This made me realize my friends are all a bunch of wusses, and if they were scared by that movie, they'd be scared shitless by half the thoughts in my head.
What Movie Did You Just Watch? - Forever
-
xxhplinkxx
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2769
- Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:34 am
- Location: Your mind.
So, for weeks I've been seeing people on facebook and twitter talk about how Paranormal Activity is super scary...
This made me realize my friends are all a bunch of wusses, and if they were scared by that movie, they'd be scared shitless by half the thoughts in my head.
This made me realize my friends are all a bunch of wusses, and if they were scared by that movie, they'd be scared shitless by half the thoughts in my head.
"Hip hop frightens you, doesn't it....Hmmm...Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate. Hate leads to endlessly posting threads about stupid white people. Hmmmmm....."
I love Siren!
-
BelleGirl
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:36 am
- Location: The Netherlands, The Hague
Snow White and the seven dwarfs with audio commentary turned on.
See my growing collection of Disney movie-banners at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/78256383@N ... 651337290/
-
ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
-
slave2moonlight
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4427
- Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:33 pm
- Location: TX
- Contact:
-
jpanimation
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1841
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:00 am
Spent a week long break enjoying some movies:
The Birth of a Nation (1915) 6/10 - what many consider the first big spectacle/epic and also considered racist. I have to agree with both. Its big but filled with uninteresting characters and while the second act is where it picks up with action and character development, its also the section I have most problems with. Its here that they proclaim that the evil carpetbaggers and black people are putting down the white man and forming the KKK is the only way to protect themselves from their tyranny. To see the KKK come charging in at the end like the calvary to protect the trapped white people being attacked by the blacks like they were Indians is ridiculous. Racism aside, the first half is dull and the characters are uninteresting. I also can’t stand the amount of Black face in this movie and would’ve much prefered real black actors be used. Seriously, if you want a civil war epic, stick with watching Gone With the Wind (1939) 8/10 D.W. Griffith is a pioneer in the moving picture business but not a great director.
Intolerance: Love's Struggle Throughout the Ages (1916) 6.5/10 - very epic movie indeed but too epic for its own good. It tries to tell four stories at once but ends up under developing two of them completely and the editing back and forth keeps you from really getting in to the other two. I liked the modern day one the most and really enjoyed the sets on the Babylon one but thats about it. Once again D.W. Griffith makes an epic without depth.
Broken Blossoms or The Yellow Man and the Girl (1919) 7/10 - a little better than his two epics and the smallness in size finally allows him concentrate on character development. Good but not great. I was also surprised to see that it wasn’t really racist as the title may lead you to believe. Truthfully, Orphans of the Storm (1921) 8/10 was the first of Griffith’s work I saw and the only one I really enjoyed.
The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (1921) 5.5/10 - holy crap was I disappointed with this one. The only reason I can see for this being as popular as it is would be Valintino’s involvement. This movie just dragged to me and I couldn’t wait for it to be over.
Nosferatu (1922) 6.5/10 - doesn't live up to the hype. Just not what you would expect from Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927) 8.5/10 director. I guess I just don't enjoy these Dracula films as I didn't like Dracula (1931) 7/10 or Dracula (1992) 6.5/10.
The Ten Commandments (1923) 7/10 - Cecil B. DeMille’s first attempt and a really shallow one at that. The actual Exodus story is only 45mins long while the rest takes place in modern day and is quite shallow at that. Character development in the second part is alright and the parting of the water FX is good but not much else to say. Just don't expect this to be a Ben-Hur (1925) 8/10.
The Ten Commandments (1956) 7.5/10 - much better than his first try and the whole story is that of the Exodus. Probably the most accurate and famous adaption made but its a little long and the pacing is off. The FX used is amazing for the 50’s. To me DeMille's best work will always be The King of Kings (1927) 8/10. Just don't expect this to be a Ben-Hur (1959) 8/10.
The Prince of Egypt (1998) 8/10 - my favorite adaption and my third time seeing it. While accuracy is off, characters dropped, and events changed but all for the better of the overall story as this is by far the most enjoyable interpretation. The characterizations are more human, the music is great and the pacing is excellent. Not to mention the great animation.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923) 7/10 - the first adaption staring Lon Chaney as Quasimodo. My second time seeing it. The Phoebus in this version is a douchebag but the Esmeralda is spot on (I think its the only version to properly portray her as a child). The sets are amazing and Chaney’s makeup is painful looking. Notable for being Universal’s first big movie and throwing Chaney into stardom but not my favorite adaption.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939) 7.5/10 - probably my favorite adaption and the most accurate. My second time seeing it. Charles Laughton is wonderful in making Quasimodo sympathetic with his makeup being spot on and Frolo is wonderfully portrayed here. This is the version that inspired Disney’s adaption.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) 7.5/10 - changes were made to this to make it more child friendly but it ends up being pretty dark despite the changes. My fourth time seeing it. Quasimodo is supposed to be deaf and dumb but not only can he hear and speak, but he can sing. This change really bothers me, along with the addition of the gargoyles. If those two thing were left alone, I could put up with all the other changes, as the music, character designs, and characterizations of Frolo and Cloplin are my favorites. Like Dreamworks take on The Ten Commandments, this version has better pacing then its predecessors but changes a little too much to keep it from being my favorite adaption.
Greed (1924) 7/10 - this movie has problems. Its really hard to judge this movie knowing what has been done to it. The actual filmed scenes are nothing short of brilliant, with camera work and composition all arranged with perfection. Its the still frames that are pulling the rating down as its impossible to know how the acting was don’t or how the scene were handled. There is also a lot of scenes that feel rushed or where the pacing is off but this is not the fault of the director. For all I know the original version is even worse and the scenes that I want would lower my opinion but we have no way of knowing this. Whats hear is good but I really hope they find the lost footage like recently done for Metropolis (1927) 8/10, even if the PQ quality sucks. One has to wonder if this movies ending inspired The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) 8/10 ending.
The Phantom of the Opera (1925) 7.5/10 - one of the first Universal monster movies, I really like it. Flowed really quick and the plot was so simple, it was very enjoyable. Lon Chaney was as fantastic as ever and it didn’t seem as corny as the later movies.
The Big Parade (1925) 8/10 - the other BIG King Vidor silent, this along with The Crowd (1928) 8/10, have some of the greatest silent film acting I’ve ever seen. These two are some of the nicest directed silents I’ve seen, along the lines of Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927) 8.5/10 and Flesh and the Devil (1926) 7.5/10, with some fantastic composition and shots. Pacing is excellent and characters are likable.
M (1931) 8/10 - this is a very good film by Fritz Lang that seems WAY ahead of its time. Peter Lorre’s acting is great and ever shot and transition is perfect. I’ve never seen a 30’s movie like this before and it just feels way ahead of its time in terms of shot editing and written dialogue. Just like when describing Lang’s other iconic film, Metropolis (1927) 8/10, one feels compelled to use the word masterpiece (although not there).
Laura (1944) 8/10 - the first hit from Otto Preminger, this really is a classic of the Noir genre, even though if you pay attention you will pick up who the murderer is very early on. I enjoyed this just as much as his other classics Anatomy of a Murder (1959) 8/10 and Advise & Consent (1962) 7.5/10 who seem just as relevant today as they were when first released. Also, Gene Tierney looks beautiful here and its a shame that her and other screen beauty Grace Kelly weren’t in more movies.
The Killers (1946) 8/10 - this Citizen Kane (1941) 8.5/10 take on Ernest Hemingway’s story is fantastically directed by Robert Siodmak, who made The Spiral Staircase (1945) 7.5/10 just the year before, and was really his only two hits I can remember. This was my second viewing and it was just as enjoyable as the first. This is also the only other of Ernest Hemingway’s movie adaptions besides To Have and Have Not (1944) 8/10, with Bogie, that I can stand. Fantastic little gem.
Night and the City (1950) 7/10 - this was the last of Jules Dassin’s 4 hit streak that included Brute Force (1947) 8/10, The Naked City (1948) 7.5/10, Thieves' Highway (1949) that I’ve never seen and ending with this one. It’s a great movie but I much prefer Dassin’s earlier work. What stands out about this underrated director is the great acting in his movies, the realistic grit that comes with location shooting, and the strong stories. The movies truly are ahead of their times.
Night of the Living Dead (1968) 7.5/10 - still a solid story. This is my second time seeing it and there is not too much to say.
Dawn of the Dead (1978) 6.5 - over the top and goofy. A character study more then a horror. Not as good as I remember it (I may've gotten some of the movie mixed up with the remake). The music is terrible.
Dawn of the Dead (2004) 7/10 - not much of a remake but a solid movie non-the-less. Everything has been changed from the original, even the feel and it works.
Léon (1994) 7.5/10 - also known as The Professional. Léon is a really likable character and all action scenes with him are brilliant. Gary Oldman’s acting is also great but the story begins to drag and get predictable.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) 5/10 - what can I say. From the first spoken words in this film I knew it was going to be one of those films I didn’t like. The IMDB hype doesn’t help and this is one of the few films I have to totally disagree with the user reviews on. Art house film all the way and it really drags which is bad for a film with Jim Carey in it.
The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas (2008) 7.5/10 - its a film about WWII and Nazi concentration camps, so you know the ending isn’t going to be pleasant. It depicts a child's innocence caught up in adult intolerance and the tragedy of it all. Its a very good depiction of innocence but don’t expect the next Schindler's List (1993) 8.5/10.
Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay (2008) 6/10 - just not as good as the first. While Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle (2004) 7.5/10 took place over one night with one destination and a fast pace, this one was all over the place and the pacing and jokes were off. How much of this is because director Danny Leiner of Dude, Where's My Car? (2000) 7/10 fame opted out of the sequel is unknown, but it just doesn’t have the classic-ness of the original.
The Birth of a Nation (1915) 6/10 - what many consider the first big spectacle/epic and also considered racist. I have to agree with both. Its big but filled with uninteresting characters and while the second act is where it picks up with action and character development, its also the section I have most problems with. Its here that they proclaim that the evil carpetbaggers and black people are putting down the white man and forming the KKK is the only way to protect themselves from their tyranny. To see the KKK come charging in at the end like the calvary to protect the trapped white people being attacked by the blacks like they were Indians is ridiculous. Racism aside, the first half is dull and the characters are uninteresting. I also can’t stand the amount of Black face in this movie and would’ve much prefered real black actors be used. Seriously, if you want a civil war epic, stick with watching Gone With the Wind (1939) 8/10 D.W. Griffith is a pioneer in the moving picture business but not a great director.
Intolerance: Love's Struggle Throughout the Ages (1916) 6.5/10 - very epic movie indeed but too epic for its own good. It tries to tell four stories at once but ends up under developing two of them completely and the editing back and forth keeps you from really getting in to the other two. I liked the modern day one the most and really enjoyed the sets on the Babylon one but thats about it. Once again D.W. Griffith makes an epic without depth.
Broken Blossoms or The Yellow Man and the Girl (1919) 7/10 - a little better than his two epics and the smallness in size finally allows him concentrate on character development. Good but not great. I was also surprised to see that it wasn’t really racist as the title may lead you to believe. Truthfully, Orphans of the Storm (1921) 8/10 was the first of Griffith’s work I saw and the only one I really enjoyed.
The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (1921) 5.5/10 - holy crap was I disappointed with this one. The only reason I can see for this being as popular as it is would be Valintino’s involvement. This movie just dragged to me and I couldn’t wait for it to be over.
Nosferatu (1922) 6.5/10 - doesn't live up to the hype. Just not what you would expect from Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927) 8.5/10 director. I guess I just don't enjoy these Dracula films as I didn't like Dracula (1931) 7/10 or Dracula (1992) 6.5/10.
The Ten Commandments (1923) 7/10 - Cecil B. DeMille’s first attempt and a really shallow one at that. The actual Exodus story is only 45mins long while the rest takes place in modern day and is quite shallow at that. Character development in the second part is alright and the parting of the water FX is good but not much else to say. Just don't expect this to be a Ben-Hur (1925) 8/10.
The Ten Commandments (1956) 7.5/10 - much better than his first try and the whole story is that of the Exodus. Probably the most accurate and famous adaption made but its a little long and the pacing is off. The FX used is amazing for the 50’s. To me DeMille's best work will always be The King of Kings (1927) 8/10. Just don't expect this to be a Ben-Hur (1959) 8/10.
The Prince of Egypt (1998) 8/10 - my favorite adaption and my third time seeing it. While accuracy is off, characters dropped, and events changed but all for the better of the overall story as this is by far the most enjoyable interpretation. The characterizations are more human, the music is great and the pacing is excellent. Not to mention the great animation.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923) 7/10 - the first adaption staring Lon Chaney as Quasimodo. My second time seeing it. The Phoebus in this version is a douchebag but the Esmeralda is spot on (I think its the only version to properly portray her as a child). The sets are amazing and Chaney’s makeup is painful looking. Notable for being Universal’s first big movie and throwing Chaney into stardom but not my favorite adaption.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939) 7.5/10 - probably my favorite adaption and the most accurate. My second time seeing it. Charles Laughton is wonderful in making Quasimodo sympathetic with his makeup being spot on and Frolo is wonderfully portrayed here. This is the version that inspired Disney’s adaption.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) 7.5/10 - changes were made to this to make it more child friendly but it ends up being pretty dark despite the changes. My fourth time seeing it. Quasimodo is supposed to be deaf and dumb but not only can he hear and speak, but he can sing. This change really bothers me, along with the addition of the gargoyles. If those two thing were left alone, I could put up with all the other changes, as the music, character designs, and characterizations of Frolo and Cloplin are my favorites. Like Dreamworks take on The Ten Commandments, this version has better pacing then its predecessors but changes a little too much to keep it from being my favorite adaption.
Greed (1924) 7/10 - this movie has problems. Its really hard to judge this movie knowing what has been done to it. The actual filmed scenes are nothing short of brilliant, with camera work and composition all arranged with perfection. Its the still frames that are pulling the rating down as its impossible to know how the acting was don’t or how the scene were handled. There is also a lot of scenes that feel rushed or where the pacing is off but this is not the fault of the director. For all I know the original version is even worse and the scenes that I want would lower my opinion but we have no way of knowing this. Whats hear is good but I really hope they find the lost footage like recently done for Metropolis (1927) 8/10, even if the PQ quality sucks. One has to wonder if this movies ending inspired The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) 8/10 ending.
The Phantom of the Opera (1925) 7.5/10 - one of the first Universal monster movies, I really like it. Flowed really quick and the plot was so simple, it was very enjoyable. Lon Chaney was as fantastic as ever and it didn’t seem as corny as the later movies.
The Big Parade (1925) 8/10 - the other BIG King Vidor silent, this along with The Crowd (1928) 8/10, have some of the greatest silent film acting I’ve ever seen. These two are some of the nicest directed silents I’ve seen, along the lines of Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927) 8.5/10 and Flesh and the Devil (1926) 7.5/10, with some fantastic composition and shots. Pacing is excellent and characters are likable.
M (1931) 8/10 - this is a very good film by Fritz Lang that seems WAY ahead of its time. Peter Lorre’s acting is great and ever shot and transition is perfect. I’ve never seen a 30’s movie like this before and it just feels way ahead of its time in terms of shot editing and written dialogue. Just like when describing Lang’s other iconic film, Metropolis (1927) 8/10, one feels compelled to use the word masterpiece (although not there).
Laura (1944) 8/10 - the first hit from Otto Preminger, this really is a classic of the Noir genre, even though if you pay attention you will pick up who the murderer is very early on. I enjoyed this just as much as his other classics Anatomy of a Murder (1959) 8/10 and Advise & Consent (1962) 7.5/10 who seem just as relevant today as they were when first released. Also, Gene Tierney looks beautiful here and its a shame that her and other screen beauty Grace Kelly weren’t in more movies.
The Killers (1946) 8/10 - this Citizen Kane (1941) 8.5/10 take on Ernest Hemingway’s story is fantastically directed by Robert Siodmak, who made The Spiral Staircase (1945) 7.5/10 just the year before, and was really his only two hits I can remember. This was my second viewing and it was just as enjoyable as the first. This is also the only other of Ernest Hemingway’s movie adaptions besides To Have and Have Not (1944) 8/10, with Bogie, that I can stand. Fantastic little gem.
Night and the City (1950) 7/10 - this was the last of Jules Dassin’s 4 hit streak that included Brute Force (1947) 8/10, The Naked City (1948) 7.5/10, Thieves' Highway (1949) that I’ve never seen and ending with this one. It’s a great movie but I much prefer Dassin’s earlier work. What stands out about this underrated director is the great acting in his movies, the realistic grit that comes with location shooting, and the strong stories. The movies truly are ahead of their times.
Night of the Living Dead (1968) 7.5/10 - still a solid story. This is my second time seeing it and there is not too much to say.
Dawn of the Dead (1978) 6.5 - over the top and goofy. A character study more then a horror. Not as good as I remember it (I may've gotten some of the movie mixed up with the remake). The music is terrible.
Dawn of the Dead (2004) 7/10 - not much of a remake but a solid movie non-the-less. Everything has been changed from the original, even the feel and it works.
Léon (1994) 7.5/10 - also known as The Professional. Léon is a really likable character and all action scenes with him are brilliant. Gary Oldman’s acting is also great but the story begins to drag and get predictable.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) 5/10 - what can I say. From the first spoken words in this film I knew it was going to be one of those films I didn’t like. The IMDB hype doesn’t help and this is one of the few films I have to totally disagree with the user reviews on. Art house film all the way and it really drags which is bad for a film with Jim Carey in it.
The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas (2008) 7.5/10 - its a film about WWII and Nazi concentration camps, so you know the ending isn’t going to be pleasant. It depicts a child's innocence caught up in adult intolerance and the tragedy of it all. Its a very good depiction of innocence but don’t expect the next Schindler's List (1993) 8.5/10.
Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay (2008) 6/10 - just not as good as the first. While Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle (2004) 7.5/10 took place over one night with one destination and a fast pace, this one was all over the place and the pacing and jokes were off. How much of this is because director Danny Leiner of Dude, Where's My Car? (2000) 7/10 fame opted out of the sequel is unknown, but it just doesn’t have the classic-ness of the original.
Last edited by jpanimation on Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:42 pm, edited 5 times in total.
-
Cordy_Biddle
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1597
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 2:02 am
- Location: the balcony of the Bijou...
Dangerous Crossing: Been in my collection for a long time but only just got around to finally watching it...FABULOUS! Jeanne Crain stars as a woman who loses her husband during the honeymoon cruise...yet no-one seems to remember seeing him.
Candleshoe: Disney's junior version of "Anastasia" with Jodie Foster as a streetwise urchin called upon to impersonate the missing grand-daughter of Lady St. Edmund (Helen Hayes). Always fun.
Candleshoe: Disney's junior version of "Anastasia" with Jodie Foster as a streetwise urchin called upon to impersonate the missing grand-daughter of Lady St. Edmund (Helen Hayes). Always fun.
-
ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
-
Margos
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1931
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:12 pm
- Location: A small suburban/rural town in PA
Treasure Planet - Love it. Absolutely adore this film. Like it more each time I see it. Enough said.
http://dragonsbane.webs.com
http://childrenofnight.webs.com
^My websites promoting my two WIP novels! Check them out for exclusive content!
http://childrenofnight.webs.com
^My websites promoting my two WIP novels! Check them out for exclusive content!
-
PixarFan2006
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 6166
- Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:44 am
- Location: Michigan
-
Margos
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1931
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:12 pm
- Location: A small suburban/rural town in PA
A Christmas Carol (2009) - Wow. What can I say? I already said it all on the thread dedicated to the film in the Disney Discussion. Impressive work. Dickens would be most pleased.
http://dragonsbane.webs.com
http://childrenofnight.webs.com
^My websites promoting my two WIP novels! Check them out for exclusive content!
http://childrenofnight.webs.com
^My websites promoting my two WIP novels! Check them out for exclusive content!
-
Cordy_Biddle
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1597
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 2:02 am
- Location: the balcony of the Bijou...
How to Lose Friends & Alienate People: Can't understand why so many people hated this film. Just watched it for the first time and completely enjoyed it! Simon Pegg & Kirsten Dunst have a strong rapport and the storyline (how writers often have to "sell out" in order to be successful) was nicely acheived.
Soapdish: Hadn't seen this romp in a while but it made the perfect double feature with "How to Lose Friends...". This backstage look into the cast-members of a long-running soap opera stars Sally Field as the resident "diva" whose personal life begins to unravel when a former flame (Kevin Kline) is signed back onto the show. Fantastic support-cast includes Whoopi Goldberg as the no-nonsense writer, Robert Downey Jr. as a sycophantic producer; and Cathy Moriarty as the resident femme fatale.
Soapdish: Hadn't seen this romp in a while but it made the perfect double feature with "How to Lose Friends...". This backstage look into the cast-members of a long-running soap opera stars Sally Field as the resident "diva" whose personal life begins to unravel when a former flame (Kevin Kline) is signed back onto the show. Fantastic support-cast includes Whoopi Goldberg as the no-nonsense writer, Robert Downey Jr. as a sycophantic producer; and Cathy Moriarty as the resident femme fatale.
-
ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure
I'll say I enjoyed it a bit more than the first. Not Oscar material, but a fun ride that, while short, was pretty decent.
The only reason I can think of Terrance not being in the next movie is that every secondary character seems to be getting their moment in the spotlight at some given point in the series.
I'll say I enjoyed it a bit more than the first. Not Oscar material, but a fun ride that, while short, was pretty decent.
The only reason I can think of Terrance not being in the next movie is that every secondary character seems to be getting their moment in the spotlight at some given point in the series.
Superman – Epic in every sense of the word. No shot feels unnecessary, the casting is practically perfect and the story is just right. It's pure movie magic.
Superman II – It's more action-oriented than its predecessor but the story doesn't suffer because of it. The characters grow and the threats are bigger, leading to one of the most exciting showdowns in movie history. Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder's performances add an extra layer of emotion and bigger meaning to the story started in "Superman". In a way, it's wrong to see these two movies out of sequence – they compliment each other. However, this movie displays first traces of the goofiness that would overtake the following installments, but even with those cringe-inducing scenes, it's still a worthy follow-up to "Superman".
Superman III – Seriousness of the first two movies is replaced by general silliness. It's hard to like this movie – it does hit a few right notes (Good Superman vs. Evil Superman scene is one of the highlights of the entire series) and it gets really dark in certain places, but falls apart when it tries to differentiate itself from the things that made the first two movies work. All in all, a rather mediocre effort.
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace – There is a decent movie somewhere in here... It actually starts off good, but simply gives up somewhere around the 30-minute mark. I always had a soft spot for Margot Kidder as Lois and it's great to see her back in full force after that glorified cameo in "Superman III". The editing is terribly choppy and one can only hope that WB will release an extended cut sometimes in the future.
Supergirl – Genuine fantasy film and one of my <strike>guilty</strike> pleasures. Still, that doesn't stop me from seeing its shortcomings – for one, it moves at a terribly slow pace. I wouldn't mind if it actually served the story, but several scenes are just fillers and drag the movie down. Another thing is the villain – she's campy as hell and given some of the most ridiculous lines of dialogue I've ever heard, but I'll let that slide because Selena's theatricality is so much fun. Best thing about the movie: Helen Slater. So beautiful and innocent-looking, you just have to love her. Jerry Goldsmith's score is terrific as well.
Steel – I decided to throw this one in here too because of Steel's connection to Superman in the comics. It has never been released to DVD so I had to watch it on tape. For a movie that played in theaters it sure feels like a cheap DTV project – the special effects are bad and the less said about Steel's costume the better. There are a few good performances and the score's pretty good, but even those good points are overshadowed by Shaquille O'Neal's inability to act.
Superman Returns – First time I saw this film, it bored me to death. Surprisingly, this time I actually enjoyed it the most out of five S-movies. It does miss a few points, and the ending is slightly dragged out, but overall, it's a great movie. The casting was good, but both leads feel too young for such demanding roles – I did buy Brandon Routh as Clark Kent, but his Superman was severely lacking. On the other hand, Kevin Spacey fantastically balances between being goofy and truly intimidating, and it may be a sacrilege to say, but he blew Gene Hackman's performance out of water. One thing that bogs this movie down is that it relies too much on referencing Donner/Lester movies instead of standing on its own. I also had a problem figuring out when to watch this movie – should I watch it after "Superman II" and (disrespectfully to the late Christopher Reeve) ignore his other two movies in the series? – but finally I settled upon seeing it last. That way, if you ignore few lines about Martha Kent's death in "Superman III", it actually works better as a follow-up to "Superman IV" and it can also be used as an explanation for Superman's absence in "Supergirl". Another thing is, even if you choose to accept "Superman Returns" as a direct sequel to either "Superman II", there's just too many discrepancies between them. That's why I think it's infinitely better to see it as a stand-alone movie which only uses certain parts of "Superman" and "Superman II"'s backstories to tell a story.
Superman II – It's more action-oriented than its predecessor but the story doesn't suffer because of it. The characters grow and the threats are bigger, leading to one of the most exciting showdowns in movie history. Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder's performances add an extra layer of emotion and bigger meaning to the story started in "Superman". In a way, it's wrong to see these two movies out of sequence – they compliment each other. However, this movie displays first traces of the goofiness that would overtake the following installments, but even with those cringe-inducing scenes, it's still a worthy follow-up to "Superman".
Superman III – Seriousness of the first two movies is replaced by general silliness. It's hard to like this movie – it does hit a few right notes (Good Superman vs. Evil Superman scene is one of the highlights of the entire series) and it gets really dark in certain places, but falls apart when it tries to differentiate itself from the things that made the first two movies work. All in all, a rather mediocre effort.
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace – There is a decent movie somewhere in here... It actually starts off good, but simply gives up somewhere around the 30-minute mark. I always had a soft spot for Margot Kidder as Lois and it's great to see her back in full force after that glorified cameo in "Superman III". The editing is terribly choppy and one can only hope that WB will release an extended cut sometimes in the future.
Supergirl – Genuine fantasy film and one of my <strike>guilty</strike> pleasures. Still, that doesn't stop me from seeing its shortcomings – for one, it moves at a terribly slow pace. I wouldn't mind if it actually served the story, but several scenes are just fillers and drag the movie down. Another thing is the villain – she's campy as hell and given some of the most ridiculous lines of dialogue I've ever heard, but I'll let that slide because Selena's theatricality is so much fun. Best thing about the movie: Helen Slater. So beautiful and innocent-looking, you just have to love her. Jerry Goldsmith's score is terrific as well.
Steel – I decided to throw this one in here too because of Steel's connection to Superman in the comics. It has never been released to DVD so I had to watch it on tape. For a movie that played in theaters it sure feels like a cheap DTV project – the special effects are bad and the less said about Steel's costume the better. There are a few good performances and the score's pretty good, but even those good points are overshadowed by Shaquille O'Neal's inability to act.
Superman Returns – First time I saw this film, it bored me to death. Surprisingly, this time I actually enjoyed it the most out of five S-movies. It does miss a few points, and the ending is slightly dragged out, but overall, it's a great movie. The casting was good, but both leads feel too young for such demanding roles – I did buy Brandon Routh as Clark Kent, but his Superman was severely lacking. On the other hand, Kevin Spacey fantastically balances between being goofy and truly intimidating, and it may be a sacrilege to say, but he blew Gene Hackman's performance out of water. One thing that bogs this movie down is that it relies too much on referencing Donner/Lester movies instead of standing on its own. I also had a problem figuring out when to watch this movie – should I watch it after "Superman II" and (disrespectfully to the late Christopher Reeve) ignore his other two movies in the series? – but finally I settled upon seeing it last. That way, if you ignore few lines about Martha Kent's death in "Superman III", it actually works better as a follow-up to "Superman IV" and it can also be used as an explanation for Superman's absence in "Supergirl". Another thing is, even if you choose to accept "Superman Returns" as a direct sequel to either "Superman II", there's just too many discrepancies between them. That's why I think it's infinitely better to see it as a stand-alone movie which only uses certain parts of "Superman" and "Superman II"'s backstories to tell a story.
That movie's too funny. I love Teri Hatcher's character.Cordy_Biddle wrote:Soapdish: Hadn't seen this romp in a while but it made the perfect double feature with "How to Lose Friends...". This backstage look into the cast-members of a long-running soap opera stars Sally Field as the resident "diva" whose personal life begins to unravel when a former flame (Kevin Kline) is signed back onto the show. Fantastic support-cast includes Whoopi Goldberg as the no-nonsense writer, Robert Downey Jr. as a sycophantic producer; and Cathy Moriarty as the resident femme fatale.
-
BelleGirl
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:36 am
- Location: The Netherlands, The Hague
Into the Wild The true story of a young man who wanted to escape from socieity and tried to survive on his own in Alaska in the wild. Bit long, still a good movie and very gripping.If there's a message to this story it must be that you need other people to help you and you cannot do it on your own. One scene was very telling on that: the protagonist Chris killed a moose, but cound't handle so much meat on his own and everything went to waste or was eaten by wolves and other predators.
See my growing collection of Disney movie-banners at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/78256383@N ... 651337290/
-
Margos
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1931
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:12 pm
- Location: A small suburban/rural town in PA
Who Framed Roger Rabbit - Brilliant film. Combining film noir with whacky cartoon antics!? Genius. I also love how Jessica is played against her characterization. It's a rare character, as we're all so used to tired archetypes.
Lilo and Stitch - If I'm in the right mood for this movie, it's extremely effective. I was a little too tired to fully appreciate it this time, but that Aloha Oe sequence gets me every time.
Lilo and Stitch - If I'm in the right mood for this movie, it's extremely effective. I was a little too tired to fully appreciate it this time, but that Aloha Oe sequence gets me every time.
http://dragonsbane.webs.com
http://childrenofnight.webs.com
^My websites promoting my two WIP novels! Check them out for exclusive content!
http://childrenofnight.webs.com
^My websites promoting my two WIP novels! Check them out for exclusive content!
@ jpanimation:
That are a lot of movies, sir! Have you watched them *all* recently? Are you also a film student, or "just" an enthusiast? It was a treat to read your reviews, although I don't agree with all. I especially don't like M very much. I felt too much time was spend on the police investigation, which was very standard, and the ending with the big speech was very much overdone. I also think Schindler's List is hopelessly overrated, by the way. There are too many films you mention that I haven't seen yet. I really should watch more silent films.
What I've seen lately:
The Apartment (1960)
Watched it for the first time and it blew me right out of my chair. I didn't know it could be such a delight to see such outstanding acting. Shirley MacLaine and, especially, Jack Lemmon make this film one of the best I've seen. They are helped, of course, by the excellent dialogue they're given from Billy Wilder. A nice balance between hilarious jokes and real drama; not many directors can pull that off.
Innocent Voices (2004)
Or 'Voces Inocentes' in Spanish. Very powerful film about the bloody civil war (1980-1992) in El Salvador, between the Reagan/Bush-sponsored military government and the FMLN guerillia insurgency. The film presents the war through the eyes of an 11-year old boy. He knows that, once he turns 12, the army will come for him to recruit them, like all the other children that are taken from their parents by force. The image that remains with me most, is the river that is filled with the bodies of dead children; executed by the military.
A King in New York (1957)
The last film directed by Charlie Chaplin in which he played the leading role himself. Very disappointing, slow, dull film. None of the jokes are funny; I couldn't care less about the characters; Chaplin is overacting; Chaplin's kid can't act at all and the anti-HUAC message (which I don't disagree with) is much too obvious and preachy.
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
Hadn't seen this film in over ten years. I can't remember when I last enjoyed a Disney-film as much as this one. The DVD restoration makes the film look like it was made yesterday. Of course Walt's storytelling and humor is timeless. If Pinocchio wasn't already his best, I would say it's this one. The 'serious' scenes (the hunter who has to murder Snow White; the transformation of the Queen; the dwarfs mourning Snow White) are of the quality as the best live-action film. Whoever says animated films are only for kids, need to be forced to watch Snow White. At the moment when Grumpy breaks down in tears, I almost did so, too.
The Fox and the Hound (1981)
It's a real shame that this film gets a place in the same 'Classics'-line as Snow White. It's unworthy. It's slow, it's dragging, the pacing is awful, there are no likeable characters, there are no jokes, the 'songs' are a laugh and the animation is crude.
A personal journey with Martin Scorsese through American movies (1995)
Didn't know it was that old... Although I consider Scorses a hit-and-miss director, this was truly a delight. I watched the almost 4 hours straight in a row; couldn't stop watching. Great to see so much passion for classic films.
That are a lot of movies, sir! Have you watched them *all* recently? Are you also a film student, or "just" an enthusiast? It was a treat to read your reviews, although I don't agree with all. I especially don't like M very much. I felt too much time was spend on the police investigation, which was very standard, and the ending with the big speech was very much overdone. I also think Schindler's List is hopelessly overrated, by the way. There are too many films you mention that I haven't seen yet. I really should watch more silent films.
What I've seen lately:
The Apartment (1960)
Watched it for the first time and it blew me right out of my chair. I didn't know it could be such a delight to see such outstanding acting. Shirley MacLaine and, especially, Jack Lemmon make this film one of the best I've seen. They are helped, of course, by the excellent dialogue they're given from Billy Wilder. A nice balance between hilarious jokes and real drama; not many directors can pull that off.
Innocent Voices (2004)
Or 'Voces Inocentes' in Spanish. Very powerful film about the bloody civil war (1980-1992) in El Salvador, between the Reagan/Bush-sponsored military government and the FMLN guerillia insurgency. The film presents the war through the eyes of an 11-year old boy. He knows that, once he turns 12, the army will come for him to recruit them, like all the other children that are taken from their parents by force. The image that remains with me most, is the river that is filled with the bodies of dead children; executed by the military.
A King in New York (1957)
The last film directed by Charlie Chaplin in which he played the leading role himself. Very disappointing, slow, dull film. None of the jokes are funny; I couldn't care less about the characters; Chaplin is overacting; Chaplin's kid can't act at all and the anti-HUAC message (which I don't disagree with) is much too obvious and preachy.
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
Hadn't seen this film in over ten years. I can't remember when I last enjoyed a Disney-film as much as this one. The DVD restoration makes the film look like it was made yesterday. Of course Walt's storytelling and humor is timeless. If Pinocchio wasn't already his best, I would say it's this one. The 'serious' scenes (the hunter who has to murder Snow White; the transformation of the Queen; the dwarfs mourning Snow White) are of the quality as the best live-action film. Whoever says animated films are only for kids, need to be forced to watch Snow White. At the moment when Grumpy breaks down in tears, I almost did so, too.
The Fox and the Hound (1981)
It's a real shame that this film gets a place in the same 'Classics'-line as Snow White. It's unworthy. It's slow, it's dragging, the pacing is awful, there are no likeable characters, there are no jokes, the 'songs' are a laugh and the animation is crude.
A personal journey with Martin Scorsese through American movies (1995)
Didn't know it was that old... Although I consider Scorses a hit-and-miss director, this was truly a delight. I watched the almost 4 hours straight in a row; couldn't stop watching. Great to see so much passion for classic films.
-
BelleGirl
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:36 am
- Location: The Netherlands, The Hague
Airport '77 Airplane disaster movie starring great veteran actors like Jack Lemon, Christopher Lee and James Steward, though this definitely is a B-movie.
Luxurious airplane carrying a few priceless paintings along with the passengers is taken over by a few crooks who want the painting and stun crew and passengers with gas, take over the cockpit but manage to sink the plane in the ocean. The pilot (Jack Lemon) when come to his senses, becomes the big rescuing hero.
Did not know that there were video discs already in '77! (as the movie shows)
Luxurious airplane carrying a few priceless paintings along with the passengers is taken over by a few crooks who want the painting and stun crew and passengers with gas, take over the cockpit but manage to sink the plane in the ocean. The pilot (Jack Lemon) when come to his senses, becomes the big rescuing hero.
Did not know that there were video discs already in '77! (as the movie shows)
See my growing collection of Disney movie-banners at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/78256383@N ... 651337290/
-
PixarFan2006
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 6166
- Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:44 am
- Location: Michigan
-
zackisthewalrus
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:00 am
- Location: Everywhere
- Contact:
Mean Girls - Very funny comedy! Lindsay Lohan's performance is great as well as Rachel McAdams'. Amanda Seyfried is great as Karen! 
"No day but today."
My YouTube Channel
My YouTube Channel
-
blackcauldron85
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 16689
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:54 am
- Gender: Female
- Contact:
I was on vacation and haven't watched a movie in a while, but as I'm reading people's posts, I'm thinking that I might as well post my thoughts! I know that we all have our own opinions, but I'm just sharing mine...!
Sure, TF&tH isn't as action-packed as some other films (at least not until near the end), but it's a movie that makes you think. The movie really is about the evolution of characters as they get older, not so much a particular journey they went on, like so many films deal with. I really enjoy "The Best of Friends", and "Appreciate the Lady", while not an amazing song, is nice, but I agree about the other songs- "Goodbye May Seem Forever" as a song is blah, but as a scene, it's amazing. I think that the characters are extremely likeable- even Amos Slade (likeable in terms of him being a villain who isn't as bad as other villains, if that makes any sense- I don't think that he's a dull character, or whatever, is what I'm trying to say). I mean, you really don't like Copper or Tod or Widow Tweed or Big Mama?!? So likeable, IMO. And you think the animation is crude?!? I think that TF&tH is one of Disney's most beautiful-looking films! I'm having a hard time believing this one...what makes you think the animation is crude?!? I'm not trying to attack your opinion, but I'm genuinely curious.
Dumbo and Dopey can get by being mute, but do you think that Quasimodo would be a better character had he been a mute? I think that Disney did the right thing by allowing Quasimodo to speak. I've read the original book, just FYI. Having not experienced much in life, I like how the gargoyles are his form of encouragement- they're part of the light in Quasimodo's life (along with his dreams and carvings); he needs all the goodness and light he can get, what with having to live with Frollo. Maybe some think that a hearing Quasimodo and the gargoyles make the film less believable, but a) we believe things in Disney films that maybe are unrealistic (I mean, everything from a flying elephant to a talking tree, from a flying carpet to a puppet turned into a real boy!), and b) Quasimodo doesn't have to be deaf from the bells- maybe he has really strong eardrums!
Aww.Goliath wrote:The Fox and the Hound (1981)
It's a real shame that this film gets a place in the same 'Classics'-line as Snow White. It's unworthy. It's slow, it's dragging, the pacing is awful, there are no likeable characters, there are no jokes, the 'songs' are a laugh and the animation is crude.
Sure, TF&tH isn't as action-packed as some other films (at least not until near the end), but it's a movie that makes you think. The movie really is about the evolution of characters as they get older, not so much a particular journey they went on, like so many films deal with. I really enjoy "The Best of Friends", and "Appreciate the Lady", while not an amazing song, is nice, but I agree about the other songs- "Goodbye May Seem Forever" as a song is blah, but as a scene, it's amazing. I think that the characters are extremely likeable- even Amos Slade (likeable in terms of him being a villain who isn't as bad as other villains, if that makes any sense- I don't think that he's a dull character, or whatever, is what I'm trying to say). I mean, you really don't like Copper or Tod or Widow Tweed or Big Mama?!? So likeable, IMO. And you think the animation is crude?!? I think that TF&tH is one of Disney's most beautiful-looking films! I'm having a hard time believing this one...what makes you think the animation is crude?!? I'm not trying to attack your opinion, but I'm genuinely curious.jpanimation wrote:The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) 7.5/10 - changes were made to this to make it more child friendly but it ends up being pretty dark despite the changes. My fourth time seeing it. Quasimodo is supposed to be deaf and dumb but not only can he hear and speak, but he can sing. This change really bothers me, along with the addition of the gargoyles. If those two thing were left alone, I could put up with all the other changes, as the music, character designs, and characterizations of Frolo and Cloplin are my favorites.
Dumbo and Dopey can get by being mute, but do you think that Quasimodo would be a better character had he been a mute? I think that Disney did the right thing by allowing Quasimodo to speak. I've read the original book, just FYI. Having not experienced much in life, I like how the gargoyles are his form of encouragement- they're part of the light in Quasimodo's life (along with his dreams and carvings); he needs all the goodness and light he can get, what with having to live with Frollo. Maybe some think that a hearing Quasimodo and the gargoyles make the film less believable, but a) we believe things in Disney films that maybe are unrealistic (I mean, everything from a flying elephant to a talking tree, from a flying carpet to a puppet turned into a real boy!), and b) Quasimodo doesn't have to be deaf from the bells- maybe he has really strong eardrums!
