#6001  
Old 11-30-2012, 06:10 PM

Rise of the Guardians(2012)-6/10
  #6002  
Old 11-30-2012, 09:54 PM
Rockabye with Constance Bennett and Joel McCrea - A mediocre drama about a refined stage actress trying to land a role that closely mirrors her own rough upbringing. The two leads are OK but the story is a mess with the romances, adoption, and scandal that surround the main story. 4/10

The Man With the Golden Gun - Christopher Lee portrays one of the best villains in the series so far but everything else is subpar. I still think Moore is a poor choice for James Bond, Britt Ekland's character was far too stupid, and much of the story didn't really make any sense. Good thing Lee was so damn good. 5/10
  #6003  
Old 11-30-2012, 10:40 PM


8.5/10
  #6004  
Old 11-30-2012, 11:07 PM
Rise of the Guardians - 6/10
Red Dawn ('12) - 4/10
I Come With The Rain - 8/10
  #6005  
Old 12-01-2012, 10:37 AM
Pestforce provides pest control services and offers a quick response and a free no obligation quote. Call Pestforce – we're expert UK pest controllers.

http://www.hairplayproducts.com/
  #6006  
Old 12-01-2012, 03:41 PM
Fireball 7/10

An action film from Thailand about a gambling basketball tournament wher the players fight to get the ball. A must see for fans of asian action cinema.

Chillerama 7/10

A horror comedy anthology of films set in a drive-in. Did i tell you it has zombies in it?
  #6007  
Old 12-01-2012, 03:42 PM
Ghosts of Mars (2001)

Yep back near the millennium there was a bit of a Mars movie rush. Alongside a couple other action thrillers earlier in 2000 this horror thriller was obviously a more fantasy based trip to the red planet courtesy of John Carpenter.

You know its Carpenter straight away with most of his films but this was different. For a start the soundtrack was a lot of actual heavy metal performers playing pieces created by Carpenter. So yes the tunes are all Carpenters work as usual but it just didn't have the cool quirky simple electronic vibes you associate with his films. The heavy metal stuff just feels too errr heavy for what the film is, it tries to force the action and gore upon you with loud thrashing music which just seems childish really.

Naturally with Carpenter it looks cheap haha, everything is normally basic but created well with clever lighting, camera angles and editing. In this there is none of that craftsmanship, it really does feel as if John has sold out and given us a loud cliched straight to DVD action flick with no real thought or imagination. Everything also looks really really poor, terrible sets, terrible effects and makeup work and why are the good guys all wearing ski masks lol!. You can virtually see the edge of the sets half the time, we are talking TV movie standards here people!.

The plot is completely lame lets be honest, in fact it just feels like 'The Fog' but set on Mars or in space. That red dusty alien spirit cloud that goes around infecting the miners? come on John!. On top of that its all just a basic crappy zombie-ish horror theme. Humans are turned into mindless zombies that like to mutilate themselves and cut peoples heads off, errr gee, like wow!.

Its a shame because the cast is pretty cool with good names. A very young slim looking Statham with a bit of fuzz left on his bonce, Grier who is always sultry n sexy (why does she have to buy the farm so soon John!?) and Henstridge does add a 'Ripley-ish' current but personally I would of cast someone else. Yes 'Ice Cube' is there too being ridiculously over the top trying to make us all think he's a rough tough gangsta' in space, when will you grow up and use your real name jesus!.

All together this really does feel like a rehash of previous thrillers 'The Fog' and 'Assault on Precinct 13' all mixed into one. Completely inept in every area, very cheap looking and totally un-thrilling in any way, how Carpenter produced such a generic piece of crapola like this I don't know. You only have to look at the space zombie bad guys to see how poor it is, looks like the makeup was applied by themselves and thought up by teenagers.
  #6008  
Old 12-01-2012, 10:02 PM
On Broadway - A man decides to write and direct a play about his recently deceased uncle and his wake. This just wasn't very good. It was boring and none of the characters were fully developed. 3/10

The Spy Who Loved Me - A good story set during the Cold War with a fantastic Bond Girl played by Barbara Bach and one of the best henchmen in Jaws. I still don't like Roger Moore though. If this was a Connery Bond film instead it could have been of the very best of the series. 7/10
  #6009  
Old 12-01-2012, 10:49 PM
Cinderella Man Not as good as when I saw it a few years ago, but still quality 7/10
Lady and the Tramp Classic 9/10
  #6010  
Old 12-02-2012, 01:09 AM

Moonrise Kingdom(2012)-9/10
  #6011  
Old 12-02-2012, 12:00 PM
Been way too busy to post the past few days but..


Dear Zachary- An utterly devastating, infuriating, and beautiful documentary about love, loss, murder, and the strength of a family pushed beyond the limits of what anyone should have to deal with in their lives.
9/10


The Ambassador- Wow, wasnt sure what to think of this before I saw it. I can easily say now though that although it never reaches the height of revalations that truly shake the world, it is nonetheless a bold, daring, and darkly funny look at a world most of us will never be allowed to witness.
8/10

Last edited by marilynMONROBOT; 12-02-2012 at 12:09 PM..
  #6012  
Old 12-02-2012, 12:39 PM
Trade Of Innocents - 7/10
  #6013  
Old 12-02-2012, 02:48 PM

6/10

Slow paced but well acted and directed. the final minutes own the movie. Saw the Criterion Colection dvd.
  #6014  
Old 12-02-2012, 07:39 PM
Yesterday:

Karate-Robo Zaborgar

6/10

I am still unsure about whether I liked this movie or not. at times it feels like you're watching a rated R version of a power rangers episode. I did enjoy the second half more. It's worth checking out if you enjoy this kind of thing. If you don't you might find it difficult to sit through.

Silent House (re-make)

6.5/10

The ending didn't actually bother me that much. I didn't feel cheated by it, but I can understand why some people might feel that way. still a pretty good horror movie that does provide some thrills
  #6015  
Old 12-02-2012, 08:12 PM


9/10



6/10
  #6016  
Old 12-02-2012, 08:43 PM

7/10
  #6017  
Old 12-02-2012, 09:32 PM


Prometheus

It's a beautiful film, both graphically, cinematography, and an excellent performance by Fassbender. However, the film is held back from being good because of poor character development, stupid actions by smart people, and too enigmatic for its own good.

6/10
  #6018  
Old 12-02-2012, 09:47 PM
Moonraker - I liked Lois Chiles as Dr Goodhead in this but everything else was a mess. Roger Moore still sucks as Bond, they destroyed Jaws' character in this one, and the story made no damn sense. 3/10
  #6019  
Old 12-02-2012, 11:01 PM
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

I grew up on a few big franchises through the 80's, 'Star Wars', 'Indy', 'Star Trek' and 'Lord of the Rings'. Of course LOTR was never much of a franchise as the only thing available to us (other than the actual book) was the Bakshi animated version, but I loved it. Grown out of it slightly now admittedly but still...lets soldier on.

I can't compare the animated film fairly to be honest but I must admit there was always elements of Bakshi's effort that worked so well. There are many elements of this Jackson effort I like also but as usual with so many modern films I do feel the over exaggerated hype simply forced people to adhere to the fact that this film is suppose to be 'epic'.

The start of this film is perfect, everything we see in 'the Shire' is just as you would expect and it looks wonderful. Straight away you can see the immense detail that has been put into the film with the interior sets inside 'Bilbo's' little dwelling (look at the metal framing on the back of his front door). Clothing, decorations, equipment etc...everything within the Shire is warm, cozy and thoroughly inviting to the point that you just wanna up sticks and live there. I still think they took some ideas from 'Willow' hehe.

We all knew what to expect with the look of the characters before hand but you still can't fail to be impressed with the quality of simple things like wigs and little items of clothing such as waistcoats. The plot trundles along nicely and like the 78 animated version its pretty similar in styles and visuals. The journey to 'Bree' and incidents within 'The Prancing Pony' all look great and have that perfect olde English atmosphere with much ale drinking amongst shady figures.

I enjoyed pretty much everything up to the point where the heroes meet up with the Elves 'Galadriel' and 'Celeborn'. At this point I found myself getting bored, the sequences here were heavy going and pretty dull frankly. Not that I expected anything else but I just felt the plot and interest slip away from me. From this point I was disappointed with what I saw, the film seems to lose a lot of its genuine old world atmosphere, the orcs and especially 'Uruk-hai' looked pretty dreadful and the fight sequences become extremely repetitive.

We know the heroes don't die so you know they will be slicing down the bad guys left right and centre but the fights looked pretty badly choregraphed to me with obvious fake fisticuffs going on. The orcs just keep on coming one after another whilst the main heroes merely glance at them with a sword or look at them and they go flying to the ground in screams of agony...hmmm.

I never liked the designs for the orcs either really. They always looked like something from a bad 'Star Trek' episode with silly fake contacts, silly fake teeth and the odd scar across the face. They are a random bunch so the odd one looked OK but I must side with the Bakshi film for this. I always loved how the orcs were in the shadows, faces obscured by darkness only allowing their eerie red eyes to glow through. The 78 animated film was much darker in tone with violence and the orc hordes, Jackson's film never captured that spooky essence for me a tall with either.

This leads me to the effects which a lot was done with CGI. Now this was to be expected of course, you can't really make a film about this fairytale without it. Back in the day CGI was blooming was used in everything but unfortunately it hadn't been fine tuned yet. The result for this film being somewhat sketchy to say the least. Upon release everyone barked on about how great the effects were, I never saw this, to me they were always pretty bad and naturally to this day now look even worse.

You can't be negative about effects on old films but like I said even when I saw this at the cinema it looked dire to me. Where it worked was landscapes, skylines and armies, there are some glorious village/kingdom shots in this film, the odd building/ruin/relic also looked good but the problem came with over the top action set pieces and creatures.

Alongside tonnes of hideously bad bluescreen effects some of the CGI is damn ropey to be honest. Sequences inside the 'Mines of Moria' are easily the worst in the film and look awful, the huge troll the team must fight and the 'Balrog' demon always looked fake. The orc pits surrounding 'Saruman's' castle were another badly realised concept, looking back they really do look like PS2 sequences.

A lot of the action always did look like videogame sequences to me, much like the army battles at the start of the film and in the following sequels. The same issue that CGI had and still does really is the effects tend to look plastic and obvious.

One of the films main assets if you ask me is the attention to detail on errr everything!. Jackson has tried to cover all aspects right down to the smallest detail which has to be applauded. The other main asset must be the real location shoots used for various parts of 'Middle Earth'. Far be it from me to say but at times the film felt more of a tourist advert for New Zealand than a film hehe yep that's me being cynical, but honestly the location work really did expand the Tolkien universe to new heights. Much like 'Star Wars' did with their locations.

Cast wise, well I can't fault this really, every character is well cast and every actor does a good job, nuff said. Hell even the extras for the elves looked perfect just standing there saying nothing but looking so...elf-like.

Something the Bakshi film lacked but this film had was a beautifully smooth ethereal spirituality to it. Jackson captures the mythical almost semi religious tones of the story (mainly through sequences involving the elves and their folklore) and really makes it feel historically believeable. All the while you are accompanied by gentle heavenly sounds and the type of music you expect from 'Clannad' or 'Tangerine Dream', it is in fact Enya on occasion.

I still prefer the Bakshi version for certain aspects but I like this version for others. I don't think this film was quite dark or forboding enough in various sequences, huge missed chances with the 'Ringwraiths' methinks, and merely having screaming ugly drooling orcs isn't really enough to say its dark n scary. I also loved how the Bakshi film didn't cower away from showing lots of blood, something this film lacked.

First half of the film I love but from the midway point I don't like, simple as that really. It seems to go from a beautiful fable to a daft videogame mashup, think 'Legend' at the start then 'Conan' from the midway point.

I can't rant on about the semi reasonable effects or lack of the odd bits and pieces here and there lets be frank, the film is much more than that. Even though its not a perfect adaptation of the classic tale its pretty darn close and manages to encompass enough adventure and excitement with just the right amount of emotion to thrill. I do think it has been over hyped terribly which is a common problem these days but it is still a solid film, just not as epic as you're led to believe.

No one should ignore the Bakshi animated film either I must say, a glorious piece of work that really does offer a damn good alternative to this film.
  #6020  
Old 12-03-2012, 01:40 AM
Holy Motors - 9/10
  #6021  
Old 12-03-2012, 02:29 AM
Jagged Edge - ***

Predictable but decent. It definitely helps that the cast is solid. But then again with people like Jeff Bridges and Glenn Close in the movie, you'd expect nothing less.


Life of Pi - ****

Beautiful, thrilling, majestic and deeply, profoundly moving. It's the best movie of the year so far. Never again will I doubt Ang Lee.


Killing Them Softly - **

A big disappointment. Ugly, cynical, no characters worth following and to care about. It ultimately just felt pointless.
  #6022  
Old 12-03-2012, 01:45 PM



A film that wears its allegorical themes on its sleeve is an interesting concept for a film. There’s something bubbling underneath a typical plot on a movie about the economy, crime, or society in general. But, for that message to stick onto the viewers and make them understand and appreciate the film as a whole, the message needs to be handled delicately. Sure, there can be a movie script that provides an on-the nose view in terms of the film’s allegorical message, or maybe handled more deftly, never spelling the idea out to the audience on hand. These two techniques are used for director Andrew Dominik’s latest film of George V. Higgin’s novel about the crime syndicate coming under hard times within their systems, and a group of characters all caught in the middle of it. But, while Dominik has some good ideas on the state of America symbolized through mobsters and low lives, the film never comes together to provide a worthwhile film experience.

The problem with this film is that Dominik handles its characters as more of a playwright view than fully realized characters. Not to say that this technique is a bad idea on film, as director William Friedkin utilized that type of characterization in the entertainingly dark film Killer Joe, but here Dominik simply uses this film to place characters as symbolic standpoints for the film’s message. The film revolves around a robbery by two low lives (Scoot McNairy and Ben Mendelsohn) on a card game run by the mob, to which the crime syndicate hires an enforcer (Brad Pitt) to root out who could have been the culprits of the robbery. Now, a crime story like that seems a bit thin (coupled to the fact that the film’s run time is 97 minutes), but there’s always meat to add to the film’s script if a director and screenwriter have a vision that is interesting to say and engage in.

That vision for Dominik revolves the concept of the dying American dream, where it’s no longer about unity among brotherhood and business, but rather the need to find a way to make a quick buck. Everyone is either out of themselves in Killing Them Softly, or helping one another in the hopes that, personally, they will come out with their own pay day. That ideal is no truer than McNairy’s Frankie and Mendelsohn’s Russell; two low lives who take up the offer to rob the mob’s poker game. These two represent opposite sides of the individual American, one who wants to make something of themselves on the business side, while the other is happy where he is. McNairy nails the Boston-accented Frankie, a somewhat well groomed guy who wants to make a score, but that’s about it. As for the Australian Mendelsohn, he’s the more interesting of the two robbers. A completely disgusting drug addict that takes up the robbery with not much care, he’s the latter of the group who wants to do something with the money he has, even if the business proposition doesn’t seem like a very worthwhile investment.

As for the mob infrastructure, there are different shades that are represented by Pitt, Richard Jenkins, and James Gandolfini. They each make up a different aspect of the economical world in America. Here, the mob isn’t portrayed as this tough-as-nails organization that will cement a guy and throw them to the fishes, but rather an organization that likes to cut corners and finances to ensure that the job is done. Richard Jenkins is the cypher of that organization, the go-between guy who’s just trying to his job, and having to deal with the “paperwork” in a sense. Pitt and Gandolfini portray the low-level hit men of the organization, each with their own outlook on their profession. Pitt is the more aware of his scenario as Jackie, an enforcer who has his own principles in terms of killing, as well as a penchant of knowing how this business runs. Gandolfini plays Mickey, a seasoned veteran of the mob game that has become withered to the world around him, and no longer seems to be the professional that he once was.

Now, as you can see, Dominik certainly has these piles of layers to form a film that is more than just the average crime drama, but more of a look at America, particularly surrounding the 2008 election and economic recession. But, while Dominik has these puzzle pieces; he can’t seem to put them together to make the film interesting. There are film techniques and visual cues that are arresting and engaging (the opening sequence and a scene involving a heroin stupor was particularly memorable), but the film’s themes and story never achieve to keep to that kind of level. In a sense, the ambition that Dominik wants to make with his themes and symbolic characters either come across as on-the nose, or not particularly interesting. One scene involving a monologue by Gandolfini perfectly encapsulates that arm’s length that Dominik keeps the majority of his audience. I get what he’s trying to do, I appreciate what he’s trying to do, but I don’t find it engaging.

And that’s the ultimate problem with Killing Them Softly. When a film tries to attain an allegorical vision, that vision needs to be something that should feel viable, interesting, and complete. The actors are all admirable and Dominik can certainly shoot the hell out of the film, but the script’s allegorical message just can‘t sustain itself to be engaging. The film is not an ultimate failure, but it sadly doesn’t achieve the goals that it hoped to deliver to the audience.

6.5/10
  #6023  
Old 12-03-2012, 05:58 PM

The Collection(2012)-5/10
  #6024  
Old 12-03-2012, 06:55 PM
Two Sisters From Boston with Kathryn Grayson and June Allyson - This musical comedy had some good songs but the story was a little weak. Grayson has a really good voice and Jimmy Durante had some good comedic moments. The over the top theatrics in between was what brought the film down a bit. 5/10

For Your Eyes Only - This Bond film had a much better story than the preceding film in the series. I liked the more serious tone and the Cold War scenario seemed a lot more realistic. Some of the henchmen weren't so good but I did like the main villain who seemed to be a good guy the first time he appears. 7/10
  #6025  
Old 12-03-2012, 09:33 PM
Jeff, Who Lives At Home



I loved Cyrus. I didn’t quite love this. Maybe there’s something more inherently funny in a creepily obsessive Mama’s Boy man-child than a soft-hearted slacker/amateur philosopher. But I liked Jeff. And will probably watch it a few more times, since it’s very short and indeed very watchable. The Duplass brothers spin another amusing story of quarterlife decrepitude out of Jason Segel’s stay-at-home stoner who believes in a divine purpose to all things… even if it’s going to the store for wood glue before Mom gets mad. Segel gives Jeff such an earnestness despite his pathetic failure to launch that it’s easy to get on his side when his brother Pat, the “responsible adult” of the two, is such a hilariously oblivious dickhead. Ed Helms is great in the part, though, so you at least feel for the guy even if all his miseries and marital woes are of his own making. Ultimately this is the kind of film I admire because of its economy of storytelling, and that it has its fair share of laugh out loud moments doesn’t hurt. It leaves something to be desired, but it gave me enough to recommend.

-> 7/10

Last edited by syxxpac; 12-05-2012 at 03:57 PM..
  #6026  
Old 12-03-2012, 09:53 PM

7/10
  #6027  
Old 12-03-2012, 11:49 PM
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Onward to Mount Doom, the perilous journey continues from where it left off. Still in familiar territory with this sequel as the 78 Bakshi film also covered most of what happens here, just about, so yes I can still compare to a degree hurrah!.

So as we crack on with the story its not long before you discover there's a lot of dialog, quite a lot, in fact bloody hell what have I gotten myself into!. Yes the first like two hours of the film is much dialog and not really very much else. Now if you're a Tolkien fanboy this will be music to your ears as Jackson does cover a whole heap of plot, although there are variations and changes still as there were with the first film.

I should point out quickly that all visuals, details, location work and performances are of course as you would expect and still on par with the first entry. There isn't too much need to go into all that as the quality is still just as high all round and I explained those standards in my first review.

This is of course the film where we meet 'Gollum' properly as a full fledged character. Now in my humble little opinion you either like this guy or you don't, personally I can't stand this character even back in the Bakshi film. I realise he is suppose to be a wretched creature but jesus christ he's annoying, annoying on the same level as 'Jar Jar Binks'. His voice just pisses me off and his design with those big eyes looks completely ridiculous, the guy has Disney eyes for gods sake!.

Again upon release this character got huge raving reviews about the CGI and all round rendering against the live action. Again I simply don't understand what the hell everyone was on about as I saw shoddy CGI abundantly with some awful rendering against live action characters in places. Its not all bad for sure, a scene with 'Gollum' sat on a rock next to some open water eating a fish shows how good some of the CGI could be. In general I was never impressed with this effect and his quite childish and basic looking features, the only aspect that looked real was his eyes, kinda.

So to be honest most of the film is really rather dull and slow for the most part. There are bits of interest within the plot that spring up to keep you awake ('Merry' and 'Pippin' with the orcs) and of course the odd eye popping moment of real scenery ('Edoras'). But lets be honest here, it all gets into gear when 'King Théoden of Rohan' decides to move his people of 'Edoras' to 'Helm's Deep' and everybody starts to suit up for war...WAR!!!.

Before we get there you have the intriguing sub plot with 'Merry' 'Pippin' and 'Treebeard'. Now this part of the plot I always liked and I loved the 'Ent' species, huge ancient old gnarly trees that could come alive, walk and talk. This was one area which never really saw the light of day in the Bakshi film.

I was happy to see that 'Fangorn forest' did live up to my expectations with its sweeping, mystical, magical appearance. I loved how light beams broke through the twisted huge trees, the gentle humming of insects in the background, the bold palette of greens, yellows and browns of the undergrowth, all together giving this harmonious fairytale utopia. Now this was never going to be an easy task creating living trees and to be honest I think the designs were pretty good for the 'Ent' species. Well the odd tree character looked a bit silly, the weeping willow type character didn't quite work if you ask me hehe why would that be in a forest? probably not a weeping willow I know but it looked like it.

Amazingly 'Treebeard' isn't fully CGI, he is actually a large puppet/model against bluescreen with the help of CGI later on naturally. To be brutally honest, the sequences with both 'Merry' and 'Pippin' riding around with 'Treebeard' are, well...pretty poor looking. The big problem with these films has been dreadful bluescreen effects which are hideously obvious to the point that the foreground is virtually a different brightness to the background. Hard to pull off yes but it does look very basic. The models are quite nice and better than the fully CGI 'Ents' but neither are exactly believable which I hate to say.

Anyway after a whole lot of plot development and slow slow character driven dialog blah blah blah we finally get to the meat of the film and what we've all been waiting for, the battle at 'Helm's Deep'. 'Finally we are here', I know that's what I was thinking, I'm sure you were too, yes you were don't lie.

Now far from me to describe myself as a 'battle whore' but this huge huge finale certainly got my nipples tingling with excitement. As the massive army of orcs, Uruk-Hai and god knows what slowly lurch closer you can't help but get pumped. 'Aragorn' summons his army of men and elves to arms, walking up and down the vast stone fortified wall of 'Helm's Deep' invoking a warriors passion into the hearts of all that stand beside him. On the other side of the wall in the pouring rain the orcs and Uruk-Hai pound the ground with their spears, baiting their foes...oh yeah its full on kick ass!.

In short the battle doesn't disappoint in any way, Jackson milks every moment for as much heroic posturing as possible with plenty of good short 'suit up' sequences just to make sure you know there is gonna be some epic hacking n slashing. The good guys are holding firm but slowly succumb and you really do start thinking how the hell are they gonna turn this around!. Its a full rollercoaster of emotion as the goodies crumble along with their fortress and become overrun.

The epic splattering of orcs, men and elves is interspursed with silly moments I have to say. The orcs manage to get the explosives into the drainage, the weak spot of the 'Helm's Deep' walls. But then they have one big orc do some kind of Olympic torch bearing act and run across the battlefield holding the igniting flame aloft for all to see and shoot at...eh?. Why not just light it when they dumped it?.

I didn't like the odd moment of Hollywood where 'Legolas' slides down some stairs on a shield like a surfboard whilst shooting multiple arrows one after another. Does this elf ever run out of arrows by the way? his pouch is always chock full.
When 'Aragorn' throws 'Gimli' across a quite large drop onto the main bridge at the entrance of 'Helm's Deep'. He then proceeds to jump it himself and they both fight off quite literately hundreds of Uruk-Hai. And when all the heroes come charging out of the fortress on horseback they pretty much go through hundreds of big sturdy heavy Uruk-Hai as if they were made out of paper.

Finally, when 'Gandalf' shows up with 'Éomer' looking down on 'Helm's Deep', errr that near sheer downward gradient drop they all ride down on horseback!! excuse me!!. Yes its little quibbles but things like that detract from the sensible story and I always notice this stuff haha.

The effects are better than the first film yet still have the same problems in my opinion. One good example of some pretty terrible CGI action would be the attack of the 'Isengard wolves' or 'Warg riders'. This sequence really is jerky with nasty bluescreen and a whole load of fake looking action set pieces. There are also many little moments throughout which simply don't look right, one tiny sequence shows 'Legolas' mounting a horse as it trots past him which is quite literately absolutely awful looking haha.

On the plus side the orcs and Uruk-Hai seem to look much better this time, not quite as hokey. The 'Ringwraiths' look good on their flying dragon-like steeds and there seems to be a bit more blood on show methinks too, ever so slightly more gooey and gory.

Overall I thought this film was for the most part rather dull and not as good as the first film. The finale battle is obviously the best thing in the whole film and without it there would be problems. The film does feel much more like a serious historical drama for the most part up to the final big battle. From that point on it obviously becomes a much stronger fantasy action film which it really needed frankly.

Not that the rest of the film is bad, its just a wee slow and dull, filling in lots of plot before it all heats up. The thing is the dialog and slow building in the first film was much more interesting because you're getting to know the characters and their world. Here its just filler getting 'Frodo' and the gang to the next big step, but kudos for getting it all in there and staying true to the book.

To be continued.....
  #6028  
Old 12-04-2012, 12:15 AM
Killer Joe -7/10
Matthew Mcconaughey well and truely ditchs his rom com image.Really dark twisted black comedy with moments of sudden violence and well a scene that will make you look at a kfc chicken leg in a competely different light ,ha.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	1k.jpg
Views:	10
Size:	94.3 KB
ID:	11047  
  #6029  
Old 12-04-2012, 03:57 AM
People watch movies like that because no one wants to see some “happy-go-lucky” comedy every single time they watch a movie. It’s nice to have a contrast…Slumdog Millionaire and Precious both have “happy endings” anyway. Drama is my favorite genre because I like films that feature true stories or that really showcase an actor’s or director’s talent. There are PLENTY of comedies that I absolutely love, but I’m not looking to laugh every time I sit down with a bag of popcorn. I watch movies because I love movies, not because I’m just bored and want to be entertained. If you think people who watch films like Precious and Slumdog Millionaire are sadistic, I don’t know what to say for you.
  #6030  
Old 12-04-2012, 06:38 AM
watched on TV for the first time

House On Haunted Hill (1959)

7/10
  #6031  
Old 12-04-2012, 07:00 AM
Silent Night - 4/10
Just another crappy remake.
  #6032  
Old 12-04-2012, 05:46 PM

Hitchcock(2012)-9/10
  #6033  
Old 12-04-2012, 05:55 PM
The Element Of Crime - 9/10

The Artist - 9/10

Home Alone (rewatch) - 9/10

The Cranes Are Flying - 8/10
  #6034  
Old 12-04-2012, 08:52 PM


Joe Carnahan’s film of man versus nature is much more than a film where Liam Nesson beats up wolves. There’s a confident, beating heart in the script and actors on display, adding layers to what can clearly be a typical thriller that is seen and forgotten by the time the credits roll. That’s not what Carnahan wants to put his audience through, he wants to create a survival film that will leave audience with something to reflect, as well as appreciate, and with The Grey he certainly succeeds.

The film is mostly focused on the character of Ottway (Liam Nesson), a guy that has layers and personality of somebody who’s been through the wringer and has come back with some scars. Under contract with an Alaskan oil company to protect the workers from wolves and other animals, he and other workers are in a fight for survival when their plane crashes in the icy wilderness and soon come under attack by a pack of wolves. Now, while this plot synopsis seems to be an excuse of Nesson being a badass and take out all the wolves, but Carnahan isn’t looking for a character a la Taken, he wants to create more nuance, human character. Emotionally broken, world weary and raw, Nesson is more than up for the challenge. He has the tools and ideas to keep him and the other survivors alive, but Nesson’s Ottway isn’t always in control due to the uncompromising winter storms and wilderness. There’s so superhuman feat in Nesson, just a man that is utilizing the skills he knows in hopes that he can himself and others.

The supporting roles are established fairly well, having the audience be introduced to the characters as Nesson gets thrown into the predicament. From there, Carnahan slowly pulls back the layers of each character, despite some roles being a bit shortchanged and inconsequential as their fates are sometimes blatantly foreshadowed. But, the majority of the actors do their best to make each character memorable, with Frank Grillo and Dermont Mulroney making the most of what screen time that they are given.

As for Carnahan’s skills behind the camera, he certainly makes the wintery predicament feel as visceral and intense as possible. There’s not one moment in the film where the settings fell artificial, but rather you feel that this Alaskan wilderness could take away Nesson or any other crewmember in a heartbeat. The cinematography is just sublime, from the wrecked airplane to the lush forests; Carnahan makes the harshest weather moments look great. The soundtrack by Marc Streitenfield compliments the intense scenes nicely, never become overbearing or unmemorable.

But the real draw of The Grey comes from how personal the story becomes as the running time draws to a close. There’s more to the film than simple survival and wolf attacks, and Carnahan lays the subtext nicely throughout the film. Everything gets slowly pulled back for the viewer’s eyes to witness, until the curtain is pulled back and everything in the film comes together in a great way.

If I could sum up Joe Carnahan’s The Grey, it would be devastatingly optimistic. The road that Carnahan takes the characters is competently long, harsh, and uncompromising, but the bleak tone never overshadows the resilience in Nesson’s Ottway and the other characters. The world can be bleak, but in all this despair, there’s always a chance to move forward.

8/10
  #6035  
Old 12-04-2012, 10:48 PM
Two Against the World with Constance Bennett - A family is involved in a scandal when one of the sisters has an affair with a married man and he winds up dead. There were a few funny moments at the trial but otherwise this is nothing special. 5/10

Never Say Never Again - While not as good as many of Connery's other Bond films this one is still worth watching. The villains are pretty good and Kim Basinger makes for a fine Bond girl. 7/10
  #6036  
Old 12-05-2012, 04:42 AM

6/10
  #6037  
Old 12-05-2012, 03:55 PM
Killing Them Softly



Andrew Dominik’s grim political allegory is short on the kind of gangland excitement you might expect with its Pulp Fiction-style marketing campaign, but the filmmakers make up for it with searing (and deliciously lengthy) dialogue scenes, stunning photography, wonderful performances from Pitt and company, and a pronounced mean streak of capitalistic nihilism. Set against the 2008 financial crash, the message about greedy men who think they’re smarter than they really are being a blight on every level of society was a little too blunt for my liking. That said, I almost stood up and cheered anyway after Pitt’s final speech. Cynical as all hell and delivered pitch perfectly, if Pitt is given any awards consideration it will be because of that scene. Richard Jenkins and James Gandolfini are also memorable in brief supporting roles as Cogan’s go-between for the mob and an aging, alcoholic hitman and hooker addict, respectively. I’ll want to rewatch this again, for sure.

-> 8/10

Haha, and I don't why I've been having so much trouble with that fucking Jeff Who Lives At Home poster above...
  #6038  
Old 12-05-2012, 05:45 PM

Killing Them Softly(2012)-7/10
  #6039  
Old 12-05-2012, 07:37 PM
The Devil's Rock - 8.5/10

-Surprisingly awesome!!!
  #6040  
Old 12-05-2012, 09:51 PM
The Taming of the Shrew - This film did cut out much of the subplots but Burton and Taylor did such a great job that it didn't really matter. Taylor looked just about as good as she ever has in this and I loved her as the older sister that seems destined to remain unmarried until Burton comes along. 8/10

Octopussy - Louis Jourdan was a really good villain in this and he partly made up for a weak script. I did like many of the fight scenes as well. 7/10
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump