| Author |
Message |
    
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3546
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 10:18 pm: | 
|
Shakespeare In Love (1998): Wonderful, literate comedy about the creation of the most famous tragedy ever written, showcasing a young William Shakespeare (a charming Joeseph Fiennes) suffering from an acute case of writer's block...until he falls for a betrothed noblewoman named Viola (a radiant Gwyneth Paltrow), with their clandestine trysts providing the material for Shakespeare's newest play, "Romeo & Juliet". Sporting a wonderful screenplay by Tom Stoppard and Marc Norman and an excellent supporting cast (a seriously fugly Geoffrey Rush as a theater owner up to his eyeballs in debt, Colin Firth as the broke nobleman whom Viola has been promised to, and Judi Dench stealing an Oscar for her frisky extended cameo as Queen Elizabeth), Shakespeare has often been derided as the film that "stole" Saving Private Ryan's Best Picture Oscar due to Miramax's lavish PR campaign, but that's not being entirely fair, as Shakespeare genuinely earned it's accolades. Funny, sunny, and emotionally charged, it's a tremendous piece of romantic fantasy. A
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
Tim (Tim)
Cinematographer
Username: Tim
Post Number: 1154
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 04:01 pm: |
|
re: Shakespeare in Love
Hmmmmm...for what it was I think it did all it could (what in hell does that mean!?!?). Plus I think it suffered a bit of unfair critical backlash for winning the Oscar instead of Saving Private Ryan. But in reflection it seems so...so...kind of light and superficial. It's the type of movie I enjoyed watching, but can't imagine watching it twice. Not sure what conclusion to draw from that. |
AdamL (Adaml)
Cinematographer
Username: Adaml
Post Number: 2124
Registered: 08-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 05:20 pm: |
|
I've seen it about 6 times. There's nothing light or superficial about the quality of script or acting or indeed score, production and cinematography. It's not a hard hitting film but then what comedies are? This is the probably the best comedy I've ever seen. I thought it deserved its win and would have also awarded about three more nominations in the acting categories above the three it got. |
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3549
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 12:43 pm: |
|
28 Days Later (2003): Getting ready for the release of the surprisingly good-looking sequel 28 Weeks Later by revisiting director Danny Boyle's original film, a haunting apocalyptic vision of a London overrun with a virulent plague that turns the infected into screeching, blood-vomiting ghouls. A small group of survivors, including a bike messenger (Cillian Murphy) who awakens from a coma into a nightmare, a fierce young woman (the lovely Naomie Harris) and a doting father (Brendan Gleeson) and his young daughter (Anna Paquin lookalike Megan Burns) band together in an effort to escape the cities and the largest concentrations of the infected, but find themselves in an even more dangerous situations when their would-be saviors, a group of ragtag soldiers (led by Christopher Eccleston), turn out to be more depraved than the monsters stalking through the nearby woods. Boyle's film owes a great debt to George Romero's Dead series, as well as The Omega Man, but amps up the terror by replacing Romero's shambling, often-comical zombies with frighteningly swift "infected" who leap with twitchy agility as they attack the uninfected with mindless savagery. With his jittery, handheld camerawork and crisp editing, Boyle fills his film with a shuddery nightmare quality, and he's not afraid to make it hard for the audience by killing off likeable characters or shifting the narrative thrust radically in the third act. A must for horror fans. A-
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
C.J. (Thief)
Movie Star
Username: Thief
Post Number: 3388
Registered: 07-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Zathura An enjoyable film in the same line as Jumanji. Three siblings are launched into outer-space in their house after they kickstart an old board game they find in the basement. As their game progress, every thing the game says, happens in real life... be it a robot getting out of control, a meteor shower, or being attacked by Zorgons, a race of lizard-like aliens. I thought the emotional bond between the two brothers was portrayed nicely, but the older sister seems to be there just for the purpose of having a female actress somewhere. Tim Robbins makes a small cameo as their parent. The special effects are pretty good also. Grade: B
Monster House A surprisingly excellent animated film about a trio of kids venturing into the mystery of an old haunted house right across the street. Curious kid DJ spends lots of time spying his old, cranky neighbour Nebbercracker (Steve Buscemi) who seems overly protective of his lawn and house surroundings. One day, an unsuspected event prompts DJ and best friend Chowder to try and explore the house, together with newly met girl friend, Jenny. The animation is top-notch and the voice-over was excellent. The three lead kids are voiced by a mostly unknown cast, but the film also features stars like Buscemi, Maggie Gyllenhaal as an obnoxious nanny, Jason Lee as her stoned-out boyfriend, Jon Heder as a freaky, geeky arcade player, and Kevin James and Nick Cannon as a pair of goofy cops. I was surprised at how serious the film turned out close to the end. A truly excellent animated film for both kids and adults. Grade: A
JUST MARRIED! -- If you see me posting, my wife must be working.
|
AdamL (Adaml)
Cinematographer
Username: Adaml
Post Number: 2127
Registered: 08-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 12:39 pm: |
|
I just saw Saw III as well C.J.. Liked it a lot less than you though. I have no idea what attracts me to this series. I gave the first a C, the second an F yet I still rented the third. Part of me really believes there's a great idea for a horror film here. The first half an hour of the first film was excellent and I just keep hoping they can find that again. They can't. The acting in this is just appalling - even worse than Cary Elwes' laughable efforts in number 1. Whoever played Amanda should be banned from acting forever. I guess you don't expect much in the way of acting brilliance but you expect more than what she was capable of. About an hour in I was wondering what on earth possessed me. It was rubbish. F
Caught The Last Kiss. I really enjoyed Garden State - 2nd best film of '04 for me and Portman was my best actress. This is nowhere near as good though and neither Barrett or Bilson are anywhere near as capable as Portman. Maybe it isn't fair to compare the two movies - only Zach Braff connects the two - but it does deal with similar themes and his character in each is similar. Just so much of this doesn't work though. All the subplots are too thin. The supporting characters, aside from the Tom legend Wilkinson and Blythe Danner obviously, are rubbish - especially Micahel Weston. Every time Casey Affleck spoke I had to turn on the subtitles. The main story though works fairly well and contains some good scenes. Kind of played like a decent first draft. C+
Saw Manhattan. Don't have much to say about it other than I liked Diane Keaton and I wonder why Woody Allen attracts so many women in his films. I guess it's 'cause he writes them. B
Stage Fright is one of the worst Hitchcock films I've seen. Crap acting, especially from Richard Todd. Totally uninteresting plot with no suspense cause you couldn't care less what happens to any of them. F
The Quiet American (2002). Umpteenth viewing for me. A+++ |
Oh yeah? (Thezookieman)
Movie Star
Username: Thezookieman
Post Number: 5003
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 02:14 pm: |
|
monty, in answer to your whited-out niggle about Deja Vu: because Paula is hella fine 
fishstick, re: your criticism of The Invisible: what the hell is a "took"? "Snood", I've heard of, but a "took"??
The best line in this thread this week:
quote:"Every time Casey Affleck spoke I had to turn on the subtitles."
P.S.: monty, I've been searching for pictures of Sophia Bush's, um, assets, but have not been successful. Please oblige
Standing in the shadow of the One True City...
|
Kathy (Kk1024)
Cinematographer
Username: Kk1024
Post Number: 1857
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 12:00 am: |
|
Wow, I didn't like Spiderman 3 at all. I think some scenes (Bad Peter) were ludicrously bad. Too many villains. Telegraphed foreshadowing. C
adam - I think Manhattan is even better than Annie Hall and on Woody's top tier. I think you have to be of a certain age to fully appreciate that film. I agree with you on The Quiet American. It should be required viewing. |
C.J. (Thief)
Movie Star
Username: Thief
Post Number: 3392
Registered: 07-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 12:12 am: |
|
Adam Re: Saw III, I wasn't really expecting much and I just borrowed it from a friend. I basically agree with you about the acting, but I do think the premise is promising. And I enjoy gory films, lol!
Now... I caught the last half of Jaws on local television and THAT's a really good film.
JUST MARRIED! -- If you see me posting, my wife must be working.
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3556
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 12:44 am: |
|
Ugh, watching Jaws in pan & scan is unforgivable. I remember watching the movie on a letterboxed VHS tape back in 1995 and being blown away at how much extra picture there was.
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
C.J. (Thief)
Movie Star
Username: Thief
Post Number: 3393
Registered: 07-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 07:49 am: |
|
Ummm, that's ok. I've seen the film a thousand times and I own it in widescreen so relax. 
JUST MARRIED! -- If you see me posting, my wife must be working.
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3558
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 10:15 pm: |
|
In Theaters:
-The Lives Of Others: Engrossing, mournful drama about the Big Brother-era Germany of the mid-80's, and how a surveillance man comes to emphasize with his mark. A spiritual cousin to Francis Ford Coppola's The Conversation, the movie's Oscar win for Best Foreign Language Film was well-deserved. A-
On DVD:
-Shrek (2001): Hard to believe there was time before these movies, isn't it? eloved at the time before getting swamped by a fierce, wildly unwarranted backlash, the original Shrek remains a winning animated comic fantasy about a cantankerous ogre (given a warm Scottish burr by Mike Meyers) and his endearing/annoying talking donkey sidekick named...uh, Donkey (Eddie Murphy in full comic flower) enlisted by a diminutive wannabe king named Farquuad (a sneering John Lithgow...and say that name really fast) to rescue a fair Princess named Fiona (a charmingly feisty Cameron Diaz) from a castle guarded by a fierce dragon. But (you guessed it), Shrek and Fiona start to fall for each other on the trip back to Farquuad's Disney World-ish kingdom Dulac. Witty, gorgeously animated and designed, Shrek manages to poke satirical holes in 60 years' worth of Disney fairy tale tropes while still fitting perfectly well into the same broad template, and the excellent voice cast creates such an indelible lineup of characters it's no wonder it's spawned two sequels. A
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
Yeah! (Sanboy)
Cinematographer
Username: Sanboy
Post Number: 2471
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 11:30 pm: |
|
re: Woody
(Huh-huh!)
That man, like many of my faves, is capable of truly great heights and ludicrous, hollow kitsch.
But Zelig is a true masterpiece.
Why is “abbreviation” such a long word?
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3560
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 11:52 pm: |
|
BEAVIS: Hey, Butt-head, if you were, like, a chick, would you go out with your own stepdad...?
BUTT-HEAD: Uhhhhh, not if his name was "Woody".
BEAVIS: What if it was "Stiffie"?
BUTT-HEAD: Uhhhh...maybe. "Stiffie Allen".
BEAVIS: Yeah, "Stiffie Allen"! "Woodrow Allen"...!
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
Son Of... (Docscribe)
Studio Mogul
Username: Docscribe
Post Number: 8325
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 11:58 pm: |
|
Hot Fuzz
After about 3 minutes, I had the same goofy-bemused smile on my puss as Timothy Dalton sustained practically throughout.
The toughest thing with screen parody - and the rarest to achieve - is first and foremost working as the very thing it is sending up...which is why so few screen parodies amount to more than a schticky grab-bag of lazily retraced 'greatest hit' scenes, possessing neither the discipline of execution nor a viable dramatic focus to play as a fully functional movie-movie. Before Hot Fuzz the last big movie parody to get it right end-to-end with such cheekily playful verve was Galaxy Quest, (which managed to simultaneously send up its Star Trek-ish sub-genre of sci-fi while still playing as a better than average Trek-style movie). You have to squarely nail down both ends of this tacky movie lineoleum or else it really curls up on you in spectacularly unappealing ways (like the Scary Movie series).
Wright and Pegg seem to know exactly what they are doing here - the torn-response pay-offs were everywhere. Honestly, I don't understand why Hot Fuzz has only been a middling (though durable) 'hit' in North America (is it yet another brilliant stunt destined to find a wider cult following only on DVD?) because they somehow audaciously transplanted the entire 80s Yank action movie ouvre to a bucolic U.K. setting. So just taken as a Bay/Bruckheimer-redux action movie - however delightfully absurd (and apparently innocuous) the locale - it was still a corker of identifiable cop-action character and situation tropes! In every scene, they used the collective filmmaking 'language' of this era of moviemaking extremely well to generate a continual push-pull, ying and yang between real-real and reel-real (while still delivering some stunningly gory-glorious action setpieces). American audiences who were practically weaned on this sh*t should be lapping it up because it does deliver...however skewed the P.O.V. And although I think the movie landed primarily in the realm of popcorn parody, there were still enough carefully layered satirical elements (especially in the final third) to court the 'Kubrickian'.
Shaun of the Dead was very, very good entertainment, and from the evidence here, certainly no fluke - the talent were all working consistently off the same strange page - but I enjoyed this one even more. In fact, it's right up there next to Zodiac as the best film I've seen so far this year.
"Never thought I'd get around to changing my siggy, did ya?"
|
AboutFilm host (Carlo)
Moderator
Username: Carlo
Post Number: 7130
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 12:27 am: |
|
I happen to completely agree, but it has had a lukewarm response among people I know, on both sides of the Atlantic.
AboutFilm President and Sugar Daddy (www.aboutfilm.com); OFCS Member (www.ofcs.org)
|
Yeah! (Sanboy)
Cinematographer
Username: Sanboy
Post Number: 2472
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 12:37 am: |
|
Beavis: "If you were a girl, would you go out with your stepdad?"
Buthead: "Not if his name was 'Woody.' "
Both: "Huh-huh! Huhuhuhuhuhuh!"
Why is “abbreviation” such a long word?
|
Son Of... (Docscribe)
Studio Mogul
Username: Docscribe
Post Number: 8327
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 12:48 am: |
|
Carlo re:
quote:"but [Hot Fuzz] has had a lukewarm response among people I know, on both sides of the Atlantic."
I can only imagine that occuring if those folks were just a tad embarassed to admit that Wright and Pegg's airtight script managed to 'get' to them on its fundamental level as a buddy-cop-actioner. These guys weren't winking about any of that stuff...
And although Bruckheimer-Bay and their ilk weren't deep - nor particularly good - storytellers, they weren't as stupid and uncreative as they've generally been portrayed. They definitely had a savviness about what audio/visual techniques would sell 'tension' in an otherwise mundane scene or shot, which these guys proved the viability of repeatedly, and with enormous affection*.
* e.g...all those smash cut door openings that sounded like jet flaps despoiling, or beer glasses filling with the roar of floodgates parting. The editing and sound mix alone on this thing were shrewdly realized elements of not just parody but also effective use of those same dumb (but proven) techniques for generating vague unease.
"Never thought I'd get around to changing my siggy, did ya?"
|
AdamL (Adaml)
Cinematographer
Username: Adaml
Post Number: 2128
Registered: 08-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 08:36 am: |
|
quote:[Lives of Others] Oscar win for Best Foreign Language Film was well-deserved. A-
Monty, didn't you give Pan's an A?
quote:Shaun of the Dead was very, very good...but I enjoyed this one even more
With me you and Carlo on board no-one can possibly deny that Hot Fuzz was better! |
Son Of... (Docscribe)
Studio Mogul
Username: Docscribe
Post Number: 8329
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 09:13 am: |
|
We certainly do have an odd alliance of opinion on this one Adam. But you know I actually held off seeing Hot Fuzz for a few weeks because every dimbulb reviewer kept comparing it unfavourably to Shaun of the Dead - claiming that it wasn't as funny. Well, no, it wasn't "as funny"...it was "funnier"! Consitently so, with sharper wit and character detailing throughout.
"Never thought I'd get around to changing my siggy, did ya?"
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3562
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 09:50 am: |
|
AdamL:
quote:Monty, didn't you give Pan's an A?
Indeed I did, and I do think it's slightly better than Lives, but that doesn't mean that Lives' Oscar win was unwarranted. Wonderful movie.
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
AdamL (Adaml)
Cinematographer
Username: Adaml
Post Number: 2129
Registered: 08-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 01:48 pm: |
|
quote:We certainly do have an odd alliance of opinion on this one Adam. But you know I actually held off seeing Hot Fuzz for a few weeks because every dimbulb reviewer kept comparing it unfavourably to Shaun of the Dead - claiming that it wasn't as funny.
I had exactly the same experience. Every single review I've seen rated it lower. Odd that we all disagree.
And good to see a favourable mention of the excellent Galaxy Quest in your original review. Certainly amongst the very best (i.e. top 5) comedies of the past decade in my opinion. |
AdamL (Adaml)
Cinematographer
Username: Adaml
Post Number: 2130
Registered: 08-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 01:57 pm: |
|
quote:Indeed I did, and I do think it's slightly better than Lives, but that doesn't mean that Lives' Oscar win was unwarranted. Wonderful movie.
Well I liked it more than Pan's but that's not that difficult. I liked Others but do feel the reviews are a bit kind. I gave it a B+ when I wrote on here originally but would give it a B now. I didn't like the lead actress. It was engaging rather than gripping. Of te foreign films of last year I prefered 36, District B13 and Black Book. |
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3564
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 10:30 pm: |
|
In Theaters:
-28 Weeks Later: Smashing sequel to Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later finds a ravaged London nearly 7 months following the viral outbreak that decimitated it finally beginning to allow displaced citizens to re-enter the country and begin rebuilding their shattered lives, including the two children (Imogen Poots and Mackintosh Muggleton) of a man (Trainspotting's great Robert Carlyle) who made a fateful, selfish decision which left the fate of his wife (Catherine McCormick) in doubt while in hiding from the infected during the height of the plague. Now, the three are living in a specially-constructed "safe zone" in the middle of London with the other newly-arrived citizens (outside the fences and walls lays the ruins of the city), being babysat by a batallion of American soldiers there to help restore order. But (you guessed it), the virus is only in temporary remission, and a "carrier" is the first link in the virus' spread throughout the compound, causing the belagured American soldiers to adopt a "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" mentality to prevent the infected from surging out into the city and beyond. A smart second chapter in the 28 series, directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo (who's 2002 film Inacto is now on my "gotta rent" list) evokes the same shuddery sense of Boyle's original, with similar shakey-cam zombie attack sequences and a relentless pace. This is like Aliens to Boyle's Alien, meaning some of the existential dread of the original is lost, but the film more than makes up for that with it's superb action sequences and surprisingly strong emotional beats (with the two children, who may have the origin of a cure, being delivered out of harm's way by a sympathetic doctor and an AWOL sniper who refuses his superiors' orders). This is an unusually great sequel, and it's startling final image sets up the potential for a great zombie trilogy in the style of George Romero's Dead series. 28 Months Later, anyone? I'm all for it. A-
On DVD:
-Shrek 2: More sequel superiority with this charming follow-up to the 2001 original finding Shrek (Mike Meyers) and Fiona (Cameron Diaz) enjoying their honeymoon until they're summoned to the kingdom of Far Far Away by Fiona's parents (John Cleese, Julie Andrews). Shrek's coarse manners naturally don't make much of an impression on the King, who plots to hire a flamboyant feline assassin named Puss 'n' Boots (a riotous Antonio Banderas) to off him, but Shrek tries to make amends by using a potion from Fiona's Fairy Godmother (Jennifer Saunders) to transform himself into a handsome prince. Oh, and Donkey (Eddie Murphy) is there for moral support and low humor. Delightful film manages the considerable task of juggling new characters with old ones in this tightly-scripted and wonderfully-scored (Saunders' performance of 80's pop anthem "Holding Out For A Hero" is a particular highlight) adventure. A
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3573
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 10:18 pm: |
|
Shrek The Third: Funny, engaging entry in the Shrek franchise nevertheless displays a few noticable cracks in the foundation. In this one, the amphibious King Harold (John Cleese) croaks, but not before telling son-in-law Shrek (Mike Meyers) that he wants him to take up his duties as the new King. Shrek is naturally not up to the task, so he, Donkey (Eddie Murphy) and Puss (Antonio "Nasal Allergy Symptoms" Banderas) set off to find the cousin of a knocked-up Princess Fiona (Cameron Diaz), who turns out to be one Arthur Pendragon (voiced with amusing adolescent petulance by Justin Timberlake). Thing is, "Artie" doesn't want to have anything to do with taking on his Kingly duties either, despite Shrek's attempts to pass the buck onto him. Did I mention how a spell by Artie's high school teacher Merlin (Eric Idle) causes Donkey and Puss to temporarilly switch bodies, or how wronged Shrek 2 baddie Prince Charming (Rupert Everett) rallies a gaggle of fellow fairy-tale villains (Captain Hook, the Headless Horseman, ect.) to take over the kingdom of Far Far Away so he can snag the crown for himself, or how Fiona and her princess girlfriends (Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella) band together to fight for the kingdom? It all gets rather thick in this typically overstuffed threequel, which is full of random funny business (I especially cackled at the Gingerbread Man's life flashing before his eyes and Artie's line, "Help, I'm being kidnapped by a monster who's trying to relate to me...!"), but never quite attains the rousing spirit of it's two predecessors (the ending, in particular, just kind of trails off, lacking the crowd-pleasing panache of the previous karaoke finales). Shrek 3 is undoubtedly fun, and will please fans of the series, but, please, no Shrek 4. B+
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
Oh yeah? (Thezookieman)
Movie Star
Username: Thezookieman
Post Number: 5023
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 03:46 pm: |
|
It's funny how the tabloids are going on and on about how Timberlake and his ex Diaz were "forced" to work together on Shrek the Third, when anyone who knows anything about how voiceover gigs for animation knows that they were never in the same place at the same time, having the studios to themselves whenever they came in to do readings for their parts
Standing in the shadow of the One True City...
|
C.J. (Thief)
Movie Star
Username: Thief
Post Number: 3394
Registered: 07-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 06:52 pm: |
|
Monty, Antonio Banderas has said that they are already working on Shrek 4, possible a fifth, and a Puss n' Boots spin-off.
JUST MARRIED! -- If you see me posting, my wife must be working.
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3574
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 10:15 pm: |
|
*sigh* Yeah, I know that Dreamworks won't stop sucking at Shrek's teat for a good long while, but I kind of wish they'd quit while they were ahead. They made two wonderful films and one very good one out of this whole "Fractured Fairy Tale" concept, but, honestly, how much farther can you go with this? Third was already overstuffed with extraneous characters from the previous two movies, so I can't imagine how badly the fourth and (God help me) fifth movies will suffer (remember Lethal Weapon 4?). Even a Puss 'n' Boots spin-off is iffy. Despite how much I love the character, I doubt he could support an entire film by himself. Now that Shrek and Fiona are parents, where the hell do you go from here?
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
AboutFilm host (Carlo)
Moderator
Username: Carlo
Post Number: 7133
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 03:43 am: |
|
I dunno, I don't much like the Shrek movies. There's something about a post-modern, winky winky fairy tale that just doesn't mesh for me.
28 Weeks Later... I was really surprised by how good this was. I think I may need to go back and watch the original again, given that I gave it a somewhat modest B. This managed to stay faithful to the feel of the original while making it bigger, and succeeded in being not just a horror movie, but a human drama as well.
AboutFilm President and Sugar Daddy (www.aboutfilm.com); OFCS Member (www.ofcs.org)
|
Son Of... (Docscribe)
Studio Mogul
Username: Docscribe
Post Number: 8343
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 04:36 am: |
|
Monty re:
quote:"Now that Shrek and Fiona are parents, where the hell do you go from here?"
...uhm, how about the adjustment to parenting as the little ogres grow up? They'll no doubt lard on more broadly identifiable modern middle-class domestic issues, wildly refracted through the Shrek funhouse mirror...I mean, these CGI franchises always go the same *family*-gag-*family*-puke utterly predictable route. #4 will practically write itself (even though it will take six uncredited scribes to accomplish that dully obvious task).
My near-fun for the night was Disturbia. I say "near", because it was only a 2/3rds decent updating and reimagining of Rear Window. Nice try...sort of.
In '54 audiences got a genuine, vicarious charge out of watching a respected A-list star and man of general decency (Jimmy Stewart) succumb to the lure of a social and ethical no-no: obsessive voyeurism. In 2007 though, this is no longer an aberrant, unwholesome pursuit; in the cam era it's been generationaly embraced as the 'creepy-sweet' norm (as the movie, with its fetish for all the technology of peeping, does too). Heck, our non-star here was already far enough down that sorry road when he crashed the SUV and killed his dad because he was paying more attention to pa's phone conversation than the road ahead. Immediately, I had almost zero sympathy for this main character...he just reminded me of every other self-absorbed scooter pie jerk I see driving with a cell phone spot welded to his ear. Okay, okay, so that's supposed to be our non-star's tragic flaw that he will be foreced to violently confront and redeem himself over...nah, too serious a theme for this movie, more concerned as it was with seeing him get the cooly exhibitionistic uber-babe he'd been spying on. Really, this otherwise interesting undertaking completely fell apart by the final act because it was just so determined to have its pie and wank in it too.
For one thing, plot logic completely dissolved into absurdity (IRL, our hero and his mom would have been soooo dead in that climactic situation, or at very least left far more traumatized and residually scarred than that cutesy final scene suggested). And this serial killer - despite a chillingly confrontational scene with exhib-babe in her car - just made less and less and less sense - his motives and modus operendi just seeming plain ridiculous when the movie bothered to address them at all. Even the obligatory investigating cop's death was just lame beyond belief.
Bottom line here: sturdy, proven premise, plus some half-assed interesting second act developments, all sabotaged as the movie stumbled into the most ludicrous third act in recent thriller memory. And it's just amazing that this blatant celebration of the sorry-ass peeping tom ethics of the YouTube generation seems to be hanging around as a modest hit. For all its production elan - and it was competently made - everytime it got too close to a little uncomfortable, character-altering truth, it just wussed.
All tease, no release.
"Never thought I'd get around to changing my siggy, did ya?"
|
Nicola_D (Nicola_d)
Key Grip
Username: Nicola_d
Post Number: 690
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 04:03 pm: |
|
28 Weeks Later: Gripping, unrelenting horror flick. A spare, back to basics survivor story, with some no-holds-barred grand guignol effects. Better than expected. Three and one-half stars. |
Tim (Tim)
Cinematographer
Username: Tim
Post Number: 1158
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 08:55 pm: |
|
28 Weeks Later: I'm sort of wavering on this one. Although it held my interest, and moved along at an exciting pace, ultimately I think it bit off more than it could chew (ha-ha).
The great thing about the first one was that the film makers cared about the little details, both in character and in setting. I loved scenes like the one where Frank shows Jim his futile rain harvesting system, or the longer lonely shots of Jim exploring a deserted London. And despite all the gore in Weeks, there wasn't a scene nearly as haunting as when Frank realizes he is infected and is about to go crazy in front of his daughter (in Days).
In general I also think the Zombies-As-Metaphor thing has gotten a little carried away. The obvious parallels to Iraq were too heavy handed and contrived. It didn't feel like a natural (or frankly logical) part of the story, but a desire by the film makers to vent some global political frustrations.
What I did like was how Robert Carlyle's character makes a tough decision that ends up propelling a big part of the story. How that played out was fantastic, and I wish that would have been the focus of the entire film. They could have really played up the drama of how that decision unfolded along the story arc.
Probably a straight B for me. |
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3577
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 10:13 pm: |
|
While Weeks did indeed lack the eerie, haunting quality of the empty London streets in Days, just as an example of sheer horror kinetics, I thought it delivered the goods something fierce. And I thought the film did have one sequence that matches the Days scene Tim cites above, where the sniper gets out of the car and starts pushing, winking at the children despite his certain death. It's odd how Weeks was the sequel I was least looking forward to this month, yet it's probably the one I've enjoyed the most.
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
AboutFilm host (Carlo)
Moderator
Username: Carlo
Post Number: 7134
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 10:23 pm: |
|
As sequels go, 28 Weeks Later was a triumph. Emotionally harrowing, as well as horrifying. These two are by far the best of the modern run of zombie (or quasi-zombie) films. Yes, a few flaws, but come on... these aren't even in the same universe as Resident Evil.
AboutFilm President and Sugar Daddy (www.aboutfilm.com); OFCS Member (www.ofcs.org)
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3580
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 11:01 pm: |
|
I just wonder if they can pull off the hat trick with 28 Months Later (which is inevitable, considering that startling final shot). This could be the first great zombie trilogy since George Romero's Dead series.
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
Son Of... (Docscribe)
Studio Mogul
Username: Docscribe
Post Number: 8346
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 01:34 am: |
|
Pretty decent string of 28 Days sequels so far...for what started as a throwaway Sandra Bullock vehicle.
Still don't get what all these zombies have to do with alcohol rehab though...
"Never thought I'd get around to changing my siggy, did ya?"
|
C.J. (Thief)
Movie Star
Username: Thief
Post Number: 3395
Registered: 07-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 10:02 am: |
|
This weekend I saw Crash (the 2004 Oscar winner, not the sex-crazed thriller about crashing cars.) I think it was a pretty great film with lots of great performances. Matt Dillon's Oscar nom was well deserved. Don Cheadle was just as good, and the rest of the ensemble cast was pretty good. My only complaint would be that there are some stories with which you can't connect, and that a little more time to some characters would've been great... but that's part of how ensemble pieces work. Other than that, a great film. Grade: A-
JUST MARRIED! -- If you see me posting, my wife must be working.
|
Oh yeah? (Thezookieman)
Movie Star
Username: Thezookieman
Post Number: 5025
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 11:27 am: |
|
quote:doc: Pretty decent string of 28 Days sequels so far...for what started as a throwaway Sandra Bullock vehicle.
Still don't get what all these zombies have to do with alcohol rehab though...
Yeah, I wondered about that too. And didn't you find it odd that there was almost no reference to Sandy in the sequel to her film? Sort of like how they got rid of Keanu Reeves in the sequel to Speed. She should have her agent look into that immediately...
I am not really into the idea of deliberately scaring yourself, but the premise and the buzz behind the "28" films is intriguing enough to me that I might just rent them out when they both appear on DVD.
Standing in the shadow of the One True City...
|
Son Of... (Docscribe)
Studio Mogul
Username: Docscribe
Post Number: 8349
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 09:46 pm: |
|
True story zook: I was in a little small town mom & pop vido rental store recently and they had a section set up for movies and sequels. Absurdly enough, there was 28 Days and 28 Days Later sitting side by side...
Didn't anyone have the heart to tell them? Can you imagine someone renting both movies for their Saturday night double-bill?
"Never thought I'd get around to changing my siggy, did ya?"
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3582
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 10:06 pm: |
|
I could fill a book with absurd video-store stories, most revolving around movies put in the wrong sections (what makes Pulp Fiction an "action" movie, per se? And Watership Down is pretty gruesome fare for the "family" section).
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
Son Of... (Docscribe)
Studio Mogul
Username: Docscribe
Post Number: 8350
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 03:17 am: |
|
In that same mom & pop video store, Brokeback Mountain was in the 'Action' section, as was Babel (what for...the bus sniping?). They also thought Todd Solondz' Happiness was a 'Comedy'.
The number of native Canadian - especially Quebec - films that routinely show up in the 'Foreign' section never ceases to amuse me too.
"Never thought I'd get around to changing my siggy, did ya?"
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3583
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 09:39 am: |
|
Apparently any movie with at least one gunshot counts as an "action" movie. 
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
Mistress Misanthrope (Scully)
Production Assistant
Username: Scully
Post Number: 439
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 01:26 pm: |
|
Sure, Happiness is a comedy.... of the dark & twisted variety. Actually, I did laugh a few times during that film, but I wouldn't necessarily classify it as a "Comedy".
There are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
Tim (Tim)
Cinematographer
Username: Tim
Post Number: 1159
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 07:14 pm: |
|
On DVD...
Blood Diamond: Better than I expected as it did a nice job of combining the flare of a major motion picture with the seriousness of real subject matters. I think that is tough to pull off. Often times it comes off as trivializing or exploiting something serious in the name of entertainment, or it runs the risk of being so serious as to not be entertaining. I think Leo is doing a better job of pulling off this type of role than Brad Pitt has (not sure why they are comparable, but it seems like it). B+
Science of Sleep: Although I respect the family tree of Gondry (and by extention, Charlie Kaufman), I found this one unwatchable. I've tried twice, and I just can't get into it. I enjoy "weird" even when it doesn't make any sense (many of David Lynch's efforts), but it has to be beautiful or haunting in some abstract way. I thought this was juse weird and boring. Actually I had the identical reaction to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas years ago. D |
AboutFilm host (Carlo)
Moderator
Username: Carlo
Post Number: 7136
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 09:21 pm: |
|
That was my experience with The Science of Sleep. We've talked about what a Charlie Kaufman movie would be like without Michel Gondry's vision. This what a Michel Gondry film is like without Charlie Kaufman.
AboutFilm President and Sugar Daddy (www.aboutfilm.com); OFCS Member (www.ofcs.org)
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3584
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 10:14 pm: |
|
Seraphim Falls: Ponderous oater about a former Union Captain named Gideon (Pierce Brosnan) circa 1868 being hunted relentlessly across the desolate Western plains by Carver (Liam Neeson), who's out to settle an old grudge against Gideon for a past misdeed we're not privvy to until late in the film. Handsome-enough production (with beautifully dusky cinematography by John Toll), reasonably performed by the two leads (especially the grizzled Brosnan, who has only become a more compelling actor since hanging up his 007 tux), yet Falls grows more pretentous as it's revenge narrative plays out, ending with a bizarre climax in the desert with Angelica Huston as a mysterious woman selling nerve tonics (or something like that) to the two leads as they chase each other on foot through the broiling desert heat. It's, like, all metaphysical and stuff. Last year's galvanizingly violent The Proposition is the recent Western to see, not this barely-released oddity. C+
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
Son Of... (Docscribe)
Studio Mogul
Username: Docscribe
Post Number: 8353
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 12:09 am: |
|
You know, I tried watching The Science of Sleep three times on as many flights, and I just could not bite hard enough into the damn thing. Perhaps it was the less-than-ideal 'venue', but seriously, I just think there's something fundamentally wrong with that picture.
"Never thought I'd get around to changing my siggy, did ya?"
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3586
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 12:58 am: |
|
I liked The Science Of Sleep quite a bit. I thought it was sweet and charming, and the F/X were lovely. It's certainly no Eternal Sunshine, but I dug it.
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
Son Of... (Docscribe)
Studio Mogul
Username: Docscribe
Post Number: 8354
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 03:30 am: |
|
I think Tim said it as well as I could...The Science of Sleep had this annoyingly self-aware-and-overly-pleased-with-itself 'vibe' that always kept me at a discreet distance.
I would only add that I think surrealism should somehow be more compulsively seductive...engaging you with its stylized artifice instead of continually using such trickery to keep you at arms length. It didn't help that I never really much liked or cared about these characters. And why did their story warrant such an elaborate fantasy overlay anyway? The throughline on their blah-bland romantic dreams was just so unrelentingly unremarkable. I mean, where was the intricate layering of story and theme to match the inventive visual tapestry? It just felt like an applique of strangeness meant to distract audiences from the featherweight dramatics. Or did Gondry just grossly misjudge Bernal's natural screen charisma? Whatever went awry from conception to execution was spectacularly uninteresting.
And Carlo is right too...whatever misgivings I had over Kaufman's particular brand of BS in Eternal Sunshine, Michel Gondry is a director who, when left to his own inspiration without the guidance of a reasonably well thought-through screenplay, simply allows himself to become too...well...French.
"Never thought I'd get around to changing my siggy, did ya?"
|
AdamL (Adaml)
Cinematographer
Username: Adaml
Post Number: 2131
Registered: 08-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 02:57 pm: |
|
So I saw Metropolis. Why does watching films like this feel like doing homework?
I'm sure it is landmark cinema, historically important blah blah blah but I know for sure that I found Charlie's Angels 2 far more entertaining so for me the latter is the better film. I can't unerstand critics that give these films 3 and 4 star ratings. Halliwell's film guide gives it a 3 and Platoon, which I saw last night, just 2. I'd watch Platoon approximately 73 more times before I saw Metropolis again. I cannot comprehend how someone could call the latter better. Maybe people rank films using different criteria to me - I just rate it baseed on whether I enjoyed it. I didn't. I actually didn't hate it - not in the Duck Soup, The Lodger or Blackmail kind of level anyway. But I wonder how one can claim to enjoy something so grossly outdated. The acting is hysterical (I don't mean funny - I mean totally over the top). The production, f/x, cinematography are all similarly defunct. Cinema has evolved. I can't enjoy a film that is so out of date. If I'd watched it upon release no doubt I'd have been overawed but I didn't and I'm not.
The plot is fairly daft. No doubt it was more convincing in its time. The greatest films stand the test of time. Plots still feel relevant and exciting or engaging 60 years on. This didn't stand up even 10 years! Look at the quality of acting in this and compare it to Lang's later work. Even M, just 4 years later, featured credible performances.
Reading some 4 star reviews thay talk about iconic images and amazing sequences. I must have dozed off because I didn't see one. D |
|
Discussion Archives 
