Thanks, mister know-it-all, for butting in when nobody had asked for it. The rest of the review is more of the same. The same strong language, the same hyperbolic expressions, the same tough positions, but all of them ridiculously over-the-top. The reviewer never makes clear *why* it's wrong what Howard and/or Crowe are doing with/in the film, he just says it *is*. The reader has to guess why he feels this way. The reviewer makes a lot of unsubstantial claims. What he's giving is his own personal opinion on both the film and the life/state of mind of Dr. Nash, without ever explaining why his opinion weighs more heavily than that of Howard. Anyway, which review can you take seriously with that kind of an opening paragraph?Escapay wrote:A lot more than what Lazario quoted...Goliath wrote:Well, that's the dumbest review I've ever read --not just about A Beautiful Mind, just the worst review ever. Because, what has the reviewer really *said*?
What Movie Did You Just Watch? - Shh! It's Starting!
-
Lazario
Just for the record, Escapay - we'll say I asked for it. 
Duvall intros this by basically saying it will not be a funny fairy tale, but instead a scary one. She was wrong. And that becomes blindly apparent when the name "Ricky Shroder" flashes across the screen. The girl playing Gretel to his obvious Hansel gets almost as much screentime but despite Paul Dooley and Joan Collins playing the parents, he's the star. Regrettably. The "hard realistic" drama here is heavy-handed at best but there are a few good bits along the way. Joan Collins' over-the-top hag of a housewife rivals the witch character. IMDb tells me Collins plays the witch too, but I have a hard time believing that. Except for one thing... the witch is at all times plastered in dusty-green face paint. Cannon's far superior version of Hansel & Gretel featured Cloris Leachman in the witch role and she was actually a great deal more believable playing nice. As were the child actors at being just naive enough to buy into her front. Not these two. One of the only two stray scenes worth mentioning is the inevitable moment where Gretel shoves witchiepoo - and her broomstick - into the oven. The door won't shut because the end of the broom is in the way. So Gretel has to snap it off, but this takes nearly a dozen tries. The other, and this is where we would hope it is Collins, is a freakish moment where the witch has a monologue-driven orgasm revelation describing to us what it's like to eat fat young boys. This would mirror an earlier scene where Collins as housewife has a complete mental breakdown, screams at God to save her in bed (a bunkbed - with the two children above hearing every word she shrieks) next to a pretending-not-to-hear-her Dooley, and threatens to "do herself in" with an ax. Disappointingly, when the children save themselves at the end and rush back to their father's cabin, he just says - "oh your stepmother is dead. But we're together." What? When? How?
Ug.
Duvall intros this by basically saying it will not be a funny fairy tale, but instead a scary one. She was wrong. And that becomes blindly apparent when the name "Ricky Shroder" flashes across the screen. The girl playing Gretel to his obvious Hansel gets almost as much screentime but despite Paul Dooley and Joan Collins playing the parents, he's the star. Regrettably. The "hard realistic" drama here is heavy-handed at best but there are a few good bits along the way. Joan Collins' over-the-top hag of a housewife rivals the witch character. IMDb tells me Collins plays the witch too, but I have a hard time believing that. Except for one thing... the witch is at all times plastered in dusty-green face paint. Cannon's far superior version of Hansel & Gretel featured Cloris Leachman in the witch role and she was actually a great deal more believable playing nice. As were the child actors at being just naive enough to buy into her front. Not these two. One of the only two stray scenes worth mentioning is the inevitable moment where Gretel shoves witchiepoo - and her broomstick - into the oven. The door won't shut because the end of the broom is in the way. So Gretel has to snap it off, but this takes nearly a dozen tries. The other, and this is where we would hope it is Collins, is a freakish moment where the witch has a monologue-driven orgasm revelation describing to us what it's like to eat fat young boys. This would mirror an earlier scene where Collins as housewife has a complete mental breakdown, screams at God to save her in bed (a bunkbed - with the two children above hearing every word she shrieks) next to a pretending-not-to-hear-her Dooley, and threatens to "do herself in" with an ax. Disappointingly, when the children save themselves at the end and rush back to their father's cabin, he just says - "oh your stepmother is dead. But we're together." What? When? How?
Ug.
-
jpanimation
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1841
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:00 am
Thank You for Smoking (2005) 8/10 - an entertaining movie with a strong libertarian message advocating civil liberties. It's all about a big tobacco spin-doctor (Aaron Eckhart), who is really good at convincing people, and is currently trying to fight off a weasel senator (William H. Macy) trying to put a skull and crossbones on every cigarette package. The story is told with an star studded cast, which left me surprised to hear that this movie only cost around 7 million to make. I've got to think it was here that Nolan spotted Aaron Eckhart, being as charming and smooth talking as he was, to play Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight. While William H. Macy is good as the weasel senator, nothing will ever top Garry Shandling's performance as the weasel senator in Iron Man 2, who made one hell of a true-to-life portrayal. The rest of the cast it great and the movie's actually pretty funny. In one scene, Aaron Eckhart is convincing children to stop being sheep and find out things for themselves, and it had me in stitches. While the story heavily focuses on the Tobacco industry, it's really a satire on the government's constant intrusions on our personal liberties. I made the choice to eat healthy, exercise, not smoke, not gamble, and be a light drinker. If people want to eat themselves to death, smoke themselves to death, drink themselves to death, gamble away everything they have, and vegetate away in front of a TV/computer screen, then they have the right to do so. I agree with what the movie says, that it's the duty of the government (through schools) and every parent to properly inform children of the adverse effects. What they choose to do after they've been properly equipped with that knowledge is their right. As long as what they're doing isn't interfering with anyone else's rights, I'm looking at you second hand smoke, then the government needs to stay out of it. This is Jason Reitman's first of three films, the others being Juno and Up in the Air, with this being my favorite.
-
PixarFan2006
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 6166
- Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:44 am
- Location: Michigan
-
ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
-
Lazario
Thank you. That's what I was thinking when I quoted the first part.ajmrowland wrote:^I actually liked that movie a bit. But the review seems pretty spot on.
I believe someone brought up the topic of "worst review ever." If I may be so bold... :
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... 10341/1023
Even when you fix all the computer translating errors, it's still a completely lazy, brainless excuse for a review.
-
jpanimation
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1841
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:00 am
^Roger Ebert lost my respect a while ago. He gave the over-hyped garbage Paranormal Activity four stars and then gives Kick-Ass one star (just a couple of examples). It's not so much his rating for Kick-Ass but his review that pisses me off. Of the eight paragraph review, only one is devoted to actually reviewing the movie, one is a summary, and the other six are him bitching about the film's morals (or lack there of). It's just completely unprofessional. From the one paragraph critique, it looks like he enjoyed it but just felt it was too morally reprehensible to deserve any kind of praise.
Anyways, some more movies:
Finding Neverland (2004) 6.5/10 - this is a much romanticized version of a playwright and the inspiration behind his work, much like Shakespeare in Love was for Shakespeare, and every bit as inaccurate. The casting was good, so was Johnny Depp, and I have no complaints there. Dustin Hoffman was good but it seemed like he was just impersonating Erick Avari and the type of role he would’ve been type-casted in. Part of the problem with this movie was the story and it's predictability. From the start you know how it's going to end. There also isn't anything really 'stand-out' about it, it's just a 'nice' movie. I could talk about the inaccuracy and how the widow with the children was actually still married in real life but they changed that in the movie to make it more innocent and child friendly. It was probably for the better to take out the dark truths considering the fantastical direction they were taking. There's nothing terribly wrong with this movie, it's just not Best Picture worthy, and probably shouldn't have gotten that nomination. Then again, nobody listens to the Academy anymore as they get it wrong more then they do right.
Crash (2004) 8/10 - an emotionally gripping movie brought to life by an all-star cast. I remember liking this when I first saw it in theaters and after recently reading soo much flack against it, I decided to give it another look. Ultimately the movie feels contrived and at times, melodramatic but I still enjoyed it as much as the first time. I think the casting was great (Terrence Howard and Don Cheadle, both Rhodeys, together), and they all deliver. Look out for a Keith David cameo! Actually, one of the things I most admire is how well this large cast is handled, as the story never feels convoluted (a skill Robert Altman was known for). The cinematography and music go great together (actually, the nighttime cinematography was very reminiscent of the work done in Collateral, made the same year and also took place in L.A). I remember my heart stopping as the locksmith’s daughter ran into his arms and I thought she was shot. I felt bad for this man who was just trying to make an honest living, and never forgot that moment. It seems like just about everyone in this movie, in one form or another, is racist or has some kind of prejudice. Even the young cop, who tries to make things right after watching his partner’s racist actions towards a man and his wife, ends up revealing a suppressed racist preconception. I don’t know, maybe it’s being realistic in portraying everyone like this and that even the most tolerant of people whom claim to be colorblind (or whatever) have these misguided preconceptions hidden deep within (with movies, TV, and the news influencing, how can we not develop preconceptions?). I guess I can see why people are as divided on this movie as they are. It probably won Best Picture for it’s racially diverse cast and it’s redundant message against intolerance; which upsets a lot of people and lends to the Crash-bashing. If it wouldn’t have won Best Picture, it probably wouldn’t be getting the amount of undeserved hate that it does. I just think to rank this among the least deserving Best Picture winners ever, especially considering some of the movies that have won that title, isn’t fair.
Cinderella Man (2005) 7.5/10 - one of the few Ron Howard movies I like, the others being Apollo 13 and Frost/Nixon. So this is a boxing movie with Russel Crowe in the lead as the aged boxer, Jim Braddock. The story starts out in 1933, the deepest point in the Great Depression, and we find our hero struggling along with everyone else. This is supposed to be based on real characters and events, but it’s Hollywoodized for maximum emotional pull. Max Baer is presented as a monster here (we need a bad guy to hate), remorselessly killing people in the ring, but in real life he cried for those he killed. I actually really love the character of Jim Braddock, who has principle (this guy goes as far as to pay back the money he got from government assistance), and seems to be an outstanding person. He's likable in the way that Rocky was and you really want everything to go right for him. Renee Zellweger, like every movie she's in, is the weak link; although she’s not nearly as bad as usual. So while not my favorite boxing movie, that would be Rocky, it still ranks up there with Raging Bull (although not as epic) and Body and Soul as one of the greats.
Anyways, some more movies:
Finding Neverland (2004) 6.5/10 - this is a much romanticized version of a playwright and the inspiration behind his work, much like Shakespeare in Love was for Shakespeare, and every bit as inaccurate. The casting was good, so was Johnny Depp, and I have no complaints there. Dustin Hoffman was good but it seemed like he was just impersonating Erick Avari and the type of role he would’ve been type-casted in. Part of the problem with this movie was the story and it's predictability. From the start you know how it's going to end. There also isn't anything really 'stand-out' about it, it's just a 'nice' movie. I could talk about the inaccuracy and how the widow with the children was actually still married in real life but they changed that in the movie to make it more innocent and child friendly. It was probably for the better to take out the dark truths considering the fantastical direction they were taking. There's nothing terribly wrong with this movie, it's just not Best Picture worthy, and probably shouldn't have gotten that nomination. Then again, nobody listens to the Academy anymore as they get it wrong more then they do right.
Crash (2004) 8/10 - an emotionally gripping movie brought to life by an all-star cast. I remember liking this when I first saw it in theaters and after recently reading soo much flack against it, I decided to give it another look. Ultimately the movie feels contrived and at times, melodramatic but I still enjoyed it as much as the first time. I think the casting was great (Terrence Howard and Don Cheadle, both Rhodeys, together), and they all deliver. Look out for a Keith David cameo! Actually, one of the things I most admire is how well this large cast is handled, as the story never feels convoluted (a skill Robert Altman was known for). The cinematography and music go great together (actually, the nighttime cinematography was very reminiscent of the work done in Collateral, made the same year and also took place in L.A). I remember my heart stopping as the locksmith’s daughter ran into his arms and I thought she was shot. I felt bad for this man who was just trying to make an honest living, and never forgot that moment. It seems like just about everyone in this movie, in one form or another, is racist or has some kind of prejudice. Even the young cop, who tries to make things right after watching his partner’s racist actions towards a man and his wife, ends up revealing a suppressed racist preconception. I don’t know, maybe it’s being realistic in portraying everyone like this and that even the most tolerant of people whom claim to be colorblind (or whatever) have these misguided preconceptions hidden deep within (with movies, TV, and the news influencing, how can we not develop preconceptions?). I guess I can see why people are as divided on this movie as they are. It probably won Best Picture for it’s racially diverse cast and it’s redundant message against intolerance; which upsets a lot of people and lends to the Crash-bashing. If it wouldn’t have won Best Picture, it probably wouldn’t be getting the amount of undeserved hate that it does. I just think to rank this among the least deserving Best Picture winners ever, especially considering some of the movies that have won that title, isn’t fair.
Cinderella Man (2005) 7.5/10 - one of the few Ron Howard movies I like, the others being Apollo 13 and Frost/Nixon. So this is a boxing movie with Russel Crowe in the lead as the aged boxer, Jim Braddock. The story starts out in 1933, the deepest point in the Great Depression, and we find our hero struggling along with everyone else. This is supposed to be based on real characters and events, but it’s Hollywoodized for maximum emotional pull. Max Baer is presented as a monster here (we need a bad guy to hate), remorselessly killing people in the ring, but in real life he cried for those he killed. I actually really love the character of Jim Braddock, who has principle (this guy goes as far as to pay back the money he got from government assistance), and seems to be an outstanding person. He's likable in the way that Rocky was and you really want everything to go right for him. Renee Zellweger, like every movie she's in, is the weak link; although she’s not nearly as bad as usual. So while not my favorite boxing movie, that would be Rocky, it still ranks up there with Raging Bull (although not as epic) and Body and Soul as one of the greats.
I turned off Crash after the first 20 minutes or so. And I don't do that often. In fact, that's something that's rare. But after 20 minutes, I had enough of the trite, redundant, lazy, over-exaggerated 'characters' (cut out of cardbord) and the incredibly obvious 'message' or 'moral'. Every line that was uttered was a cliché; the characters were stock figures. There was nothing 'deep' or thought-provoking about this film.
I enjoyed Cinderella Man, but I still think you're much too nice about it. When you think about it, it's nothing more than the millionth 'former loser turns hero' story that comes out of the Hollywood dream factory. The real fault with the film, is that there's nothing original in it. The direction, the story, the performances, and especially the music: they're all pathetic rehashes of older, better movies.
I enjoyed Cinderella Man, but I still think you're much too nice about it. When you think about it, it's nothing more than the millionth 'former loser turns hero' story that comes out of the Hollywood dream factory. The real fault with the film, is that there's nothing original in it. The direction, the story, the performances, and especially the music: they're all pathetic rehashes of older, better movies.
-
Lazario
Well, STICK ME IN THE WOOD-CHIPPER and then send the left over glop to Ruggero Deodato... I had to break my vow of silence to the G man to say this (and it's much deserved in this case): well put, Goliath!Goliath wrote:I turned off Crash after the first 20 minutes or so. And I don't do that often. In fact, that's something that's rare. But after 20 minutes, I had enough of the trite, redundant, lazy, over-exaggerated 'characters' (cut out of cardbord) and the incredibly obvious 'message' or 'moral'. Every line that was uttered was a cliché; the characters were stock figures. There was nothing 'deep' or thought-provoking about this film.
Dusted off a few DVD's I haven't had in my player for years...
I used to be a huge fan of the romantic comedy genre (not quite knowing at the time that it is the single most despised genre by critics and a certain population of movie fans). Well now, I'm starting to see why people dislike them so much. It began back last year when I was bored and went on a mini-Meg Ryan (who I've never liked) spree. This one always left me in awe but now watching it, it feels shockingly unintelligent and pandering. And it didn't make me examine my life at all. It veers off into the embarrassing with every sex scene (scored to stupid jungle music cues with obnoxiously loud whistles and "whoo!" sound effects) and even when she puts on contraception to have sex, we have to watch her bouncing around in the bathroom from every angle imaginable while the score clicks and pounds drums loudly. This is why they invented Chapter Skip. On the human side, the way her relationship with her daughter is handled lacks anything compelling or even smart. They basically just stick in 3 pointless scenes of one-on-one conversations to show the daughter needs absolutely nothing from her. And the opening is almost unbearable. Other than the fact that a near-suicide attempt screws with the light tone of the movie, it's just a festival of cliche. Every moment felt like a formula copy. But admittedly, the movie finally gets going when they get to the actual romance and show the Pam character completely confused by being in someone else's life. It could be better set-up. But even if it's just the movie settling into a kind of mediocrity, it's a turn for the better because when there's little talking, Rachel Griffiths gets to show her stuff in spite of the routine. I did happen to get into her character when all the elements of the "home life" plot were in place (before they get a bit wacky by introducing the character she'd been having an affair with previous to the switcheroo, that's far-fetched even for this movie). The ending also makes good use of pop songs and I liked all the "new life" stuff. Maybe that should have been the middle of the movie... They could have boiled the beginning and more ridiculous parts of the middle down into 45 minutes. Just enough truly good scenes to get you through the silly, embarrassing moments.
I'll never forget the first time I saw this on TV... I was so irritated by the wannabe Warhol-documentary feel of the first 3 minutes, I was proud of myself for not buying into the movie's self-hype like I did with Jawbreaker when I was in high school. Well, the "if you thought you knew Her, you didn't know anything" documentary interview thing creeps in every now and then. And for every subject this tries to tackle (drugs, the phony cretins of the fashion world, AIDS, domestic abuse, rape), it doesn't really say or do anything new. Nor does it even feel like they are giving any interesting weight to the Gia character's life and times. But the movie proves that it doesn't really need to be any more cutting when Angelina Jolie is wildly explosive from her first second onscreen. Anything she does is intense and she goes a long way in giving you a reason to sit through this extraordinarily depressing 2 hours. As do Faye Dunaway (good mom?) and Mercedes Ruhl (bad mom?) in supporting roles. The music score is excellent, the whole "world is spinning out of control" approach to the editing is hypnotic, and the scenes exploring "Gia"s sexuality in slow are impossible to take your eyes off of. To balance out the high nudity content and graphic sex, there are very touching, sweet moments of the character trying to normalize her romance with Linda to people who never stopped to think "girlfriend" meant more than "a girl who is a friend." The final scene (the undertaker making her up, her reading the "it was all worth it" passage from her journals) is among the most stunning moments in drama I have ever seen. So is the "chasing the dragon?" sequence, played to Echo and the Bunnymen's "The Killing Moon."
-
BelleGirl
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:36 am
- Location: The Netherlands, The Hague
Some movies I watched the past time:
The Princess and the Frog just bought the dvd, bonus features not much, but the movie still looks fresh.
Serendipity I've seen this romantic comedy at least twice before, but it turned out I had forgotten quite a few things. Still an endearing and funny movie. Got it for free with two other purchase form free Record Shop
Nowhere Boy About John Lennon's teenage years. Well-acted and once again Kristin Scott Thomas was great as 'stiff-upperlip' aunt Mimi.
David (The Bible, miniseries) The Bible contains many good stories and the one about David is certainly one! Nathaniel Parker as king David is quite attractive. Also with Leonard 'Startrek' Nimoy as the prophet Samuel.
The Princess and the Frog just bought the dvd, bonus features not much, but the movie still looks fresh.
Serendipity I've seen this romantic comedy at least twice before, but it turned out I had forgotten quite a few things. Still an endearing and funny movie. Got it for free with two other purchase form free Record Shop
Nowhere Boy About John Lennon's teenage years. Well-acted and once again Kristin Scott Thomas was great as 'stiff-upperlip' aunt Mimi.
David (The Bible, miniseries) The Bible contains many good stories and the one about David is certainly one! Nathaniel Parker as king David is quite attractive. Also with Leonard 'Startrek' Nimoy as the prophet Samuel.
See my growing collection of Disney movie-banners at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/78256383@N ... 651337290/
-
jpanimation
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1841
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:00 am
^^^What's funny about the 2005 Best Picture nominations is the fact that the better movies, at least to me, weren't even nominated. Out of the nominations, I probably like Munich a little more then Crash (both movies leave people extremely divided, you either like it or HATE it). I actually think the best movies of the year were, to my surprise, comic book movies. Sin City and Batman Begins are some of the best movies made, both as comic book movies, and as movies in general. Of course that's all subject to opinion.
As for Cinderella Man, you're right, I was being too nice. There is nothing new in it, it's all built off the tried and true, but it's a solid enough effort that I enjoyed. It's still no Rocky.
American History X (1998) 7.5/10 - pretty haunting movie. It took me long enough to finally see this movie, I didn't even read what it was about before watching, and was surprised by what I saw. These neo-nazi skinhead freaks are some of the scariest monsters out there, especially when you see them on TV holding rallies, and it's certainly going to take something significant to change the mindset of people who have filled a void in their life with pure hate. Edward Norton plays our main protagonist, Derek Vinyard, who through people and events in his life has strayed into the misguided path of being a neo-nazi skinhead. He is sent to prison where he is reformed, and then has to deal with his younger brother taking up his old ways. Edward Norton gives the performance of his life. The whole movie is moving and very serious in tone. What makes it soo scary is that these people actually exist and have misdirected their frustrations to the point that it developed into ignorant hate. Also, I recognized Norton's mom and younger brother but couldn't figure out where from. The mom (Beverly D'Angelo) was the mom in Vacation and the younger brother (Edward Furlong) was little John Connor from Terminator 2. I love IMDB!
As for Cinderella Man, you're right, I was being too nice. There is nothing new in it, it's all built off the tried and true, but it's a solid enough effort that I enjoyed. It's still no Rocky.
American History X (1998) 7.5/10 - pretty haunting movie. It took me long enough to finally see this movie, I didn't even read what it was about before watching, and was surprised by what I saw. These neo-nazi skinhead freaks are some of the scariest monsters out there, especially when you see them on TV holding rallies, and it's certainly going to take something significant to change the mindset of people who have filled a void in their life with pure hate. Edward Norton plays our main protagonist, Derek Vinyard, who through people and events in his life has strayed into the misguided path of being a neo-nazi skinhead. He is sent to prison where he is reformed, and then has to deal with his younger brother taking up his old ways. Edward Norton gives the performance of his life. The whole movie is moving and very serious in tone. What makes it soo scary is that these people actually exist and have misdirected their frustrations to the point that it developed into ignorant hate. Also, I recognized Norton's mom and younger brother but couldn't figure out where from. The mom (Beverly D'Angelo) was the mom in Vacation and the younger brother (Edward Furlong) was little John Connor from Terminator 2. I love IMDB!
-
jpanimation
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1841
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:00 am
Well I watched a couple of foreign films that came highly recommended to me:
Oldboy (2003) 6/10 - really disappointed by this one. It had some moments of brilliance but the movie as a whole just wasn't that good. The story starts off like The Count of Monte Cristo, it's even alluded to in the movie, but it quickly departs once the protagonist gets out of his imprisonment. You think it's our protagonist who will be getting revenge but it's the antagonist who really is. I won't say how but it's pretty disturbing. The acting seemed a little goofy to me and the action just wasn't executed that well (although, the hallway hammer sequence was nicely done). Don't go in expecting an action flick or your typical revenge flick, as it's really more of an art house drama.
City of God (2002) 8/10 - now this one I liked. It takes place in the slums in the Cidade de Deus suburb of Rio de Janeiro, and I was instantly reminded of the slums depicted in Slumdog Millionaire, even with the actual locations taking place on opposite sides of the the globe. I guess location doesn't make much different in impoverished areas where government it corrupt and gangs flourish. I actually though the movie was going to be a romantic drama but it's actually a period crime drama. We're taken on a journey of one kid (who becomes a photographer) and his growing up in the middle of street gangs. The movie does a really good job of introducing characters and making it clear as to their importance to the story. It's really well told and you get to know these characters well. I thought the acting, cinematography and music was all well done. If I had any problems with the movie, it was probably the slower pacing towarads the end when the 'gang war' starts. Then again, I can't really blame them too much for that as right before the credits rolled, it said "based on a true story," which surprised me as I didn't know that before I saw the film. This makes the movie all the more amazing to me.
Oldboy (2003) 6/10 - really disappointed by this one. It had some moments of brilliance but the movie as a whole just wasn't that good. The story starts off like The Count of Monte Cristo, it's even alluded to in the movie, but it quickly departs once the protagonist gets out of his imprisonment. You think it's our protagonist who will be getting revenge but it's the antagonist who really is. I won't say how but it's pretty disturbing. The acting seemed a little goofy to me and the action just wasn't executed that well (although, the hallway hammer sequence was nicely done). Don't go in expecting an action flick or your typical revenge flick, as it's really more of an art house drama.
City of God (2002) 8/10 - now this one I liked. It takes place in the slums in the Cidade de Deus suburb of Rio de Janeiro, and I was instantly reminded of the slums depicted in Slumdog Millionaire, even with the actual locations taking place on opposite sides of the the globe. I guess location doesn't make much different in impoverished areas where government it corrupt and gangs flourish. I actually though the movie was going to be a romantic drama but it's actually a period crime drama. We're taken on a journey of one kid (who becomes a photographer) and his growing up in the middle of street gangs. The movie does a really good job of introducing characters and making it clear as to their importance to the story. It's really well told and you get to know these characters well. I thought the acting, cinematography and music was all well done. If I had any problems with the movie, it was probably the slower pacing towarads the end when the 'gang war' starts. Then again, I can't really blame them too much for that as right before the credits rolled, it said "based on a true story," which surprised me as I didn't know that before I saw the film. This makes the movie all the more amazing to me.
I saw this movie back in 2006 with a bunch of friends and we all loved it. I agree that the characters were handled very well. I liked the photographer kid became the narrator even though his ties to the actual plot are somewhat small. I liked that despite being about crime in Brazil it didn't glorify it nor understated it. To me it was an honest crime story with a clear message.jpanimation wrote:City of God (2002) 8/10 - now this one I liked. It takes place in the slums in the Cidade de Deus suburb of Rio de Janeiro, and I was instantly reminded of the slums depicted in Slumdog Millionaire, even with the actual locations taking place on opposite sides of the the globe. I guess location doesn't make much different in impoverished areas where government it corrupt and gangs flourish. I actually though the movie was going to be a romantic drama but it's actually a period crime drama. We're taken on a journey of one kid (who becomes a photographer) and his growing up in the middle of street gangs. The movie does a really good job of introducing characters and making it clear as to their importance to the story. It's really well told and you get to know these characters well. I thought the acting, cinematography and music was all well done. If I had any problems with the movie, it was probably the slower pacing towarads the end when the 'gang war' starts. Then again, I can't really blame them too much for that as right before the credits rolled, it said "based on a true story," which surprised me as I didn't know that before I saw the film. This makes the movie all the more amazing to me.
This is the kind of story that would have been a literal bloody mess, with shallow characters and just endless violence. But the film remembers to tell a story first and foremost.
I specially liked how at the end it showed a group of kids being all cool and tough, letting us know that even if gangs are destroyed there is always one waiting to be created.
My favorite scene is when the kid enters the motel, robs the couples and kills them. Such a graphic scene, and yet so vital to the development and handled so well.
-
PixarFan2006
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 6166
- Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:44 am
- Location: Michigan
-
BelleGirl
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:36 am
- Location: The Netherlands, The Hague
Doubt Just excellent movie. Great acting all around, but you can hardly go wrong with Meryl Streep, Philippe Seymor Hoffman and, yes, Amy Adams!
See my growing collection of Disney movie-banners at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/78256383@N ... 651337290/
-
blackcauldron85
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 16689
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:54 am
- Gender: Female
- Contact:
Yes, Cidade de Deus was a very good movie. There's a sequel out, although it really directly follows the Brazilian tv series that came after the original film. But I've read the sequel can be watched seperately. Even with president Lula de Silva's highly succesful policies of reducing poverty and raising living standards, it will probably take a long time before the events portrayed in the film will belong to the past.
-
ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
Iron Man 2-3/5
The movie was likable, but the first was better. Performances were good all around-especially that of a certain, obvious star. The action was without the thrill, without the cheer necessary to make the victory worthwhile. Whiplash eventually became overshadowed by Hammer-the real main villain, and very effective too. Whiplash's motivation is never really made clear. The main plot only remains marginally more of a focus than the subplots. The movie was also a tad longer than it should've been, as about halfway I was really hoping for things to pick up. There were some very funny moments-particularly involving the Senate-and the "kiss the helmet" scene is conspicuously MIA, but forgiveable. More hints to the inevitable Avengers movie are included, as is the inevitable Stan Lee cameo(this time as Larry King). There are also some cliches-I mean, the little boy with lead-legs only works so many times. What's worse is the being-rescued-at-the-last second-before-the-bomb-goes-off bit, which Pepper Pots actually seems to be waiting for. No wait, maybe she's suiciding. Either that, or she just seems fascinated in the red light in the machine that's making a strange, loud beeping noise. I mean, seriously!
That's all my thoughts on the movie.
The movie was likable, but the first was better. Performances were good all around-especially that of a certain, obvious star. The action was without the thrill, without the cheer necessary to make the victory worthwhile. Whiplash eventually became overshadowed by Hammer-the real main villain, and very effective too. Whiplash's motivation is never really made clear. The main plot only remains marginally more of a focus than the subplots. The movie was also a tad longer than it should've been, as about halfway I was really hoping for things to pick up. There were some very funny moments-particularly involving the Senate-and the "kiss the helmet" scene is conspicuously MIA, but forgiveable. More hints to the inevitable Avengers movie are included, as is the inevitable Stan Lee cameo(this time as Larry King). There are also some cliches-I mean, the little boy with lead-legs only works so many times. What's worse is the being-rescued-at-the-last second-before-the-bomb-goes-off bit, which Pepper Pots actually seems to be waiting for. No wait, maybe she's suiciding. Either that, or she just seems fascinated in the red light in the machine that's making a strange, loud beeping noise. I mean, seriously!
That's all my thoughts on the movie.
-
ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI