What Movie Did You Just Watch? - Shh! It's Starting!

[Dragonlion]

Swan Lake (1981) 7/10- This old-school anime is pretty good. Siegfried and Odette are kind of boring, the sidekicks are annoying, but Rothbart and Odile are very interesting, menacing, and funny characters (especially Odile). The animation is ok, but the ballet music sounds very beautiful.

The Legend of Sirius (The Sea Prince and the Fire Child) (1981) 9/10- Again, another old school anime, although its design and animation looks almost like a Disney movie. A very lovely and creative retelling of Romeo and Juliet, ending and all. The dub of this isn't so bad, and the only thing that was edited was Malta's nipples near the end of the film. Although it gets a little boring and confusing near the end, it is still a beautiful and unknown film.

The Swan Princess (1994) 8/10- A pretty good film on its own, I still wonder why its unknown. Odette and Queen Uberta are wonderful and interesting characters. Rothbart's okay, but I hate Derek. He is beyond stupid. Not only that, but his design sucks (same with a lot of the male characters- big torso, skinny legs). The songs were decent, some more decent than others. But overall, it's definitely good for a viewing.

[Lazario]

Don't ask me why I keep watching new-millennium "horror" movies. I should have learned my lesson after Splinter, Saw, Haute Tension, and what little I was able to take before turning off The Descent and Frontier(s). But this one came very highly recommended. I had it explained to me that this was a French horror film but not a torture flick. That description is not entirely true. (Oh by the way- the reason I avoid torture films like the plague is because they're boring and pretentious / I never really mind the violence) It's torture on anyone with a brain and any experience with the horror genre prior to this exploitation thriller that is posing as a "true story" and a realistic psychological thriller with a shock twist ending. Not to mention it's also posing as a slasher film; that opening is classic stock cliche infused with new-millennium anti-finesse, anti-style. By film's end, this one goes straight for the underground bunker and has one character trying to find another while you hear their tortured screams for several minutes. The first 30 minutes work overtime setting up the two characters only for the next 20 to be endless scenes of them stumbling around their house with the power going on and off and some unseen intruders trying to scare them (you see sweatshirt hoods from the back and sneakers in tight shots on the floor). As for any explanation for why we should be watching this? There is none. It's pure tedium after about 40 minutes and the ending is so mind-numbingly stupid that whatever suspense the 35 minutes worth of chase scenes stuck in the middle had built up was drained away. A bad "shock reveal" twist and, since this is "Based on a True Story"ed right from the beginning, a bunch of text at the end explaining what you didn't see happening. If I were one of the real people involved in this "true story," I would SUE!







One of the reasons I used to love this movie and defend it so much is that I really looked at it as the mainstream precursor to Clueless. Only because the main girl learns that maybe she doesn't know-it-all halfway through. Oh, and because it takes place in southern California and features lots of hip dialogue (now, it's excrutiating to hear one girl say "take a chill lesson" rather than "chill pill"). I had a lot of fun with this dumb group of girls. That has since changed. Now that I pay a lot of attention to subtleties. The subtleties here are not kind to the teen quality of the film and people who rewatch this now will not have the kind of fun me and my friends had when we enjoyed this movie on video. Before DVD and the soap opera-esque TV series. I also used to think Hilary Swank was a lot of fun here. But the best thing she gets to do in the movie is covered up by the end credits scroll ( ). This time, I walk away with more of an appreciation for Michele Abrams' character, Jennifer. I've always loved her; "I can't believe I let you do this to me!" But now, I really think this movie rests more on Luke Perry and Donald Sutherland's shoulders. Oh, and Paul Rubens- but everyone knows he's brilliant. Luke Perry is just so at-ease with everything he does. And he's underrated. He actually has talent. And treats his character with humility, respect, and a good sense of humor. Swanson is way over her head in her scenes with both him and Sutherland. But she nails the ending. Especially the slow dance scenes. Also- the music score is beautiful, there are some good creepy moments (despite the silly action and fight scenes and the almost musical / theatrical - hokey - quality to the vampires' costumes and endless acrobatics), and there's a real grace to the dramatic scenes that makes more than half the movie work. I would still rather watch this than the TV series any time.

[stitchje1981]

The Princess And The Frog for the 5478th time

[jpanimation]

The Wolfman (2010) 6/10 - really hate to say this but disappointing. I was hoping the reviewers were just picky in their reviews but they were spot on, it was bad. The whole beginning was boring and pointless. Supposedly they cut out 17 minutes of character development from the beginning because people complained it was too slow (the DVD will put it back in) but I'd take a slow movie any day if actually gave the beginning a purposes (every scene seemed cut off before it could come to the point and just felt rushed, making the quicker version boring). When he gets thrown into the asylum half way through everything picks up and is really fun, especially when he lets loose in London (felt like a classic monster movie), only to loose steam again when he sets back for home for the finale (just felt unbalanced). The whole *fight* at the end is really dumb. In fact, the unnecessary "twist" pretty much ruined what the movie had going for it with the sheer cheesiness it presented. Its supposed to be a dark movie about ONE man's struggle/burden, but thats all lost here.

Besides the story, it wasn't directed very well. I was hoping Joe Johnson had matured (as far a directing capabilities), but no. The whole movie just "feels off", like it's trying to be something its not. Johnson never sets up the mood/horror atmosphere (you know, where you're on edge), sure it has the look, but with no feel (it all felt artificial). No suspense, thrill, or tension, just nice looking atmosphere. The Wolfman actually felt more at home in London then in the woods (I don't think the woods were as creepy as they should've been). WTF moments: CGI bear and Del Toro constantly dreaming of a jump-scare Wolfman? The whole thing just felt like it was going through the motions (never properly set up). Hugo Weaving was decent but on a whole, the acting wasn't anything standout (well, I guess Del Toro stood out as the worst). Del Toro's character isn't developed one bit, not at all. We never feel sorry for him, understand how he falls in love, or empathize with this tragic event one bit. He just showed up, read the lines, and left without any hint of a character (we really know nothing about him as a character). I guess he gets one point sort of resembling Lon Chaney Jr. Maleva was completely wasted here without her son. As for Danny Elfman's score, I'm indifferent as I didn't even notice it.

As a monster fan, I can't say how disappointed I am. The middle was great with classic monster mayhem (some characters start to come out of their shells just to go back by the end), but the beginning is soo chopped up its boring and the end is soo dumb it ruins the movie (the change was completely unnecessary and has everything to do with how bad this movie is). I really wanted this movie to be good, but I feel the original was better (I'm not even a fan of the original). The Wolfman is such a good story but neither of the movies seem to be able to get it right. All I can say is I'm worried about what crappy twists they'll put on The Creature from the Black Lagoon remake.

[yamiiguy]

Loved it, the visuals were fantastic and the plot was great even though it was a sort of Nausicaa rip-off. Character development was poor but it's well worth a rent at least.
7/10

[Goliath]

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - OK, so Adriana's annoying,

You did NOT just say that!

I love her voice, I think it's fitting for the character.

[Lazario]

There's just a teeny bit too much formula here for this to be perfect. I mean, there's a moment here where - and I'm saying this after having seen this movie at least 7 times before - I have to flashback on something Murray's character in Scrooged said about his love interest, Claire. About how 'no one could be that wonderful, that caring, that loving', etc. Well, there's no question that the Rita character here is too phony. Her list of likes, her idyllic childhood, her Catholic school background, her current habits. There are several "a-ha!" moments where I think I caught significant flaws in what the movie was doing with her. First of all, for someone so perfect- she's just a little too aggressive when Phil is the slightest bit serious. She's not just distrusting- she's angry. Why? What did he do to her? Replay the movie, during the scenes that take place on February 1st and you'll see- he was annoying but not that bad. Yet, she gets too-quickly angry enough to almost take his head off. And the when in these moments is important to note. It's not when he gets nastier. No, that makes her back off (example: "am I upsetting you, Princess?"). It's when he says he needs help. If she's so compassionate in her personality, why is she being such a bitch? It certainly has nothing to do with February 1st. It's that she somewhere along the way imagines that he has worse thoughts in his head and tendancies worse in him than those he's expressed. She's only known him a day- yet she takes everything he's said personally even though he never actually insulted her personally.

And I really used to like her. Well, both her and his characters. Though I haven't watched this movie in about 3 years now and a lot of things do change. His performance is still spot-on perfect and the large cast of supporting actors and characters are still great. The music is great. The heart-felt moments feel heartfelt. There are just a few somewhat stray moments that either get preachy or don't add up. I've noted the ones that bugged me the most. Here's another peculiar one: when they're having a drink and she goes, "what shall we toast to?" He answers, "to the groundhog." She gave him a choice, which means- she was willing to toast to whatever he suggested. Then she goes, "I only drink to world peace." Nice (and completely naive) sentiment. But... then what; she changes her mind? She was testing him? That's plain irritating. Who's side are we supposed to be on in this movie- his or hers? I walk away from this movie thinking it's nice to see him being kinder and all. But he was mostly right before too. He just needed to pick his battles. I would have thought or said most of the things he said about Larry and Ned. But maybe insulting people over things like espresso is a little ridiculous. Oh... and I love, "for your information, hairdo..." And, "morons; your bus is leaving!"







What can I say? I still have a place in my dusty, icy, cynical heart for this utterly childish romp that in many ways probably dictated my future-love for Scrubs. Both are about a guy with a self-defeating daily routine, interesting friends, a can't-catch-a-break demeanor, a pleasent doormat quality, and a very active fantasy life. Not at all like me. But yet... perhaps this is the me I'd like to be. The guy who almost never complains. And the guy who actually achieves his dream goals because he's willing to take chances. Not at all like me. It also has wild pacing and lots of cartoon antics that make it pretty anarchic from the typical movie rules. And somehow still resonates with me to this day. Best of all is how it's a totally fantasy place in time and space. With a non-existent, magical city and locations that you enjoy visiting for one movie. Another fun document of the 1990's. A decade which certainly had plenty of high points. While most of Jim Carrey's films don't hold up well (the awful Ace Ventura films, the awful Dumb & Dumber, and, tragically, The Truman Show), it's refreshing to find that this one does.

[PixarFan2006]

Grave of the Fireflies (1988) - While it did not really make me cry, it is a depressing film when you think about it and it was told well. The animation was also really good.

[Margos]

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - OK, so Adriana's annoying,

You did NOT just say that!

I love her voice, I think it's fitting for the character.

I'm not saying it's not perfectly fitting for Snow. Really, I don't know how well anyone else would have pulled it off. And, depending on my mood, I think she's pretty okay. But I had a bit of a headache the last time I watched it, and those ridiculously high notes really made it worse. I gotta say though, my favorite bits with her was apologizing to the little animals and asking them where she could stay, and of course, "Oh.... you must be Grumpy!"

[Wonderlicious]

Within the past two or three weeks:

Alice in Wonderland
Even though it is truly one of my favourites, I had not got round to watching it again in around four years. I finally sat down and watched it in preparation for the Tim Burton film coming out in a few weeks time, and was delighted once again.

À bout de souffle (aka Breatless)
An absolute classic of the Nouvelle Vague and of French cinema in general. Sexy, sassy, soulful, splendid.

The Princess and the Frog
I finally saw it (it has only recently opened in the UK) and was spellbound. I was surprised at how fresh and uncontrived it truly felt, and - dare I say it - it might just be up there with the 90s films.

Avatar
Brilliant special effects and some gripping action scenes, though a bit too long and a bit feathery in terms of story. It's better for certain parts than it is for a whole, but I liked it well enough.

The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr Toad
Another revisit. Good. The "Toad" section would have certainly been better suited for a more elaborate and articulate feature film with the same production values as Alice in Wonderland and Cinderella. However, the "Ichabod" section works perfectly for economical half-hour production and is one of the best things ever produced by Disney.

[blackcauldron85]

The Time Traveler's Wife- I got the book from the library last year, read it, and liked it enough to buy it. I just added the movie to my DVDs to buy list- It did leave out quite a bit from the novel, but that's to be expected. It was a really good movie. Rachel McAdams and Eric Bana were really amazing in their roles.

[DaveWadding]

The Invention of Lying - 3.2/10 - I didn't know that being honest also meant being brutally tactless and not funny either.

[UmbrellaFish]

The Wizard of Oz- It's sort of fun to think about all the things in this movie that would be considered laughable today. It actually made me enjoy the film more.

The Little Mermaid- Just pure bottled sunshine. What can I say, I LOVE this movie.

Planet of the Apes- I sort of dozed off during the middle of it and didn't watch much of the ending. I think what's neat about this movie is how many things are dated, and how many aren't. I honestly think the Ape make-up stands up pretty well to this day.

[KennethE]

I just saw "The Devil Wears Prada" with my sister on DVD. I was expecting a pretty good film, but it actually exceeded my expectations. I would give it 7 out of 10 stars.

I had read the book by Lauren Weisberger a few years ago, and I must admit there was much in the book I liked better than the film (as in any book-to-film adaption). For instance, I liked the final confrontation better in the book with Andrea yelling at Miranda and telling her off by saying "that's all!" Classic. I also liked the book's semi-bitter ending of her boyfriend never coming back.

In the movie, I liked the development of Stanley Tucci's Nigel character. He was kinda funny, and he provided a shoulder to cry on for Andrea.

I am so glad I don't have a boss like that.

[blackcauldron85]

Nights in Rodanthe- I had bawled when I read the book, and I bawled watching the movie today. Excellent.

[ajmrowland]

Pan's Labyrinth



I'm not really into foriegn films, but this one's intrigued me the past few years. I didn't get around to watching it until tonight, though.

The story is diverting, at it's worst, and engaging at its best. Not exactly the most pulling of tales, but a very good one. The creepy atmosphere is intact, as well as the bloody dealings. For being the character that earned the head-shot on the DVD case, Pan is mostly absent. I expected the movie to be more about the actual Labyrinth, but it's really just there. The character of the Stepfather is one of the more interesting ones, as he's a tyrannical military captain. This is no Pixar film, but it is a good one.

The film is aesthetically pleasing also. As you could probably tell, the movie is very dark. The production design, makeup, and effects are all good. With this kind of talent, I'd like to see director Guillermo Del Torro's take on the Hobbit and the (hopefully still coming) Disney Double Dare You franchise.[/img]

[PeterPanfan]

Reefer Madness: The Movie Musical - I loved it! It was so campy and hilarious, and over-the-top. Kristen Bell was, hands down, the best and damn that girl can sing! Ana Gasteyer, Amy Spanger, and Christian Campbell were great too. Neve Campbell, however, shouldn't have been in this. I like her in the Scream movies, but she cannot sing or act well. The musical numbers were great, as well as the death scenes (lol, jk.) Recommended.

[Margos]

With this kind of talent, I'd like to see director Guillermo Del Torro's take on the Hobbit and the (hopefully still coming) Disney Double Dare You franchise.

You know, I was just thinking about that franchise this morning. There's no reason it should be cancelled. Disney wants to attract boys? What better way than darker-toned films? Teens and males weren't ready for that in the 80s (*cough* Black Cauldron), but I think they would be now. And I'm pretty excited about it, too!

I do feel they ought to change the name. I like the alliteration, but I think it sounds a little childish. I think that "Disney After Dark" or "Disney's Dark Side" would sound better.

[blackcauldron85]

I think that "Disney After Dark" or "Disney's Dark Side" would sound better.

Omgz but that's too creepy...says parents...? Maybe they want something that still appeals to families; I mean, the films probably wouldn't be for the littlest members of the family, but for older kids and their parents...?

[Margos]

I think that "Disney After Dark" or "Disney's Dark Side" would sound better.

Omgz but that's too creepy...says parents...? Maybe they want something that still appeals to families; I mean, the films probably wouldn't be for the littlest members of the family, but for older kids and their parents...?

I was under the impression that they would probably be from very soft to very hard PGs. So... yeah, mostly older kids, teens, adults, etc. But you know young boys always wanna see the dark, creepy movies. I'm sure some of them will go see them, especially if their PG. I doubt that Disney would actually venture into PG-13 territory for animated films.... but it would be interesting if they did.