|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Feb 25, 2009 9:31:23 GMT -5
Sounds interesting. May have to check that one out. On the other hand, I saw... JUMPER (2008) David Rice (Hayden Christensen), a man with the ability to teleport or jump, to anywhere in the world, leaves home as a teenager, uses his ability to rob a bank vault and gets an apartment in New York. After a few years of traveling the world and living this carefree life, a group of government hunters on his trail, known as Paladins and led by Roland Cox (Samuel L. Jackson), finally catches up with him. Along the way, David reconnects with his high school crush and meets another jumper. Interesting concept, but the story's not executed very well. Some plotholes and all the jumping around just got on my nerves after a while. The jumping effect is a pretty cool visual, but there's so much of it that an hour in, I just didn't care anymore. The ending is obviously left open for a sequel which may explain the brief appearance of Diane Lane as David's mom. Maybe she was promised a larger role in later movies in the series. A time waster if there's nothing else to watch, nothing more. 4.5/10 |
|
raina
Junior Member
Posts: 77
|
Post by raina on Feb 25, 2009 20:18:32 GMT -5
Sick Nurses (2007) A Thai horror film that is a bit of a mixed bag; some of its pretty good, some its just really funny (intentionally? yes I think so...it did have a horror comedy feel a lot of the time), and often it is just derivative (its definitely having a bit of fun with some cliches). The story takes place in a Thai hospital, where seven nurses and a doctor have been selling dead bodies on the black market. But when Tawan, who is in love with the doctor, finds out about his affair with another one of the nurses, she flies into a jealous rage and threatens to expose them. Of course the doctor and nurses murder her....and seven days later her spirit comes back for revenge. There is some good gore, and plenty of ridiculous moments here. One of my absolute favorite things about this movie is how the ghost poses during her scenes as if she's a model.  And there are a few other weird touches here and there that makes it very entertaining. It is not a GOOD movie exactly, but it is a fun one. 6.5/10 |
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Feb 26, 2009 11:10:22 GMT -5
Creature of the Night-According to IMDb, this movie doesn't exist, so that's why it's here instead of with the normal reviews, but in any event, that doesn't mean there isn't anything here worthwhile. A great-looking werewolf (it's a werewolf movie, totally forgot about that) with some decent kills, a rousing and energetic ending, some suspenseful chases, but too much time spent on using it's unique premise for completely non-horror moments, and they take center-stage during the middle portion of the film rather than building off the promise shown in the beginning so it does drag considerably. Add to that an easily-exposed low-budget and it does have some problems, but it's still watchable.
6.5/10
Wolfhound-Another "werewolf" movie, although this one is a little different. Rather than my single most-irritating werewolf convention (just behind the reluctant-werewolf angle) is the use of dogs/wolves to portray the creature, and this one uses one of the ugliest looking dog species to stand-in for the creatures which takes it all completely out of the moment. Plus, there's not a drop of blood, as all the deaths are off-screen and, even worse, no aftermath splatter at all. Characters stumble across the bodies and react, but no shot and not even a description is offered either. The only bright spot, there's a ton of nudity, just as much as any porn I've seen and is ably provided by those well-equiped to deliver it. Really, that's all there is, so take that as it's own recommendation or avoidance.
4/10
|
|
|
|
Post by LivingDeadGirl on Mar 1, 2009 11:15:00 GMT -5
Ditto. One of my favorite movies and favorite Barker stories... In The Heat of the Night- Tried to get this one in for last month's MGOTM, but didn't make it. Excellent performances by Sidney Pottier as Philadelphia detective Virgil Tibbs and Rod Stieger as small-town police chief Bill Gillespie, who learn to work through racism and distrust to solve a homicide. I'd seen parts of the movie before (and never missed an ep of the tv show) but this was the first time I'd sat down to watch the whole movie. 3/4 |
|
|
|
Post by Termination on Mar 2, 2009 5:35:50 GMT -5
The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) (Blu-Ray)
HD Video - 9/10
HD Audio dts-HDMA - 9/10
Knocked Up (2007) (Blu-Ray)
HD Video - 9/10
HD Audio dts-HDMA - 10/10
Can't Hardly Wait (1998) (Blu-Ray)
HD Video - 8/10
HD Audio Dolby TrueHD - 9/10
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Mar 3, 2009 20:44:30 GMT -5
IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH (2007)
Former military investigator Hank Deerfield (Tommy Lee Jones) travels to the army base his son was stationed at because the son, having recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq, has gone AWOL.
Deerfield takes it upon himself to look for clues into his son's disappearance, when neither military or local police seem to be much help.
Jones is terrific in the role, but the movie seemed to run out of steam towards the end and felt kind of anticlimactic to me.
6/10
|
|
|
|
Post by Termination on Mar 4, 2009 6:41:42 GMT -5
Seven (1995) (Blu-Ray)
HD Video - 8/10
HD Audio Dolby Digital - 7/10
HD Audio dts-HDMA - 8/10
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Mar 4, 2009 8:23:42 GMT -5
PINEAPPLE EXPRESS (2008)
A pothead (Seth Rogan) and his dealer (James Franco) go on the run, after the pothead witnesses a murder.
What a disappointment this was. Wildly uneven, going from humor to serious shootings or car chases, which I don't mind when done right (BEVERLY HILLS COP, 48Hrs., etc.), but the humor isn't even funny. The movie also rambles a lot and is way too long for a stoner comedy.
I really expected this to be hilarious, but I barely laughed. The wife laughed a little more than I did, but overall she was disappointed as well. Especially after we had just finished watching the wonderful short-lived Judd Apatow tv series, "Freaks & Geeks", which also starred Rogan and Franco. Definitely my least favorite of all the Apatow movies. TROPIC THUNDER was a much funnier 2008 comedy.
4/10
|
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Mar 5, 2009 11:02:52 GMT -5
Enemy Mine-See thoughts in Movie Genre thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Termination on Mar 5, 2009 16:23:39 GMT -5
Daredevil (2003)
HD Video - 8/10
HD Audio Dolby Digital - 7/10
HD Audio dts-HDMA - 10/10
Dawn of the Dead: Unrated Director's Cut (2004)
HD Video - 8/10
HD Audio dts-HDMA - 10/10
Land of the Dead (2005)
HD Video - 9/10
HD Audio dts-HDMA - 9/10
|
|
|
|
Post by ZapRowsdower on Mar 6, 2009 16:09:16 GMT -5
Watchmen (2009, Zack Snyder)
I have no idea what to think. The aesthetics of the movie were very good. Art Direction, Visual Effects, Cinematography, Sound and Editing, all that stuff. Looked great. I liked the acting, especially from Jackie Earle Haley and Billy Crudup. But I was just kind of... confused by the whole experience. One major criticism I have for the movie - and Zack Snyder's directorial habits in general - he needs to really tone down the slow-mo. There are scenes in this film shot in slow-motion that really didn't have to be. I understand his concept of seeing every bit of stunt-work performed, and even appreciate it to an extent, but when dialogue scenes are shot that way, that's where I draw the line. I'm sure he could have cut the film's running time in half if he had decided to present more of it at normal speed.
But story... I know it's a GOOD one, but I question the idea of cramming all of it into one movie. It all seemed... unfocused. If you haven't read the comic (which I haven't), that makes the whole movie that much harder to follow. Or at least to connect with.
I read somewhere a couple months ago, someone referred to the Dark Knight as "finding out how far one can stretch entertainment into art without breaking it", a concept I very much agree with. I thought about applying that to Watchmen, but to me... Watchmen was something else. Watchmen seemed more like an avant-garde. It was like an experimental art film posing as a blockbuster. I'm a film student, so you know I'm all for that artsy stuff. But I don't know. I think I'm gonna have to see this again, just so I can better understand what it is they're trying to do.
No rating just yet. Its hard to rate something that you like but don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Mar 7, 2009 13:28:22 GMT -5
Watchmen I think I'm gonna have to see this again, just so I can better understand what it is they're trying to do. No rating just yet. Its hard to rate something that you like but don't. Your reaction seems to be the consensus of most people who have seen the movie, but haven't read the book. Confusion. Whereas it sounds like people who have read the book first, are for the most part, enjoying the movie. My recommendation would be, if you're going to see the movie a second time anyway, try reading the book first. I haven't seen the movie, but I have read the book, and I have to figure it would be tough to tell that story coherently in under three hours. As it is, even the book is at times confusing and seems to have a lot of extraneous material in it. Maybe they should've aimed for two movies filmed back-to-back, ala the LORD OF THE RINGS films? Or maybe an HBO mini-series? Years ago, Watchmen writer, Alan Moore himself, called the book, unfilmable. Maybe he was right? Either way, as a fan of the book, I will see the movie. |
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Mar 8, 2009 10:22:13 GMT -5
Alien-See thoughts in Movie Genre thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by ZapRowsdower on Mar 9, 2009 3:59:42 GMT -5
Here's an update of my thoughts on Watchmen:
UPDATE: I gave it some thought. If you really have to think about whether you like a movie or not, chances are you don't. When I watched the Dark Knight, I knew right away that I had seen one of the greatest movies ever made. If a movie is good, you know it. Now, I'm not trying to say Watchmen was all bad. As mentioned above, it has its merits, and it deserves its due recognition. And everyone involved deserves kudos for having the cajones to be this bold.
Two reasons I didn't want to accept this movie's failure: 1, I've been looking forward to it for so damn long and had very high hopes for it. 2, they all took a chance. A big one. And for the studio's sake, I'm glad it's somewhat paying off. But word of mouth is gonna hurt this one. Because only people who have read the comic seem to enjoy it. I was genuinely bored by most of it.
This is why it's called an adaptation. Zack Snyder wasn't "visionary" here, because he was using someone else's vision. He used the comic as a storyboard, and basically gave us a 99% faithful adatation. Well, if that's the case, why make the movie? We already have the comic book. And I'm almost certain that the comic book reads better - because you can set it down and come back to it later. The movie demands that you sit down for three hours and watch Zack Snyder tell you the story in excruciating slow-motion. I'd suggest cutting stuff down. Or even cutting out the slow-mo, because that alone would shave an hour off the final product. I don't normally say this, but this ending just BEGGED for a Hollywood makeover. It works in the comic, because it has a thought-provoking message and whatnot. But when your ass is in the seat for three straight hours, then you deserve one Hell of a payoff, which I never got. I was never rewarded for my time and patience. And that irritated me to no end.
This isn't a complete waste of time. There's much to enjoy. There are great scenes sprinkled in there, and some performances that I would be bold enough to deem Oscar-worthy. The movie's gonna generate talk, no doubt about that. But it just simply wasn't my cup of tea.
And as a general rule, if you need to read the source material in order to enjoy the movie, then it's just simply not a good movie.
(Due to the strength of the performers and the amazing visual qualities of the film, my rating is actually quite generous)
6/10
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Mar 9, 2009 10:08:47 GMT -5
Big difference of opinion here. ;D WATCHMEN (2009) Saw it last night and liked it A LOT. My wife, who has not read the book, also enjoyed it and had no trouble following the story. There is a lot cut from the book, for the sake of time, but the essential story is pretty much all there. I assumed all the backstory for the characters would be cut, but a lot of it is still in there. I do agree that you should never have to read a book to enjoy a movie adaptation, but in this case, if you have read it, you'll just appreciate the film that much more. The screen is just crammed with little background details that are right out of the book and it's just neat to see them on screen. I found myself smiling a lot during this movie because of stuff like that. I don't know if reading the book will help anyone understand the film better or anything like that, like I said, the basic story is already there in the movie. The only thing the book would do is present you with a couple of subplots and more backstory that were dropped from the film. The on-screen characters are pretty much true, in personality and appearance, to their graphic novel counterparts, and the acting is everywhere from decent to great. The main female Silk Spectre, isn't really that interesting a character, neither in the book or the film, but the male leads really stand out, especially Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach and Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl. Visually, the movie is "must see on the big screen" stunning. The cgi, stunts and fight scenes were all really well done and it seemed like there was always something going on visually. With the only real technical weakness, imho, being the old age makeup, which wasn't too convincing, and the guy playing Nixon looked more like a wax figure of a caricature of Nixon. Those are minor quibbles. I was also impressed by how dark the overall tone of the film was. Snyder didn't water it down at all. Lots of graphic violence, adult language, sex and nudity. In terms of comic book movies with serious overtones, WATCHMEN makes THE DARK KNIGHT look almost campy. As for it being too long or boring, the only time it dragged just a little bit for me was some of the stuff on Mars, but that wasn't one of my favorite sequences in the book either. When the film was over, I turned to my wife and said, "I could watch another hour of this.", and when that extended director's cut dvd is released, I'll definitely be picking it up. 9/10 I'm sure he could have cut the film's running time in half if he had decided to present more of it at normal speed. That's a huge exaggeration. The slo-mo isn't overdone and it certainly wouldn't have cut the movie by half. More like a minute or so overall. This is why it's called an adaptation. Zack Snyder wasn't "visionary" here, because he was using someone else's vision. He used the comic as a storyboard, and basically gave us a 99% faithful adatation. Well, if that's the case, why make the movie? We already have the comic book. In that case, Robert Rodriguez wasn't visionary either and shouldn't have made SIN CITY. He did the exact same thing that Snyder is doing here: An extremely faithful adaptation where the comic is used as a storyboard and the comic's panels are recreated in live-action. |
|
And there are a few other weird touches here and there that makes it very entertaining. It is not a GOOD movie exactly, but it is a fun one. 
