DVDizzy Forum

Avaitor wrote:

PeterPanfan wrote: Bringing Up Baby - This is probably my least favorite Wilder film I've seen so far

This isn't a Wilder movie though- it's a Howard Hawks picture.

You're right. I have no idea why I thought that.

Anyway, I saw two more tonight:

Lincoln - I thought this was spectacular. Truly Spielberg's best of the 2010's and perhaps his best since the 90's, which is strange to say since there was so much subtlety and understated moments throughout. Daniel Day-Lewis literally became the 16th President and I don't think any other actor could have approached the role with as much confidence and bravery. I found Sally Field nearly as good as Day-Lewis in the minimal amount of screen time she got, and am now undecided as to who I want to win the Oscar between her and Hathaway. Recommended without doubt.

Aliens: Special Edition - I found this to be so much better than its preceder. While Scott definitely has the edge on atmosphere, Cameron really "got" the story, I felt, and Ripley as a developed and feminist character. I've never seen Weaver so great and I'm happy she received an Oscar nomination, especially with the genre of film Aliens is. I enjoyed the character of Bishop and Vasquez, and Newt's storyline was heartbreaking. While I did find some minor faults in the editing process, the film was overall a great experience, and I'm hesitantly excited to see the remaining two films in the series.

Brazil - What an interesting and weird film. I have to say that I've never seen anything like it before. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it because I'm still trying to wrap my head around it. Jonathan Pryce was convincing as Sam Lowry, but the character and film was so different I guess he did a good job. I don't know. Maybe I need to watch it again.

Le Havre - Apparently critics love this film, but I'm a little bit indifferent about it. I thought it was good, but nothing to rave about. It had a simple and easy-to-understand story, but I wasn't too intrigued. Good, but not great.

The Ten Commandments - This was the first time I had seen this (surprising, I know; it's also my dad's favorite film ever), and I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed it. Yeah, it was a bit long, but it was always intriguing and fun to watch. I can definitely see why it's my dad's favorite. I'm surprised it only got one Academy Award.

Arabian Nights - This one was interesting. There's a lot of sex and nudity, and I'm not entirely sure if it actually served the story (which there were a lot of subplots that seemed unnecessary to me). I doubt I'll ever watch it again, but I am going to see the other two films in the Trilogy of Life.

Hunger - The only thing I knew about this film was that it had Michael Fassbender and it was directed by Steve McQueen. I actually quite enjoyed it. There were some rather disgusting goings on and the ending was brutally sad (even though you knew Bobby Sands was going to die). Great performances by the whole cast and a really enjoyable film.

Les Misérables - Yup, I went and saw it again, and found myself enjoying it even more. Even though I got the whole story the first time, it definitely helped watching it again. And, Anne Hathaway was fantastic, of course. I would've paid the full $10 just to see her parts in the film. I'm rooting for her to win the Oscar.

The Sound of Music - I mean, what can I really say? It's a classic and highly enjoyable. It's a little long, but I'm okay with that.

Young Frankenstein - Hilarious! It's definitely one of my favorite comedies ever, and it's quickly becoming one of my favorite films in general. It's great for a laugh, and I've seen it multiple times already.

TheSequelOfDisney wrote:Brazil - What an interesting and weird film. I have to say that I've never seen anything like it before. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it because I'm still trying to wrap my head around it. Jonathan Pryce was convincing as Sam Lowry, but the character and film was so different I guess he did a good job. I don't know. Maybe I need to watch it again.

You should; even after watching the fifth or sixth time, I still noticed new things. Did you spot Terry Gilliam's cameo as the man spying on Sam in Shangri-La Towers?

In the past week, I've watched:

A Fistful of Dollars - A bit slow-paced, but still entertaining. I liked how little we knew about the protagonist, making him a good audience surrogate character and also allowing us to theorise about his past (I think that, as a child, he was in a similar situation to the little boy whose mother was kept hostage by one of the criminal groups). The showdown was excellently directed and I loved the moment when he appeared through the smoke. The camera's pan up at the end was a nice (if perhaps clichéd) touch too.

For a Few Dollars More - I disliked this sequel. It was repetitive, Eastwood's character was paper-thin and his witticisms were weak. I'm not too fond of the formula, because the weak plot is just a contrived way to lead to showdowns and gunfights. It also rode on the back of the previous film's quality and style, lacking originality. Nevertheless, I can understand why some would like it. Probably the most irksome thing is that it relies on shock value for the villains' actions and the bloody violence, yet it's lacklustre compared to modern movies' violence. It should have focused on characterisation more.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - The only truly excellent feature in Leone's spaghetti Western trilogy, in my view at least. Although Clint Eastwood does little besides squint, Eli Wallach is hilarious and sympathetic as Tuco and Lee Van Cleef is perfect for the cliché villain role, smirking maliciously and glaring malevolently at his victims. I was surprised by the development of Tuco and the subtle friendship growing between him and Blondie, which was portrayed beautifully in the scene just after they leave the monastery. Sergio Leone's direction is out of this world: intense close-ups make it personal and gets us to sweat along with the characters, similar somewhat to the camerawork in 12 Angry Men. And of course, there are some superb sequences where much is conveyed without dialogue, merely using music and cinematography: Angel Eyes' first scene with his first victim, the scene where Tuco desperately runs around the graves of Sad Hill Cemetery, and of course the showdown. Up until I watched this, I believed that the greatest scene in cinema history was the crop-duster chase in North by Northwest. Not any more - the showdown between the three titular characters is somehow more suspenseful, the music and tension building and building and building brilliantly.

The Apartment - Funny, charming and cleverly written. Carried almost entirely by Jack Lemmon's sympathetic and naturalistic performance, I don't think it gets close to the excellence of Sunset Boulevard yet it's still a wonderful film.

Rain Man - The first time I've watched this film in full. I was somewhat surprised by the various characters' ignorance of autism, and didn't realise that it wasn't particularly well-known or well-understood back then. It works because Tom Cruise's character goes from selfish and uncaring towards Raymond to loving and almost understanding, yet Dustin Hoffman's brilliant portrayal is doubtlessly superior. It's not flawed, but it's not a masterpiece either - it goes in the same section of films as, say, Misery. It has the same winning combination of sentiment and comedy that Planes, Trains and Automobiles has and I liked it, yet I probably won't watch it again.

12 Angry Men (1997) - The original 1957 version is my favourite film. I watched this remake out of curiousity, expecting it to be well-made but utterly pointless. It was definitely pointless, but it's a very poor film. Many of the actors don't suit their roles and many are quite bad in their roles, particularly the over-the-top, unintentionally hilarious actor as Juror 10. Jack Lemmon seems to be past his sell-by-date and thus the needed tension between Jurors 3 and 8 is missing. No one matches the performances of the original actors, and the additions to the script (including a sound-only prologue of the murder) are unnecessary. The only actor who gives a reasonably good performance is George C Scott, but Lee J Cobb is far better as the same juror. Overall, it's nothing compared to the fantastic original, and nothing more than an embarrassing stain on the filmographies of the few talented cast members.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:
Rain Man - The first time I've watched this film in full. I was somewhat surprised by the various characters' ignorance of autism, and didn't realise that it wasn't particularly well-known or well-understood back then. It works because Tom Cruise's character goes from selfish and uncaring towards Raymond to loving and almost understanding, yet Dustin Hoffman's brilliant portrayal is doubtlessly superior. It's not flawed, but it's not a masterpiece either - it goes in the same section of films as, say, Misery. It has the same winning combination of sentiment and comedy that Planes, Trains and Automobiles has and I liked it, yet I probably won't watch it again.

Yeah Rain Man is a great movie. When I first found out I had Asperger Syndrome I wanted to know more and my parents showed me this movie though Rain Man's autism is not like Aspergers at all


Also you might be surprised to know that it's based on a real story and he was on The Price is Right years ago...

here's the youtube clip with Rain Man on The Price is Right

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/el0rQgN-Lrc" frameborder="0"></iframe>

PeterPanfan wrote:Aliens: Special Edition - While I did find some minor faults in the editing process, the film was overall a great experience, and I'm hesitantly excited to see the remaining two films in the series.

Do yourself a favor and pretend those other movies don't exist. If you like the characters from Aliens then you'll hate Alien 3, which kills ALL of them off in the opening titles. The other movies are embarrassingly bad. Also, the faults in the editing process might be due to you watching the extended cut, which I'm not really a fan of, since it ruins some of the atmosphere and surprises.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - The only truly excellent feature in Leone's spaghetti Western trilogy, in my view at least.

I agree. While the others are good, this one is in a league of its own. I watched the trilogy in order and I knew right from the beginning, as soon a Eli Wallace started talking, that this was going to be different from the others. IDK, I just really like the dynamic they have going between the characters. Not to mention the whole damn thing feels epic as hell lol

Looper (2012) 7/10 - Good movie but I just couldn't get over the bullshit time travel logic. Just didn't makes sense.

Les Miserables-First time with this story. I do admit to misreading the title card in the beginning as being after and not before the French Revolution. Doesnt help that the shot in the end of the memorial was not nearly long enough to register.

Naturally, since I didnt see the stage version or read the book, the epic scale and the songs were the biggest highlights for me. I liked the drama, and I can recognize good-even great-drama, but I'm a very hard person to be moved emotionally by a film. I was touched near the end, but unfortunately I'm kinda jaded.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:You should; even after watching the fifth or sixth time, I still noticed new things. Did you spot Terry Gilliam's cameo as the man spying on Sam in Shangri-La Towers?

Haha, nope. I don't even know what Gilliam looks like.

disneyboy20022 wrote:Also you might be surprised to know that it's based on a real story and he was on The Price is Right years ago...

I thought he was based on Kim Peek:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/de ... n-man-dies

jpanimation wrote:Not to mention the whole damn thing feels epic as hell lol

I think that's down to the score just as much as Leone's direction. It's nearly as good as the music in The Godfather; unlike the other two spaghetti westerns' scores, it's not too repetitive and has a magnificence to it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbozgoJnzTw

My favourite part starts at 1:45.


The Hobbit - I wasn't sure about seeing this; firstly, I somewhat like the LOTR trilogy but dislike Tolkien's writing; secondly, it hasn't exactly been raved about. I think that this film required some editing. It occasionally drags, feels repetitious and despite the fact that Jackson has plenty of time to develop the dwarfs, I didn't really have much fondness or empathy for them at all (actually, come to think of it, I did rather like Bombur and Kili, despite them lacking anything more than one-dimensional personalities). The actor playing Thorin was somewhat wooden - he's like this trilogy's equivalent of the movie-Aragorn - and none of the others had much explored about them. Martin Freeman was one of the chief reasons I ultimately went to see it - he's excellent in BBC's Sherlock - and even though he's a funnier, more likable protagonist than Elijah Wood, it seemed to be a bit of a lazy performance. Like his portrayal of Watson, Freeman's Bilbo is stammering, awkward, uncertain and out-of-his-depth. He does it very well and his is the second best performance in the film, yet I feel as though his talents are wasted in what basically amounts to a self-indulgent, overlong action movie. I fear that Benedict Cumberbatch will be similarly wasted in the sequels.

Unsurprisingly, the best performance was Andy Serkis' as Gollum, and the best scenes were those between Gollum and Bilbo (almost entirely down to the former). Gollum is the main reason I even remotely enjoy Middle-Earth, and Serkis didn't disappoint; he was as good as a decade ago, shifting believably between amusing and creepy, and being delightfully demented and other-worldly. There were a few genuinely amusing moments here and there (although some of the humour was infantile) and it was entertaining enough, but I struggled to care about what was happening because I cared about so few of the characters. Moreover, I always feel as though it's a waste of the cast's talents (Andy Serkis aside), like with the Harry Potter films giving great actors practically cameo roles, and there seems to be an overabundance of violent action...action that was mostly absent in Tolkien's books, displaying that Jackson is faithful in detail yet not in spirit.

^Two under-appreciated Italian composers.

Alien 3: Special Edition - This was quite awful. David Fincher really took the feminist aspect of the series and placed it in the forefront, which is all fine and great... if there's an equally compelling story to highlight it. Needless to say, I found the plot ridiculous, repetitive, and just a disgrace to Ripley's character after everything she's been through. There was no new character I liked and I found myself missing Newt and Bishop (the scene he was in was not enough). There was nothing special about the direction, nor anything interesting about the horror aspects, so overall it is the weakest entry in the series so far and really makes me nervous to watch the final film.

This Is 40 - A few months ago I was really excited for this movie. Then the reviews came in and my excitement dwindled, but during my viewing tonight, the excitement came back (albeit, after a pretty boring beginning). I generally enjoy Paul Rudd in everything I see him in, and this was no exception. In fact, I think this may contain his best performance to date; the same goes for Leslie Mann, who managed to be simultaneously hilarious and touching. It can be a risk casting family members in significant roles (one only needs to look to The Godfather Part III as a failed example), but Mann and her daughters, Maude and Iris, were all great. Jason Segel and Melissa McCarthy were good, but it seemed like they were basically portraying slightly different versions of other characters they usually play. Megan Fox tried her best and Brooks and Lithgow were pretty good. Mann and Rudd really propel the film forward, and though the movie did drag at some points, I would still recommend it to most adults.

I finally got round to watching the recent restoration of David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia. A round of applause for the team at Sony - this is quite possibly the best restoration every carried out, it looks like it could have been shot yesterday. Stunning.

Everything about this film that can be said probably has been said but I'd recommend it based on two things - Peter O'Toole, who's performance as Lawrence ranks among the best ever, and Freddie Young, who's cinematography is breathtaking and all the more impressive when you think about the logistics of location filming in a desert.

PeterPanfan wrote:Alien 3: Special Edition - This was quite awful. David Fincher really took the feminist aspect of the series and placed it in the forefront, which is all fine and great... if there's an equally compelling story to highlight it. Needless to say, I found the plot ridiculous, repetitive, and just a disgrace to Ripley's character after everything she's been through. There was no new character I liked and I found myself missing Newt and Bishop (the scene he was in was not enough). There was nothing special about the direction, nor anything interesting about the horror aspects, so overall it is the weakest entry in the series so far and really makes me nervous to watch the final film.

Before you watch the fourth film please watch this and save yourself some time:

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videol ... surrection

The fourth film is unbelievably bad, despite some of the talent involved.

The Bridge on the River Kwai - Like Lawrence of Arabia, this Lean film has an intimidating running time. There were several slow parts and I think it would have been improved if the story was tightened and unnecessary parts trimmed, but much of this was surprisingly exciting, particularly the extremely suspenseful climax. Alec Guinness' was the only performance that was above average, and he fully immersed himself in the role of a fascinating character; a character who prides himself on following rules and being diplomatic, yet a character whose pride damages his better judgement and destroys him.

@ yamiiguy: I'm happy to see you back. You're one of the smartest and most insightful members here, so I hope you post more frequently.

Thanks. My favourite of Lean's films also happens to be the shortest - the aptly named Brief Encounter. It's a deeply moving, romantic film that charts the illicit love affair between Celia Johnson and Trevor Howard.

^ I love Celia Johnson, the plot and the cinematography in Brief Encounter, but I don't like the attempts at humour and the subplot with Stanley Holloway.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

disneyboy20022 wrote:Also you might be surprised to know that it's based on a real story and he was on The Price is Right years ago...

I thought he was based on Kim Peek:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/de ... n-man-dies

Perhaps the guy on The Price is Right has the same autism that Kim Peeks has/had.

One thing about Autism is that no 2 autistic people are the same. It's not a cookie cutter diagnosis

jpanimation wrote:The fourth film is unbelievably bad, despite some of the talent involved.

I'm a completist and needed to finish the series, so:

Alien: Resurrection (Special Edition) - I was prepared for, basically, shit, but I surprisingly enjoyed it. Perhaps it was because the series could not get worse than Alien 3, but perhaps it was also because of Joss Whedon's tongue-in-cheek script. This film had a lot of comedic moments that I think were necessary; otherwise, it would have truly failed, because where can you really go in a third sequel? Sigourney Weaver had brought a verve to Ripey that was absent in the third film, and I feel like Winona Ryder may have overplayed Call a bit, though she was still memorable. The direction was decent, but there weren't too many significant shots (weird since the director also made the beautiful Amelie). This was not a great film, but I thought it was good, and a much needed improvement upon its preceder.

Amore - I really enjoyed this. Emannuelle Riva and Jean-Louis Trintignant were fantastic and Haneke's direction and script were, as well. I really hope this does not go unnoticed during Academy voting and Riva, Trintignant, and Haneke get nominations.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

disneyboy20022 wrote:Also you might be surprised to know that it's based on a real story and he was on The Price is Right years ago...

I thought he was based on Kim Peek:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/de ... n-man-dies

jpanimation wrote:Not to mention the whole damn thing feels epic as hell lol

I think that's down to the score just as much as Leone's direction. It's nearly as good as the music in The Godfather; unlike the other two spaghetti westerns' scores, it's not too repetitive and has a magnificence to it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbozgoJnzTw

My favourite part starts at 1:45.


The Hobbit - I wasn't sure about seeing this; firstly, I somewhat like the LOTR trilogy but dislike Tolkien's writing; secondly, it hasn't exactly been raved about. I think that this film required some editing. It occasionally drags, feels repetitious and despite the fact that Jackson has plenty of time to develop the dwarfs, I didn't really have much fondness or empathy for them at all (actually, come to think of it, I did rather like Bombur and Kili, despite them lacking anything more than one-dimensional personalities). The actor playing Thorin was somewhat wooden - he's like this trilogy's equivalent of the movie-Aragorn - and none of the others had much explored about them. Martin Freeman was one of the chief reasons I ultimately went to see it - he's excellent in BBC's Sherlock - and even though he's a funnier, more likable protagonist than Elijah Wood, it seemed to be a bit of a lazy performance. Like his portrayal of Watson, Freeman's Bilbo is stammering, awkward, uncertain and out-of-his-depth. He does it very well and his is the second best performance in the film, yet I feel as though his talents are wasted in what basically amounts to a self-indulgent, overlong action movie. I fear that Benedict Cumberbatch will be similarly wasted in the sequels.

Unsurprisingly, the best performance was Andy Serkis' as Gollum, and the best scenes were those between Gollum and Bilbo (almost entirely down to the former). Gollum is the main reason I even remotely enjoy Middle-Earth, and Serkis didn't disappoint; he was as good as a decade ago, shifting believably between amusing and creepy, and being delightfully demented and other-worldly. There were a few genuinely amusing moments here and there (although some of the humour was infantile) and it was entertaining enough, but I struggled to care about what was happening because I cared about so few of the characters. Moreover, I always feel as though it's a waste of the cast's talents (Andy Serkis aside), like with the Harry Potter films giving great actors practically cameo roles, and there seems to be an overabundance of violent action...action that was mostly absent in Tolkien's books, displaying that Jackson is faithful in detail yet not in spirit.

Well JK rowling was hardly gonna expand those roles simply based on who played them, but yeah common criticism.

personally, I just took the hobbit as a fun, often well-paced action adventure and little more than that.

J. K. Rowling?

ajmrowland wrote:Well JK rowling was hardly gonna expand those roles simply based on who played them, but yeah common criticism.

I wasn't asking for Freeman and Cumberbatch's roles to be expanded, I was just expressing disappointment and annoyance with their choice to appear in an action blockbuster rather than something more sophisticated and actor-driven. The characters I wanted to see have expanded roles were the dwarfs, because the majority are one-dimensional and forgettable in the book; splitting the story up into three long parts was a perfect opportunity to develop the individual dwarfs, yet in the first part only one of them, at best, received anything more than 1-D characterisation.