2006 Screening Log

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Thanks for your review of "Cars" Bill(dvdjunkie), even if you did like it, and I'm still very nervous about it.

I'm glad you enjoyed it, and we may not 100% percent agree when it comes to movie tastes, I have a little more hope after reading your review.

Just tell me this, you said it was 116 minutes, one of the many reasons I'm worried about Cars is that there really doesn't look like enough story to even tell a 90 minute movie without dragging. So my question is, does the film drag?

[Loomis]

I guess this just shows that overseas perceptions of a film can vary greatly from the United States. I too was interested in this movie when opened last year, but it was pretty much dismissed and didn't last in my city for more than a week.

Well, it only opened yesterday, so not sure how long it will last. The press have been very kind to it here, and it is getting a fair bit of press coverage, even in the mainstream. It isn't showing at any of the major cinemas in Sydney, though, just the quasi-indie ones (I say 'quasi' because even they are owned by chains). Even so, it probably won't last that long - I shared the cinema with about half a dozen other people!

[dvdjunkie]

Timon/Pumba Fan wrote:

Just tell me this, you said it was 116 minutes, one of the many reasons I'm worried about Cars is that there really doesn't look like enough story to even tell a 90 minute movie without dragging. So my question is, does the film drag?

I didn't think so. The story is so well-told, and there is a lot of depth to the characters. I was laughing pretty hard through most of the movie and didn't realize how long it was, so that should answer the question.

Another question someone asked was about the NASCAR stuff. There is less than 10 minutes of NASCAR and that is at the very end of the movie and provides a fitting climax to Lightning McQueen's search for himself.

I really think that this movie will exceed everyone's expectations, and could very well be the best movie to come from the studios of Pixar. I think that it will do even better than "Finding Nemo" and that is saying something, because I love "Nemo" and didn't think anything would ever top it.

[Prince Eric]

May 24, 2006 (11:59 PM viewing)

X3: The Last Stand
I'm not a fan of comic books or their big screen adaptations, yet, something felt so artfully chewy about X2: X-Men United that I couldn't help but feel that it was earnest and serious about the tough political and emotional issues it raised. It was resonant, to say the least. The directorial switch to Brett Ratner was a bad one, but it wasn't a devestating one. The standards were set pretty high, but I've never believe that should be an excuse for not meeting them. What we get in X3: The Last Stand is a lot more mutants, a lot more powers, and a lot more visual effects, but less of the human stuff that made the previous sequel such a viable movie. In fact, therein lies the problem: too much stuff is going on. Ratner never makes use of his primary heroes: Wolverine, Jean Grey, and to a lesser extent, Cyclops. There's not even one character that you feel compelled to root for, because there's just too many. A pro of the movie is the stronger portrayel of Storm, who acts more of a leader (likes she's supposed to), instead of the token woman of the group. Several scenes, including a psychic showdown between the Pheonix and Professor Xavier, are pretty interesting, but not enough to fill in the hollow places that could have been easily filled with the subtle pathos that Bryan Singer so expertly made use of. I liked it, but I miss Singer and his Nightcrawler! Grade: B

[Prince Eric]

May 27, 2006

Over the Hedge
Bruce Willis was horrible in his first animated outing as the role of Spike in one of the Rugrats movies. His performance was too transparant, which can also describe the canon of Dreamworks animated features. So, with those precedents set, I can't even begin to describe how happy I was too thoroughly enjoy Over the Hedge, a thought-provoking, energetic, and compelling tale about a group of foragers and their attempt to infiltrate suburban America. Its charms are plenty, most notable in the suberb voice-over work. Bruce Willis is endearing as the conniving racoon, Steve Carell does wonderful work as an ADD squirell, and Wanda Sykes is her usually funny self as a love-deprived Skunk. Even William Shatner and Avril Lavigne were utterly connvincing in their beastial incarnations. The story and characters are just as developed as any of the Pixar movies (means a lot in my book) and the character designs are beautiful. I loved the animation. The animal pelts were ten times more convinning then the horrible sack of feathers that was the puny foul Disney cranked out last ylear. Thankfully, most critics are smart enough to like the movie, but the packed release schedule of recent weeks are hampering this wonderful movie's performance at the box-office. It'll do well, but I'm thinking about the movie's chances for Oscar. Do the world a favor and see this parody of middle America, reality TV, and the silliness of human behavior. Grade: B+

[The Little Merman]

May 26, 2006:

X-Men: The Last Stand



**Review Coming Soon**

*tlm

[Loomis]

X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) (Viewed 27 May 2006): Well, this seems to be the popular option this week! As a long-term comic book fan, I had mixed feelings about this. I thought that X2 was up there with the best comic book movies ever made, and it was going to be mighty hard to top. Plus, the trailers for this installment did little to excite me. However, from start to finish, part 3 is a hell of a lot of fun. While it doesn't take the time to have some of those nice character moments and humourous asides that the previous installment did - which may be the result of having more characters - it never lets up on the action. This is not to say that there aren't some great dramatic moments, and the fact that the primary characters had been so well-established in the previous films makes their lives (and in some cases, deaths) far more meaningful this time around. There is a lot going on here, and while I feel that some of the deeper issues that the previous film and the best issues of the comic deal with have gone astray, it is one heck of a ride. My major caveat is that some characters - especially Rogue - are left with bugger-all to do. With plenty of fanboy nods, it is very difficult for me to me disappointed. A big B+ for me (It would have been an A- if it had been a little longer, and we'd seen more of the primary characters).

[castleinthesky]

Match Point This was a great film. It was one of the best of 2006, and will likely be in my top ten list, after I see my final 4 films from last year. The screenplay was definately the best part of the film, and how the plot developed was another point of brilliance. Also, the acting was top notch by Rhys-Myers, Johanson, and Mortimer. Woody Allen did a superb job with this film, and I recommend it to anyone. (BTW, did I say this movie was also lightyears better than Crash?) Final Grade: A

Tron
This is definately a weird film. I had some picture of it before viewing it. The movie was very weird, but also had a good story. However, the plot was very bad, as well was the acting, and the dialogue was the worst part of the film. However, I can see how this film has become cult-like. The groundbreaking CGI and weirdness, are two good aspects of the film.

X Men 3: The Last Stand
This film was a good movie. The acting was of course, something to be desired. The plot was strong, as was the many different characters were all crafted into the film as well. The many plot lines kept me intrigued the whole film, and you have to wait till after the credits to get the last part of the plot. I'm still mad that Gambit wasn't in the movie, and Jubilee had a ant-like part. But, oh well. The worst part, by far, was the dialogue, which is my only real grudge with the film. Final Grade: B

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

but also had a good story. However, the plot was very bad,

How can a film have a "good story" yet have a "bad plot"?

[dvdjunkie]

castleinthesky wrote:

Tron
This is definately a weird film. Laughing I had some picture of it before viewing it. The movie was very weird, but also had a good story. However, the plot was very bad, as well was the acting, and the dialogue was the worst part of the film. However, I can see how this film has become cult-like. The groundbreaking CGI and weirdness, are two good aspects of the film.

I think you need to reread your post. First of all this movie is almost 25 years old, and that is probably considerably older than you are. This movie was made when computers were the focal point of most work done in small businesses and that 'hacking' was the real enemy.

You didn't say which version you saw, whether you watched it on television, edited for time and commercials, or the Deluxe 20th Anniversary 2-Disc Collector's Edition. This film still stands up today as a breakthrough in Computer Animation (not CGI) and was an action driven film with a great cast headed by Jeff Bridges, David Warner, Bruce Boxleitner and Barnard Hughes. The climactic race on high velocity 'Light Cycles' is one of the most exciting scenes ever filmed.

I would ask you to give this film another watching, and pay close attention to the storyline, and what it trying to tell you. Don't talk with friends, don't answer the phone, and just pay attention to the movie. I think that you find a different movie the second time around. And if you can, watch the deluxe 2-disc edition, and watch all the special features before offering your thoughts on this second viewing. I think that you will truly enjoy this film.

[castleinthesky]

but also had a good story. However, the plot was very bad,

How can a film have a "good story" yet have a "bad plot"?

Easily. A good story may not always be put together correctly entering the film. The plot is the way the story is shown. The story should have been shown in a different way.

[castleinthesky]

The Da Vinci Code
I found this movie to be a great action film. The tension, action, and mystery of the plot keeps a person going. At some points the plot was ambiguous and needed some clarification, however overall the plot held up. The picture was also vibrant and the different set locations keep interest alive. The acting was good, but definately left something desired. Overall this film pleased me. Final Grade: B+

Kingdom of Heaven: Director's Cut
This film was a good film, when it hit theatres about a year or so ago. The film definately did not cut it though. It's rumoured this film was cut from its original lenght because of the terrible, terrible film called Alexander that came out about 6 months before this film did. Fox, didn't want to have a bomb, like Alexander, however that is what they got, at the box office. The film did poorly. However, it was much better in quality. The Director's Cut shows us the film's true potential. The emotional depth is put back in the film. The plot development, which was so much needed is put back into the film. The characters get an extra side to them, not to mention some major characters are put back into the film. Some may say this version is Ridley Scott's best film. I wouldn't go that far, still thinking The Gladiator is better. However, Kingdom of Heaven (Director's Cut) is one of the best films of last year, and it might possibly finish within my top 5. Final Grade: A

Hopefully within the next month or so: Cars, Pirates 2, Pride and Prejudice, Syriana, and Mrs. Henderson Presents.

[Loomis]

<center><img src=http://www.sydneyfilmfestival.org/persi ... f></center>

Well folks, the 53rd Sydney Film Festival kicked off this weekend. Last night was the first night of full festivals screenings (with Friday night opening the festival with Rolf de Heer's 10 Canoes, this years winner of the Grand Jury Prize at Cannes).

I'm seeing 10 films at the Festival this year, so its as good an excuse as any to get back to doing the regular screening log thing!

The Myth (2005 - Hong Kong) (Viewed 10 June 2006): The combination of Jackie Chan and director Stanley Tong has always been a good thing. When this film kicks off, it is set in the ancient days of the Qin Dynasty (you know, where all those terracotta warriors come from). One isn't quite sure whether to take this bit seriously or not, but as the film flashes forward to 2005, it is clear that this is going to be a comedy (at least in the modern bits). Chan plays Jack, an archeologist helping his best friend to find some anti-gravity mumbo-jumbo. The plot doesn't really makes sense, but do they ever? The modern-day scenes play out like Armour of God, and at its best, it is very similar to this classic. However, the constantly shifting between modern Hong Kong and ancient China don't quite gel, and some of it is (unintentionally) laughable. Still, lots of fun and there are at least two or three good set piece scenes, such as the one on a sticky conveyor belt. Better than some of his more recent work, but not 'classic Chan' by any stretch. Rating: B-

[Loomis]

<center><img src=http://www.sydneyfilmfestival.org/persi ... f></center>

Kidulthood (2005 - UK) (Viewed 11 June 2006): Second night of the Film Festival (for me anyway) and I had the pleasure of seeing this little gem. Written by Noel "Mickey from Doctor Who" Clarke (who also appears in the film), it is one of the most realistic portrayals of youth violence and youth issues. Vicky Pollard would be tore to shreds by this lot. It is very much a British film, but is simultaneously universal in its themes. The director, Menhaj Huda, had a Q & A after the film and it was very illuminating. IMDB viewers have TRASHED this film (3.6/10), while at times I thought it was a bit obvious, it certainly leaves the viewer with an emotional clang. Rating: A-

[Loomis]

<center><img src=http://www.sydneyfilmfestival.org/persi ... f></center>

Well, yesterday was a public holiday here (Queen's Birthday), so we managed to fit in two films screening at the Film Festival.

Viewed 12 June 2006

Pusher (1996 - Denmark): Perhaps an odd choice for the Festival, but it is part of their spotlight on Danish cinema. Director Nicolas Winding Refn's Pusher Trilogy is being shown, and we just saw the first installment. Incredibly bleak and violent, the main problem with the film is that there is not a lot of sympathy to be given to the main character, Frank. He is, for want of a better term, an arsehole. Therefore, it is hard to sympathise with his trials and tribulations. I also thought that even at 105 minutes, it went on a little too long. The slick post-Pulp Fiction style works well in small doses - and this was originally meant to be a 10 minute short - but it is no substitute for style. Still, it is still quite stylish, and despite being bleak, certainly doesn't lack for pace. Rating: B-

Fearless (2006 - Hong Kong): Reportedly Jet Li's last martial arts film, he has teamed up with director Ronny Yu and legendary fight-choreographer Yuen Wo-Ping to go out with a bang. Being a version of the legend that inspired Bruce Lee's Fist of Fury, it is filled with spectacular fights and impressive photography. It keeps you dramatically engaged for the brief running time, and unlike so many martial arts films, doesn't sacrifice story for style. I love this sort of thing. Rating: A- for moi!

[Loomis]

Cars (2006) (Viewed 13 June 2006): I was incredibly dubious about this film going in. Although I have loved every single Pixar film to date, something about this felt "wrong" in the marketing. I struggled boldly on and took a break from the Film Festival last night to finally and go and see Cars.

The film takes a long time to get going. Sure, it opens up with some spectacular race scenes, but of the same ilk we have seen in every toy commercial and video game cut-scene over the last few years. It failed to engage me from the start. Ultimately, this film is about the relationship between Lightning McQueen and the other cars in Radiator Springs, but it takes so long to get there, and even longer to resolve anything.

Ultimately, the main fault of the film is that it is too long and doesn't quite connect with the audience in the same way the other films have. Aaron Wallace pointed out in his review that this may be because ALL of the characters were cars, and it didn't give us the "secret world of..." motif that the other Pixar films have. I think this has hit the nail on the head.

The abundance of fart jokes also jarred with me. The best scenes are in the last 20 minutes of the film, when everybody is working together. It is almost as if they saved the best bits for the last act. Sadly, one of the film's highlights - the end-credits montage of Pixar films spoofs - only serves to remind us that we are getting a lesser product this time out.

Like driving across the country, we pretty much know our destination when we leave. Some of the scenery is beautiful - and there are some amazingly rendered backgrounds here - but lots of it is long stretches of empty road and seems to take an age to get there. Rating: C+ for me. (Commence the launching of missiles at me, folks)!

To add a last minute positive spin to this story, the short film at the start of the movie - One Man Band - had more fun in it than all of Cars. The trailer for Ratatouille also really grabbed me the way that the Cars marketing failed to.

[dvdjunkie]

Maybe you had your pants on too tight, or didn't have any on at all Loomis. I think you had your mind made up not to like this film from the get-go, and have missed the whole point of what "Cars" is all about. I didn't even notice the length of the film, because the story was so focused on showing Lightning McQeen that there was no "I" in the word Team. He was such a pompous, arrogant, ass in the beginning of the film, and carelessly crashing into Radiator Springs and causing all the damage he did was his come-uppance. All of the character voices fit, and I think that this film showed a depth that not many films today show that have live actors in them. I never once missed the fact that there were no 'people' in the film because in this movie the 'Cars' were the people.

I thought the movie had more heart than I ever thought an animated movie could have. I thought the humor was in all the right places, and I was so involved in the story that I never notice an "abundance of fart jokes" - in fact I only remember one, to be exact. The 'tractor tippin' ' scene was oneo fhte funniest sequences in the film, and I thought the "new" Lightning McQueen at the end of the movie was a complete 180 degrees from the one in the beginning of the movie.

You also failed to mention the John Ratzanberg salute at the end, and dedication scene, but perhaps you were too wrapped up in how much you were going to enjoy slamming this very good film from the studios of Pixar.

[The Little Merman]

Maybe you had your pants on too tight, or didn't have any on at all Loomis.

What a terrible brain-scarring moment in one child's life that could have, or, better -- might have, been!



*tlm

[Loomis]

Maybe you had your pants on too tight, or didn't have any on at all Loomis. I think you had your mind made up not to like this film from the get-go, and have missed the whole point of what "Cars" is all about. I didn't even notice the length of the film, because the story was so focused on showing Lightning McQeen that there was no "I" in the word Team. He was such a pompous, arrogant, ass in the beginning of the film, and carelessly crashing into Radiator Springs and causing all the damage he did was his come-uppance. All of the character voices fit, and I think that this film showed a depth that not many films today show that have live actors in them. I never once missed the fact that there were no 'people' in the film because in this movie the 'Cars' were the people.

I thought the movie had more heart than I ever thought an animated movie could have. I thought the humor was in all the right places, and I was so involved in the story that I never notice an "abundance of fart jokes" - in fact I only remember one, to be exact. The 'tractor tippin' ' scene was oneo fhte funniest sequences in the film, and I thought the "new" Lightning McQueen at the end of the movie was a complete 180 degrees from the one in the beginning of the movie.

You also failed to mention the John Ratzanberg salute at the end, and dedication scene, but perhaps you were too wrapped up in how much you were going to enjoy slamming this very good film from the studios of Pixar.

By which you mean, I assume, "Thank you for your opinion, Loomis. However, I beg to differ on the following points..."

We are, Mr. junkie, going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Ok, there was a character arc, but a very obvious one. As I said above, we KNEW where the film was going: smug character gets come-uppance and winds up...well, I won't spoil the film for anybody who hasn't seen it. His character arc WAS the central premise for the movie, but it takes a while to get to the characters that would help him through it. The journey in between just didn't do anything for me, and bored me witless instead.

As for having made my mind up before I saw it, nothing could be further from the truth. I was not ENTHUSIASTIC about the film, but I've been dragged to films that I wound up loving. In this case, I was convincing my girlfriend to see it with me. After all, Pixar had been batting at 100 up until this point (in my humble opinion, although there are a few Nemo-haters out there). So, despite being reluctant to see this one, I'm still a fan, and after the wonderful One Man Band short, I was open to anything.

I will agree with you on the character voices fitting, as I thought they all did an outstanding job.

In the end, I just failed to connect with the film. Maybe it was that they were cars and not friendly animals or toys - we weren't seeing a secret world so much as a 'alternate reality'. To me, it just didn't have the same sense of anarchic fun that the Toy Story and Bug's Life movies did at their best, and none of the heart that Monsters Inc had.

P.S. I didn't mention the John Ratzanberg tribute, and for that I will forever be spanked in the pantless form that I currently reside in. Forgive me for not mentioning the best boy or catering team either.

And just in case you feel the need to belittle me again (and yes, before you respond, you have a way of disagreeing that makes the poster feel as such):

THIS IS AN OPINION, AND SHOULD BE TAKEN AS SUCH.

[Luke]

P.S. I didn't mention the John Ratzanberg tribute, and for that I will forever be spanked in the pantless form that I currently reside in. Forgive me for not mentioning the best boy or catering team either.

Actually, you <i>did</i> mention the John Ratzenberger tribute, simply as "the end-credits montage of Pixar films spoofs"! dvdjunkie must have been blinded though by the negative observations and missed it. He seems to be taking criticism of <i>Cars</i> very personally. Look at how many swipes he's taken at Aaron because he had a different opinion.