Go Back   Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums > Movie Talk! > General Movie Talk
MOVIE FAN CENTRAL FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-12-2013, 07:21 PM
Tetsuo: The Iron Man - 7/10
Hitchcock - 7/10
Old 01-12-2013, 08:25 PM
Wizards by Raplh Bakshi 7/10
Dredd by Pete Travis 7/10
Old 01-12-2013, 09:16 PM
Zodiac - 5/5
Old 01-13-2013, 01:08 AM

Old 01-13-2013, 02:42 AM
Bad Santa (8/10)
The Craft (4/10)
Old 01-13-2013, 06:39 AM
TAKEN 2 - 5/10
Pretty stupid, but about what I expected so I'm not too bothered by it.

The only H&K movie I like when NPH isn't on screen. Great 3d, too

Fun times. I like a lot of the set-pieces and it's just like Indiana Jones but doesn't suck like the last installment.

Not the best movie, but it knows what it is and embraces that with gusto. RIP, Mr. Ellis. He knew what he was capable of and never tried to be more than that.
Also, the 3d on this movie is better than any other movie I've seen in 3d. Seriously. Yes, better than (yawn) Avatar, which is actually mediocre.

48 HOURS - 6.5/10
I haven't seen it in almost 20 years, and it holds up well now. It's never boring and there are some great moments. It sure is a RACIST flick, lol

Eddie Murphy really comes into "form" in this one, stealing every scene and it really is a vehicle for the greatness that Murphy is able to accomplish. However, the script itself is passable fair and many of the supporting cast are great as well - such as Bronson Pinchot as the ambiguous art dealer. Also worth noting is Stephen Elliott, chewing up his lines with subtle gusto, spitting them out with spite and authority. A great "classic" actor who understands that understated can say so much.
Old 01-13-2013, 09:04 AM
Silver Linings Playbook - 7.5/10

West of Memphis - 7/10

Last edited by viceus; 01-13-2013 at 09:09 AM..
Old 01-13-2013, 11:13 AM

10/10 my 9th favorite film of all time
Old 01-13-2013, 11:57 AM

Time of the Wolf (2003) by Michael Haneke (5/10)

An American Werewolf in London (1981) by John Landis (5/10)

Aliens (1986) by James Cameron (8/10)

The Evil Dead (1981) by Sam Raimi (9/10)

Logans Run (1976) by Michael Andersen (7/10)

The Passion of Joan of Arch (1928) by Carl Theodor Dreyer (10/10)

Last edited by TokeZa; 01-17-2013 at 01:31 PM..
Old 01-13-2013, 12:53 PM

Pretty surprised by how much I liked this movie, but had it not been for Russell's directing I probably would have hated it.

Old 01-13-2013, 01:24 PM
Jack Reacher. Good stuff. 9/10
Old 01-13-2013, 01:29 PM

10/10 my 2nd favorite film of all time
Old 01-13-2013, 03:27 PM

Old 01-13-2013, 04:55 PM

Old 01-13-2013, 06:43 PM

8/10 the one that started it all for me back in 1988 when i was 7
Old 01-13-2013, 07:12 PM
Lay the Favorite - A bad movie about sports gambling with a variety of terrible accents. Bruce Willis is the only one that didn't make want to rip my ears off. 2/10
Old 01-13-2013, 08:36 PM

Old 01-13-2013, 11:06 PM
Fantastic Mr. Fox (re-watch)

this movie still makes me laugh

"this is actually kind of a big deal so don't just say 'okay'"
Old 01-14-2013, 09:02 AM
Django Unchained - 6.5/10

Structurally, it is one of his better pieces and it makes for compulsive viewing, as always; those first two hours flew by. In many ways, this is grown-up Tarantino. It displays some of his better writing and, although thin on plot, story-telling skills. Unluckily, it opts out of this in its final thirty minutes-or so and turns in to a hyperactive caricature of itself. I was hoping for something a little more cathartic and by this I don't mean mowing down tons of white folk. I also think it was a danger putting Christoph Waltz besides Django, as he stole the spotlight in my eyes.

Can I also say that the three or four minute scene with Jonah Hill was absolutely abysmal. It felt incredibly tacked-on and contained Tarantino's happy-go-wanky writing, which I commended the film for being light of above.

Last edited by viceus; 01-14-2013 at 09:11 AM..
Old 01-14-2013, 10:22 AM

Au hasard Balthazar (1966) by Robert Bresson (8/10)

Come and See (1985) by Elem Klimov (9/10)

Ivan's Childhood (1962) by Andrey Tarkovskiy (8/10)

The Thin Red Line (1998) by Terrence Malick (9/10)

Last edited by TokeZa; 01-17-2013 at 01:24 PM..
Old 01-14-2013, 02:57 PM

ok, like, WTF? It tries so hard to be "cerebral", but the plot is much less complicated than it seems to want to be.
Luckily, there were some (finally) cool fight scenes in the last half, but it ends with a silly conclusion and once again - a final cheap profundity which again exposes the movie's attempt to be more than what it is.

But yeah... a lot of the creative choices were - ... odd, I guess you could say.
Old 01-14-2013, 04:40 PM

Texas Chainsaw(2013)-5/10
Old 01-14-2013, 05:21 PM


I've never knew Burt Reynolds starred in a spaghetti western before.
Old 01-14-2013, 05:53 PM
Spin 2/10

The Lodger 5/10

Retreat 7/10
Old 01-14-2013, 05:58 PM

i saw this for the first time back in 1995 when i was 15 and i hated it watched it again last Halloween and actually liked it better i prefer it over Halloween's 5,6 and 8 lol

Old 01-14-2013, 08:07 PM
Mirageman 7/10
Old 01-14-2013, 10:12 PM
3 Godfathers with John Wayne - Three bank robbers come across a dying woman giving birth and try to get the baby to safety. The story was pretty weird for a Western. It's supposed to be reminiscent of the Three Wise Men but I found the film to be very odd. There were some decent comedic moments and the actors were solid but I just couldn't get into it. 5/10

In Darkness - Well that was depressing. It's the story of a group of Polish Jews who are forced to flee to the sewers in order to survive the Holocaust. There were some pretty brutal scenes in this. It was very intense and well made though. 8/10
Old 01-14-2013, 11:51 PM

Old 01-15-2013, 01:11 AM
Death Race 3: Inferno

My my what have we here...another straight to DVD sequel, should I be excited?. Well seeing as the first film was actually quite good fun and the second was semi decent fun if rather uninspired, I guess this could be good. Oh but its not...bugger.

So the plot, well I'm confused, yes believe it or not I am. According to Wikipedia the second film was a prequel to the original...eh? never got that, and this third film is an alternative timeline sequel to the original that follows on from the second...wha?. As far as I see it Statham was 'Frankenstein' in the first film and he escaped. Goss then got burned up in the second and took on the mantle of the MIA 'Frankenstein' character, and now he continues that role into this third film. Well that's how I see it dagnabbit.

So the usual videogame-like appearance/ideas from the previous films remain naturally, that mixed with the stupid Gladiators/WWF style setups and intros. The first two films get away with this but it now grows old plus this film does look much more tacky with obviously less money behind it, outside of the car sequences anyway.

'RAZOR!!!' 'watch out for him, he used to be a killer somewhere', oh so I guess he's the bad guy then, well he must be with a name like that, scary!. 'JOKER!!' oh I guess he must...ah you get the picture surely!.

The acting is of course ropey but we all knew that, you don't watch films like this for acting skills. Impressive how the continuity has been kept with all cast being retained from the second film, adds a much needed boost to the quality. Its a damn good job Tanit Phoenix looks good cos she sure as hell can't act a tall, her fight choreography is abysmal too. In fact all the fight sequences look terrible and badly constructed, clear misses everywhere, so tame and not required.

The biggest laugh of the film is a sequence where all these scantily clad women must fight to the death for the honour of becoming navigators to the male racers!. If ever there was a more obvious ploy to appeal to the wank happy young male viewer, well I haven't seen one this blatant for some time. Lots of women in nothing but hot pants and bras looking like something out of 'Xena Warrior Princess' all cat fighting and chopping each other up whilst getting blood spaying over their large plump bosoms lol!.

So so so stupid, not really sexy a tall (although clearly meant to be) and utterly pointless. Gee lets attract more fans simply by sticking in lots of half naked women in a mass killing orgy, plot relevance?...what's that mean?. Pssst...'Katrina' from the previous film is one of the winners, oops! what do you mean you didn't see that coming?!.

So yes its your typical 'Running Man' 'The Condemned' 'Battle Royale' 'The Hunger Games' blah blah blah you know. The problem here is we really didn't need yet another film of virtually the same shit all over again, accept this time its in a desert and with even more extreme camera jumping and editing. Seriously the camera cuts from one action shot to another so fast and often it will make you dizzy.

Nothing new, same cliches, same outcomes, same implanted body tracking devices, same visuals, same character types but with more half naked women and new cars (why are some guys driving trucks? surely they would be reeeeally slow in the sand? especially with large gun turrets on the back). Man I lost interest when the gorgeous blonde driver got killed off.

Funnily the car interiors are so complex looking I fail to see how anyone could drive them at break neck speed whilst trying to faff around with all the intricate touch screen monitors and controls. But I guess reality isn't on the menu here is it, I could go on but there really is no need. A videogame disguised as a film franchise, watch out for the next sequel set on snowy terrain...probably.

'Its a beautiful day to DIE!'
Old 01-15-2013, 07:29 AM

Branded to Kill (1967) by Seijun Suzuki (5/10)

Donnie Darko (2001) by Richard Kelly (4/10)

Maniac (1980) by William Lustig (9/10)

Sleepaway Camp (1983) by Robert Hiltzik (6/10)

Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) by Wes Craven (8/10)

Lady Snowblood (1973) by Toshiya Fujita (8/10)

C.H.U.D. (1984) by Douglas Cheek (6/10)

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1985) by John McNaughton (7/10)

Last edited by TokeZa; 01-17-2013 at 01:20 PM..
Old 01-15-2013, 12:51 PM
The Invisible War

What a frustrating corrupt system this is.
Old 01-15-2013, 01:38 PM

Old 01-15-2013, 04:04 PM
TED 7/10. Funny stuff. Plus for the animation.
Old 01-15-2013, 04:27 PM
The Impossible (Juan Antonio Bayona, 2012)

Dammit. It was totally the filmmakers' intention to make me weep and I usually manage to resist such things but Bayona got me here. Two incredible performances from Watts and McGregor and the scene just after the wave hit was extremely powerful, I like how Bayona still did a good job of giving you a real sense of the scope of the tragedy, and how it affected thousands of families rather than the one he chose to focus on.

Life of Pi (Ang Lee, 2012)

Onto another Oscar contender with kick-ass water effects. Despite the fact that this film has ten more nominations than The Impossible I didn't find it to be quite as effective, but it's still a beautiful and riveting tale. Ang Lee really is in a league of his own as a director.
Old 01-15-2013, 04:41 PM
Silver Linings Playbook

Old 01-15-2013, 05:50 PM

The overarching themes of violence, media, but more importantly sex have been something that has interested director David Cronenberg’s filmography for a while. With his 2011 film, he goes straight to the source of the human psyche of sexuality with a film about renowned psychiatrists Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) and Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen). Cronenberg fans may be disappointed that his film is more streamlined and doesn’t go into a more subversive tone from his previous films, but the powerhouse acting by Fassbender and Mortensen elevate the material that is brought to the screen.

What Cronenberg brings to his 2011 film is more character driven than thematically. The script, based off a play “The Talking Cure” by Christopher Hampton and John Kerr’s “A Most Dangerous Method”, presents the dynamics of psychoanalysis from the perspectives of Jung and Freud, and how the patients that they meet soon cause a rift to their friendship and psychiatric ideals. The film doesn’t seem to be concerned with stretching out these proceedings, coming in a lean 99 minutes. This allows Cronenberg to develop relationships in a quick, but believable chemistry.

Fassbender’s Jung is the more focused between the two psychiatrist, as it’s his ideals that become more than just “curing” the patient, which comes through the relationships that he creates with his Russian patient Sabrina Spielrein (Keria Knightley) and radical psychoanalyst Otto Gross (Vincent Cassell). Fassbender is excellent as Jung, always being aware of his morals of fidelity and marriage, but knows that these morals are completely holding back his own needs. It’s these needs that are internal conflict with Jung, while his external being with his soon burgeoning competition with Viggo’s Mortensen’s Freud.

Mortensen is pretty much effortless as Sigmund Freud, a man who believes that his own ideas of psychoanalysis must be kept at the most basic, in fear that if they stray off the path to include other aspects, such as religion, then their work will utterly be ruined. Mortensen plays the stern father figure of Freud towards Fassbender, and their underlying, but professional conflicts between the two are the subdued, but fascinating scenes in the film. The rest of the cast is great as well, with Keira Knightley pretty much going no-holds-barred (especially in the first act) as Spielrein, and Cassell’s Otto Gross just being fascinating, being more of the devil on Jung’s shoulders in terms of how he deals with his love life and marriage.

Cronenberg isn’t interested in providing anything out of the ordinary in this period piece of the birth of psychoanalysis, as he seems much more comfortable in letting the camera shoot and allowing the actors just play off each other so well. It’s much more theatrical than cinematic in most of the film, mostly due to the script based off the screenwriter’s play. This also leads to some of the flaws for the film, as scenes feel a bit cluttered and certain character arcs feel slightly cluttered in the plot.

But, other than those flaws, A Dangerous Method is a fine character piece on the leading psychiatrists of our time, and how their ideas of psychoanalysis had gone through their separate ways. Cronenberg doesn’t go deep in the rabbit hole on how sex can impact the human psyche, but instead allows the interesting fundamentals of psychoanalysis, as well as some great acting by Fassbender and Mortensen, to anchor the viewer’s interest.

Old 01-15-2013, 06:31 PM

Old 01-15-2013, 06:33 PM
Hail the Conquering Hero - A young man is discharged from the Marines for chronic hay fever but some real Marines lie for him and his hometown thinks he is a war hero. There was some funny stuff going on here even if the story was a little ridiculous. 7/10

Trouble With the Curve - Clint Eastwood and Amy Adams have good chemistry in this but they are about all the film has going for it. Everyone else was sort of dull. 5/10
Old 01-15-2013, 07:43 PM

To Rome with Love(2012)-6/10
Old 01-15-2013, 08:14 PM

Closed Thread


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