonidas get that apple?
Fuck me, this film was insulting. I've got one perfect moment that illustrates this, but I don't wanna ruin my coming-at-some-point review. It's a glorious failure of scriptwriting though.
Wow, Fawful and Marsden should start a thread on shitty Philip K. Dick adaptations. I'm loathe to admit it, but I also saw Total Recall and actually own Paycheck, because I'm that kind of masochistic nerd.
On a brighter note:
Searching For Sugar Man awesome/10
Moving doc about Rodriguez, a mysterious musician from Detroit who put out two brilliant but failed albums, may or may not have commited suicide on stage, then years later got famous in South Africa and inspired a generation of anti-apartheid musicians. The whole movie is about how unknown the artist is, so no prior knowledge required. In fact, the less you know, the better, because this movie might just make a fan out of you.
The first Universal monster movie I both did and didn't really like. It's a rehash of Dracula with Bela Lugosi. The Van Helsing character is rehashed. Mina, John Harker, and Doctor Seward are all rehashed.
Inhotep - Dracula
Helen - Mina
Dr. Muller - Van Helsing
Frank - Harker
Sir Joseph - Doctor Seward
The movie is more Egyptian, and Imhotep is actually more powerful than Dracula in some ways, but the basic plot is the same. If The Mummy had come first, perhaps Imhotep would be the more menacing figure. I don't think so. There is something in Boris Karloff's wrinkled face that conveys a sense of ancient evil really well, and the acting is great, but the similarities to Dracula make me feel rather...like the movie is lazy. Then there is the beautiful cinematography, the expansive sets and costume design for ancient Egypt, the wonderful heroine, and truly menacing atmosphere. Gods come to life, and it's a really neat effect. I'm torn on this one. There's a lot of good, but I can't decide if it serves to be lazy or to make an existing story better in a new setting.
The Mummy [Brendan Frasier] - ???/10
A movie that not only manages to pay homage to the original in a respectful way, but it evolves the story into something a bit more unique. The Mummy in Karl Freund's version had a great backstory, but this was marred by the rehash it was taking place in. Many lines in this movie are ripped straight from the Karloff one. It also borrows various elements from various people who were attached to the project: zombie mummies from Romero and juicy bloody regeneration from Barker- and added them to the original's concept. This all services to re-invigorate the story. However, the movie takes place in the backdrop of a cheesy pulp action movie. I like Brendan Frasier, I LOVE pulp adventures, and I LOVE this movie, but comparing to the original, this one feels much less poetic. It's definitely respectful, however. So how do they fare?
The new one has the better monster and better story....but the older one has the better tone. Using what this movie created, and sticking to the dark, poetic feeling of the original, a movie with a pure sense of dread could be made. Even so, I appreciate both films for what they are, and enjoy both, although I enjoy the new one just a little bit more.
It was definitely worth the two bucks that I paid to see it.
Basically, it did a very good job of staying true to the books. If you enjoyed the books, you'll probably enjoy the movie about as much. Well cast, well acted. And best of all, they kept the mood of the books.
I'm sure other people would have different opinions on it, but I'd say it's a pretty solid film. Did what it came to do and did that well.
I'll agree that it was good entertainment, but in my opinion it was far from being able to convey the feeling of helplessness and desperation of the people as portrayed in the book. I was pretty disappointed to see how mild it had been made to fit a PG-13 rating.
To me the girl cast as Katniss didn't fit with the image of a lean, undernourished hunter girl living under oppression I had, but that's my opinion. The acting was very good and believable at times, but sadly lacking at other times. When the same actors differ so greatly in performance, I think it must be due to poor directing.
It currently has 7.3 on imdb.com. I'd probably give it a 6, but that's not to say I wouldn't recommend watching it. I got what I expected from the movie, and I'll probably see the next one as well.
I just have an open question for the group. I was recently having a discussion about originality in modern film. The discussion was more about the "where do they go from here?" aspect rather than the lack of originality. Since the integration of computer graphics or enhanced graphics, what was left to achieve. While 3D changed the viewing experience, it really didn't do anything at all to change film itself.
My question I'm posing is:
What was the last truly original film you remember being released? This could be an original idea that was brought forth, or a movie which presented an idea in an original way.
Bonus question: Is there anything original left to be done?
I don't want to talk to much about it, (because I don't want to spoil its fantastic suprises) but almost everything is great about this one.
The animation, the voice acting, the story, the characters.
And its actually funny! Rarely have I watched a kids film that has made me laugh, and this one made me laugh about 3 or 4 times.
I highly recommend you go see it if you haven't already!
I just have an open question for the group. I was recently having a discussion about originality in modern film. The discussion was more about the "where do they go from here?" aspect rather than the lack of originality. Since the integration of computer graphics or enhanced graphics, what was left to achieve. While 3D changed the viewing experience, it really didn't do anything at all to change film itself.
My question I'm posing is:
What was the last truly original film you remember being released? This could be an original idea that was brought forth, or a movie which presented an idea in an original way.
Bonus question: Is there anything original left to be done?
Right now motion capture is the field that has the most to achieve. It's not perfect by any means. The biggest hurdle it has to overcome currently is the rendering of water. I'd imagine other elements have a lot to overcome too. Characters in water or wet skin are not exactly well done yet.
So anyway, I conquered a longtime fear of a movie the other night. I was browsing Netflix and came across-
The Phantom [Billy Zane] - 6/10
I was petrified of the microscope scene for years as a child. It made it impossible for me to watch most action, scifi, or horror movies. I was afraid something would happen to someone's eyes, and would burst into tears, screaming for my parents to turn them off.
So I saw the movie on Netflix, and I decided I was going to conquer my fear of it once and for all. I avoided the movie for years. As the scene came up that traumatized me, my heart raced, my hands shook, and I wanted desperately to look away or pause it, but I forced myself to sit with my eyes wide open and watch it second for second. Twice. I made it.
The rest of the movie is pretty faithful to the character of The Phantom. If I have a complaint, it's that the movie is way too fast and short. Billy Zane is a great Phantom. He's just so energetic and he has so much enthusiasm. He's like a 90s Brendan Frasier with more vigor. Treat Williams was hilarious....he would have made the perfect Howard Stark in the Avengers universe.
Good decision to buy this on Blu Ray. It's not the best possible quality, but I haven't seen the movie in 10 years or so, so it still is revelatory. Beamed back into my youth. Spielberg's playful and cheeky and shows reverence to his source material only when he happens to feel like it.
Watched it in English for the first time and always heard the German dubbing in my head. Hook received an excellent and inventive translation and dubbing the likes of which are very seldom heard today. Also, German actor Peer Augustinski does an insurmountable job at dubbing Williams - and I think he even continues to do so today, stroke and old age (72) notwithstanding.
Moonrise Kingdom and Tampopo Blu Rays should arrive next week. I'll be back. :cool:
Langoliers maybe. There's also all the nothing adaptations that exist, but I'd rather leave them as unknown.
Oh and I just watched The Avengers. It was alright. I had the common problems others have stated with how the Hulk was handled and I also didn't really care for them fighting drones. I actually felt bored for most of the action scenes not involving Loki just because the two types of enemies didn't really provide much of a challenge(or character for that matter). I am a fan of Super Hero movies, but I'm sorry fanboys, this one just didn't really grasp me. 6? I guess. I don't know, I liked Thor, I'm glad we got Loki back. I'll go 7/10.
I never saw that Shining miniseries (nor will I ever, because Kubrick's film is my fav horror film of all time, and I don't care what King says about it) but I heard it was pretty wack. Didn't it star that guy from Wings? <checks IMDB> It sure did.
This is a wonderful movie. On the psychological level, it manages to explore feelings of love between two far too young kids without being awkward for the grownup viewer; and it achieves a meta-dialogue between two 'outsiders' that doesn't feel utterly stilted. Hayward and Gilman always appear vulnerable, but never overact. It FEELS like two kids trying to appear grown up. It FEELS like their emotion is just cracking through, flickering over their inexpressive faces. Kara Hayward does an exceptionally good job at this, because she can give you a frighteningly stone cold femme fatale to be nothing ever gets to me look that most women thankfully are not able to completely reproduce once they're out of puberty.
Interestingly, the two main characters seem so determined, so resolute in their decisions most of the time that emotional outbreaks naturally belong to the grownup characters. If these kids crack and riot, it's either in a flashback montage or off screen (seriously). I'll have to watch the movie again to evaluate what this does to perceiving the characters.
The undeniable element of exaggeration and the grotesque, which normally bugs me in movies, aims to set nuances without disturbing the whole picture. That kid should not have a motorcycle, that tree house is too high, this scout too perfect, this animal's death a bit too much bad luck, that leap too digitally heroic and that weather incident too staged. The only exaggeration I could not let the movie get away with was a psychological one (when an entire group of characters, without a special reason, turned 180° in their opinion).
The appliance of classical music is shameless and of course successful. Any movie that opens with Benjamin Britten's "The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra" should get an Oscar by default. The score risks being intrusive most of the time - and surprisingly isn't. I'm considering to buy the soundtrack as well. I knew nothing about Alexandre Desplat before - possibly because everything Twilight usually is completely out of my field of view - but I bow to the man. I bow to the man.
Bill Murray and Edward Norton feel typecast, still they are great in their roles. I wish they had given old Bill more closure for his character, but alas, he's not a main character. Bruce Willis could not be less typecast. He may be a police officer yet again, but damn is he a depressing specimen of the trade. Swinton is too stereotypical to be really memorable (but that is the role, certainly not the actress) and McDormand once again manages to surprise me with her versatility (although neither role nor screen time are really impressive).
Two thumbs up for a thoroughly enjoyable movie. Buy the DVD, because the Blu Ray's picture quality unfortunately isn't in any way visibly better.
With most films these days you see the trailers and get a fair idea what the whole film will be like from that collection of small snippets. I had seen the trailer for Looper a couple of times before I saw a film and I have to say the trailer undersells the film. There's much more to the film than the action with a bit of time travel chucked in for good measure. It has a story that develops well and isn't too difficult to follow in just one viewing (with any story involving any amount of time travel, making it understandable in one pass is an achievement).
You do have to believe the film's rules of time travel, but that should be a given when dealing with this type of film. It gives a realistic portrait of a future, which is typically dystopian but not overly so. One actor in the film stands above the rest with their performance. I'm not going to say who, if you've seen the film you should be able to guess who I'm talking about.
It's hard describing the film without going through the plot and I don't want to spoil it for anyone so what I've done here will have to do. Don't get me wrong, it's not flawless but the faults that can be found don't detract too much from the experience. It's worth a watch at least once.
One actor in the film stands above the rest with their performance. I'm not going to say who, if you've seen the film you should be able to guess who I'm talking about.
its Jeff Daniels, right? That's what all the critics are saying. I really want to see this. Brick was awesome. Anybody check out The Master yet?
I got Masters Of The Universe on blu-ray as a gift from my wife. I would give it a 6 out of 10... but frankly, I forgot how damn good Frank Langella was as Skeletor, so I'm giving it a 7/10.
I caught most of The Avengers (or Avengers Assemble as it's incorrectly called in the UK). Still awesome! Especially on Blu-Ray seen through my Dad's new 40-inch HDTV. Glorious. 8/10.
Also caught a bit of John Carter. That... wasn't so great. Far too silly a premise played far to straight to take even remotely serious. And why the fuck would the writers name a city after a gas? 5/10.
Comments
I was hoping when we seen Wolverine he was going to come and help them maybe Professor X goes and tells him about what they are trying to do but spoiler alert Wolverine is not in it again.
It was definitely worth the two bucks that I paid to see it.
Basically, it did a very good job of staying true to the books. If you enjoyed the books, you'll probably enjoy the movie about as much. Well cast, well acted. And best of all, they kept the mood of the books.
I'm sure other people would have different opinions on it, but I'd say it's a pretty solid film. Did what it came to do and did that well.
Kate Beckinsale needs to get a new job. Maybe a waitress. She's so damn awful in this. Why the hell does Len Wiseman keep hiring he-
Wha...
Wha...what?
OH SHIIIIIIII- that explains it.
But yeah, Wiseman is really starting to remind me of Paul WS Anderson with his shitty mediocre action movi-
Eh?
Wha?
Noooooo.....
How freaking whipped and lame do you have to be to...no...no....these women are the directors, not the guys. They're calling the shots. The guys are just there in name only. I'm convinced now. Sheesh, why couldn't we replace these guys with a couple more guys half as talented as Steven Spielber-
That SHIT DOESN'T COUNT!
God that'd save reviewers a good couple of hours a year.
That Milla Jovovich, eh? I wonder if there was another director she had around her finger for two ye...
...ah, forget it.
Thank god they caught Kristen Stewart while she tried the same thing.
Totally un-American
Despite that plot synopsis, this is surprisingly a very entertaining action thriller. Guy Pearce is great as a wise cracking anti-hero. It's sort of a cheap thriller, but uses it's low budget very effectively.
Awesome rental.
V/H/S
This is a very low budget anthology of random found footage clips. Some are better than others, but all of them are a little creepy and pretty different from each other. Most of them are supernatural.
It's nothing high quality, but much more imaginative than your typical cash in found footage movie these days. I'd only see this if you enjoy the genre. And I would watch this at home with the lights off. It's going to be a better rental and big screen experience.
Not out in the states yet, but it's out there...
The Apparition
This was a bit of false advertising. The movie is supposed to be about making an entity or ghost appear if enough people truly believe in it. Well one experiment like that happens in the opening scene, but the rest of the movie is just about a couple being haunted and terrorized by that same entity.
It's pretty boring and awful. Nothing really happens or is ever explained, even though they try to, it falls horribly flat.
Avoid, avoid, avoid.
The Campaign
Caught this a few weeks ago. It's pretty funny. Will Ferrel is great in this role. Zach GalatheguyfromtheHangover is as well, but I'm not sure it needed an entire movie. The movie is a critique the political process, rather than the issues, but it might have been better as a series of vignettes aired by funnyordie rather than a story.
Does it have a liberal or conservative slant? Well it attacks the Koch brothers, but that's about it. Neither the Democratic or Republican candidate bring up any real issues or have any differences from each other.
ew/10
Just ew. I mean, I thought I wouldn't like it. But I didn't think I'd hate it this much. It just looks and feels awful.
And for a good chunk of the movie I was focused on one thing. A small detail from one scene. It is of no consequence to anything. Where the hell did Leonidas get that apple?
Fuck me, this film was insulting. I've got one perfect moment that illustrates this, but I don't wanna ruin my coming-at-some-point review. It's a glorious failure of scriptwriting though.
You cannot rate a Terry Gilliam movie. Especially this one.
I will say "I loved it".
I cannot say anymore than that because analysing about this movie in any kind of detail may cause my head to explode.
This is probably the closest approximation of my reaction towards it:
Neo-Noir classic.
On a brighter note:
Searching For Sugar Man awesome/10
Moving doc about Rodriguez, a mysterious musician from Detroit who put out two brilliant but failed albums, may or may not have commited suicide on stage, then years later got famous in South Africa and inspired a generation of anti-apartheid musicians. The whole movie is about how unknown the artist is, so no prior knowledge required. In fact, the less you know, the better, because this movie might just make a fan out of you.
First movie I ever cried while watching
The first Universal monster movie I both did and didn't really like. It's a rehash of Dracula with Bela Lugosi. The Van Helsing character is rehashed. Mina, John Harker, and Doctor Seward are all rehashed.
Inhotep - Dracula
Helen - Mina
Dr. Muller - Van Helsing
Frank - Harker
Sir Joseph - Doctor Seward
The movie is more Egyptian, and Imhotep is actually more powerful than Dracula in some ways, but the basic plot is the same. If The Mummy had come first, perhaps Imhotep would be the more menacing figure. I don't think so. There is something in Boris Karloff's wrinkled face that conveys a sense of ancient evil really well, and the acting is great, but the similarities to Dracula make me feel rather...like the movie is lazy. Then there is the beautiful cinematography, the expansive sets and costume design for ancient Egypt, the wonderful heroine, and truly menacing atmosphere. Gods come to life, and it's a really neat effect. I'm torn on this one. There's a lot of good, but I can't decide if it serves to be lazy or to make an existing story better in a new setting.
The Mummy [Brendan Frasier] - ???/10
A movie that not only manages to pay homage to the original in a respectful way, but it evolves the story into something a bit more unique. The Mummy in Karl Freund's version had a great backstory, but this was marred by the rehash it was taking place in. Many lines in this movie are ripped straight from the Karloff one. It also borrows various elements from various people who were attached to the project: zombie mummies from Romero and juicy bloody regeneration from Barker- and added them to the original's concept. This all services to re-invigorate the story. However, the movie takes place in the backdrop of a cheesy pulp action movie. I like Brendan Frasier, I LOVE pulp adventures, and I LOVE this movie, but comparing to the original, this one feels much less poetic. It's definitely respectful, however. So how do they fare?
The new one has the better monster and better story....but the older one has the better tone. Using what this movie created, and sticking to the dark, poetic feeling of the original, a movie with a pure sense of dread could be made. Even so, I appreciate both films for what they are, and enjoy both, although I enjoy the new one just a little bit more.
Masterpiece!
I'll agree that it was good entertainment, but in my opinion it was far from being able to convey the feeling of helplessness and desperation of the people as portrayed in the book. I was pretty disappointed to see how mild it had been made to fit a PG-13 rating.
To me the girl cast as Katniss didn't fit with the image of a lean, undernourished hunter girl living under oppression I had, but that's my opinion. The acting was very good and believable at times, but sadly lacking at other times. When the same actors differ so greatly in performance, I think it must be due to poor directing.
It currently has 7.3 on imdb.com. I'd probably give it a 6, but that's not to say I wouldn't recommend watching it. I got what I expected from the movie, and I'll probably see the next one as well.
My question I'm posing is:
What was the last truly original film you remember being released? This could be an original idea that was brought forth, or a movie which presented an idea in an original way.
Bonus question: Is there anything original left to be done?
9/10
Definately film of the year material here folks!
I don't want to talk to much about it, (because I don't want to spoil its fantastic suprises) but almost everything is great about this one.
The animation, the voice acting, the story, the characters.
And its actually funny! Rarely have I watched a kids film that has made me laugh, and this one made me laugh about 3 or 4 times.
I highly recommend you go see it if you haven't already!
Right now motion capture is the field that has the most to achieve. It's not perfect by any means. The biggest hurdle it has to overcome currently is the rendering of water. I'd imagine other elements have a lot to overcome too. Characters in water or wet skin are not exactly well done yet.
So anyway, I conquered a longtime fear of a movie the other night. I was browsing Netflix and came across-
The Phantom [Billy Zane] - 6/10
I was petrified of the microscope scene for years as a child. It made it impossible for me to watch most action, scifi, or horror movies. I was afraid something would happen to someone's eyes, and would burst into tears, screaming for my parents to turn them off.
So I saw the movie on Netflix, and I decided I was going to conquer my fear of it once and for all. I avoided the movie for years. As the scene came up that traumatized me, my heart raced, my hands shook, and I wanted desperately to look away or pause it, but I forced myself to sit with my eyes wide open and watch it second for second. Twice. I made it.
The rest of the movie is pretty faithful to the character of The Phantom. If I have a complaint, it's that the movie is way too fast and short. Billy Zane is a great Phantom. He's just so energetic and he has so much enthusiasm. He's like a 90s Brendan Frasier with more vigor. Treat Williams was hilarious....he would have made the perfect Howard Stark in the Avengers universe.
Good decision to buy this on Blu Ray. It's not the best possible quality, but I haven't seen the movie in 10 years or so, so it still is revelatory. Beamed back into my youth. Spielberg's playful and cheeky and shows reverence to his source material only when he happens to feel like it.
Watched it in English for the first time and always heard the German dubbing in my head. Hook received an excellent and inventive translation and dubbing the likes of which are very seldom heard today. Also, German actor Peer Augustinski does an insurmountable job at dubbing Williams - and I think he even continues to do so today, stroke and old age (72) notwithstanding.
Moonrise Kingdom and Tampopo Blu Rays should arrive next week. I'll be back. :cool:
What. The. Fuck. Is. This. Shit?
This one almost by accident really.
So I was in my room and I saw my little bro watching something on youtube. This movie. And I decided to sit and watch it with him.
Its very good!
I'd give it a 7.5/10
(Not quite a movie I'd watch over and over, but still very nice.
Oh, really? Then what is?
Oh and I just watched The Avengers. It was alright. I had the common problems others have stated with how the Hulk was handled and I also didn't really care for them fighting drones. I actually felt bored for most of the action scenes not involving Loki just because the two types of enemies didn't really provide much of a challenge(or character for that matter). I am a fan of Super Hero movies, but I'm sorry fanboys, this one just didn't really grasp me. 6? I guess. I don't know, I liked Thor, I'm glad we got Loki back. I'll go 7/10.
This is a wonderful movie. On the psychological level, it manages to explore feelings of love between two far too young kids without being awkward for the grownup viewer; and it achieves a meta-dialogue between two 'outsiders' that doesn't feel utterly stilted. Hayward and Gilman always appear vulnerable, but never overact. It FEELS like two kids trying to appear grown up. It FEELS like their emotion is just cracking through, flickering over their inexpressive faces. Kara Hayward does an exceptionally good job at this, because she can give you a frighteningly stone cold femme fatale to be nothing ever gets to me look that most women thankfully are not able to completely reproduce once they're out of puberty.
Interestingly, the two main characters seem so determined, so resolute in their decisions most of the time that emotional outbreaks naturally belong to the grownup characters. If these kids crack and riot, it's either in a flashback montage or off screen (seriously). I'll have to watch the movie again to evaluate what this does to perceiving the characters.
The undeniable element of exaggeration and the grotesque, which normally bugs me in movies, aims to set nuances without disturbing the whole picture. That kid should not have a motorcycle, that tree house is too high, this scout too perfect, this animal's death a bit too much bad luck, that leap too digitally heroic and that weather incident too staged. The only exaggeration I could not let the movie get away with was a psychological one (when an entire group of characters, without a special reason, turned 180° in their opinion).
The appliance of classical music is shameless and of course successful. Any movie that opens with Benjamin Britten's "The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra" should get an Oscar by default. The score risks being intrusive most of the time - and surprisingly isn't. I'm considering to buy the soundtrack as well. I knew nothing about Alexandre Desplat before - possibly because everything Twilight usually is completely out of my field of view - but I bow to the man. I bow to the man.
Bill Murray and Edward Norton feel typecast, still they are great in their roles. I wish they had given old Bill more closure for his character, but alas, he's not a main character. Bruce Willis could not be less typecast. He may be a police officer yet again, but damn is he a depressing specimen of the trade. Swinton is too stereotypical to be really memorable (but that is the role, certainly not the actress) and McDormand once again manages to surprise me with her versatility (although neither role nor screen time are really impressive).
Two thumbs up for a thoroughly enjoyable movie. Buy the DVD, because the Blu Ray's picture quality unfortunately isn't in any way visibly better.
With most films these days you see the trailers and get a fair idea what the whole film will be like from that collection of small snippets. I had seen the trailer for Looper a couple of times before I saw a film and I have to say the trailer undersells the film. There's much more to the film than the action with a bit of time travel chucked in for good measure. It has a story that develops well and isn't too difficult to follow in just one viewing (with any story involving any amount of time travel, making it understandable in one pass is an achievement).
You do have to believe the film's rules of time travel, but that should be a given when dealing with this type of film. It gives a realistic portrait of a future, which is typically dystopian but not overly so. One actor in the film stands above the rest with their performance. I'm not going to say who, if you've seen the film you should be able to guess who I'm talking about.
It's hard describing the film without going through the plot and I don't want to spoil it for anyone so what I've done here will have to do. Don't get me wrong, it's not flawless but the faults that can be found don't detract too much from the experience. It's worth a watch at least once.
Score: 8/10
its Jeff Daniels, right? That's what all the critics are saying. I really want to see this. Brick was awesome. Anybody check out The Master yet?
Hulk is the best character.
He really is. The comics are pretty fantastic too. Provided you skip everything that has Jarella in it.
I know, I know, Masters of the Universe makes an impressive attempt at being bad nonetheless.
Also caught a bit of John Carter. That... wasn't so great. Far too silly a premise played far to straight to take even remotely serious. And why the fuck would the writers name a city after a gas? 5/10.
I really loved all the "Eternia" stuff... it's just them going to earth that was a little tiresome. And yes, James Tolkan is always awesome!