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

[jpanimation]

Any suggestions guys?

Ready for another Audrey Hepburn romance? Try Roman Holiday (1953)

[blackcauldron85]

Post Grad - ...Not good. Not at all.

Really? I wanted to see that. The trailer made it look good...!

[ajmrowland]

Dorian Grey- I like this movie. Not even gonna make the effort, so I'm gonnas let 2099net say everything. I have not read the story.

It's both deceptively simple (anyone can explain the concept in four or five sentences) while at the same time also deceptively deep. While this film adaptation has taken some liberties with the setting (the ending takes place during WW1) the backbone remains the same.

Many have said the Ben Barnes is miscast in the title role. I don't agree. While his casting may not be perfect, he's definitely not miscast. The fact that he retains an air of innocence, even as his character descends into deeper and deeper depravity is - I would suggest - sort of the point. The story isn't about a monster on display, its about a hidden monster. The painting remains hidden in the attic and Grey's sins are until the very end, hidden from the populous. So while I do have some reservations about Barns' acting in places, I have no reservations about his appearance or demeanour in the role.

But while Barns may not be perfect casting, Colin Firth most definitely is. I know he's won a BAFTA and been nominated for an Oscar® this year, but really Colin Firth is still one of moviedom's best kept secrets. Why doesn't he have a large profile with the general public? His performance here is -as always - wonderful.

Of course, with a film of The Picture of Dorian Grey, the final reveal is always going to be a problem. How can the final revelation of the portrait ever live up to the viewer's imagination? Sadly, it can't. So what we get here is CGI effects which don't convince and sadly do let the film down. My only real complaint is that really, the viewer would have been better off never seeing the full, decayed portrait which reflected the true depravity of Grey's soul.

I recommend the movie, but it's only available inuk

[pap64]

Any suggestions guys?

Ready for another Audrey Hepburn romance? Try Roman Holiday (1953)

That's actually what I am going to watch tonight!

[Goliath]

I am now looking forward to the rest of the best romantic movies ever.

Any suggestions guys?

It Happened One Night (1934)
The Philadelphia Story (1940)
Bin-Jip (2004) a.k.a. 3-Iron
Three times (2005)

Just out of the top of my head. Not just four of the best 'romantic movies', but four of the best films, period.

[pap64]

Roman Holiday: Yet another masterpiece. While at times it was a little slow paced it did a great job with the story and the two main characters. This was helped by the performances, and once again Audrey Hepburn amazes as both a princess and a woman who just wants to have fun. The Roman scenery was fantastic, making the city a character in itself. The film is full of small moments that add a lot in the end, like the barber styling the princess' hair in mid dance and the Romans believing the wedding lie.

It also proves that a love story doesn't need to have a "happy" ending just to establish a relationship.

Great movie, and it inspired me to hunt down even more classic films. it definitely feels great to catch up on many of them.

[blackcauldron85]

The Princess and the Frog. Boy, do I love, love, love this movie so, so, so much!!!

[ajmrowland]

^same. Gotta "dig a little deeper" into the bonuses, now.

[jpanimation]

9 (2009) 6/10 - very interesting but ridiculous movie. Based on Shane Acker's equally ridiculous short of the same name, this movie expands the story to try and make sense, but also introduces some more implausibility into the mix. The whole idea of an alternate timeline is a good one. The robot designs, destroyed buildings, everything looks fantastic and a lot of detail was put into it. While the back story is great, the main story concerning the sock puppets is ridiculous. I thought it was dumb enough that all the science of the movie's backstory was thrown out the window once these things were revealed to be soul-powered. Then they try to justify it by saying the machines lacked human soul (which in this movie represents pure goodness), which is why it was corrupt/evil but that in itself is ridiculous. What it lacked was human emotion. If you give it emotion, odds are it will have the ability to recognize good, but also the ability to develop envy, greed and hate (things that would've lead to the war-torn outcome anyways). I like the setting and concept but not the soul-driven plot-line. The voice acting is ok, but unnecessary. I think it would've worked better as a silent film, like the short. It's dumb enough that they are soul-powered sock puppets but then they have voices (even going as far as to imitate our breathing and panting, even though they don't breath). The movie's ending is so cheesy and clichéd (same crappy ending from the short) that it ruins anything I liked about the movie.

Also, I watched the extra's on the DVD and director Shane Acker came off as really amateurish. They try to cover it up by claiming he's really open to ideas, but its obvious from the interviews that the people surrounding him were more confident in what they were doing then him. He never seemed to have a solid vision or know where to go (only that he wanted it to be like his short) and often times it seemed like he was just a figure head (as opposed to the Pixar or Disney directors, who speak firmly on what they were doing, where they wanted to go with it, and their driving force behind it). I'm not going to hold that against him, he's new to the game but I don't know why the DVD was trying to mislead the audience into thinking he was something he's not. They constantly tell people that Shane Acker did the original short by himself, how talented he is and how blown away with the short they were. Then after viewing the short, the credits role with about 30-40 peoples names going by. Obviously, he had a TON of help making his short.

[pap64]

9 (2009) 6/10 - very interesting but ridiculous movie. Based on Shane Acker's equally ridiculous short of the same name, this movie expands the story to try and make sense, but also introduces some more implausibility into the mix. The whole idea of an alternate timeline is a good one. The robot designs, destroyed buildings, everything looks fantastic and a lot of detail was put into it. While the back story is great, the main story concerning the sock puppets is ridiculous. I thought it was dumb enough that all the science of the movie's backstory was thrown out the window once these things were revealed to be soul-powered. Then they try to justify it by saying the machines lacked human soul (which in this movie represents pure goodness), which is why it was corrupt/evil but that in itself is ridiculous. What it lacked was human emotion. If you give it emotion, odds are it will have the ability to recognize good, but also the ability to develop envy, greed and hate (things that would've lead to the war-torn outcome anyways). I like the setting and concept but not the soul-driven plot-line. The voice acting is ok, but unnecessary. I think it would've worked better as a silent film, like the short. It's dumb enough that they are soul-powered sock puppets but then they have voices (even going as far as to imitate our breathing and panting, even though they don't breath). The movie's ending is so cheesy and clichéd (same crappy ending from the short) that it ruins anything I liked about the movie.

Also, I watched the extra's on the DVD and director Shane Acker came off as really amateurish. They try to cover it up by claiming he's really open to ideas, but its obvious from the interviews that the people surrounding him were more confident in what they were doing then him. He never seemed to have a solid vision or know where to go (only that he wanted it to be like his short) and often times it seemed like he was just a figure head (as opposed to the Pixar or Disney directors, who speak firmly on what they were doing, where they wanted to go with it, and their driving force behind it). I'm not going to hold that against him, he's new to the game but I don't know why the DVD was trying to mislead the audience into thinking he was something he's not. They constantly tell people that Shane Acker did the original short by himself, how talented he is and how blown away with the short they were. Then after viewing the short, the credits role with about 30-40 peoples names going by. Obviously, he had a TON of help making his short.

The one thing that bothered me the most about the movie was its marketing campaign. They kept claiming that "This isn't your little brother's animated movie", implying that the movie was "hardcore and deep" enough to attract an older audience and above the likes of Pixar's efforts. The reason it bothered me is because as Pixar and Wes Anderson (Fantastic Mr. Fox) have proven animation isn't solely a medium for kids. Animated movies don't have to be gothic, dark, set in post apocalyptic futures in order to be adult.

Up, for example, was very colorful, very bright and had a lot of fantastical elements, like flying houses, talking dogs and giant birds. But what really stood out was the human emotion the film inspired in audiences. Here is a film about an old man who just wants to make his wife's dream come up, and it had a million times more heart and soul than all of 9 could ever create.

I know I am rambling now, but I could tell from the 9 advertisements that there was no real heart behind this project. Yes, they had some good ideas but they spent that trying to be cool and gothic and instead just came out cold and underwhelming.

People, if you want to make an animated film that is adult, thought provoking and enthralling DO NOT try to put it in a similar setting as 9. It comes off as being pretentious. Just write a good story that resonates with a lot of people and its a guaranteed hit.

Don't believe me? Ask Miyazaki...

[blackcauldron85]

I had a free rental code for Blockbuster Express yesterday. I wanted to rent Ponyo, but they didn't have it, and I wanted to rent Bandslam, but they were sold out, so I rented Star Trek (2009). I really liked it. I posted some thoughts in the appropriate thread. But I really liked it- it was very entertaining.

[Goliath]

Saludos Amigos (1942)

After 68 years, this film has finally been released in The Netherlands. I had seen the movie before, on a downloaded copy. (No other way to see it!) 40 minutes isn't really a movie, and I wouldn't consider this a "Classic" by any means. It's just a rather dull 'documentary' about Latin-America, with some animated excerpts. It gives a very stereotyped, one-dimensional look of Latin-America in the 1940's. I hated the false sense of so-called 'friendship' between the US and L.A. throughout this film and 'South of the border with Disney', when you realize how brutally the US has mistreated L.A. over the past century.

[SmartAleck25]

The Princess and the Frog (2009)- 9.5/10
See my thoughts in the TPatF thread-Part 3.

[PeterPanfan]

The Baxter - This was a very genuine, heartfelt, and funny movie written, directed, and starred in by Michael Sohlwater. He played a "Baxter", which is a person left behind as their significant other leaves goes off with someone else. Co-starring are Michelle Williams, Elizabeth Banks, Justin Thereox, and Paul Rudd. All are very hilarious in their roles, especially Williams who I had only seen in drama. Recommended.

[PeterPanfan]

Shutter Island - FREAKING AMAZING! Seriously, this is now one of my favorite movies of all time. Leonardo Dicaprio was great, and so was Mark Ruffalo. My favorite, actually, was the character of Dolores played VERY creepily by the always amazing Michelle Williams. And I'm not just saying that as a Dawson's Creek fan; all of my friends agreed. Seriously, GO SEE IT. Preferably in a theater.

[blackcauldron85]

Shutter Island...GO SEE IT. Preferably in a theater.

But I can't- even the trailer kind of freaked me out very much. I think it sounds like a really neat premise, but it just seemed way too spooky for me. I mean, I saw The Grudge, and that wasn't scary to me, but this one...Idk if I could handle it!

[PeterPanfan]

Shutter Island...GO SEE IT. Preferably in a theater.

But I can't- even the trailer kind of freaked me out very much. I think it sounds like a really neat premise, but it just seemed way too spooky for me. I mean, I saw The Grudge, and that wasn't scary to me, but this one...Idk if I could handle it!

The scariest parts were in the trailer. This movie isn't supposed to be horror, lol. It's just very psychological.

[Goliath]

Vanaja (2006)

Indian drama about a 15 year old girl who goes to work for a land lady with high status and political ambitions. She will teach Vanaja the art of dancing, but then her son forces himself upon Vanaja and she gets pregnant with him... Good story idea, mediocre execution.

[Scarred4life]

This was a while ago, but I saw Leap Year in theaters. It was your typical 'girl loves her boyfriend and then falls in love with another guy' type thing. It dragged on a bit, and wasn't very funny at all. (Although, maybe I was determined to not like it, seeing as I wanted to watch TPatF again, but my friends were against it. )

[UmbrellaFish]

Dream On Silly Dreamer- Quite an interesting documentary, that spent a surprisingly small amount of time on the films themselves, but that really wasn't the point of the doc, anyway. I wish it had been longer, though. I didn't really feel like I followed the Disney company through before the Renaissance and after. I don't know, I watched it on the Documentary Channel, so maybe it was edited? I was just sort of underwhelmed.

Whatever the case, it inspired my next movie choices-

The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh- Well, I've been "craving" this movie for a while now, and I haven't seen it in I don't know how long. Very charming, after all, but I'll always prefer the Milne books. The music is a plus, though. And for the first time, I realized, Pooh isn't yellow. Sort of a reddish-brown color. He may be even more misrepresented than Cinderella by the Disney Clip Art Department. And I'm sure they actually have a department like that...

The Hunchback of Notre Dame- After watching DOSD, I had to watch this, and, well, those Jason Alexander Jenny Craig commercials probably have something to do with my choice, too. Oh, and Demi Moore's recent appearance on Chelsea Handler interview special... Anyway, watching it, it's sometimes amazing how serious and dark it is. They easily could have kept the original ending, or at least the ending of the Berlin musical, and it wouldn't have made the film much darker. The whole movie, anyway, is just, wow.

Up next- Cinderella.