DVDizzy Forum

Posted: **Wed Jun 23, 2010 8:55 am**

Dorian Gray - This is the 2009 version with Ben Barnes and Colin Firth, and I must say that I rather enjoyed it (see Goliath, I can enjoy a film where people have a lack of morals). Though it's not exactly like the novel, it was pretty darn close. Of course, they took liberties with the material to make it more of a cinematic experience, and I forgive them for that. The only thing that really, really bothered me was the ending (I know). I haven't read the novel in four years, but I do remember clearly that Dorian Gray kills himself. And in the film, Henry Wotton starts a fire that burns the aging painting and then Dorian Gray precedes to stab the painting, which then eventually switches the two's appearances. Then, of course, Mr. Gray dies (which does happen in the novel but I can't seem to remember if there was any portrait burning. I guess it's a good thing I'm holding it at the library so I can read it after finishing Wicked). Overall, I'm very pleased. Ben Barnes did a wonderful job in the destruction of the character. You can still believe his face even though he is wretched and disgusting on the inside. I also didn't/couldn't remember that he was bisexual in the novel but he certainly is in the film (but that doesn't really matter, I guess. Maybe it's an allusion to Wilde?). I really liked the chemistry between Gray, Wotton and Basil Hallward. I can't remember who played Basil, but along with Firth and Barnes, they made an excellent team. I really wish that when it comes out in August I will be able to purchase it (except I'll be in college then, so I don't exactly know when I'll be able to buy it). Great film and highly enjoyable (it sort of reminds me of Sweeney Todd, you know, the dark side of London and such). 9/10!

Posted: **Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:14 pm**

2099net wrote:Ok PAP, here goes (from memory)

The first thing is you have to remember V for Vendetta is a British creation for a British comic. True, said comic went bankrupt before the strip was finished and DC Comics are more closely associated with V for Vendetta as a result of them publishing the complete comic series and trade paperbacks, but its really is culturally British.

Most importantly its key references are Guy Fawkes and Orwell's 1984. Both are drilled into the British culture; both are extensively taught at schools and of course, every 5th November we celebrate Guy Fawkes on Bonfire Night.

The Back story, and how V presents himself and his ultimate plan all mirror Guy Fawkes to some extent. Of course, Fawkes wasn't burned alive pre his attempted terrorist attack on Parliament. But him and his fellow Catholics were a repressed minority - just as V for Vendetta shows other minorities being repressed. The "origin" of V is obviously purposely added narrative synchrony.

Ask people today if Guy Fawkes was a hero or villain and most likely most would say villain. However, history tends to dictate who is and isn't the hero. Bonfire Night was original a celebration not of Guy Fawkes' capture, but of him. Today we burn "Guys" on the fires, but the original effigies were of the Pope or the King. To the oppressed Catholics, Guy was a hero. In V for Vendetta, it's quite clear from the outset who are the heroes and who are the villains.

I'm not one who holds Alan Moore's original with much reverence - I save all that for his League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Watchmen:) - and I think Alan Moore has been far too critical of all his films (even the not-at-all-like-the-original LXG movie), so I can't really comment to much on Moore's thoughts.

Some sequences are in a different order IIRC. V in the original is certainly more of a bastard; the trick he plays on Eve is certainly harder and more hurtful in the original (or perhaps I just think that because I knew what was coming when I viewed the movie). V also seems less like a superhero - he's still motivated by his hate, but I don't recall him being portrayed as unstoppable as he is in the movie. Possibly the original makes us question the nature of hero and terrorist more too - its a while since I've read it, but I think that while there obviously is corruption and decay in the government and still has the same denouement, the book does make us question more if V is a hero or a villain.

As for the politics, I don't really see that they have been changed at all. As you may know, the UK has more CCTV per head of the population than any other country. I think V was written just as this programme was being initiated. There's obviously some of that in the story - government spying on its subjects, but I think primarily it reflects the general cold war thinking of the time - peace protesters being attacked and arrested, major miscarriages of justice being revealed, worry about the bomb, worry about what sort of government would arise if we were attacked etc. They all add up to a distrust of the government and a feeling of "us" and "them" I guess.

I'm not sure the argument about naturalistic dialogue holds for V for Vendetta. It's not supposed to be "real". I can't say I remember any of it sounding false - beyond V's riddles that is - I guess it could be British vs American styles. I would guess many of the monologues are taken from Moore's writing - if not verbatim then certainly in spirit. Perhaps most of the dialogue too.

Ah. Thanks for the in-depth explanation, Netty! I had read about some of these things before watching the movie, but your explanation makes me appreciate it a bit more. In fact, the movie is slowly growing in me. I think of the story and its characters and seeing the strength in them. V has a charm to him that makes him complex. He clearly has anger issues and desires vengeance more than anything, likely using the people to cover his own agenda. But at the same time, he is charismatic, charming and elegant, meaning that he doesn't fit the "terrorist" nor the brooding hero stereotypes at all. It just made him that much fun to watch him.

Regarding the dialogue, I am slowly beginning to accept it considering the subject. V himself is very theatrical and thus it makes sense that everything else follows suit. Its when its used in the wrong story that bothers me the most, like in Speed Racer (seriously the movie didn't know if it wanted to be a live action cartoon or a racing drama).

I think the reason some people can't stand this movie (and forgive me for using this comparison) is the same reason that some people can't stand Wall-E: it has issues that are very relevant to today's society. Note that the movie spoke strongly about how the government is using its people for their own agendas, as well as creating a world fueled by paranoia and control. At the time, the governments were indeed trying to push this forward due to the terrorist attacks on 9/11, and to people that hated this train of thought this movie spoke strongly to them.

Also, like Wall-E, people had pre-conceived notions since V for Vendetta was a comic book first, therefore I wouldn't be surprised if some people thought they would be getting a hardcore action film, but instead got something that is more critical than other movies. In some ways this works in favor of the film. I understand now why my best friend was impressed by it.

Posted: **Wed Jun 23, 2010 5:25 pm**

I'll admit, the scene with the music and bombs rigged.

Geppetto-it had been years since I saw the movie. I got it last week from DMR, but didnt get around to it until a couple nights ago. It's just the way I remembered it: charming and a bit cheap. The music was fun, too. Now I can think of two words in this film's future: Broad, and.......um.......I forgot the other.

Posted: **Thu Jun 24, 2010 10:25 am**

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - haven't watched it in a month or two, so just wanted to get back in touch with my robot friends. I skipped through a lot of the human-only scenes since they are the ones that practically destroy the movie.

Posted: **Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:16 pm**

I've watched some movies (sorta) recently including:

The Abominable Dr Phibes
Westworld
The original Star Wars trilogy (in its original form)
Aliens
Toy Story 3
Camelot

but the most recent one calls for an a more detailed review.

Xanadu (1980)

...Where to start?

I knew going in what to expect from Nostalgia Chick's review from the film, which is why I watched it. To enjoy the strangeness of it all for myself.

The plot's silly and thin of course and features musical numbers that are full of anything the filmmakers might have thought was a neat idea, but come off as unexpected and nonsensical. Like having a Don Bluth animated sequence because...you can?

But regardless of the fact that Gene Kelly is in a pinball machine at one point or the 40s costumes are somehow equally as horrible looking as the 80s ones during the "Dancin'" sequence, somehow pairing the fantastic songs (the soundtrack went double platinum) to the awful imagery makes it all amusing.

The "Whenever Your Away From Me" number apparently was directed by Gene Kelly himself and is probably the best handled musical moment. The camera movement actually happens and fits the old fashioned musical feel they probably went for along with the choreography, even if the staging may have looked better in an academy ratio frame. Just seeing two people dance without an abundance of effects or bad late 70s/early 80s clothing also makes it stand out more as one of the film's better moments.

The movie is also fairly short at 96 minutes so it doesn't drag too much, except at the end where it slows down and stuff happens that even when you know you're watching Xanadu it still seems strange, but it's cheesy fun for those who wish to have it.

Posted: **Thu Jun 24, 2010 11:15 pm**

I had heard of Xanadu, but had never seen it until Nostalgia Chick reviewed it. The review was hilarious, but I decided once was enough. It doesn't matter if Gene Kelly is in it... Once was enough.

Posted: **Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:10 pm**

Der Krieger und die Kaiserin (2000)

In English known as 'The Princess and the warrior'. Given Lazario's recent crusade against assembly line films, I'm sure he'll like this one.

I can't really adequately describe what the film is about. It's just so amazing, surreal at times, it's certainly different than anything you'll normally see in the movies, but it's intruiging every step of the way and it always leaves you curious about what will happen next. A movie full of suspense and not so ordinary characters. Directed by Tom Tykwer, this is also a treat for every student of film or cinema enthusiast, because he always opens up all registers possible in film to tell his story, and the result is beautiful. (Even if you wouldn't like the story at all, you would like to watch it again for way it's photographed.)

Posted: **Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:15 pm**

The Birds (1963)

Why is this film so much better than all the other 'animals attack humans for no apparent reason' flicks that have been made since? Because Hitchcock waits almost an hour before the first attack takes place. He lets the suspense build up, the way only he knows how. And, also unlike all the other films imitating this one, he takes the time to flesh out the characters, so we, the audience, actually care about them when they're in danger later on in the film. The only fault is the end of the film. Much too abrupt. Suddenly, poof, it's over. This is the case with more Hitchcock films: the curtain falling too soon. There had to be some scenes after it, explaining if everything would be allright with Melanie; and also assure the viewers something would be done about those birds (there was talk on the radio of sending the army). I didn't even need an explanation for the birds' behavior (would have ruined the movie), but just some resolution would be fine.

Posted: **Sun Jun 27, 2010 8:24 pm**

Shutter Island- Awesome, awesome movie. I'll have to watch it again to absorb it all, but I thoroughly enjoyed this flick.

Posted: **Sun Jun 27, 2010 8:25 pm**

Goliath wrote:The Birds (1963)

Why is this film so much better than all the other 'animals attack humans for no apparent reason' flicks that have been made since? Because Hitchcock waits almost an hour before the first attack takes place. He lets the suspense build up, the way only he knows how. And, also unlike all the other films imitating this one, he takes the time to flesh out the characters, so we, the audience, actually care about them when they're in danger later on in the film. The only fault is the end of the film. Much too abrupt. Suddenly, poof, it's over. This is the case with more Hitchcock films: the curtain falling too soon. There had to be some scenes after it, explaining if everything would be allright with Melanie; and also assure the viewers something would be done about those birds (there was talk on the radio of sending the army). I didn't even need an explanation for the birds' behavior (would have ruined the movie), but just some resolution would be fine.

You're dead on and I fear the Michael Bay remake is going to be a clone of the bad rip-offs. What a shame, as it's the build up and character development that makes this movie what it is (the same thing can be said about Jaws). As for the abrupt ending, I think Vertigo is the most abrupt of his but I like the imagery this movie ends on (wonderful composition). What's funny is many modern horror movies have stolen the ambiguous ending, either to set up a sequel or because they think it's scarier if they don't explain things (not true, The Exorcist is still scary and it has a resolution).

Anyways, here is an extended ending that was boarded by Hitch but never filmed (still not much of a resolution):

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JupbvUq5OE0&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JupbvUq5OE0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Posted: **Sun Jun 27, 2010 9:13 pm**

Wait wait... What? Michael Bay is remaking a HITCHCOCK film?

...WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?!?

Posted: **Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:15 am**

Brideshead Revisited - It was just okay. Nothing brilliant. I liked the dramatic love triangle and the strength of Emma Thompson's character. And Michael Gambon was great as well, but there wasn't anything too spectacular/special. It was a nice period drama and an overall nice film, but it wasn't floored by it (maybe it was the heavy Catholic-ness? I'm not really sure). Overall, not bad, just not my cup of tea. 7/10

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:22 am**

Remember Me- I had a free rental code, and my first choice was Alice in Wonderland, but that was sold out, so Remember Me was my 2nd choice. I didn't know much about it, but I had seen the trailer, and that had made me want to see it. I liked it. I hadn't seen Rob Pattinson act outside of the Twilight films, and now I can really say that he's a terrific actor. I liked the movie a lot. I didn't know what was going to happen (but very much near the end, Bobby, who had come in partway through, made a comment about what he thought, and it turned out to be true, but I would have liked to have been able to solve that by myself... But I would recommend the film if you like love stories, especially sort of unconventional ones. (And, btw, I came across this coupon the other day, if you're interested in buying the film: http://www.remembermecoupon.com/ for $8 off).

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:15 pm**

Wild Target : Sweet and quirky British remake of a French movie, starring Emily Blunt, Bill Nihey, Rupert Grint and Rupert Everett. I thought it was wonderful; fun, colourful and a perfect crossover between being a terribly British comedy, whilst still paying homage to the original French film. It's about a quiet, stay at home man who happens to be the top hired asassin in the world, who has to kill a girl who tricks a wealthy man into buying a forged painting.....needless to say, it didnt end up being as straight forward as he was used to ! I would reccomend this to anyone who wanted to watch something fun and a bit different. Emily was perfect, as always, in the film, and Rupert Grint proved he will most certainly have a wonderful career outside of Potter.

Posted: **Wed Jun 30, 2010 10:48 am**

She's Out of My League- Just as funny the 2nd time around. <3 this movie!

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2010 5:09 am**

Disney's UP, the whole family enjoyed it.
Another great one from pixar, It was squirrel! funny and entertaining 10/10.
I liked Dug the talking dog, "I have just met you and I love you", "squirrel!" lol, I won’t be able resist going "squirrel!" for days now.

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2010 6:43 am**

Twilight- Getting ready to see Eclipse on Saturday! And Bobby's been avoiding the whole Twilight phenomenon, but I convinced him to watch it, and he liked it okay. So he'll be watching New Moon with me tomorrow night!

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2010 12:48 pm**

Toy Story 3 (2010) - To see my review, please visit the Toy Story 3 discussion thread.

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:24 pm**

blackcauldron85 wrote:Twilight- Getting ready to see Eclipse on Saturday! And Bobby's been avoiding the whole Twilight phenomenon, but I convinced him to watch it, and he liked it okay. So he'll be watching New Moon with me tomorrow night!

And by "convinced" you mean you gave him a lobotomy? XD

Just messing with ya... Of course, I do hope that you go with him to a movie HE wants to see once Twilight is over/ XD

Posted: **Fri Jul 02, 2010 4:05 am**

The soloist.
A true story about a down on his luck classical musician with mantel health problems and the journalist who tries to help him.
Great performances from Robert Downey Jr and Jamie Foxx.
The best performance I have ever seen Jamie Foxx give, at one point I actually forgot he was just playing Nathaniel Ayers.
The only bad thing I have to say about it is it was a little slow in places, but It was a good film, I enjoyed it. 9/10

DVDizzy Forum

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