DVDizzy Forum

I watched Gone With the Wind too. (I've got the bluray now)
Now after watching it I realise just how much I hated the ending ! lol
*It's REALLY helpful when you marry someone and realise that your in love with them during the last 5 minutes of the film ! *

Chaplin (1992)

Well worth the 2 hours; didn't bore me for a minute. Robert Downey Jr. was simply incredible as Charlie. He really impressed me, and I think he's underrated as an actor. All supporting actors were outstanding as well, especially Moira Kelly. With a life as fascinating as Chaplin's, a movie is almost guaranteed interesting. I'm still angry and saddened by the way America treated Chaplin in his later years. I still can't believe the public accepted him being exiled. I love almost all of his films, so this film was a treat for me.

By accident, I managed to finally see the world-famous Borat. And let's just say, people trying to call the infamous Sacha Baron Cohen out for moral reasons can't stop him from savaging American culture in this very shocking, ugly, voraciously funny (the chicken killed me! I could not stop laughing at that thing), and frighteningly insightful mockumentary. After seeing this, you have to admit: the whole world is living hell. Or should I say- living in hell. Whether all of the telltale footage of groups of Americans insulting other groups of Americans was real or staged, it is indistinguishable from the hatred we have for each other you can find displayed on YouTube in every "comments" section (the subway scene is like a punch in the face). The most disturbing scene being of course the rodeo where without any coaxing, a "good ol' fashioned" Southern guy says Americans want all gays to be hanged. If it has one flaw, it's at times entirely predictable (why else were we watching that weather man for 45 seconds straight- of course Borat was going to walk into the green-screen set) and obvious (the kids' running from the bear in the truck). The true test here is that- all the things that would seem stupid or annoying about the movie actually pay off! At first, I thought the Pamela Anderson thing was just there to get cheap laughs and to make straight guys go- "she's so hot!" But there's actually a pay-off to it, something I hope everyone found amusing (in spite of her social causes and her "criticisms" of the Bush administration, she's still a ho). And the naked wrestling scene, which I thought for sure was just going to kill the movie. About 5 months ago, I added Baron Cohen to my list of "Heroes" on MySpace just based on gut instinct, withoutever ever seeing one of his films. Good to see my instincts are still sharper than ever.

Honestly... I LOVED THIS! It was so cheesy, hilarious, and "out-of-this-world." The plot reminded me so much of 1984's Splash; A highly attractive female (Daryl Hannah and Kim Basinger even kind of look alike!) appears as if out of nowhere and falls into the arms of a not-so-attractive male. There are obvious differences, such as Dan Akroyd having a daughter in this film, played by the always charming Alyson Hannigan. The plot is this: A young woman, aptly named Celeste Martin, appears at a party thrown by Dan Akyrod's character's brother. Celeste and Dan's character (I've forgotten his name if you haven't noticed by now) go home while Celeste is amused and confused by all of these things that seem "out of date" to her, such as sex, television, books, etc. Alyson's character, Jesse, of course hates her and wants to get rid of her, especially when she catches her doing alien-ish things. Celeste and Dan's chaarcter promptly fall in love, during which she finds out she only has twelve hours left on earth. You'll have to watch the movie to figure out what happens next! Highly recommended for some great laughs!

Sidenote: I absolutely loved that Seth Green played Alyson's date in this movie! Perhaps a psychic was on set during the casting process.

Goliath wrote:Chaplin (1992)

Well worth the 2 hours; didn't bore me for a minute. Robert Downey Jr. was simply incredible as Charlie. He really impressed me, and I think he's underrated as an actor. All supporting actors were outstanding as well, especially Moira Kelly. With a life as fascinating as Chaplin's, a movie is almost guaranteed interesting. I'm still angry and saddened by the way America treated Chaplin in his later years. I still can't believe the public accepted him being exiled. I love almost all of his films, so this film was a treat for me.

I felt the movie was to long and left out too much (I've seen a few docs on him). Robert Downey Jr. was pretty good, the physical stuff was amazing, but I guess expecting him to imitate Chaplin's voice was too much.

I'm with you, how they could exile Chaplin is ridiculous. Sure, by the time he was exiled he was making bad movies but his silent works are masterpieces. He was one of the first movie icons and what he did for comedy was revolutionary. He was a talented writer, director, actor and composer and founding member of United Artists (to help break from the studios system). Walt Disney even recognized his talent and had his animators study his movies. Chaplin knew comedy inside and out and staged his gags so well that animators are still studying him (well, at least we did in my classes on timing, anticipation and staging). Best of all, he was one of the first to understand that empathy was the key to a movies success.

I'm definitely looking forward to a Blu boxset with his movies/shorts

jpanimation wrote:I'm with you, how they could exile Chaplin is ridiculous. Sure, by the time he was exiled he was making bad movies but his silent works are masterpieces.

I don't agree with what you said about his films at the time he was being exiled. First, the quality of his movies doesn't make it any less shameful they exiled him (I'm not saying that's what you said, but I had to clear that up). Second, I think his movies were still good. Monsieur Verdoux, while not nearly as good as his previous works, was still a very funny and well-told film. I really think Limelight is one of his best works. The tragic story of Calvero touche me in a way I can't explain. It wasn't a really funny film, but that's okay if it's told and acted this well. The only Chaplin-film I really hate, is A King in New York. It bored me to tears, and the only reason I didn't turn it off after half an hour, is the fact that it's a Chaplin film.

Anyway, I just saw Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari (1920)

As a film-scholar, I'm ashamed to say this is only the first time I've seen it in its entirety. I was very impressed with how well this one still holds up after 90 (!) years! I was also surprised by how ahead it was of its time, with the flashbacks and the 'twist' at the end; one that would still be appreciated in a film of our time.

Lazario wrote:


.

^this, but I watched on Sunday. Didn't like the movie much, but the Chicken and the Bear and the Ice-cream Truck really cracked me up!

I'll admit, Baron-Cohen has guts, and I applaud that. I'm not about to watch Bruno though, especially after this.

ajmrowland wrote:

Lazario wrote:

I watched on Sunday. Didn't like the movie much, but the Chicken and the Bear and the Ice-cream Truck really cracked me up!

I'll admit, Baron-Cohen has guts, and I applaud that. I'm not about to watch Bruno though, especially after this.

Opposite true for me. I'm actually all the more jazzed to see Bruno now.

Or... should I say: "jizzed"?







Okay, every critic out there really loved this movie. But as we all know - what do they know? They just care about how well the formula works for mass audiences. But rarely does the subject matter of most mainstream movies and shows actually involve mass audiences at all. Here, we have a gay relationship newly on-the-rocks - both men are of course very physically attractive, cleancut, well-mannered in the traditional sense, and basically successful in their careers / public lives. The standard formula of the Hollywood romantic comedy commands this be the role every romantic batch of leads must play. It's generic but not offensive. Just like the movie. With the possible exception of a near-sex scene, featuring the woman as the dominant and the man as the submissive, showing a lot of pre-getting the pants off. Though the writers show the characters having a beef with several annoying supporting characters, I couldn't help but feel not-interested in the main characters very much. Especially Jennifer, who is supposed to be a real modern women - open and honest about sex to her sorta youth peer counseling group - yet yearning to be in a relationship more like those old-fashioned couples. She takes everything slow, likes old movies and thinks Gene Kelly is sexy, and enjoys ballroom dancing. Not much of a hellcat, but the man she wants to be her husband is a guy who needs an exciting relationship. This brings out her needy and desperate sides. Which the movie unfortunately doesn't mine for any potential humor. The humor of the movie is pretty bland. The drama is confused, especially since they never clarify the terms of George and Joley's relationship. So, good damn luck figuring out why they even broke up.

Where the movie really cooks is in George's new relationship with Paul. The movie was sugar up 'til then and in need of some spice. What they did instead was put in a little passion. Paul has a beautiful wild heart and a real lust for life, which comes through in his performance- a breath of fresh air and refreshingly different than most gay love interests in movies and TV of the time. Then of course, they add Rodney the critic and things get more interesting still. Anything that gets us away from Jennifer Aniston, who just becomes a downer for this movie. She's portrayed as confused and frustrated. When she realizes she's pregnant, it even takes her almost 10 movie minutes to tell us: "I've made a decision about the baby- I'm going to keep it." We all knew you were going to keep it, stupid. All the trailers and tv spots show her revealing she's pregnant and then, showing her carrying the baby either in the hospital room or while very obviously still pregnant dancing at George's brother's wedding. Worse yet, her stupid sister Constance turns out to be right about her wanting George to just be straight. Which makes her character naive. Even the fans of this movie have to admit- that's not a good trait for a movie star to want to have. The transition from soft to serious also is not handled smoothly. John Pankow's freakout is too intense and over-the-top for this kind of movie. That whole scene is wasted, in fact. Jen's moment of rage is so dumb, I just want to hit "mute." The result, no doubt, of her being so passive-aggressive the rest of the movie. But, the reason I rate the movie this high is because George finally gets what I think is a fair turn when he meets Paul and never really has to give him up. If half of the main couple is getting fair treatment, I can forgive the deficiency on Jen's side.

Notes on a Scandal - brilliant film. Judi Dench is just diabolically terrific as a teacher who discovers her friend and colleague (Cate Blanchett) is having an affair with one of the students and then uses it to blackmail her emotionally. Superb performances from both leading ladies. Highly recommended.

Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs (2009) - Watched this today after renting it from the video store. It was okay for the most part and the computer animation was nice, but the plot was kind of cliche in a lot of areas (especially in the end which I will not spoil).

Ray (2004)

Good movie, but overrated and over-hyped. What I liked most, was the way Ray's youngest years were only gradually revealed in flashbacks. This way, a boring chronological account was avoided. I really enjoyed the music, Jamie Foxx's performance (although the Oscar maybe was too much) and Kerry Washington (with whom I'm in love anyway).

9-Okay, but pretty cliche, and no real need to have made it feature-length.

It's a wonderful life

Way too long, way too much over-acting (even from Stewart) and overall a very preachy, overly moralistic film which ultimately sends the wrong message. The 'moral' of the story is that true happiness comes from always denying yourself your wishes and dreams to make other people happy. George Bailey never gor the college education he wanted, he never got to do the travelling he wanted to do, he got stuck in an office job he never wanted, and he remained stuck in a dull little town from which he always wanted to escape, but that's all okay because he made other people happy?

@ above

and I saw Sherlock Holmes. I'd give it a 7/10. IT was okay and was worth it for free, but nothing really great or special.

DaveWadding wrote: @ above

Goliath wrote:It's a wonderful life

Way too long, way too much over-acting (even from Stewart) and overall a very preachy, overly moralistic film which ultimately sends the wrong message. The 'moral' of the story is that true happiness comes from always denying yourself your wishes and dreams to make other people happy.

Actually, Dave... I agree with him.







The Legally Blonde of the 1990's was definitely Romy and Michele's High School Reunion. Wishing it was Clueless for the girls who thought they were like Cher and Dionne in high school (the movie even steals the early use of No Doubt's "Just a Girl" and Clueless's ultra-hip costume designer, Mona May), but making the girls so dumb in their waking lives, that you feel bad afterward for in any way identifying with them. The "business woman's special" scene proves just how dumb these girls really are. The only time they get to be smart is when they're dreaming and the most clever thing either one of them says is when they mention a movie / dream cliche ("I just wish everybody inside the reunion would come out and watch us lift off"). During any mainstream comedy, especially one that is on some level functioning as a spoof (this one is a mockery of the 1980's and probably got more critical cred for coming the year before The Wedding Singer, although that film is clearly better), I have to be able to defend the main characters. And there's just something about the way that Alan Cumming is dumped at the 80's school dance by Michele who won't dance with him, yet in the 90's- he doesn't remember how she could barely stand him. Me? I couldn't possibly forget something like that. Speaking of forgetting... what happened to that Casey guy Michele was so into?

However, this movie does have a good message. Far too long in the game, Michele actually ponies up her "I thought high school was a blast, until you told me that our lives weren't good enough." And all throughout, the movie is peppered with excellent performances by the supporting cast. Ultra-bitch Julia Campbell as prom queen Christie, Camryn Manheim as Toby the AV geek, sarc-goth goddess Janeane Garofalo as a Heather (is that ironic in any way- remember Heathers?), and the icy Elaine Hendrix as the only In-Crowd member with a redemption story. And, any movie where Janeane Garofalo gets to walk away with Justin Theroux... I can forgive, even after giving these 2 ditzes their own business. It was inevitable, though. Wasn't it? If some 20-something princess from Vogue thinks they make "not bad" clothes, of course they're going to get their own clothing line. I don't know a damn thing about fashion, but I do know that 3-person dance is ridiculous. More credit due for a good use of the underrated "Don't Get Me Wrong" by The Pretenders (what- did that stay on the charts longer than the superior if less sing-alongy "Middle of the Road"?) and my newly-discovered 80's fav, "Heaven is a Place on Earth." (I've always known about it but I didn't used to love it like I do now)

Lazario wrote:

Goliath wrote:It's a wonderful life

Way too long, way too much over-acting (even from Stewart) and overall a very preachy, overly moralistic film which ultimately sends the wrong message. The 'moral' of the story is that true happiness comes from always denying yourself your wishes and dreams to make other people happy.

Actually, Dave... I agree with him.

Laz agrees with Goliath!?

THE APOCALYPSE IS NIGH!!!

I watched A Walk on the Moon today. I enjoyed it.

I saw the TV-movie Gulliver's Travels with Ted Danson. This is one adaptation that stays close to Jonathan Swift's original work. There are some story changes, mainly how the travels of Gulliver are put into a framework: Lemunel Gulliver, a physician, returning home after 8 years, tells such odd stories about his travels that a sceming collegue, who wants to take his place as husband to Lemunel's wife Mary, finds it fit to send him off to a mental hospital. Meanwhile the young son Thomas makes some discoveries that testify to the truth of Lemunel's stories.
The satirical tone of Swift's original novel is kept throughout, and this is definitely not a version for children (though they can watch it). The cast includes several veteran actors like Peter 'O Toole, Omar Sharif, Geraldine Chaplin and John Gielgud. Also with Mary Steenburger as Mary Gulliver. Very well done!

DaveWadding wrote: @ above.

Good argumentation!

To be fair, I'd rather go bash my head into a brick wall than "argue" with you. At least the wall knows how to take a point.