DVDizzy Forum

Last Night I watched Capitalism: A Love Story and the comparisons to Rome are striking.

ajmrowland wrote:Last Night I watched Capitalism: A Love Story and the comparisons to Rome are striking.

I thought the film was a bit weak. It glossed over the real causes of the economic meltdown and the reasons why going on as if nothing happened (as we're currently doing) will ultimately cause a second collapse. Instead, it dwelled on too long on individual cases. Not that those aren't worth seeing (as we don't see a lot of them in mainstream media), but I would have preferred the bigger picture. The part where Moore criticized Reagan's administration for its 'voodoo economics' should have lasted at least half an hour, to the point where his 'legacy' would have been completely destroyed.


Anyway, last film I watched was:

Breath (2007)

Or Soom, as it's known in its original Korean. Made by one of my favorite directors, Kim Ki-duk, this one was very disappointing. 84 minutes is not long and if even with that lenght, the film manages to bore, you know you've done something wrong. Kim has done far better, with e.g. Bin-Jip, The Bow and Samaritan Girl. Oh, and after five or six films with a totally silent main character, the gimmick has worn off.

jpanimation wrote:I heard that in addition to his mumbling, the big scar on his lip caused him to spit when he talked (so they had to strategically place cameras). I know I shouldn't laugh at that but I do.

That made me think of this funny scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ISJS4gSBh0

^I remember that episode

The funny thing is, when I first watched that episode, I got about halfway through before I even realized that was Gary Oldman.

PeterPanfan wrote:

Lazario wrote:


There's just no other way to say it: this thing is one of the biggest piles of cinematic fecal matter I have ever sat through. Though that of course means it sits comfortably in the new-millennium with the other garbage the genre cranks out. Many people think acting has somehow improved over the last 11 years. I chewed that over with myself during the film's impressive first 50 or so seconds. Then a closeup of a woman's ass for no good reason told me what kind of movie I was in-for: crap. Anna Paquin is the only name here, but I gather she's not hard to draw in after Darkness.

Why didn't you like this, Laz? I thought it was one of the better horror achievements in the last decade or so... Halloween is my favorite holiday, and I love anthology films, plus throw in the originality and great cinematography and it equals greatness, in my opinion.

Sure, it looked great. And the music wasn't too bad either. But every single thing in the movie was bad. It's soulless, unintelligent, pointless, and completely unoriginal. You must have missed: Creepshow, Sleepy Hollow, Lady in White, The Company of Wolves, House of 1,000 Corpses, Nightmare Before Christmas, I Know What You Did Last Summer, and yeah- Halloween. Either version. And sequels. Especially Part 6: "The Curse of Michael Myers."

I actually kinda assume you'd like even more... Get ready for a flood:

First of all- the news report. The town takes Halloween seriously... Yeah, sure: that's why it looks like some pathetic second-rate Mardi Gras. That's fun to people? A lame-ass parade where everyone wears "sexy" costumes. Boring. That's just the boring part. Here comes the depressing part. If this could in any way be mistakenly seen as a realistic universe, you're only worth a look if you're sexy. This is another new-millennium movie where you have to be sexy or you're a freak. All the sexy people are drunk whores. But the movie thinks that's not fair, all the people of the world should have representation. So, they give us an alternative: The Ugly, The Old, and The Fat. The only way Mr. High School Principal (who is way too keen to get in on the drunk action of the unbelievably stupid teen-college kid set) gets kissed is with a mask on. Yet, he's a killer. Why is the movie bothering to be concerned about how much action he gets anyway? If you're over age 40 (and there's a suspicious lack of anyone in the 27-40 something age range anywhere in the movie), you have to be hideous. This movie actually thinks their parade of brainless young people are attractive (which is why, as I noticed before: the camera is either stuck to their ass or climbing up their skirt the whole time, or the movie makes some stupid kid leer at them). Everyone in this movie is obsessed with sex, to the point where they look like trolls. And I'm talking Chet from Weird Science, Jaba the Hut, Ernest Scared Stupid trolls. Spoiled meat. It's a bad TV show from hell. Like the party before the C.S.I. / Law & Order S.V.U. suits show up to survey the damage (and if you know what I'm talking about, you know how unbelievably cardboard-like the people on those shows are- have you ever looked at those numbskullls and thought these are what real clubbers are like?). Every character is someone you've seen before, nothing they say is the slightest bit smart... This movie is running off of stereotypes. Even as an exaggeration, it's not amusing. It's sickening. It has no personal love for Halloween the holiday and seems to almost want to be attach a terrorism panic to the festivities. You can't dance without being soaked in alcohol, all the candy has razor blades in it (and when the HELL was the last time you ever heard of that happening in real life?), every person doling out the candy who isn't a kid is untrustworthy. The New Millennium is already famous for having the worst turn out in the history of Halloween. We have more people than ever, yet FAR LESS kids go trick or treating than ever. With that in mind, who the hell wants to see the few people trying to enjoy the holiday being preyed upon and propositioned by sickos? And (I'm not finished yet, but I can't go over every bad thing about this movie - it's that bad, I've got dozens of things to bitch about), then we get to the movie's portrayal of the fat bully. He isn't actually seen bullying anyone, yet he pays a price far worse than that little cretin from A Christmas Story (we all know the one, he's like King Bully in movie history, along with perhaps that guy from 3'O Clock High). His big crime is (no - - wait for it!): smashing pumpkins (OOOH! What a rebel!) and taking more than one piece of candy as the signs indicate. First thing I said is - why the hell is there candy left in the bowl?!?! This late at night, the first or second people to come by the house would have taken everything. Second - he's alone. He doesn't even look mean. If anything, he's sad. Now, I'm not saying he'd cry. I'm saying, he has no life. So, yeah, why don't we see him as a one-note villain instead of having to for once think that maybe we create these monsters somehow. Anyway, the movie only uses him in this capacity to make us uncomfortable. But we can do that anywhere. There's a mindset to watching every movie that's akin to: I paid to be here. It's ridiculous, I know. But now, apply it to this scene. I paid to see a fat kid being harrassed by some guy who we pray isn't his father (because look what he does to his own kid). To see this guy give a speech right out of Halloween III: Season of the Witch, only with half the depth, while the fat kid rolls his eyes and pukes up his guts. What's the point? This isn't entertainment- it's hatred. For the victim, the killer, the audience, the horror genre, and film in general. Then, there's the scene on the bus with the "retarded" kids. Now, check this out: the set-up involves the driver going the wrong way and the kids must be lemming'd off the cliff. But off course there's just one action-hero in the bunch who's not retarded- he gets it together, he's got determination (which at least in the movie world is a cheat because he's catatonic all the rest of the time), he will save the day... and he kills them all anyway. That's not irony, it's just stupid. Why is just one kid in a vampire mask more functional than the others? If the movie makes the leap to have this character be unique, can't the others do anything different? No, they separated by their costumes. That's this movie's idea of individuality. Otherwise, this entire movie is just more New-Millennium Conformity. Everyone looks the same, everyone acts the same. There was a moment during the scene where the group of kids were collecting pumpkins where I said to myself - if I was a kid during this time, I would have killed myself. After 20 seconds of listening to their conversation, I would have stood in the middle of the road and waited for a car to put me out of my misery. Not a single one of these kids had a unique, intelligent thought pop into their heads. In fact, if any of them had thought to utter something that I couldn't predict coming from a mile away, this "movie" would have turned into one giant, hilarious video game glitch where the people started walking upside down, night turned to day, black became white, etc.

When I'm watching a movie, I process what I'm seeing and think ahead. These observations come at a split second. So, I'm already ahead of the movie. Therefore, I'm left to do one of 2 things: (1) be patient and wait to see what happens which I would do because the movie has a brain - this one didn't. Or (2) sit there and roll my eyes going: "what's the point?" Where's the fun in this movie? There is none. This movie doesn't earn anything. It cheats. It's cheap. It recycles the work of other movies- there isn't a single thing here that I hadn't seen before. Movies require more craft than a music video or a TV show. There has to be a good story and good ideas. The only even slightly smart or clever thing I saw (and the only reason I gave this half a star) was when Anna Paquin was scoping out "guys" in the crowd. Even then I knew the second the person's back was facing us in the Tarzan / viking outfit that it was a woman. 8 seconds later, she turns around. Yep, it's a woman alright. That's 7 seconds of the movie of the movie - in slow motion - completely wasted because the filmmakers don't have the brains to see that we can figure this out on our own. That's 2 minutes wasted in the campfire scene because these guys can't remember back 8 years to the remake of House on Haunted Hill which also played Marilyn Manson's "Sweet Dreams." 2 minutes wasted in the parade scene because these guys think we don't remember I Know What You Did Last Summer - Sarah Michelle's death scene was the same as this, minus the "HELP ME! Oh, wait, you can't; you're all drunk" moment. And did this movie learn anything by making everyone drunk? Do we get the feeling there's a message here? No, it's just excess for the sake of excess. This movie is braindead from the ground-up. What the HELL is the point of making the blonde girl jealous of the slow girl? Yeah, the guy is real nice and sticks by her side. Yet, that's not used for character- it's used for the twist where she leaves him to die. That's the point? A freaking twist? I sat through 5 minutes of bickering between these kids for this? I sat through 12 minutes of the old guy fighting in his house to find out the kid with the sack on his head is a friggin' alien? Or, that creature from the John Lithgow airplane segment in The Twilight Zone: Movie?! I sat through 4-5 minutes of the guy in the grave just to find out the kid knows he's a killer? Why the hell is he hiding bodies from the kid? Why is he hiding the knife as they go down in the cellar if the kid already knows there's a severed head on a PLATE down there? Why am I listening to don't-be-a-virgin dialogue after I already saw Freddy vs. Jason's "beggars can't be choosers" scene, which also did the let's-have-a-drinking-party-where-we-all-get-stupid? I have seen so few New-Millennium horror movies compared to most people and yet I have already seen nearly a half-dozen "Bonfire" drinking party scenes (Masters of Horror: Jenifer, When a Stranger Calls remake, perhaps Tamara, Freddy vs. Jason again). This upcoming Scream 4 has no idea how much stuff it has to shred. Let alone in this movie.

Goliath wrote:

ajmrowland wrote:Last Night I watched Capitalism: A Love Story and the comparisons to Rome are striking.

I thought the film was a bit weak. It glossed over the real causes of the economic meltdown and the reasons why going on as if nothing happened (as we're currently doing) will ultimately cause a second collapse. Instead, it dwelled on too long on individual cases. Not that those aren't worth seeing (as we don't see a lot of them in mainstream media), but I would have preferred the bigger picture. The part where Moore criticized Reagan's administration for its 'voodoo economics' should have lasted at least half an hour, to the point where his 'legacy' would have been completely destroyed.

I dont deny that. It is a huge subject matter, and he chose to focus on the more human "effect" side of "cause and effect". It's still pretty outrageous.

We are in blizzard conditions, so I showered and got relaxed and have been watching movies since about 10:30. So far I have watched:

Speed - Blu-ray of the only decent movie Keanu Reeves ever made besides the first "Matrix".

Speed 2 Cruise Control Standard DVD, not even anamorphic, which sucks, but Jason Patric tries his darndest to do his Keanu Reeves impression and fails miserably. Willem Dafoe is a pretty good villain, but the movie is over-long at 127 minutes, and they could have cut about 15 minutes without messing anything up.

Gone In 60 Seconds - Standard DVD of the 1974 original version of this great car crash movie. Toby Halicki was a master at destroying cars in his movies and hold several Guinness Book of World Records records.

Poseidon - Blu-ray of a pretty good remake of the original film. The special effects in this one are pretty good.

Open Range Standard DVD western starring Robert Duvall and Kevin Costner about 'free-grazers' in the old west. Annette Bening is terric as the nurse to the town doctor.

Alice in Wonderland (1951) 6/10 - nonsense...or is that the point? Nothing happens, just one random incoherent event after another. No character development, no story progression, just lots and lots of nonsense. Alice should be looking for a narrative, not the white rabbit. Didn't really care for it as a kid, still don't really care for it, and I can see why Walt didn't really care for it.

ajmrowland wrote:I dont deny that. It is a huge subject matter, and he chose to focus on the more human "effect" side of "cause and effect". It's still pretty outrageous.

That part about 'dead peasants' should be mandatory viewing for everybody! Yeah, but they keep telling us free-market capitalism is the best system ever! No, socialism, that's evil!

Night At the Museum 2:

Ehhhh...why. Just why? Just going to sum up a few things I didn't care about in this film, starting with the humor. I found a lack of it. Two (if not three) of the jokes were just not funny and ran on for -way- too long to the point of me having to just mute the t.v because I didn't care anymore, the two I refer to are the scene with Ben Stiller and Brandon/Brendon when they bicker about him touching the exhibit. The second is with Azaria when he and Ben Stiller keep demanding the other make the trade first. The monkey slapping joke seemed really out of place and would have worked better earlier in the film or later on.

Amy Adams was great to see, though I found it disturbing when she and Ben Stiller kiss considering she's made of freaking wax. That's like making out with a human sized crayon! Also, speaking of disturbing, naked Jonas Brother cupids *shudders*

All in all I'd rather sit through a dozen other movies before revisiting this film.

I watched Rocketman this morning... Yeah, it's goofy, but it's entertaining.

I also watched Dick Van Dyke as Fitzwilly, this was a pretty fun flick,

Chernabog_Rocks wrote:Night At the Museum 2:

All in all I'd rather sit through a dozen other movies before revisiting this film.

Not that I was for a minute considering seeing this, or the first movie, but I'll take your word for it.

Lazario wrote:Not that I was for a minute considering seeing this, or the first movie, but I'll take your word for it.

The only real highlight I can think of was Darth Vader and Oscar the Grouch making a bit of brief screentime, personally I would have enjoyed seeing more of them and less of the others.


Just finished going through your longer review of Trick'r'Treat and I rather agree with a large part of what you said. The first time I saw the film I remember getting so lost as to the timeline of things since it jumps back and forth so much.

Or Man cheng jin dai huang jin jia (2006) in its original Mandarin. Second viewing. What a fantastic film!!!

I normally don't like these kind of movies (samurai fighting etc.), but this one is really different, and the beautifully choreographed fighting sequences (helped with stunning CGI effects) are not the most important part. It's the dramatic relationships between the Emperor, his wife and their sons that make it intruiging. When the Emperor tries to poison his second wife, she finds out and convinces his oldest son to rebel against his powerful father. But this is only a small part of the plot, as it's stuffed with unforeseen twists, unexpected revelations and dramatic turns. And if that -or the excellent, gripping performance of Gong Li- can't hold your attention, the exuberant and lush settings certainly will (you haven't seen anything like this before)!

In fact, even writing about it, I want to see it again (even though I just watched it a few hours ago)!

Goliath wrote:I normally don't like these kind of movies (samurai fighting etc.),

I don't think you are gonna get samurai fighting if you are watching a Chinese movie. Kinda like the Karate Kid remake.

Today I watched: Groundhog Day

Barbossa wrote:Today I watched: Groundhog Day

Me too! I love it!

Barbossa wrote:I don't think you are gonna get samurai fighting if you are watching a Chinese movie. Kinda like the Karate Kid remake.

Oh, yeah... that was dumb, to confuse China with Japan. Anyway, there's a lot of grand fighting scenes in Curse of the Golden Flower. I wonder if that's what they call "martial arts"?

The Social Network

After hearing such great things about this film, and then actually watching it, I was kind of disappointed. I mean, I did learn some stuff about Facebook, but it really wasn't that fascinating. There were actually some parts where I was bored. I might rewatch it with one of the two commentaries tomorrow, but I'm not expecting to like it more.

Chernabog_Rocks wrote:Also, speaking of disturbing, naked Jonas Brother cupids *shudders*

Is that because they're naked or because they're Jonases?

I hope it's the latter.

Alice in Wonderland 60th Anniversary Edition - But I watched the DVD. My Blu-Ray player isn't hooked up yet - got to find another cable for it.