Author Topic: Movie News, Reviews, and Discussion Super-Thread (Read 5419534 times)

Eel O'Brian · « **Reply #9720 on:** February 06, 2011, 01:51:23 PM »

i liked kingpin, too

Diunx · « **Reply #9721 on:** February 06, 2011, 08:11:55 PM »

I wish we had a "cuming all over the place" smiley.

Yeti · « **Reply #9722 on:** February 06, 2011, 09:19:28 PM »

These latest screenshots for Captain America are looking pretty good costumewise, they've come a looooooong way from that atrocious first costume they showed.

ManaByte · « **Reply #9723 on:** February 07, 2011, 09:39:23 AM »

[youtube=560,345][/youtube]

ManaByte · « **Reply #9724 on:** February 07, 2011, 09:53:25 AM »

I'll just see it on a 2D screen.

Mupepe · « **Reply #9725 on:** February 07, 2011, 01:29:08 PM »

Seabiscuit
I was surprised by how watchable this was. This was always on my avoid radar. The wife wanted to see it and I sat down and watched it with her. Pretty damn entertaining.

ManaByte · « **Reply #9726 on:** February 07, 2011, 08:46:02 PM »

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/01/31/tom-hooper-pg13-kings-speech/

Quote

'The King’s Speech’ emerged from the weekend as the new Oscar favorite after the Directors Guild of America and the Screen Actors Guild both awarded it their top prizes. But director Tom Hooper expressed skepticism about a reported plan by The Weinstein Company to release a re-cut version of the film, minimizing profanity, that would appeal to a wider PG-13 audience. Before Saturday’s DGA Awards, Hooper told EW, “I wouldn’t support cutting the film in any way. I think we looked at whether it’s possible to bleep out the f—s and stuff, but I’m not going to actually cut that part.” Hooper clarified that no decisions have been made yet; only that TWC was considering it. When asked if the PG-13 edit would broaden the audience, Hooper reiterated, “I’m not going to cut the film.”

Oscar-nominated Helena Bonham Carter supported her director, saying, “I don’t think it needs to be cut down. I think every 13-year-old knows [the words], I think every 8-year-old [does]. It’s the whole point of it. It’s not to be offensive. I think they said they were going to put the bleeps. [The film] is not violent. It’s full of humanity and wit. [It's] for people not with just a speech impediment, but who have got confidence [doubts]. Everyone who has a sense of inadequacy, which is practically everyone.”

The Weinstein Company did not immediately answer requests for comment.

WTF

Diunx · « **Reply #9727 on:** February 07, 2011, 09:31:45 PM »

The american rating system is fucked up beyond repair.

Bebpo · « **Reply #9728 on:** February 07, 2011, 09:47:57 PM »

I watched Irreversible the other night. The spinning camera gave me a headache. Also the final sequence goes on foreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeever. If I'm looking at the clock when there are naked people on screen, something is wrong! Interesting movie, but didn't love it. Will check out Enter the Void eventually with low expectations.

Diunx · « **Reply #9729 on:** February 07, 2011, 10:03:36 PM »

Why exactly was blue valentine rated nc-17?

Diunx · « **Reply #9730 on:** February 07, 2011, 10:59:09 PM »

UK answer to Wes Anderson filmography.

I'm sure I have seen that kid before but can't remember where.

EDIT: Being Human! he was in last week's episode playing an annoying teen vampire.

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #9731 on:** February 07, 2011, 11:11:07 PM »

Quote from: Diunx on February 07, 2011, 09:31:45 PM

The american rating system is fucked up beyond repair.

What's offensive about that isn't the rating, it's that the Weinsteins are thinking about ways to make an Oscar-nominated historical drama "appeal to a broad audience".

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #9732 on:** February 07, 2011, 11:14:35 PM »

Quote from: Diunx on February 07, 2011, 10:03:36 PM

Why exactly was blue valentine rated nc-17?

It got an R on appeal.

ManaByte · « **Reply #9733 on:** February 08, 2011, 12:26:24 PM »

Quote from: Great Rumbler on February 07, 2011, 11:11:07 PM

Quote from: Diunx on February 07, 2011, 09:31:45 PM
The american rating system is fucked up beyond repair.

What's offensive about that isn't the rating, it's that the Weinsteins are thinking about ways to make an Oscar-nominated historical drama "appeal to a broad audience".

No, the rating is offensive. Even Ebert pointed it out in his review. They initially wanted a PG-13, but the MPAA only allows a maximum of two (sometimes one) "fucks" in a PG-13 movie and there's ONE scene where Colin Firth says it multiple times. And it isn't even meant to be offensive, it's part of a speech therapy session.

In the UK they appealed the rating and succeeded. It's rated 12A over there allowing anyone over 12 to see it. The MPAA is fucked up beyond belief.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101215/REVIEWS/101219985

Quote

Note: The R rating refers to Logue's use of vulgarity. It is utterly inexplicable. This is an excellent film for teenagers.

http://www.reelviews.net/php_review_template.php?identifier=2238

Quote

The MPAA, in its infinite wisdom, has chosen to saddle The King's Speech with an R rating, believing there are too many "fucks." Jack Nicholson got away with 2.5 gratuitous "fucks" in How Do You Know, but that inferior picture survived with a PG-13. Admittedly, there are more than 2.5 "fucks" in The King's Speech (as are there in this now R-rated review), but they are anything but gratuitous. They serve a purpose within the context of speech therapy. The MPAA has once again shown its narrow-mindedness. Those "fucks" are the only reason this is R-rated. There's no sex or violence, just one word spoken a few too many times.

On the other hand, Blue Valentine originally got a NC-17 for guy on girl oral sex while Black Swan got an R for girl on girl oral sex, and they reversed that rating down to an R.

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #9734 on:** February 08, 2011, 12:40:01 PM »

I guess it's just that I stopped caring a long time ago about the rating on the box. A site like Kids-In-Mind is far more informative than a letter and a few generic descriptors.

Dickie Dee · « **Reply #9735 on:** February 08, 2011, 02:25:38 PM »

Quote

Jack Nicholson got away with 2.5 gratuitous "fucks"

What the hell is a 0.5 fuck?

Trent Dole · « **Reply #9736 on:** February 08, 2011, 07:50:55 PM »

I watched this yesterday...
[youtube=560,345]Evjl2aJmVpY[/youtube]
Joaquin trolls the world and gets fat.

The Sceneman · « **Reply #9737 on:** February 08, 2011, 08:12:02 PM »

I just watched Machete. Not bad. Too slow in parts but there were some golden scenes. The world needs more taco trucks

AdmiralViscen · « **Reply #9738 on:** February 08, 2011, 08:49:07 PM »

Diunx · « **Reply #9739 on:** February 08, 2011, 08:53:04 PM »

Watching The Kids Are Alright, pretty boring so far but I do appreciate the bowie songs.

Mupepe · « **Reply #9740 on:** February 09, 2011, 10:36:45 AM »

Devil
Like a mediocre at best twilight zone episode. The plot is actually effectively suspenseful and well presented but like anything Shyamalan is attached to the dialogue is terrible. It assumes every viewer is 3 years old and can't figure anything out for themselves. The writing is also so cliched that it's not hard to guess which is the villain in the first 10 minutes. I actually did.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

When the old lady is getting waiting for an elevator, a man holds one for her and tells her there's room. She says "not enough for me." and he says "There's plenty of room" and she just says "No." and watches it leave. Her bitchiness was way too calculated and made it obvious that she was waiting for a certain elevator

[close]

There are some visually effective moments like the end where the villain's acting and the camera work come together to actually make a good scene, but those moments are few and far between because the actors are wooden and their lines are shit for the majority of the movie. Shyamalan needs to come up with ideas, let someone else write them and have someone keep his ass in check when he's directing. He'd be great if he did that.

Mupepe · « **Reply #9741 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:19:22 AM »

You Don't Know Jack
Forgot to put this after Devil, but I also saw it last night. Pretty entertaining and I learned quite a bit about everything that went on. I was around 12 or 13 when he got sentenced to prison so I had heard his name but didn't know all the details.

Mupepe · « **Reply #9742 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:19:53 AM »

Quote from: mojovonio on February 09, 2011, 10:52:28 AM

yeah, they give away the ending way too early.

Yeah, it would have been a nice surprise considering the final scene in the elevator was actually pretty awesome.

Eel O'Brian · « **Reply #9743 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:26:57 AM »

Appaloosa is a solid, traditional western. Ed Harris is good as Virgil Cole (although imo a little too old for the part), Viggo Mortensen plays a slick and educated Everett Hitch, Jeremy Irons coasts on a standard "sniveling yet dangerous" bad guy, and Renee Zelwegger is miscast as the not-a-whore who clings to whomever is top man at any given moment. I don't usually dog on anyone's appearance, but man that chick is distractingly ugly. Lance Henriksen is in it for about 15 minutes, but those 15 minutes belong to him.

Decent flick, although nothing I'd ever want to watch again. It did interest me enough to want to read all the Robert Parker Cole and Hitch novels.

ManaByte · « **Reply #9744 on:** February 09, 2011, 02:11:15 PM »

They've REALLY stepped up the King's Speech advertising and expanded it to more screens. Good. Maybe now more people will see it.

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #9745 on:** February 09, 2011, 02:14:46 PM »

Quote from: ManaByte on February 09, 2011, 02:11:15 PM

They've REALLY stepped up the King's Speech advertising and expanded it to more screens. Good. Maybe now more people will see it.

It's been on 2,500 screens for the past week and a half [and it's been on 1,500-1,600 screens for the two weeks prior to that], plus it's already made over $80 million, so it's not exactly languishing in obscurity.

lordoftherink · « **Reply #9746 on:** February 09, 2011, 07:24:25 PM »

Yeah, I'm actually surprised at how well it has managed to do. True Grit and Black Swan did better than I thought they would too, but I suppose all three have the advantage of recognizable names over some of the awards stuff from previous years.

I understand why they don't but it would've been nice for Blue Valentine, Rabbit Hole, Another Year, and The Illusionist to open near me. Guess I'll just wait for them to come out on DVD/Blu-ray. At least it seems like some of the recent releases are moving from theater to home video even quicker than usual: Black Swan and 127 Hours are coming out in March I think, and The Way Back (which I'm not really interested in) is coming out already in April. That must have really bombed.

Also, those Super Bowl tv spots just reinforced just how shitty this second tier of superhero movies is going to be for the upcoming year. Captain America looks the least dreadful, but that isn't saying much. Thor in particular looks laughably bad.

Robo · « **Reply #9747 on:** February 09, 2011, 08:29:29 PM »

Eyes Without a Face - 1959 French horror film about a surgeon who mangles his daughter in a car crash and murders young girls in an attempt to restore her face to its original beauty. Actually rather gory for its time; I wouldn't be at all surprised to read of people being outraged and disturbed by some of the more explicit scenes. Beautifully shot, conveying a different Paris from what is typical of French films - hazy and overcast - maybe more reminiscent to that of a modestly expressionist take on English or German cities. I thought it was excellent.

It's on Netflix streaming for the moment.

TEEEPO · « **Reply #9748 on:** February 09, 2011, 08:46:17 PM »

i really loved the shot where she

spoiler (click to show/hide)

let the birds free.

[close]

wouldn't call it excellent though. i don't remember much else.

ManaByte · « **Reply #9749 on:** February 09, 2011, 10:49:33 PM »

Shane Black + Iron Man 3 =

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/heat-vision/shane-black-contention-write-direct-97854

HyperZoneWasAwesome · « **Reply #9750 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:04:38 PM »

Shit YeaH!

and WTF?

Quote from: that article

Several weeks ago, Black was tapped to write Death Note, Warner Bros.'s adaptation of a manga

Buh? I'm trying to figure out how, say, Bruce Willis writing somebody's name down can be badass, I'm sure its possible, but it seems unlikely.

cool breeze · « **Reply #9751 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:34:03 PM »

oh, it can be done:
[youtube=560,345]Vy23neI1Wno[/youtube]

TEEEPO · « **Reply #9752 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:34:52 PM »

for a second i thought i ventured into that thread

get that shit out of here

cool breeze · « **Reply #9753 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:39:26 PM »

yeah, sorry. the fbi might start watching this thread too if this becomes a trend.

Dickie Dee · « **Reply #9754 on:** February 10, 2011, 01:20:14 AM »

The Road

I had just recently finished the book and by coincedince it came on tv. It was pretty wonderfully shot, makes me want to check out the directors previous movie The Proposition.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #9755 on:** February 10, 2011, 01:47:20 AM »

The Proposition is the type of movie that gets better each time you see it. Highly recommended

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #9756 on:** February 10, 2011, 02:06:04 AM »

The Social Network

I'll agree with the critics who say that the movie ultimately isn't about facebook and the creators didn't really understand facebook or what makes it so popular, but I'm not really bothered by that. Sometimes I don't get facebook. But let's put that aside, The Social Network is a compelling movie that's well-directed, well-written, and well-acted. It's solid across the board and just plain fun to watch. Jesse Eisenberg is sort of seen as a poor man's Michael Cera, but you really can't say that anymore. This movie proves what all of Michael Cera's movies really don't, and that is that its lead can actually act. Also, loved the Trent Reznor soundtrack, very kicking.

It's one of my top movies of the year, although I still have yet to see Black Swan or True Grit. Still waiting for the DVD on both of those.

TEEEPO · « **Reply #9757 on:** February 10, 2011, 02:17:51 AM »

Quote from: The Business on February 09, 2011, 11:51:36 PM

Just watched The War Within. I picked it up at one of those Hollywood Video liquidation sales about a year ago but never watched it. It's about a Pakistani who becomes a suicide bomber and his internal struggle along the way. It was well shot, the acting was good, and it does help the average American understand some of the motivations of a suicide bomber (I hope), but I think I prefer the other "famous" suicide bomber film, Paradise Now.

i prefer this movie over the other two
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0169302/

highly recommended.

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #9758 on:** February 10, 2011, 02:22:03 AM »

I think it's unfair to label Eisenberg as a "poor man's Cera" when he was being socially awkward years before Cera was even relevant. Eisenberg is the better actor and choose more compelling parts than Cera, and should never actually be compared to Cera.

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #9759 on:** February 10, 2011, 02:27:06 AM »

Quote from: BrandNew on February 10, 2011, 02:22:03 AM

I think it's unfair to label Eisenberg as a "poor man's Cera" when he was being socially awkward years before Cera was even relevant. Eisenberg is the better actor and choose more compelling parts than Cera, and should never actually be compared to Cera.

Maybe not a poor man's Michael Cera per se, but the Zombieland thread [and perhaps the Adventureland thread as well] had lots of "Oh, didn't know Michael Cera was in this" posts, suggesting that Jesse Eisenberg is virtually indistinguishable from and lesser known than Michael Cera. Well, it's pretty clear now that there's a marked difference between the two.

TEEEPO · « **Reply #9760 on:** February 10, 2011, 02:31:24 AM »

get a dropbox and i'll drop it for you

TEEEPO · « **Reply #9761 on:** February 10, 2011, 02:32:54 AM »

Quote from: Great Rumbler on February 10, 2011, 02:27:06 AM

Quote from: BrandNew on February 10, 2011, 02:22:03 AM
I think it's unfair to label Eisenberg as a "poor man's Cera" when he was being socially awkward years before Cera was even relevant. Eisenberg is the better actor and choose more compelling parts than Cera, and should never actually be compared to Cera.

Maybe not a poor man's Michael Cera per se, but the Zombieland thread [and perhaps the Adventureland thread as well] had lots of "Oh, didn't know Michael Cera was in this" posts, suggesting that Jesse Eisenberg is virtually indistinguishable from and lesser known than Michael Cera. Well, it's pretty clear now that there's a marked difference between the two.

although one is possibly better than the other... they're still entirely substitutes.

kindof like grape and cherry tomatoes.

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #9762 on:** February 10, 2011, 02:39:29 AM »

Quote from: TEEEPO on February 10, 2011, 02:32:54 AM

Quote from: Great Rumbler on February 10, 2011, 02:27:06 AM
Quote from: BrandNew on February 10, 2011, 02:22:03 AM
I think it's unfair to label Eisenberg as a "poor man's Cera" when he was being socially awkward years before Cera was even relevant. Eisenberg is the better actor and choose more compelling parts than Cera, and should never actually be compared to Cera.

Maybe not a poor man's Michael Cera per se, but the Zombieland thread [and perhaps the Adventureland thread as well] had lots of "Oh, didn't know Michael Cera was in this" posts, suggesting that Jesse Eisenberg is virtually indistinguishable from and lesser known than Michael Cera. Well, it's pretty clear now that there's a marked difference between the two.

although one is possibly better than the other... they're still entirely substitutes.

kindof like grape and cherry tomatoes.

I have a hard time believing that Michael Cera could be dropped into The Social Network and produce similar results. It would be a disaster.

Mupepe · « **Reply #9763 on:** February 10, 2011, 11:20:29 AM »

Why the hell would you watch it? I added it on my queue for nostalgia reasons and I haven't even thought about touching it. If I hadn't seen it when I was young, I'd never even think about watching it.

Also, I agree about The Proposition. Fantastic movie and great soundtrack

Mupepe · « **Reply #9764 on:** February 10, 2011, 11:30:56 AM »

Can't be as bad as Lord of Illusions. I tried rewatching that from my childhood too. Mistake!

ManaByte · « **Reply #9765 on:** February 10, 2011, 12:59:33 PM »

[youtube=560,345][/youtube]

Mupepe · « **Reply #9766 on:** February 10, 2011, 01:42:27 PM »

Isn't it on instant streaming? I thought it was at some point. Or maybe it was one of the sequels. I haven't watched that movie in forever but it was so awesome!

The Sceneman · « **Reply #9767 on:** February 10, 2011, 04:51:14 PM »

I just watched Four Brothers, pretty fucking funny shit

Mupepe · « **Reply #9768 on:** February 10, 2011, 05:01:46 PM »

Quote from: mojovonio on February 10, 2011, 04:48:52 PM

It probably is in the US. Canada has a pretty slim selection.

We do have People Under the Stairs though, so that makes me swoon.

Oh man, I rewatched that when I DVR'ed it like a year ago. That shit was still awesome.

HyperZoneWasAwesome · « **Reply #9769 on:** February 10, 2011, 06:26:23 PM »

Wes Craven's career is so damn weird.

but I'll eagerly co-sign on The People Under the Stairs love. Hey, you know what else is great? The Illusionist, not the crappy Ed Nortan vehicle, but Syvain Chomet's animated adaptation of a unmade Jaques Tati script. Its at this point I should admit in the spirit of full disclosure that I've been aware of but never seen a Tati film, a mistake that I'm all to ready to fix.

Its about a stage magician who's unfortunate enough to have lived well beyond the vaudeville days and now plies his trade to an ever dwindling audience. Keeping his dignity while staying afloat he goes to a isolated Scottish village where a paternal relationship blooms with a young, isolated girl of the town. Its a beautifully made and subtle film, with lots of gentle humor, and sad parts about how people can be left behind by the changes of the world. Its all just so gentle and light, there's no huge LOL moments, there's no emotional blackmail-tear-inducing-scenes, all the same its as light as a feather and surprisingly affecting. If you cornered me, you'd get me to admit that I liked the director's previous film, The Triplets of Belleville more, but on balance this is the better movie.

***1/2

Mr. Gundam · « **Reply #9770 on:** February 10, 2011, 06:55:35 PM »

I saw The Illusionist a couple weeks ago. It was beautiful, yet sad.

If Biutiful plays near you, go see it. Caught it last weekend, extremely powerful and well-made.

Joe Molotov · « **Reply #9771 on:** February 10, 2011, 07:42:42 PM »

Quote from: HyperZoneWasAwesome on February 10, 2011, 06:26:23 PM

Its at this point I should admit in the spirit of full disclosure that I've been aware of but never seen a Tati film, a mistake that I'm all to ready to fix.

All his Hurlot movies are great, but especially watch Play Time. It's a classic.

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #9772 on:** February 10, 2011, 07:43:19 PM »

[youtube=560,345][/youtube]

Mr. Gundam · « **Reply #9773 on:** February 10, 2011, 08:05:15 PM »

Please be good. Please don't suck. Please be good. Please don't suck. Please be good. Please don't suck. Please be good. Please don't suck. Please be good. Please don't suck. Please be good. Please don't suck. Please be good. Please don't suck. Please be good. Please don't suck. Please be good. Please don't suck. Please be good. Please don't suck. Please be good. Please don't suck. Please be good. Please don't suck. Please be good. Please don't suck. Please be good. Please don't suck. Please be good. Please don't suck. Please be good. Please don't suck.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Please be good. Please don't suck.Please be good. Please don't suck.Please be good. Please don't suck.Please be good. Please don't suck.Please be good. Please don't suck.Please be good. Please don't suck.Please be good. Please don't suck.Please be good. Please don't suck.Please be good. Please don't suck.Please be good. Please don't suck.Please be good. Please don't suck.Please be good. Please don't suck.Please be good. Please don't suck.Please be good. Please don't suck.Please be good. Please don't suck.Please be good. Please don't suck.Please be good. Please don't suck.Please be good. Please don't suck.Please be good. Please don't suck.Please be good. Please don't suck.Please be good. Please don't suck.Please be good. Please don't suck.Please be good. Please don't suck.Please be good. Please don't suck.

[close]

ManaByte · « **Reply #9774 on:** February 10, 2011, 08:07:08 PM »

MATTHEW FUCKING VAUGHN

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #9775 on:** February 10, 2011, 08:20:42 PM »

will be shitty

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #9776 on:** February 10, 2011, 08:24:42 PM »

I'm sure X-Men: First Class will be as good as Stardust and Kick-Ass.

Stoney Mason · « **Reply #9777 on:** February 10, 2011, 08:39:51 PM »

Quote from: HyperZoneWasAwesome on February 10, 2011, 06:26:23 PM

Wes Craven's career is so damn weird.

but I'll eagerly co-sign on The People Under the Stairs love.

People under the stairs...

I haven't seen that move in a long time.

Diunx · « **Reply #9778 on:** February 10, 2011, 08:43:46 PM »

Quote from: ManaByte on February 10, 2011, 08:07:08 PM

MATTHEW FUCKING VAUGHN

MADE IN LESS THAN A YEAR

Looks better than expected Angel looks hot

Diunx · « **Reply #9779 on:** February 10, 2011, 08:47:26 PM »

Might watch The Illusionist tonight, I totally forgot I have it on my hd.

News:

Author Topic: Movie News, Reviews, and Discussion Super-Thread (Read 5419534 times)