|
Au Revoir Les Enfants - 9.5/10 Best film I've seen in several months, an absolutely wonderful story that drags you into the minutia of adolescence in the context of a Catholic boarding school during WWII. The background is central to the overarching film, but not to the emotional context which is developed though the characters and their friendships. There's little here that's big and extravagant, but the details are so wonderfully done that they anchor the film and kept me very interested. Then comes the ending which just adds a whole other layer to the film and something that could have come off as corny in another film feels perfectly natural and heartbreaking The Go-Between - 8.5/10 The third Losey-Pinter collaboration I've seen, and just like the others it's acritique of the British class system done with sparkling creativity, even if it doesn't always work. The story's set at the beginning of the 20th century and at first feels much like other period dramas in the setting, rich people, forbidden love, pastoral setting etc. The twist is that it's seen through the half detached eyes of an adolescent boy who's visiting a friend of a higher class. The mixing of a coming of age tale with social critique at times makes the film unfocused, but for the most part it works and is very engaging. Crank: High Voltage - 7/10 You don't go into something like this expecting it to make sense, and it most certainly doesn't. The plotting seems less tight than the original, making it drag in a few places, which is something that should never happen in a Crank film. Nevertheless, it delivers over the top absurd fun. Akira - 7/10 For all the internet hype this film gets I was very underwhelmed. Certainly it's a decent film, enjoyable and well animated, but its also very messy and the themes it's trying to tackle have been done better countless times. Adventureland - 7.5/10 So this is what passes for a genuine and honest romantic comedy these days? Yes it starts off well, the characters are likable, the setting is amusingly quirky but not over the top and relationships develop organically with appropriate pitfalls and small victories. But then, about halfway through it becomes a little less funny, the melodrama is knocked up a notch and from there on it follows the same set of clichés that every other romantic comedy does. Not to say I didn't enjoy it but I went in hoping for something great and got something decent. Ponyo - 8.5/10 Cute, charming and fun with absolutely stunning animation. There's not a lot to say, it's a simple story but it's captivating and perfectly paced. Observe and Report - 4/10 If it weren't for the fact that it did occasionally make me laugh I would give this a 2. The couple of good jokes are run into the ground though and the rest of them are childish poo poo like lisps, swear words, and silly violence. Positive reviews seem to account for the lack of good jokes by calling this a dark comedy, but I'd say those people have no idea what a dark comedy is. This is a dramatic plot that's been twisted into a comedy and it has plenty of dark elements, but none of them have any purpose. There's no satire, no hidden depths, no sense at all that the film is aware of the outrageous, disgusting message it's preaching. Gentlemen of Fortune - 8.5/10 If you've ever looked at the highly rated films on Imdb, outside the top 250, you'll notice an abundance of Turkish and Russian films with absurdly high scores. I've always been skeptical that these films deserve the praise and have assumed that they're just very popular films in those countries. This is one such film and while it's not a masterpiece it's incredibly fun, very well paced, and both the humour and underlying message translate well outside of 1970's Soviet Union. The premise is silly, a school principal is a lookalike for a gangster recently put in prison and is drafted to get information from the gangster's henchmen. Yet the rest of the film is not only fun, despite the silliness of the situations I developed an attachment to these characters and was genuinely rooting for a positive resolution. Un chapeau de paille d'Italie - 6.5/10 René Clair's never really appealed to me, but his films usually have a charm that makes them enjoyable even if they feel fluffy. This one didn't have that and it becomes a 80 minute silent comedy that feels two hours long. The comedy itself is not bad, some good gags that are funny even with overuse, but the big problem is that it's impossible to root for anyone. A guy who's about to be married runs into a stranger having an affair with a married woman and his horse eats her hat. The rest of the film follows the guy running around town trying to find an italian straw hat so the cheating wife won't get caught, putting more stock in that than on his own wedding. It makes no sense whatsoever, even in the world of silly filmic plot devices and the ending just cemented my hate for the film's corrupt premise. They Died with Their Boots On - 8.5/10 Wikipedia tells me that key parts of this film are not based on true facts about General Custer, but drat if this biopic isn't some amazingly well done mythmaking. There's something about Errol Flynn I don't like but he has an effortless charm about him that, at least while he's on screen, makes me root for him. Here he plays General Custer from his joining the army through the Civil War all the way to his death, and while the film takes over two hours to tell the story it feels like much less as every moment feels integral to the story.
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2009 08:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
Appaloosa (2008) There are these long stretches in Appaloosa where I found myself wondering why the camera was doing what it was doing. Or rather what it wasn't doing. There are a lot of long static shots in places that I wouldn't normally expect long static shots. This doesn't seem to be an intentional framing device, as it is in Scott's The Duellists (1977), placing the characters and their struggles against a towering expanse of sky. It doesn't appear to be an attempt to present entirely uninflected images as in Tsai's Ni Na Bian Ji Dian (2001) (What Time Is It There?), regarding the characters in their isolation with a sort of bemused but sympathetic attention. It's entirely possible that worrying about this sort of thing is a symptom of a film snob's fixation on technical minutia and isn't a serious criticism of the film. Because I don't really have anything bad to say about the film. It just feels a little tone-deaf. As if it is directed by someone who didn't quite understand the language the actors are speaking and so is constantly and subtly loving up the timing. Not bad...just a little off. There's a lot elsewhere in the film to recommend it. It's well acted. It feels refreshingly like a old-fashioned oater rather than a vehicle for revisionist hand-wringing punctuated by percussive violence. Of course it isn't an old-fashioned Western---Ford or Hawks wouldn't have much use for unapologetic mercenaries as heroes---but it has the sense of trying to present a bit of idealised American life and through it a sort of uncomplex observation about the American character unburdened by overwrought exposition. I suppose I can't quite go so far as to recommend it; it's a fairly formulaic piece that isn't really rescued by the acting and is fairly hampered by the flat presentation. But it's certainly the kind of film I wish was more frequently made. Gran Torino (2008) This is about three quarters of a better film sunk under the weight of too-neat plotting. The narrative simplicity would normally work in what is, after all, a simple morality play. The problem is that the moral character of the narrative contains complications that the simplicity of the narrative highlights rather than resolves. We're left wondering if the message is that it is in fact okay to be a racist rear end in a top hat if you do it with enough brusque charm. Or if violence is in fact to be recommended as the solution to all problems great and small. And so forth. This is too bad, because it makes an otherwise fine film feel like an R-rated After School Special. I don't know if it's Eastwood or his Cinematographer Tom Stern or them together, but I really love the eye for suburban environments. Gran Torino isn't exactly what you would call a beautiful film, but I think the film's view of suburbia has the same sort of lyrical quality that, say, Ozu gives to the seaside town in Ukigusa (1959) (Floating Weeds). Eastwood's film certainly doesn't have the picturesque quality of Ozu's and Floating Weeds is one of the great films, which Gran Torino certainly is not. But the visual sense of Eastwood's film is striking and deserving of attention. Perhaps more than the film as a whole is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 00:15
|
|
|
The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976) The experience of watching this movie is a strange one. Most of the time, I had no real concrete idea of what was going on. It was like being stuck in a dark room during a thunderstorm while on acid. Weird cuts, extreme zooms, gratuitous nude scenes, pretty visuals and then out of nowhere *POP* the room would light up exposing the plot for a second before plunging me right back into darkness and confusion. Even though the movie is 138 minutes long, nothing feels fleshed out. There's no flow or build up. Things just happen without explanation or reasoning. The characters didn't act or respond like normal human beings. They seemed to be the screenplay writer's playthings. The worst part was there was no sense of time. Newton goes from nothing, to having the biggest company in the world, to being abducted by the government in what feels to be a week. The only reason I could even tell that years had past after that was due to most of the characters receiving makeup and grey hair dye David Bowie, who seems to be the only reason this movie is remembered, looked the part but his acting was extremely wooden. Nobody else stood out. 4.6/10
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 05:19
|
|
|
Dear Zachary (Kuenne) 3.5/5 - Flipped on msnbc and saw this was on for the 100th time so I decided to finally watch it. I really wish an editor or someone had saved Kurt Kuenne from his own indulgences. I really could not get over such techniques that required zero budget adjustments that really amateurized the film. To be sure, the story was compelling, I just wish that Kuenne had allowed the subjects and subject to speak for themselves/itself. Instead, we get cartoonish photo manipulations while Kuenne narrates a written script and a bunch of unnecessary footage and repetition ('Let's see that one again' style highlight reel talk). And before anyone says that it was supposed to be more home movies style than a documentary or whatever, that argument didn't work for Tarnation (I know it's a hugely different movie) and it isn't going to work here. Anyways, I know that's a lot of negative things I've said about the film, so I'll say that the interviews were very powerful and one of the editing techniques I did like was the rapid-fire changing of audio interviews where we get a cascade of different people espousing their love for the parents. Also, don't bother to watch this on msnbc because there's a commercial break every 8 minutes or so and it really breaks up the experience.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 06:21
|
|
|
Quiz Show I've been sitting here for five minutes trying to think of something to say about this film, but it's just not coming because there's really nothing to talk about. The film is barely above mediocre in almost all departments. The investigation is boring, everyone but Turturro gives sleep-through-it performances, occasionally we get a glimpse at the really interesting stuff (the actual rigging of the show) but then it's buried again under some dull family issues and, again, the wishy-washy investigation, which plays like a watery version of All The President's Men. There's an interesting film in there somewhere, but it's pretty elusive, and I kept getting the feeling that it should have been directed by the Coen brothers. Also, hoo boy is this one lovely-rear end DVD. 2/4
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 18:32
|
|
|
Day for Night After immensely enjoying The 400 Blows, I wanted to see more Truffaut. This is easily the most self-reflexive film I've seen. Both poignant, honest, and funny. Everything that could go wrong on a set is covered - an actor's death, takes lost in a lab error, a pregnant costar, actresses going through a breakdown, and insurance people breathing down the director's neck waiting for the production to end. This is 8 1/2 without the fantasy (outside of the lovely dream sequence) and almost a semi-documentary. Francois Truffaut even plays the director. There's a lot of in-jokes and film references that should delight movie buffs, but I'd imagine it's fun enough to those without the savvy know-how. The funniest scene had to be Truffaut's character gushing over Staci's beauty in the swimming scene, then his reaction to realizing she's knocked up  .(Also, I watched a few minutes of the English dub and couldn't help but laugh every time Jean-Pierre Leaud spoke. Thank God for subtitles... yechh)
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 18:45
|
|
|
I think I say it every time someone brings the film up, but that's because it's true: Day For Night is pretty much the only film I've ever seen that captures the joy of making a movie (Lost In La Mancha covers the "oh god why" side). Edit: well, not the only film, but it really does hit the nail on the head.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 19:01
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:This is easily the most self-reflexive film I've seen. You haven't seen many movies about making movies, I take it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 19:01
|
|
|
District 9 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1136608/ 9/10 District 9 made me think about the human nature - about what specimens of our proud species have done in the past and how they would act in the present if what happened in the moving pictures happened in real life. I want to drive home that for me, believability of the human characters and priorities on both sides of the story is what made it so disturbing. Oh, there is certainly love and friendship and boom and bang and pretty flashes for the combat lovers and various bodily fluids gaining their unexpected freedom but the words still hurt you the most. I find myself wanting to see the sequel. The part with the "zaps" made me angry, as it was surely supposed to. You'll know what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 23:01
|
|
|
The Man Who Wasn't There (2001, 3/4) Definitely lesser Coen Brothers, but it's still an entertaining diversion. As stylists, Coen Brothers are the only working American directors that can use every trick in the book to make a film look like a genuine product of its time and place. This one, shot in glorious black and white and possessed of a screenplay that draws on the best postwar noir thrillers, is no exception. Even the surreal flourishes that crop up (involving the aliens) feel organic to the plot. Still, it falls short; there's only so much that can be said by a man who can smoke a cigarette a thousand different ways depending on his mood, even if that man is Billy Bob Thornton and even if the men shooting him are the Coens. Loverboy (1989, 1/4) What the gently caress is this poo poo? There's some good plotting for a lovely '80s comedy, bringing all those characters together at the end in a way that doesn't test suspension of disbelief, but it's never funny and borderline offensive, especially to Asians and gays. Plus, the movie lacks the balls to actually joke about incest (even though one character's a borderline racist, another's a child molester and everyone hates homosexuals). Keanu Grieves fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Aug 14, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 23:12
|
|
|
The Proposition (2005) Jesus, Ray Winstone is a great actor. He keeps turning up in odd places (the latest Indiana Jones film, voice acting in Beowulf (2007) and so forth) but nothing he's done since Sexy Beast (2000) has wowed me like The Proposition. This is because it, like Sexy Beast feels like a sort of film that's not much made these days: a drama of characters under tension populated entirely by character actors. Winstone is excellent, as is Danny Huston. Guy Pearce and Emily Watson are good. John Hurt shows up briefly to fantastically chew up the scenery, which is what he does these days, having apparently reached that age that most English actors eventually reach in which they will gleefully appear in anything. This is also wonderful. Here's what's wrong with the film: it subscribes to the off-mainstream film school of thought that says that important conversations between two impassioned characters must be delivered as strident, hoarse whispers. So there's a lot of muttering. And the cinematography can't seem to resist sweeping across the blasted and desolate landscape while underscored by the indy soundtrack, which isn't inherently a bad thing, but here it often seems to be mere ornamentation and often stifles the narrative's pace. But these faults don't hold the film down. This is a character drama and it's character drama done well. A very fine film. Watchmen (2009) About midway through watching Watchmen I was struck by two thoughts: that this was a far better adaptation of the source material than could reasonably have been expected; and that my antipathy toward the film could therefore probably be seen as an antipathy toward the contemporary nonsense of self-obsessed superheroes. The film has problems: its almost fetishistic adherence to the source material introduces inevitable pacing problems; Snyder is apparently incapable of resisting the urge to insert distracting ultra-slo-mo into every action sequence; and there's a bit of the let's-stop-the-film-for-a-music-video disease. But the film on the whole is strong enough to carry the weight of these excesses. The real problem with Watchmen---and with other films in the `when you stare into the supervillain the supervillain stares into you' mold---is that it has absolutely no subtext. Conventional superhero tales are escapism with a moral subtext (and the film appears to miss the broad subtext that seems to be the central conceit of the source material). By burying the action under an enormous weight of brooding and exposition the subtext is effectively obliterated. We don't imagine that a character's actions may be representative of some larger moral or ethical principle because the character will not loving shut up about the fact that that is in fact all he's worried about. This would be a problem in a narrative in general, but here---where the characters are all transparently one-dimensional---it's absolute poison. Made twenty years ago Watchmen would have been as revelatory as the source material was---despite the flaws. Now, instead of feeling like an action-packed art film or a slow and introspective superhero film it feels like a fairly formulaic dissertation on a familiar theme. Instead of being a deconstruction of an older genre (the superhero tale) it feels like just another example of a modern genre (the superhero deconstruction). Not a bad film, but one that feels more like an exercise than an experience.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 23:34
|
|
|
SubG posted:Watchmen (2009) I finally saw the film a few weeks ago. I liked most of the movie and especially its treatment of superheroes in the "real world" (how they emerged from vigilante cops and that the government used them in Vietnam). Part of the movie never quite felt as good as it should have and I think you hit on it above in your post. I had never heard of Watchmen until I saw the trailer during TDK, but I think if I had read it (or they had made the movie) several years ago I would have enjoyed it much more. My biggest complaint is the ending, Dr. Manhattan's change of heart feels like some dialog from a cheesy Hallmark movie, and I don't buy the world's smartest man's plan to avoid nuclear war as viable solution for more than a couple years, making the heroic (self-)sacrifices just a waste instead of a difficult moral question. But maybe that was the point of the film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 04:27
|
|
|
District 9, 8-14-09 In my opinion, this is the best sci-fi film to come out in at least a decade. The movie's trailers did a great job of portraying the setting without giving away the complexities of the story line. I can only speak for myself, but I did not expect to spend the entire film in slack-jawed shock. Nevertheless, that's what happened. The special effects are amazing as you'd expect, but that's where my expectations ended. I may have been protecting myself from another Transformers 2 style let down by keeping my expectations low, and maybe that's why I was so incredibly impressed. This movie is an absolute punch in the gut saga that takes you along an insane ride with the hero as he goes from indifferent bureaucrat, to righteous, downtrodden, outgunned (in a manner of speaking) outcast. You forget the fact that you are watching a fantastical fiction, and feel like you are seeing cruelty and indifference at its worst. I honestly left the theatre feeling like I had watched a fictional documentary set in a holocaust concentration camp, rather than a action packed sci-fi flick. The special effects are amazing, and the violence is extreme, but without feeling forced. Even during the most gruesome bloodsplosions, I didn't feel like I was watching something violent for the sake of being violent. The movie is gritty, intense, horrifying, thought provoking, and an amazing commentary on human nature. Bring on District 10. Bottom Line (finally) 9.9/10 5 Stars A+ Effing Awesome
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 06:30
|
|
|
Speedracer (rewatch) I must be crazy but I love this movie. The dialog is pretty awkward, the story and action are ridiculous but it all comes together in this delicious cheesy mess. I do really like the style though, and I appreciate that they didn't try to make it gritty and realistic, it's also neat that they carried over the campy transitions. 5/5 Am I crazy?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 12:27
|
|
|
Obsessed (2009, 2/5) This carries a 4.1/10 on IMDb, which is kind of unfair. It's not a terrible movie by any means, featuring a generally competent script, generally competent actors and more than competent direction, with a couple suspenseful scenes along the way. The problem is, there's nothing new; I particularly like this type of thriller, but Swimfan seems original by comparison. It's not very good, but it's also unfairly lowballed on IMDb. For shame.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 20:18
|
|
|
I just took a voyage through Terrence Malick's world over the past couple days and holy poo poo, I don't know why I didn't do this sooner. I watched a Thin Red Line a while back (I had put it off for a while because I despise Sean Penn) and absolutely loved the movie. Although to call it a movie is in many ways misleading. It's more of an experience than a movie; it flows unlike anything I've seen before. I then rewatched the Ebert/Scorsese episode on their favorite films of the 1990s (its on youtube) a couple days ago, and remembered that I needed to watch Days of Heaven, which Ebert mentions in glowing terms when they're discussing Malick. Well I started with Badlands (1973) then watched Days of Heaven (1978) then was so caught up in it that I rewatched The New World (2005) through new eyes; I can't get enough of this guy. Tree of Life in a few months is now near the top of my look-forward-to list. I'm not a wordsmith nor even if I was one could I do these movies justice if I were to describe them. So I will just say that Badlands is a 9.5/10, Days of Heaven is a 10/10, and The New World is a solid 8/10 (I appreciate it far more after having seen his previous works). The Thin Red Line is one of my favorite films and easily stands as a 10/10. See these movies at once. That this man took such a long break from making movies has deprived audiences of genius-level artistry.
Arkane fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Aug 15, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 21:37
|
|
|
jjack229 posted:Part of the movie never quite felt as good as it should have and I think you hit on it above in your post. I had never heard of Watchmen until I saw the trailer during TDK, but I think if I had read it (or they had made the movie) several years ago I would have enjoyed it much more. Watchmen (at least the source material) takes this much further. It isn't just wondering what sorts of problems would plague the conscience of a superhero in the real world. It's observing that in the real world superheroes would be at best irrelevant, at worst dangerous, and in any case are certainly faintly ridiculous. If you draw the closest parallel between Batman and the world of Watchmen, you see Walter Kovacs not as a troubled idealist like Bruce Wayne but rather a smelly, socially inept and almost certainly literally insane psychopath. I think because we arrive at (the film of) Watchmen already having a familiarity with the modern super-yet-tragic-hero stereotype we're more likely to see a character like Rorschach as troubled rather than troubling; this is, I think, missing the central idea of the character. I also think that a lot of the decisions made by Synder tend to suggest that he as well seems to be somewhat confused on this point, and seems to be presenting a view that says superheroes are flawed but cool, rather than deranged, creepy, and faintly silly. Arkane posted:Well I started with Badlands (1973) then watched Days of Heaven (1978) then was so caught up in it that I rewatched The New World (2005) through new eyes; I can't get enough of this guy. SubG fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Aug 15, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 21:54
|
|
|
Frontalot posted:Obsessed (2009, 2/5) Isn't a 4/10 proportionately the same score as a 2/5?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 21:55
|
|
|
Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon. I'm going to give this a 5/5, and I can't believe I haven't watched this film over all these years since its release. I suppose when I was younger the idea of a three hour runtime costume drama period piece would be unbearable. And since then the film doesn't get the attention that 2001 or Dr. Strangelove among others, so it doesn't get discussed that much. The sets, costumes and cinematography are lush and perfect. Every scene is constructed like a painting. Despite this the direction and dialogue is not flashy. The pace is very slow and deliberate, Barry's story and the portrait of his character is laid out very meticulously and deliberately. I like that the characters are complex and interesting, most of the important characters including Barry and his stepson have a mixture of loathsome and admirable qualities, as reflected in their actions. I don't know to what degree this reflects the novel. Barry does a lot of things that are really dishonorable, but in a few key moments of crisis in the film, almost surprisingly, he does things that are really noble. I had a lot of sympathy for the stepson which is then complicated by later events. Sometimes I almost hate Kubrick because he seem almost clinical and scientific, too emotionally detached in his brilliance, but to me his style works perfectly in this film. The best example is the climactic duel scene. There is nothing flashy at all in the direction, but a feeling of almost unbearable tension and anticipation is built up almost imperceptibly over time, and the music is subtle and doesn't beat you over the head in building the mood. I'm not sure if the narration and the printed text on a few screens is from the novel, but the brief epilogue just before credits is absolutely perfect. It's available for streaming/instant viewing on Netflix now as are most of Kubrick's films.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 22:09
|
|
|
Kentucky Shark posted:Isn't a 4/10 proportionately the same score as a 2/5? To give you a comparison, Desert Heat holds a 4.4, Loverboy holds a 5.4, and Plan 9 from Outer Space holds a 3.6. When I decided to rent Obsessed last month for its sheer badness, it was sitting at 3.8. That means IMDb users thought, at one point, that Obsessed was only slightly better than Plan 9 from Outer Space. Consider the other crappy movies that make at least 5, Obsessed doesn't deserve a 4.1, and I'm at a loss as to why IMDb users hate it so much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 22:13
|
|
|
Frontalot posted:Not if you weigh my median against the median IMDb vote (which, I believe, hovers around 6.0). The IMDb Bottom 100 runs from 1.1 to 2.1 while the Top 100 goes from 8.3 to 9.1. I guess this is why I hate rating systems in general, and IMDb's especially.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 22:18
|
|
|
Frontalot posted:That means IMDb users thought, at one point, that Obsessed was only slightly better than Plan 9 from Outer Space.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 22:52
|
|
|
SubG posted:Ed Wood gets a lot more crap than he deserves. He was an inept director, but you can tell that he was totally into the act of filmmaking. His films are all a mess, but they also all have some heart in them. This elevates the worst of Wood above soulless dreck like Blade: Trinity (2004) (5.7 on IMDB), to say nothing of a lot of the celluloid shovelled out by studios like Troma and Full Moon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 23:10
|
|
|
Ace Ventura - Pet Detective Classic Jim Carrey material in this one as I'm sure anyone who has seen it will agree, and who the hell hasn't seen it? Such scenes as fighting the shark in Ronald Camps' private aquarium and when Courtney Cox is helping him sneak into the mental institution to find info on Ray Finkle, notably trying to hide in a himself in an unstable cardboard box, but to no avail. There are many other funny moments scattered throughout which helps the film stand up to repeated viewing. Whatever happens, you can bet Ace in on the case and he's sure to bring a few laughs with him along the way. Also featuring a great supporting role by Sean Young of Blade Runner fame and rapper Tone Loc who performs a specially written rap during the credits. The sequel had its fair share of classic moments but in this case the original is best. 4.3/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 04:02
|
|
|
The Dirty Dozen, 1967 A- This movie, especially the last hour, has the feel of a modern action movie. It does start out kind of slowly, and really doesn't have the kind of depth to it that justifies a 2.5 hour run time. Featuring Lee Marvin, Ernest Borgnine, Telly Savalas, Charles Bronson, and Jim Brown, it's easily one of the manliest movies ever made. The Great Escape, 1963 B Imagine a 3 hour episode of "Hogan's Heroes" where almost everybody gets killed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 05:36
|
|
|
Sin City (2005) Just finished this movie a few minutes ago. It was highly recommended by a friend and all I can say is that I might have to re-evaluate my friends taste in movies. I personally thought it was terrible. Not the ultra violence or the highly stylized cinematography, but the overall message and tone of the film. It was like taking a trip through the mind of the "Watchmen" villain, Rorschach. Everything's bleak, no light, no hope. The film is a defeatist work of art, but it doesn't have anything to offer me besides its bleakness. It's one redeeming quality, the carefully planned shots are wasted in the end because they don't lead me to any conclusions about the characters, their world, or my own. 2/10 The Wild Bunch A great example of a Western. It's a classic for a reason. Well shot, decent acting, morally ambiguous...This is the Western as it should be. The shoot outs are incredibly fun to watch. I would say they rival some of Clint Eastwood's stuff, just because they're so over done. I mean, they use a machine gun with a seemingly endless round of ammunition for the final shoot out. I definitely recommend this over Sin City. 7/10
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 06:33
|
|
|
Caught a couple new releases lately and one not-so-new movie: A Perfect Getaway (2009) 3 out of 4 stars I've already written about this in a couple threads, but I think this is a good movie that's getting kind of a bum rap because it apparently has terrible trailers. Admittedly, I didn't watch any trailers before I saw it, so my experience wasn't tainted at all. This was an average thriller elevated slightly by good performances from all four leads, and Twohy's script which has a lot of fun with the audience. Definitely worth a rental if you're into the genre and aren't jaded by everyone complaining about the trailers. The Goods (2009) 2 1/2 stars The worst comedy I've paid to see in several years, but that speaks more to how many good comedies have come out in recent years. This certainly wasn't a masterpiece; the script was mediocre and dead predictable most of the way, and it has some pretty long dry stretches (especially in the last half hour or so). That said, it succeeded in making me laugh more than a few times through sheer brute force. The film is mostly carried by its supporting cast: Ving Rhames, James Brolin, and Kathryn Hahn are all very funny. Charles Napier in particular takes a pretty clichéd character (foul-mouthed, crotchety, racist old man) out of the ballpark, and steals every scene he is in. Honestly, I probably will forget about the movie as a whole in a couple weeks, but a few of its jokes will stick with me for a lot longer. Pulse (Kairo) (2001) 3 stars I saw the American remake when it was in theaters and didn't get around to seeing the original J-horror until now. The original is superior in most regards, most importantly in the eerie atmosphere it creates that the remake failed at duplicating. I also liked that the original is open to more interpretation and seems to aim higher thematically, but at times that seemed to be at the expense of a cohesive and understandable plot. Overall a success though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 09:25
|
|
|
After reading the Zodiac and serial killers thread I thought I might as well watch some french movies with MURDERS! Haute Tension (2003) After a tense and disturbing first half I kind of felt it all fell apart towards the end. I can't say I'm a fan of gory movies, but I thought it worked very well in the beginning. There was a point in it where I thought I figured out the twist ending but then stuff happened and I thought "nope, can't be that". As it turns out, I was right about the twist and the movie had just worked against itself in order to be more shocking I guess? 2/5 Man Bites Dog (1992) This one I really liked. Darkly humorous, disturbing and more than a little uncomfortable to watch. One of the best mockumentaries I've watched, it follows a film crew and their subject, a serial killer who does poetry between killing basically random people and hanging out with his friends. I thought it worked really well in making me care less and less about the killings and then just throwing in a scene so utterly repulsing I felt, I don't know, unclean. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 17:58
|
|
|
sensy v2.0 posted:I thought it worked really well in making me care less and less about the killings and then just throwing in a scene so utterly repulsing I felt, I don't know, unclean. The Vanishing has the same effect. You get to know the antagonist really well, and he's actually a really pleasant guy, all of his bumbling around makes him downright loveable, and then you remember what he's doing and that just makes it all the more horrible. By the way, if you haven't seen it do so (and make sure it's the original Dutch film, not the Jeff Bridges remake) as soon as possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 19:19
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:The Vanishing has the same effect. You get to know the antagonist really well, and he's actually a really pleasant guy, all of his bumbling around makes him downright loveable, and then you remember what he's doing and that just makes it all the more horrible. By the way, if you haven't seen it do so (and make sure it's the original Dutch film, not the Jeff Bridges remake) as soon as possible. I might as well add this: The Wrestler (2008, rewatch) First time I watched this on Bluray, and I think it looks amazing. It feels very raw, almost like a documentary. The movie might not be uplifting, but I just really enjoy watching it. It wasn't as good as a rewatch, but it might be because it was just too soon (I guess I watched it a month or so ago). Rourke is brilliant and so is Marisa Tomei. 4/5 the first time, and I'd say 3.5/5 on the rewatch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 21:19
|
|
|
All horror films, all 3/4. I need to get a new genre and default rating. The Unborn (2009, 3/4) Maybe I have a different attitude than 99% of horror viewers out there, but as long as a horror film provides a few jolts (and hopefully a sense of dread), it works for me. Plot be damned, actors be damned, cliches be damned, if a horror movie can do this one thing, it's not a bad film. The Unborn takes a page out of the same playbook as The Uninvited and Orphan, two other films that were elevated out of mediocrity by wicked pacing, genuine scares and atmosphere to spare. No, not everything in The Unborn works: the plot is little more than ideas stolen from better movies, the overall aesthetic is that of an Asian imitator and the acting (including that of Gary Oldman) is uniformly wooden, but there are three or four sequences that are creepy as gently caress, a couple dozen jump scares (none of which are fake-outs) and a neat subversion of the three-shot mirror scare, all in a movie that clocks in under 90 minutes. That kind of entertainment is more than worth the $2 it cost to rent it. The Last House on the Left (2009, 3/4) This is one remake worth doing. Whereas the original features comedic sequences, ill-fitting music and turgid acting, with the sole bright points being Craven's use of violence, this remake gets it mostly right, unfortunately stripping away moral complexity in the process. Save for the ending, revenge is a matter of necessity in the remake; in the original (and, from what I've read, in The Virgin Spring), it was a choice Mari's parents made. That said, there is unusually stunning photography on display here; the camera frequently lingers on its summer imagery, be it a birdhouse in the sun, blossoming flowers or a shimmering lake, while never lingering so long as to break the intensity or to lighten the mood. While thematically simpler than its predecessors, it's still a disturbing and beautiful film, never resorting to exploitation despite its subject matter. It's just too bad the parents don't have a choice this time. It reduces a morality play about the righteousness of revenge to simple, if well-made, survival horror. The Lost (2005, 3/4) Oates's "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?" has been one of my favorite short stories since I read it in my freshman year of college. While being an adaptation of a Jack Ketchum novel loosely based on Charles Schmid, whose murders also inspired Oates's story, The Lost works better as a reinterpretation of the short story than it does the crystallization of Schmid's essence or an adaptation of a mediocre novel. It's a complex feeling, but Ray Pie is more of a visualization of Arnold Friend than Treat Williams could provide in Smooth Talk. The Lost is a haunting portrait of a sociopath propelled to violence by insecurity with the same kind of indie realism used to great effect in films like King of the Ants and Julia. Ray is perfectly realized by Marc Senter, who nails the walk of a man who puts crushed beer cans in his boots to account for his height and the mannerisms of a man who manipulates teenage girls because most of his peers can see past his bullshit. His performance is crucial to the film's success; while the other actors can be less successful, and they frequently are, Ray is onscreen through most of the film, and he is never less than perfect in the role. As the audience, we can see the truth about Ray, but Senter reminds us the other characters cannot, and so while we perceive him as disturbed and unhinged, it's believable that other characters would not, would see him as a charmingly troubled rebel, a James Dean type. And when Ray finally unravels, when his facade falls apart and the savage killer comes out during the film's final act, Senter transforms his Ray into a manic psycho. In fact, the only flaw in the film is its pacing. At two hours, it spends a lot of time rehashing material instead of building the plot. It's a weak adaptation to be sure as the screenwriter attempts to have it both ways, keeping a lot of excess material from the source novel while excising the resolution or impact of various subplots. There's just not that much story required to explain why Ray would snap, how he would snap and who he would kill, and a last-reel reference to the Manson murders feels completely out of left-field, as does the ending. I defy anyone to identify the precise edit during the finale at which the credits will roll. It's a shame when a movie feels right in every area but one. Senter's acting is solid, director/screenwriter Chris Sivertson's anachronistic blend of elements from sixty years of Americana gives the film a subtly timeless feel, the plot is credible and sturdy, and the film never looks as cheap as it probably was, but the pacing...dear God, the pacing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 21:19
|
|
|
Sketches of Frank Gehry (2005) Short of a structure not collapsing and killing all who dwell inside I am admittedly ignorant to what constitutes as great architecture. The only real fact I know about the subject is that Frank Lloyd Wright was a fan of flat staked rocks and I learned this from listening to John McTiernan discuss the production design of the Nakatomi building. To call me a layman would be a compliment, so I decided to enlighten myself on the subject with this film. Gehry designs buildings that look like that are in the process of or have already fallen down. I always thought they were neat looking and the odd design either served some purpose that was not apparent at first glance (like acoustics or natural light, etc) or based on some geometrical theory so complex that it would cause my brain to melt. I was wrong. Frank Gehry wads up paper and has his Lyle Lovett looking personal assistant arrange it until Gehry finds it pleasing. Then we hear from a bunch of experts and cool dudes (like Dennis Hopper)go on about why Gehry is a living legend and how they liked him more and before everyone else did. Then we learn that Gehry had it hard at first but then he ended up on top and getting there would not have been as sweet if it was easy. But the majority of the film is Sydney Pollack talking to Gehry about the risky creative process in a fields driven by commerce, being rebels in fields driven by commerce and how they are both geniuses. There are also a lot of vanity cutaways of Pollack with an XL1 taping Gehry. I am sorry to report that I had to turn this off after an hour or so. Keep in mind these are/were two men I respected before viewing and I expected any criticism of the subject to just kind of be there so Pollack can call his film objective. Infact the only critic in the film admits right off the bat that he is there just ot be objective and likes Gehry's work. Avoid this unless you are a fan of self portraits or people who talk endlessly about how cool their friends are for two hours.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 23:26
|
|
|
So i was listening to old Wu Tang albums and all the the kungfu movie samples got me in the mood. The Master of the Flying Guillotine (1975) I have found out that the part about the old kungfu movies i like the best is the sheer ridiculousness of them and not the super stylised fighting that i kinda find over choreographed. This one avoids this "problem" though, it is well worth watching just for the large amount characters with unique and distinctive fighting styles. The Master is the kinda laid back stone cold killer badass that overshadows all the others, he even has a badass theme. Sometimes movies like this one have a premise that is so good that they cant live up to what my over active imagination expects from them, but this is one that actually does not disappoint me. I don't expect to find a kungfu movie from this era that outdoes this one. 36th Chamber of Shaolin (1978) I have some problems with this one: it is 2 hours long and it takes almost an hour before our hero even gets to the training scenes. To be fair i think a lot of kungfu movies would have been a lot more boring than this one is if they had to go all that time without any action to keep it interesting. Though some of the training scenes are pretty sweet, they even manage to make a scene where someone stares at a moving candle one of the high points in the movie. The fight scenes when we finally get to them are decent and use a few gimmicks to avoid them being too repetitive. The 3 section staff fights are pretty sweet coming of as spontaneous (it looks like the guy strikes and then the other guy comes up with a block, not the other way around). I expected some of the 36 chambers to be more over the top but i can definitely live with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 01:21
|
|
|
In the Loop - Almost every review or discussion of this I've seen ends up referencing Dr. Strangelove, and it's not surprising. Like Strangelove, In the Loop takes a look at an unfunny, horrifying situation - here, the buildup to and declaration of the Iraq war - and dares to make a pitch-black comedy out of it. And, like Strangelove, it somehow works, mining laughs all the way to the bitter end. And yet, for all the laughs -and trust me, there are a lot of them - it's not the flawless success the earlier film was. There's no shortage of strengths to the movie: from the gleefully profane dialogue to some brilliant comic performances (most notably Capaldi's excoriating Scottish force of nature), but the biggest shortcoming is the lack of cohesion. I'm not familiar with the British show from which most of the cast and characters originated (The Thick of It), but the movie feels a lot like it was made by people more comfortable in sketch comedy than a plotted series; it's a series of brilliant scenes, but they frequently don't tie together all that well. Add to that the fact that the movie attempts to take a turn for the serious near the end that just doesn't work - the characters haven't merited a serious turn - and you have a couple of glaring flaws that hurt this. Still, it's frequently hilarious, and well worth watching, and maybe here's the most telling thing I could say: if these guys do another movie, I'm definitely there for it, warts and all. 4/5 The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly - I've now seen this twice, and somehow managed to have both viewings on a big screen. That's a pretty great track record. Last time, I liked it, but didn't love it; seeing it now, I wonder why I wasn't more thrilled with it. I think seeing more of Leone's work helps; knowing that what I'm getting is less directly plotted and more picaresque allows you to just give yourself over to the movie, enjoying its wanderings and its epic feel. The bridge sequence is a case in point; on my first viewing, I commented that it disrupted the flow of the film and went on too long. Watching it now, I completely disagree with both statements. Especially when watching the European cut of the film, it's apparent that Leone was moving into his fascinating with the "making of" America, as he'd toy with in Once Upon a Time in the West/in America, and The Good...'s usage of the Civil War isn't just intended as backdrop; it's both commentary on war and a way of putting into sharp relief the utter pointlessness of the quest for the Gold. But more than any of that, The Good... is a triumph of style. So much of the film is without dialogue, and yet it never drags; rather, it flies by, most notably in that stunning final showdown that offers a lesson in how to stretch tension. Anchored by three iconic performances, Morricone's spectacular music, more setpieces than I can count, and Leone's brilliant direction, The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is an utter masterpiece. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 03:32
|
|
|
Why isn't this stickied anymore?  Wild Strawberries The Seventh Seal took two viewings for me to become enamored with, but this film (from the same year!) by Ingmar Bergman completely won me over the first time. Isak Borg (played by Swedish film pioneer Victor Sjostrom) is an elderly doctor about to be presented with an honorary degree. The night before, he has a bizarre (and Dreyer-esque) dream, which changes his plans for the following day. He drives to his old home along with his daughter-in-law. Along the way, he meets up three teenagers (I assume?), a cranky Catholic couple, and briefly a happy couple at a gas station. All while he reflects on his past whether in what we could interpret as hallucination or simply daydreaming. It's hard to sum up my feelings on this film. It went from poingant to funny to depressing in short time, and back again. Sjostrom gives a brilliant performance as Isak. It's funny how the producers were worried he would keel over during filming, yet he has so much life in his characterization. The story never goes into sentimentality, though. On top of the great story and acting, the cinematography is absolutely gorgeous. Just the use of lighting makes this eye-popping to look at. I also liked the deliberately blown out look of the dream sequence - I assume Bergman was trying to homage the sfumato look Dreyer used for Vampyr? (Also, you're going to have to blank out De Duva out of your mind during the opening scene if you've seen it) The Scarlet Empress Wow, this is a textbook case of style over substance. While this is apparently somewhat historically accurate, I was mostly preoccupied with the amazing lighting throughout this film. This is the first Josef von Sternberg film I've seen, but I was in awe of how unique the visuals appear. Closeups are often off-kilter, lighting is right out of German expressionism. Grotesque carvings populate rooms. Then there's Marlene Dietrich making love to the camera. She actually has a surprisingly sparse amount of dialogue until the last act. The real scene stealer is Sam Jaffe, appearing as Peter III (but looks more like Harpo Marx as Peter III). Anyone interested in cinematography should see this film as how to light for motion pictures. For the story? Probably should look for other films. I really wish Criterion's transfer was better because the sound was often jumbled and the print was fairly awful (very grainy, lots of dirt and scratches, and not even cue mark removal). Arsenal I'm sure I'd get more out of this film with more knowledge on the subject - the time between WWI and the end of the Russian revolution as related to the Ukraine. This is also the first of Dovzhenko's films I've seen. Not much to say other than it's a visually stunning film, even if not on the level of Eisenstein or Vertov. The ending is terrific, though. Also watched Nosferatu, via the fantastic "definitive" restoration by the FWMS. Original score, surprisingly pristine image quality, and a lot of footage that's not in other versions. Still scary after all these years, not to mention visually interesting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 04:17
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Why isn't this stickied anymore? It doesn't really need to be, it gets bumped so often. District 9 - My wife fell asleep during this movie, and she might have had the better time. While the special effects are impressive and some of the social commentary is intriguing, it's marred by some poor filmmaking decisions. Never mind the veritable mountain of unanswered questions regarding the aliens. There are bigger problems here. The documentary style hurts a lot more than it helps. Blomkamp uses it to add a dimension of realism, but abandons it (or severely stretches it) when it suits his purposes, such as reaching for a formulaic emotional beat. Ultimately it ends up being shaky-cam and closed circuit footage just for the hell of it. And the allegorical nature of the film is extremely blunt, almost insultingly so at times. Okay, doing it with a sci-fi/alien twist is kind of interesting, but only for so long. Which is perhaps why it just follows a Generic Action Flick template by the end. I did like that there was a certain amount of complexity to the main character... at least until his final arc which veers into clichédom. I didn't outright hate the movie, but it was pretty disappointing. Rating: 5 Fish, Underground - Rather blah short from Tsai. I liked the individual elements... the fish, the tunnels, the stripper, the vaguely religious performers(?). But the combination of them is deliberately oblique in a way that Tsai rarely engages in. I'd expect this kind of thing from him earlier in his career, not sandwiched between two of his best films. Rating: 6 Guernica - Very early short film by Kusturica, about a Jewish couple trying to shelter their young son from the Nazis. Not much at all like his other work, but good. The cinematography is very nice and the incorporation of the Picasso into the narrative was pretty clever, I thought. A minor but satisfying morsel. Rating: 7 EDIT: I just skimmed through the D9 thread and someone said it's one of his all-time top 10 movies. I had to laugh. Oh, goons. It's like Children of Men all over again. FitFortDanga fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Aug 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 05:51
|
|
|
Watchmen Having read the comic not too long ago, the plot of it all was still very fresh in my mind. That said, I was very happy with how faithfully it stuck to the original story until they completely changed the ending! Instead of Veidt teleporting a massive monster into NYC, killing millions in a psycho-kinetic blast of energy, he simply mimics Dr. Manhattan's energy signature and flattens some of Earth's major cities in a frame-up. Dr. Manhattan leaves and the world flips him the bird. The earlier complaint that Veidt's scheme would not be a long-term solution was effectively solved by the book's ending because the citizens of Earth were absolutely shocked, believing it was an Alien attack (or an interstellar accident), and saw fit to band together as a planet, because they were not alone in the universe. Everything else about the ending was the same, I didn't understand why they had to weaken the ending when the rest of the movie had been so faithful. However, complaints aside, it was a wonderfully shot film and I really enjoyed seeing some of my favorite parts of the book portrayed on the big screen. It felt long but I'm sure it was because I watched the extended version with about 25 minutes of extra footage. 8/10. District 9 I was blown away by this movie! I had very little idea what I was getting in to, and I was happy that my original fears of the trailers giving too much away were unfounded. The action and effects are top notch, and the plot is solid, yet leaves many questions unanswered (I smell sequel for sure). I didn't think the flipping between documentary-style and traditional cinematography was all that distracting, but it wasn't ideal either. One thing that I felt odd about was just how human the aliens behaved. I'm not sure if that was intentional because they've been stranded for a significant period of time, or if it was a grab at making me relate to them. All in all, it's an absolutely wonderful movie and a sci-fi instant classic. 8.5/10
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 06:32
|
|
|
Payback (Director's Cut) (Brian Helgeland, DVD) - It's all a simple misunderstanding - both the plot and the circumstances that Helgeland had this film taken away from him. It all boils down to Parker, the character from Donald Westlake's novels - he's mean, gritty, and he gets the job done. If something bad has to happen to somebody in order to get the job done, well, it has to happen. The character fits the mold of the 70s anti-hero (and several Parker movies were made then, and more rip-offs were made, too), but in this directors cut, he feels like he's doing ok in the late 90's. There's many differences to the different version, but this one is more true to Parker (even though he's called Porter here. Westlake would sell the movie rights to the novels, but never the character rights, so they had to rename him. That way they could never gently caress up the character). That said, I think there's enough room for both versions of the film to exist - the theatrical is a funnier movie that's more palatable (they don't kill they dog), while this version and it's beautiful blue-green tint (I really, really love how this was shot/colored) and girttyness and downright mean-spiritedness can serve those who want it. You do miss out on Kris Kristofferson, but, sometimes you have to make sacrifices. 4/5 The Streetfighter (Ozawa, Laserdisc) - A little backstory for this film, when it was originally released it was given an X rating for violence, an R-rated version was made but had to cut out about 15 minutes of material for it. In 1995 the film was restored at the behooval of (Who else) but Quentin Tarantino by New Line, who then submitted it to the MPAA for a rating... and received an NC-17 for violence. New Line released it unrated.The only other film to go through a similar ordeal with the ratings board is Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch, so you know you're in good company. The Streetfighter is one of those films that's highly influential, everybody's heard of it, but few have seen it. There's mitigating factors, the transfer on the DVD is horrendous (thus finding the better transfer on laserdisc), the dubbing is awful and inconsistent (I think about three different voice actors play the voice of Chiba's Terry Tsiguri at different points), and today I don't think people have the same interest in martial arts as they did in the 70s. In the promotional materials for this movie, they have some pretty amazing quotes from QT, one being "Terry Tsiguri shows two emotions in this movie: indifference and revenge" - which sounds like it's belittling the performance of Sonny Chiba in this film, but it's really exalting it. Chiba's an animal in this, the only way he knows how to get results is to fight, and God drat does he do it well. The fights are some of the best I've ever seen, seldom gimmicky, always thrilling. QT also says "When I'd tell my friends about the things Terry Tsiguri does in the film they'd always respond with '... and he's the good guy?'". Tsiguri is absolutely brutal in this film, a real "don't take no poo poo from nobody" kind of guy. His decisions don't always make sense, but they always lead to some insane battles. This is one that you scream with. The film has passed into the public domain, which is a mixed bag - it makes it so that there's numerous DVDs available, but it means that no work has been put into them. They're all the same lousy transfer. Hell, the whole thing is up on archive.org: http://www.archive.org/details/The_Street_Fighter_-_1974_Toei_Company_Ltd._film 5/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 11:07
|
|
|
The boat that rocked - This is a true feel good movie. It just made me happy. Perfect when you are tired on a Sunday afternoon. I was expecting it to be a musical because it was labeled as such but that turned out not to be the case. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 12:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
ClydeUmney posted:I'm not familiar with the British show from which most of the cast and characters originated (The Thick of It), but the movie feels a lot like it was made by people more comfortable in sketch comedy than a plotted series; it's a series of brilliant scenes, but they frequently don't tie together all that well. This might work in your favour, as far as enjoying the film goes. Most of the cast from the series appear in the film as different characters (or essentially the same character with a different name). So it could be confusing at first to see two actors from the show, one playing the same character and one playing a new character acting like they've never met. It leads to a few "Didn't he threaten to shove an iPod up his cock last time he saw him?" moments. Moon (2009) 5/5 A brilliant performance from Sam Rockwell, the film plays with the audience's assumptions based on earlier sci-fi films. Gerty, the creepy computer turning out to be a genuinely sympathetic character for example. The best thing about this is the wonderful, clunky technology that is reminiscent of some of my favourite sci-fi classics. Crash (2004) 2/5 All I ever heard about this film was that it hammered home the "racism is bad" message. Having finally seen it I can safely say one thing... Racism is bad!
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 12:34
|
|
