Last Film You Watched

**Vorahk1Panrahk2** · June 13, 2012

Jerome, on the other hand, was rather interesting. Not everything about him was explained, but I don't think it was necessary. Why was he depressed? I really don't know. However, because it's an open-ended question, he's placed in a position where most people can relate with him, because we've all given up hope at one point in time. I'm normally not into letting the audience imagine things for themselves, but for once I took pleasure in imagining Jerome's past. It's interesting, because he greatly reminds me of one of my favorite poems, "Richard Cory". Ultimately, I end up relating to him, and the reason I didn't question why he was depressed was because he didn't need a reason. It's just something that happens.

Recall his quote: "With all I had going for me, I was still second best." I think that sums it up right there.I'm going disagree with you about the narration. Maybe it was jarring, but the social workings of this world need to be explained. Even if the movie did start with his birth and progressed in a linear direction, the narration would still be a better alternative than forcing the exposition to be delivered by characters (think about that painful scene in Inception where DiCaprio is practically talking to the audience during his training session with Ariadne). You also lose the line "But I am not Jerome Morrow", a line that I find that line to be a pretty strong hook.But we'll have to agree to disagree I guess.

**Jean Valjean** · July 5, 2012

:kaukau: It's hard to believe thatin the last two months, I was dedicated enough to remember every film I watched in chronological order and write their respective reviews in just a few sittings. While some of my endorsements for theatric revleases are by now a bit late and the films are no longer out, I hope they still proide useful insights for prospective viewers. Enjoy.The Avengers: I watched this in the theatres a second time. No, I didn’t use this second opportunity to see it in 3D. Yes, I still find that this is better than any of the films leading up to it. The one thing that changed this time around was that I laughed at even more jokes, and I enjoyed anticipating the jokes as they came. I also paid very, very careful attention to whenever Nick Fury’s right-hand woman was on the screen. Every single time she was visible, I always whispered to my mother “She looks good in this scene.” Kudos up if you know what I’m referencing. Anyway, my family knows what I find beautiful, so they all knew before I said a word that I was going to be enamored with her before I said anything. The way I see it, she was definitely the best part of the film, and the film’s major flaw was that her name was never given.Battleship: This film was surprisingly good, and by far better than Transformers. Unfortunately, there are a few similarities, although at least those can be overlooked on the basis that the movie’s action tropes don’t define it like its Hasbro predecessors. The characters are a million times stronger than the bumbling Sam Witwicky and the eye-candy robots whose only personalities are basic, flat stereotypes. I can also believe that these characters could actually save the day.Take, for example, the main character, Hopper. The best line in the entire film might just well be “You’re joining the navy!” Essentially, Hopper becomes the modern-era equivalent of Chris Pine’s Captain Kirk. In fact, the similarities are conspicuous. I’ll give this its due condemnation, but on the other hand it’s still preferable to Sam Witwicky. He’s not original, but at least he’s strong and likable, and I put my priorities on the latter.I was also surprised by Rihanna’s role. I mean, she’s Rihanna. This film has Liam Neeson in it, and then there’s her. She’s the type of person who makes me not want to see this film, and if it weren’t for Liam Neeson I would not have watched the film with her in it. However, I was pleased with the character she was given, which I think she was perfectly fit for. It helps that she’s already known for her short hair.Speaking of Rihanna’s counter-attraction, I would also suggest that before you get into this film, you should erase all expectations from your mind of seeing Liam Neeson. Yes, he’s in this film. No, he’s not in it much. It’s more of a cameo appearance. Like his role as Zeus in Clash of the Titans, he’s once more type-cast as the head honcho, which in this setting makes him the admiral. The admiral never takes part in any of the action and is there mostly because he’s part of the setting, and second because of another character’s convenient connection to him. Far and away, the best parts are when he’s talking down on the main character, Hopper.As everyone knows, this is the weirdest film adaptation of the year, maybe of the entire decade. I decided to watch it not because I was excited for it, but because I was curious to see how the game could be transferred to the screen, so curious that I was willing to pay over seven dollars for it. For the first half of the film, I was a little disappointed, since I didn’t necessarily see how it was a movie version for the game, but about three-quarters of the way through I was hit by fridge brilliance.The ammunition. Look carefully at it.It really hit hard, and I was suddenly laughing to myself. “Wow, they actually did this!” I remembered all those times that I looked at something dumb and personally wondered if you could make a movie out of it, and I thought back to the times when I had asked a group of nerdy friends late at night questions like “Imagine if someone could actually pull off a movie about…”. It was that inner nerd that I was channeling that allowed me to really enjoy the movie. If you’re going to watch this film, I suggest that you have a sense of humor and a little bit of that nerdy creativity in you in order to enjoy it.There are, of course, reasons not to watch this. The design of the alien costumes takes too much inspiration from Transformers, and they really should have been simplified. I don’t understand why they would walk around in things so complicated. A style more akin to Halo or the upcoming Prometheus would have made more sense. Basically, anything would have been preferable to walking robot suits. Not everyone can be Iron Man. Other bits of their technology didn’t resonate with me, such as their spikey balls of destruction, which were obvious eye candy and not a technology that any civilization that advanced would plausibly use for warfare. Likewise, I didn’t understand the need for the alien’s screen that labeled things red and green to tell what was dangerous. I was under the impression that they were aggressors who wanted to wipe out the human race regardless. Whatever their intentions, I was given contradictory clues and I think that their mindset should have been made clearer. The sequences making a big deal out of alien communication were also hard to take seriously. The line “You sunk my battleship” is also nowhere in the film, which was the one thing that would have made this a perfect adaptation of the game.However, even though I was annoyed by this all at the beginning of the film, I was at the same time completely willing to overlook it because of several other aspects that I personally found to be awesome. First was the “You’re joining the navy!” line. The next thing I fell in love with was the constant, shameless navy hurrahs, because the navy is cool. In fact, I took far more pleasure in the many, many scenes within the navy ships than in the shots of the alien ships. The ACDC music was perfectly placed to get my head banging with pleasure, and it further glorified the life inside the navy ships.The third thing that I personally loved that overrode all flaws of the movie was the primary ship used throughout most of the movie. It was the John Paul Jones, and its number is 53. If you know anything about me, you’ll know why I love this.However, once you get to the third act I’m sure that you’ll like the film, because that’s the best part. As Roger Ebert said, the nicest part of the film was “an honest-to-God third act”. Now I see what he means. Like Ebert, I won’t give anything away, but there was a sincere plot twist that really brings the battleship theme full circle.In Time: At first, I wanted to say that this film was good, but then I changed my mind. Normally I’m very optimistic and forgiving of flaws, but the flaws of this film were so huge that finally they spilled over my tall walls of positive thinking.Obviously, the film has some redeeming qualities that made me want to like it. I checked it out of the library because its pitch had some promise. The science fiction concept of people being able to stop aging and then trade years of their life like currency was clever indeed. I still greatly appreciate this film for realizing how this would affect a large-scale economy.At the same time, I don’t think really discovered the scale. In the end, freeing the underclass of one city was apparently enough to overthrow the structure of an entire society, which I found to be a little too convenient. At first I didn’t really notice it because it had a fine depiction. The graphics used in the police headquarters to keep track of money distribution were quite realistic, and I admired their simplicity. It defeated a long standing pet peeve on mine against overly flashy graphics for military and law enforcement computer displays, which realistically would be simplified as much as possible for easy analysis. However, once that admiration faded away, the end of the film left me unsatisfied with the scale on which the solution took place.The one thing that I think the film pulled off flawlessly was the actual meat and bones of the plot, especially near the beginning. When the main character is given over a hundred years of time from a really, really old man from the rich part of town, I can believe the man’s reasons. Heck, he was so old that he felt he needed to die to be natural. I admire that. It was a little contrived that he gave it to Justin Timberlake’s character, and that might have bothered me, but I like that the rest of the film wasn’t dependent on that contrived convenience hen Mr. Timberlake lost that money almost right away. After that, the plot was derived from the main character’s raw willpower and the one sidekick he picked up along the way.From there, I have only complaints. Due to the ages of the characters, this plot would have to take place over a hundred years in the future. Yet, the technology hasn’t changed one bit. Not one iota. The only difference is the biological conditioning to never age. You’d think that in a society where the greatest minds could live forever at their prime, technology sure would have improves. However, after that it seems the only new inventions were slightly different fashion norms in tuxedo shirts. This left me ultimately unsatisfied. The cars over a hundred year from now will apparently be exactly the same. The buildings are the same. Culture is the same.That really gets at me. This film could have definitely explored the consequences of its initial question far more. Really, all it said was “it’s the economy, stupid,” and left it at that. The overall cultural question is what really interested me. What do movies look like when top actors have been 25 for over a hundred years? Are computer-generated characters based off of motion capture performances used to play older characters when necessary? If this technology has been in place for over a century, how does it really affect the culture of the world in general? How does it affect the nation? I want to know more than just the affairs of one city. How about music? How about politics? How about leadership in general? How about parenthood, which this film only hinted at? I think it was a real cheap copout to say that over a hundred years in the future the only things that will be different will be the biological time technology, law enforcement, tuxedo shirts, and the economy, while everything else will remain completely identical to the way things are now.There were also major problems with the main character what the directing style and the acting didn’t completely sell me on. For one, the way he interacted with the female lead was unconvincing. Even though she proved to be an idealist, I couldn’t help but think of her as a victim of Stockholm Syndrome when she so easily forgave him for kidnapping her. The story tried to justify it by dropping in a line from her mother to her father about how their lifestyle was oppressing her. It didn’t come off that smoothly and was really more of a hand wave than anything.There was also a major problem in the directing. This is where I want to forgive the film. I understand that it had a sort budget, and some of its conspicuous filming decisions showed that much. It seemed that the only thing they didn’t want to build any sets, use any makeup, create any props, or come up with any costumes. They got away with the bare minimum. Granted, their props looked realistic and believable in and of themselves because of their simplicity, but there wasn’t enough of it. Otherwise, I was distinctly reminded of a do-it-yourself project that college filmmakers might pull off using only the props on hand.The low budget is forgiven, but the directing is not. The director was apparently either inexperienced or decided to let the budget limit his effort. This film could have kept all the same scenes and all the same lines and still been good if they were just directed by someone else. The camera simply didn’t capture the moments in ways that were powerful. Most egregious of all was a moment when the director made a cut between scenes that didn’t feel natural and didn’t give a good sense of just how much time had passed. The music was also feeble and shoe-horned in, becoming more than a background drawl of dub-step that added nothing to the feel of the scenes. Given another director and possibly different actors (though I’m inclined to believe that the latter would not be necessary since a good director could prod his actors in the right direction), all the same material could have become much more powerful. The same character development scenes could have even sufficed for character development had they been acted and shot differently, and I would have had less of a sense that everyone was half-baked. This film could have taken a few queues from The Social Network, i, Robot, The Island, The Fugitive, and Children of Men to come up with a more sound artistic vision suitable for this type of film. Coincidentally, Justin Timberlake was in The Social Network, which was close to Oscar quality. What’s he doing in this film?The thing that tipped the iceberg for me, however, was the organization known as the Timekeepers. First, their name was cheesy. Also first, they weren’t just called the cops. This is a personal pet peeve of mine. Why is it that in futuristic societies cops are never called cops? There always has to be that “special” organization that’s supposed to be darker and more ominous and all the more competent because they go by a different name. Perhaps they don’t act like cops, too, so all the better. In this case, they did the outright lamest thing you could ever do.There’s a strong place for this trope. It’s a wonderful trope. Done right, it can make characters truly seem hardcore. I am referring to the trench coat. In the case of this film, the black trench coats that look to be made of expensive crocodile leather. Against all logic, these are the official uniforms of the law enforcing Timekeepers. How does that make any sense at all? It was entirely too contrived, especially with a dearth of any other real fashion changes save for the tuxedo shirts. They look cool, but they have to be worn by the right people. The Timekeepers definitely weren’t the right people. It instantly made them cheap and tacky. I can’t forgive them for that.The way I see it, this film could have used two vast improvements. The first, as I already mentioned, is the director. The second thing that ought to have been changed was the title. They could have plausibly have marketed this as Logan’s Run. It would have been a legitimate remake, plus the studios would have been more willing to fund it, which in turn would have given it a higher budget and more room to explore what this distopian future would have looked like.Santa Fe Trail: This is a good old fashioned black and white movie from the Great Depression era. I have yet to come across a Great Depression film that wasn’t magical. This one even has the added bonus of having a supporting actor who went on to become a rather beloved leader later on in life.The main characters are figures from American history who graduation from West Point. One of them is George Armstrong Custer. The actor looks remarkably nothing like him, given Custer’s rather famous appearance, but I forgive all these differences. I think this separates the film from being a historic drama and turns it more into a classical western focused more on how the actors make their characters into lovable personalities. I love this style of storytelling. It’s sweet and it’s positive, and it’s grossly overlooked by storytellers of today.Speaking of historic likenesses, the man who played Abraham Lincoln didn’t get enough credit. Literally, he wasn’t in the credits. Older films kept their lists brief. He wasn’t in the film much, but he was a perfect likeness, save for the beard. He didn’t grow a beard until after he was elected president. However, his role was minor, and historic accuracy wasn’t exactly the intention of the film. In fact, it didn’t shed Lincoln in any light whatsoever, nor Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis. They were all treated equally as important cameo appearances, all equally significant names in American storytelling lore.Far and away, the best part of the film was the competing romances the two lead characters openly share for the lead female. They were both friendly about it and fair to each other. They even took turns proposing, and Custer wasn’t hurt one bit when he was turned down. They took it with a lot of grace. That’s really saying something given the tensions associated with love triangles in modern storytelling, so this was easily the most pleasing love triangle I’ve seen in a long, long time.Through a Glass Darkly: This old black and white film won the Academy Award for best foreign language film and certainly deserved it. Dealing with a case of schizophrenia, it immediately had a serious and mature premise. It’s hard not to bring up comparisons with A Beautiful Mind, which dealt with the same issue and also won an Oscar, although in my opinion this film was much better. A Beautiful Mind was a great film, but it romanticized its premise. Through A Glass Darkly approaches to topic with maturity and with power, yet never overdoing any of it. I’m left neither enamored by insanity nor sickly pleased with a grim tour de force like in Requiem for a Dream, which would have still romanticized insanity. Instead, it is presented as a medical condition that hurts a person and leaves outsiders, including the audience, secluded and aware that they don’t understand, which is how people should feel about schizophrenia. The film thereby guides the viewer’s mind into the healthy question of “What is schizophrenia and what can I do to help those with it?”An astounding feature of the plot is that it only required four actors. Since it took place on an island, there was no need for extras. There were only four actors in the entire film. Of their characters, I can say that they were each powerfully developed and had a full sense of being real people. Karin’s schizophrenia affected the family in ways that I felt everyone was a genuine individual, and the storytelling told it in ways that didn’t instantly characterize the people involved under various easily categorized personality traits, which is the sin of many writers.With the added bonus of bass music in the background, my artistic senses were also pleased with the father and the son, who were both writers. The way in which their hobbies altered their perception of the world and of themselves, as well as their decisions, was incredible. This especially goes for the father’s ethical dilemma and path toward reconciliation when he shamefully allows himself to take a guilty fascination with his daughter’s condition.There’s a powerful moment near the end of the film. Since the characters are well-rounded, deep thinkers, many interesting things have been said up to this point, but a final profound thought is made about their faith. In the midst of the darkness, at the point where many people typically give up in despair and pointlessly cry out “God gave up on us”, the father doesn’t give up hope on life and instead says “Of course He’s here, because there’s still love in this world. And I love my daughter.” It was a very strong, and ultimately positive, statement that the universe never betrays us.It’s hard to say what the theme of the film is. There are multiple story arcs throughout the film. There are several concluding thoughts, but mostly it’s up to interpretation. That’s not to say that the film follows a vague story. It’s very strong and complete, and it’s very applicable to our understanding of mature relationships within a family. It has a strong presence in my mind, and it’s a film I’m yearning to watch again multiple times over.Prometheus: The Alien franchise was getting old by the time the fourth installment came rolling around, and it was a skeleton after the AVP films started popping up. The sin of latter-day storytellers was that they tried too hard to hammer the films down into a science. After they raped the alien for what it was worth (pun intended), it became no more than another dangerous animal. The horror of the first film was that the Alien couldn’t fully be explained or understood. Ellen Ripley survived never knowing what it was that came after her. All she knew was that her crew had got sidetracked in the vast emptiness and darkness of space, and in this place where they were not meant to go some mysterious horror began to stalk them. The ultimate fear of the movie was the fear of the unknown.So when I heard that Ridley Scott was not only directing a prequel, but a quasi-prequel that wouldn’t actually use the alien, I was happy. This told me that someone was taking the franchise seriously and was ready to come up with a fully matured narrative instead of a piece of fanfiction. I predicted that the film would have that “it” factor, much like the original film and Aliens had. In other words, my thesis was that it would have all the qualities to stand as not just a good, but important icon for the science fiction horror genre.I was right. I was so right.I can best sum this film as rediscovering the deeper archetypes of what made the original Alien so frightening, and it found its identity as the poster child for cosmic horror stories. It finds new things to frighten people that Alien never thought of by turning to disturbing big-picture questions. The fear of the unknown is taken to its extremes when it’s put up against the fundamentals of our belief systems. Peter Weyland asked “What happened after we die?” forming the basis of many uncertainties throughout the film. Is there anything special about life? Is there anything worth believing at all? What if we were wrong – what if we were so wrong – and everything we believe is a lie? What if our life has no meaning? Just as bad, what if our God was really a grotesque monster like the original alien and only wanted to hurt us? This film has everything in it to make Lovecraft proud.Many people complained that the film never answered any of its questions, but they didn’t see the point. The point is that by not answering them, it maintains that sense that everything is off, that things are out of balance, that something isn’t right. It’s not scary right away, but it sinks in and leaves a very deep impression.I wasn’t expecting all of that. In fact, this film defied my expectations, which is really, really saying something. I primarily thought that it would be a good tale of monster horror, featuring creatures from beyond. It did, in fact, have that, too, and on that front it was likewise very fantastic. I never fully understood what the alien horror was. You can look up discussions about the film online and you’ll find endless speculation. It’s very difficult to say what the alien monster was and how it worked, which was brilliant. What I can say is that is does tie into the original Alien, though in ways unclear. Prometheus finally broke trend set by other sequels to fit the Xenomorph into a predictable, trope-filled animal with clearly set rules. This film has redefined how I look at the original Alien and has made the original possibly even more unnerving. The monster horror card was played perfectly in this film, perhaps more perfectly that in any other film ever made. Alien and Aliens have some serious competition going on.There are several other major thematic differences from Alien and Aliens that are worth noting. Fassbender’s performance as the android David was wonderful. He really had me sold, and his character added so much to the film that, without me initially realizing it, he was it star and just as important as the leading female character, Elizabeth Shaw. The subtle ways in which he blends into the films larger questions is truly brilliant once the realization sits in.There is also the music, which is a very different element that departs from the original films. It makes heavy use of a particular leitmotif that connects to the wonder of exploration, and though while at first it is beautiful and wondrous, it is also played in association with death, and it hit me particularly hard when David referred to death as a journey. The music is, overall, very beautiful, and dares to tackle grander themes, just like the film itself, which further – for lack of a better word – alienates Prometheus from its source material in new and fascinating ways.Unfortunately, these themes have hit me very, very hard, since the questions are very real. I cannot help but wonder if I’m wrong about my faith, and that question haunted me for the last week to the point of making me physically sick.I don’t know what to make of this film yet, but what I can say is that the impression it left me was very pure. It’s like what happens when Alien meets 2001: A Space Odyssey, and it pulls it off with all the grace a master director ever could. This is an artistic masterpiece well worth seeing. In fact, it was so good I watched it twice, because it’s one of those films that was worth seeing in theatres. My only regret was that one Cineplex had gone so far as to have an Alien medley before its midnight showing and I found out the next day, because I had always wondered what it would have been like to see Alien and Aliens on the big screen.Alien Resurrection: The title to this film sounds like it belongs to a video game, which is what this film feels like. The one redeeming quality is that it has Alien in its title and the Alien is what you get. The bottom line is that it’s okay for anyone wanting to get just another glimpse of the aliens from new angles and enjoy everybody’s favorite movie monster one more time. After all, the Alien is cool and it’s fun to watch, and even if the movie sucks, at least you got to see a decent movie monster.That said, the movie sucks. Not only does it exploit the Alien and tie it down to mundane rules, it’s fan fiction with a budget. Worse than that, Ellen Ripley is a Mary Sue. She’s given Alien powers to make her more bad___, which is completely unnecessary. It makes her less of a survivor and more of a fighter, and I repeat once again that it makes her Mary Sue. Mary Sue always has the convenient fancy weapon that should only belong to another character.That’s not even the beginning of the Mary Sue problems this movie faces. Like any true Mary Sue, Ellen Ripley makes the sexy villain turn good by having sex with him. Except in this case, it’s an Alien. She didn’t really have sex with it, but apparently she’s her grandmother, but the sexual themes run deep in this series so it was a worthy mention. The point is, however, that all these aliens revolve around her. It makes her special “just because”, and ultimately, she gets an alien to love her. That’s just wrong, and it goes against everything that makes the series great.Don’t get me wrong. Having a sex scene with an alien would actually be very interesting, if it was played for horror. I can just imagine how sick it would be to be impregnated with an alien fetus and how violating that would feel. However, this film didn’t do any of that, so tough love. There are no brownie points for giving me good ideas based upon your failures.Wait, that’s not even the worst of it. The final act of the film is bad enough to kill. By now I hope I’ve dissuaded readers from wanting to watch this film, but in case anyone is still interested, I have no shame in dropping spoilers for a preposterous plot. The first major problem was the romanticized alien I mentioned earlier. Not only did Ripley get the alien DNA in her, but the queen alien also got her DNA, in turn becoming more human. It developed a human reproductive system, which supposedly “perfected” it. Never mind that it didn’t actually perfect it. Mary Sue doesn’t care if her methods make any sense because, according to the author and everyone in-universe, if it’s related to Mary Sue it’s obviously perfect.By now I thought the marvelous creature had been completely butchered, but the movie took it even further. She gave birth to something that looked more like a human than its own kind. It didn’t have the second jaw or a dagger-tipped tail. It had human colored skin. It had human breasts. Worst of all, it had expressive human eyes. Explain to me how this blob of flesh is an improvement over its predecessors. The only good this thing does is further bringing glory to Resurrection’s Mary Sue version of Ripley. Why? Because it turns on the queen, kills her, and hugs its “real” mother, good old Ellen.It’s shot in such a terrible way that it isn’t scary or enticing at all. At this point I just wanted the film to end. But it still didn’t end. It was then that I actually got scared, but not in the way the writer wanted me to. I was scared that the movie wasn’t over yet and I had to put up with it for perhaps ten more minutes or so.After thoroughly butchering the greatest movie monster of all time and insulting it all just to glorify its Mary Sue, the final act ends with two remarkably stupid developments that cross the boundaries or poor storytelling and reach the levels of the just plain absurd. First, an innocent man who has been impregnated starts giving birth to a chestburster. While it is tearing up his insides, he uses his last moments to rush the evil scientist who has hijacked the escape ship. He’s shot in the chest maybe a dozen times, but he still manages to continue running and overpower the evil scientist. He holds the scientist’s head to his chest, and the chestburster, after half a minute of kicking at his ribcage, explodes through his sternum and the scientist’s skull all at once. What was the director thinking? Not even John McClain could pull that off.The second moment of mind-boggling stupidity was the overly dramatic defeat of the already unintimidating alien with eyes. Seriously, Ripley killed it by using acid blood to dissolve a hole in the window only the size of a half-dollar coin. I know my physics well enough to know that there was at most only fourteen pounds of pressure on that area, which was not enough to pick up everyone onboard. Even worse, the alien was sucked through that small little hole.I can see why this is never listed as one of Joss Whedon’s writing achievements. When I first saw his name in the opening credits as the writer, I had a spark of hope, but this has taught me that even some of the greatest bards can flop. I was actually really surprised in more ways than one, because this is completely different from anything else Joss Whedon does, where he didn’t use all of his cast and, instead of killing off a beloved character, made sure to bring one back. In fact, a surprising amount of people survived by the end. The only recognizable element of Joss Whedon’s style is that the end has depicted Ripley and Call the token android as outsiders. The actual theme of loneliness is nowhere in the main body of the movie, however, and the ending is nothing more than a climax of false meaning.Alien: After watching Prometheus, I had to watch this good old classic with several family members, including my sister. Soon afterward, I would go on to watch Prometheus for a second time, but with my sister.To this day, I still consider this to be one of the best – if not the best – horror films ever made, rivaled only by its sequel, Aliens, and its prequel, Prometheus. It’s an icon of science fiction and a remarkable vision from a director who has rightly been labeled as a visionary.This could be best labeled as space horror, which deserves a distinction from the genres of cosmic horror and monster horror that its two competitors perfectly tackle. The fright isn’t necessarily just the monster. The fact is, the Nostromo went where no man has gone before, where no man should go. Alien could almost be renamed It Came From BEYOND, because indeed the Alien’s origins are beyond our knowledge, even in an age of space exploration, and the stowaway organism can’t even be given a name, exceeding definition. I like that Ridley Scott never fully reveals H.R. Giger’s source of nightmare fuel, and even goes so far as to make it feel like an actual nightmare.The fear of the unknown is quite prevalent throughout this film, but further than that the film makes it quite clear that the one thing that is known about the unknowable is that it is malevolent, and that it wants to get you. Its desires are completely unnatural, for it doesn’t appear that the monster wants to capture people for food. It is simply a killing machine, a true monster. As designers for the film said, they thought it was disturbing because it looked like "it could #### right before killing", making it a predator with an appetite only for violation. The way in which it plays upon every self-preservation instinct the viewer has is an impressive achievement.Granted, it’s not so frightening the second time around, but I can remember the reasons why the first time left me with chills down my spine after midnight. Good thing my bed isn’t in space.Taken: If you read the description on the back cover, you’ll have the entire plot. It’s clearly not an award winner, and it has no twists. It is, as my mother says, straightforward. However, she also said that so long as you can accept that, it’s really entertaining.I took her advice and I enjoyed it. Right away, I enjoyed the film for one reason, and his name was Liam Neeson. His personality really enhanced the character. He’s not an original masterpiece, and he’s not very complex, but the Liam Neeson persona sure does make him likeable.This film fulfills a little fantasy among parents that they can prove their dedication to their children and be their heroes. I think the simple motivation runs very deep and makes the action more entertaining, because anyone who has or can imagine having children is very understanding of the main character’s feelings. The fantasy culminates: not only does he save his daughter from the evil sex traffickers, but he also gives her an opportunity she always wanted.Taken cemented one thought in my mind: I want Liam Neeson to be my daddy.The Lion King: As always, a masterpiece. It doesn’t even merit a review because its awesomeness goes without saying. Just as a reminder, however, I personally believe that this is one of the greatest films of all time.As a side note, this time around I paid close attention to the music. It’s playing. All the time. I’d be surprised it there was more than a minute of screen time total without it. The music was even played during all conversations. Impressively, it only added to the film and never destracted, which can easily happen. I really respect The Lion King in this regard. It’s a rare feat.A Bug’s Life: Like The Lion King, my recommendation doesn’t need much description. This was the second ever Pixar release, and it’s just as impressive as its other works. I like Flik. He reminds me of Greek legends such as Daedelus, who fit into the simple but lovable archetype of the creative inventor who thought outside of the box to solve problems. It really stands out as main character material in a routine-driven anthill.Hopper is possibly my favorite Pixar villain. He embodies the essence of a tyrant while remaining acceptable material for a Pixar film. I never picked up on it before, but now that I’m older the line he feeds to Princess Ada – “The first rule about leadership: everything’s your fault!” – has extra juice to it, because it was a very realistic point.There was also a point when Hopper made a reference to The Lion King. “It’s all part of the circle of life…” I love it when Disney does that.I gained a newfound appreciation of the film’s music, and the theme that was played over and over again with anthemic zeal. Without fail, it would play when the ants were working and during collages. It got stuck in my head, and I liked it.Toy Story 2: This movie proves that animated movies can have clever pop culture references without succumbing to the Shrek-ification of animated films (I borrow that term from Pixar itself, which I learned of in a Time Magazine article). Needless to say, I believe this to be one of the best animated films of all time, and anybody who hasn’t watched it is either crazy or a poor unfortunate soul.This time around, I got a reference to A Bug’s Life. Its theme was playing as elevator music. Listen for it the next time you watch this movie.The Godfather: I saw this with my godfather. How fitting.This films gives itself away as Oscar-winning material right away. It has that sort of respectable, artsy film quality to it. It’s hard to say what that “feel” is, but I’ve seen enough Best Pictures to see a few common strands.Because of how culturally significant this film is, I’d recommend watching it, but preferably if you’re an adult. This simply doesn’t feel like a film that was meant for younger audiences. It may be about crime, which is sure to excite teenagers, but the film is actually very long and slow, with very little action to keep adrenaline junkies satisfied. The emphasis is more on the very adult dealings within the family business. It takes one of those “higher minded folk” to appreciate the roles of the characters.Not only was the film slow, but there was virtually no music, which is ironic considering the fame of the film’s main score, “Sing Softly Love”. I was surprised at the long periods of silence. It was a different cinematic feel, and my guess was that the director wanted it to feel as “normal” as possible. After all, in real life there’s no spontaneous music that enhances the emotional impact and dramatic effect of daily life, so the conversations between the characters felt all the more everyday because of it. Likewise, there weren’t any creative camera angles, so in many ways it suspended this illusion of reality.There’s not a whole lot for plot. It has the feeling of an autobiography, where life simply goes on. It doesn’t have a happy ending, or even an especially dramatic ending. For those “high minded folk”, I’d suggest that instead of looking for plot you should look for narrative. Narrative is certainly what carries The Godfather through, specifically the personal narrative of Michael Corleone’s journey. His character certainly does stand out, and it’s not the type of standing out that comes from larger-than-life characters. It’s more like the way people stand out in real life: they become more real as people spend more time with them and get to know them better.Overall, this is a long, slow film that requires maturity in order to take anything out of it.The Fifth Element: Imagine Star Wars, but not a long time ago and not in a galaxy far, far away. This is science fantasy, where fantastic things happen and no particular science-fiction theme is singled out like in In Time. This is the future. There are robots, weird fashions, flying cars with matching flying car chases, space navies, aliens, snazzy guns, flashy medical technologies. It reminds me a little of superhero comics, where it’s taken for granted that anything can happen and anything can be thrown into the setting and the universe would still make sense. Science fantasy like this isn’t very common anymore.The movie was fun. It didn’t require any deep thought. Everything was like a fairy tale, larger than life and filled with interesting details. One of my favorite details was the science fiction priest with the secret knowledge of the Fifth Element, adding the mystic element of fantasy to the film’s sci-fi premise.The villainous Zorg, played by Gary Oldman, was also entertaining. His sense of fashion might seem ridiculous, but I found myself liking it. Besides, it was closer to normal than most of the other wardrobe picks throughout the film. I could get a sense at his personality through it, and it was surprisingly convincing that he should want to be so evil. Card-carrying villains are hard to pull off, so I have to give the writers some credit in this department.Another fantastic feature is that most of the film’s effects are real. The aliens are people in costumes, much like the original Star Wars trilogy. The sets were real and the costumes were real. It was evident that the people on set had fun when the cameras weren’t rolling, except for maybe the titular Element, who wore some uncomfortable clothes and was even briefly naked for a couple of times off camera.As ridiculous as the film is, it takes itself just seriously enough to be engaging, which is why I love it. Take this example: there was a woman with Princess Leiah buns, a wonderful reference, but the film didn’t exploit it like Shrek for snarky purposes and let it slide, more like Pixar. All of its humor was situational, which I personally find to be the best kind. I was really excited to see this film again for the first time since it came out because I remembered this feeling, even after all this time, as one of the most fun science fiction film I’ve ever seen.Tropic Thunder: If you’ve ever seen Zoolander, this is basically the same thing. It’s a clever comedy that satires the ways of Hollywood and its actors. I found myself laughing as I realized “yes, that’s totally what Hollywood does”. Overall, though it’s not the best comedy ever, it’s all in good taste and it hits the notes it needs to. With Tropic Thunder, essentially what you see in the trailer is what you get, and it will be exactly as good as you expect it to be.New Year's Eve: This bland film had at least five different plots going on at once that had nothing to do with each other. There was no reason for all of them to coexist together in the same film. For some reason, each plot was stufed full of famous celebrities. How they ever accepted the roles is beyond me, because they're weak, and it seems that their only purpose is to provide an excuse for more cameo appearances. Because the movie has no flow or underlying narrative, it lacks any power to move the audience and vanishes into the forgotten recesses of the mind soon after watching.The Love Bug: If they ever make a Cars 3, I will be very disappointed if Herbie doesn’t make a cameo appearance. This is a cute, innocent film from the 60’s filled with Disney idealism. I listened to the commentary, and it brought to my attention the Disney Kiss and the Disney Fight. The kisses are just innocent enough, and even the arguments are toned down to make sure the character’s anger doesn’t make the film grim. This film flows a bit like Mary Poppins, although it isn’t quite as fun because Mary does a lot more than Herbie. That doesn’t mean that Harbie doesn’t do a good job of being lovable, however, because he most certainly is. I can’t see how it’s possible to dislike Herbie.Monsters Inc.: No review necessary. It's Pixar, and this was one of their first stories,back whe their ideas were still fresh. In this case, they perfectly spun a tale that almost anyone can connect with. Just as in Toy Story, where many people really did feel as if their toys were alive, many people also feel or at some point in time felt that monsters live in closets. Instead of making a scary movie, however, Monsters Inc made a comedy. While this might normally be the material for a random slapstick Dreamcast film, it turns into something very touching. While it's not in my Top 10 list for best movie endings of all times, the last minute of the film is to die for and is certainly in my Top 20.La Luna: This is the best short film ever made, and I can guarantee that it will earn an Oscar. Not only are the music beautiful and the unnamed boy adorable, but it flows like the perfect bedtime story, with just the right touches of magic at every single moment. It was everything it could have and should have been, and it left me with a childlike sense of wonder. For animated shorts, there has never been an equal.BRAVE: Watch this. Now.If you already have, watch it again. Now.You know that sensation when you go to the big screen and you’re simply blown away? It happened here. I am so glad I watched this on the big screen and I sincerely regret not seeing the midnight premier.First, this film isn’t what the advertisements give it credit for. Looking at the trailers, one would expect it to be a stereotypical story about a girl who defies feminine conventions, which is hardly an original or powerful note for Pixar to start its first female lead off on. This is not Brave. Brave’s story is so much more.Like the truest of Disney films, this is about family, and the writers have perfected their understanding of its dynamics. Not only did it find an engaging story, but also they made it a very worthwhile story by intertwining it with universal archetypes that speak to everyone. Because of this, Merida’s gender is hardly conspicuous, because her journey isn’t specific to female problems. This is a brilliant move on the part of Pixar. This is the heart of the film, and it’s what makes it as powerful as the tales of friendship and family in Toy Story and Finding Nemo. The comparison is worthy, for Brave may just well be one of Pixar’s best films. They really outdid themselves this time.Of the recent surge in female leads in action films, Merida stands out as the strongest representative and role model for the female half of the human race. Unlike Bella Swann, Kristin Stewart’s Snow White, Katniss Everdeen, and the girl with the dragon tattoo, she isn’t merely an action hero who goes all-out. Her tale isn’t about empowerment or kicking butt. Her story isn’t even that of not needing a man. It’s far more important. It’s about having the bravery to mend a family and risking personal desires for the people who matter, values that are important for both boys and girls to learn.Up: Hardly my favorite Pixar film, but a good one nevertheless. It’s still better than any non-Pixar CGI family film.Of course, it didn’t help my perceptions of the film when I knew the entire plot before hand. It was still very good, but nothing came as a surprise, and it didn’t fill me with the same sense of wonder that other Pixar films have.As other people have generally agreed, the best part of the film is the beginning, which is truly sad. I didn’t cry then because I don’t cry at movies, but t still hit hard. It affected the way I watched the rest of the film, and the whole time I was aware of Carl Fredrickson’s age and his grievances. I suppose that they made me really, really want to root for him in a way that I normally don’t root for characters.To start off, his age was conspicuous. Not counting immortal and ageless characters like Doctor Who and Peter Pan, the only other film I can recall with elderly folk as lead characters is Cocoon. Lead characters are almost always below middle age, and throughout the entire film I was aware of this anomaly. It got me to think, and think a lot.See, Carl was near the end of his life journey and apparently he still hadn’t found his calling. For the longest time, his life goal was to visit Paradise Falls with his wife Ellie. Supposedly you live to make life better for the people you love and for future generations, but what about the people of the past? His wife died, and there was nothing he could do about fulfilling her adventure. That made me very, very sad. I hope I never feel that sense of incompletion.Finally, he finds an adventure worth pursuing in Russell, but I couldn’t help but wonder what the rest of his life was for. All it was were various memories of good times with Ellie and a sense of togetherness. Was that a worthwhile venture? What did it mean? And now that he found he cared for Russell, it kind of sucked that he would only live for so long to appreciate his calling.It tapped into a few of the big-picture fears of mine, things that really hurt me. Life is so short – I might as well be the old man. What if I answer my calling too late? Then I cried. This is the second film to make me cry since seeing Schindler’s List, the other being Toy Story 3, because it forced me to think about the questions that I can’t answer in my own life. I wish more than anything that my life can mean something, and I really want to make a difference. I want to be like Walt Disney and touch many people in a positive way, if only I could.If anyone else can take that out of the film, then I guess it’s worth watching.Labyrinth: Fantasy stories are common. Contemporary fantasies are not. This is a fantasy story that has all the elements of a Brothers Grimm tale. Think of goblins and strange puzzles, confounding new sights and unexplained magic, a quest and a villain who crushes on the protagonist, lovable characters and a beautiful princess.Actually, there’s no princess, but there is Jennifer Connelly, and in the beginning she dresses like one. Still, she wears white throughout the entire film, easily denoting her as the beautiful female protagonist. It’s the type of character that would be looked down upon by today’s writers, and there’s not much to her, but I did find myself falling in love with her hobby of memorizing lines from her favorite fantasy books and roleplaying as the characters in her spare time. I find that very attractive and it ranks high on personality quirks that I find attractive.She reminds me of a few other fictional characters, and I can see tropes made famous in other fantasy stories come together in this film, but I won’t detail them because they didn’t enter into my mind as I was watching the film and only upon later analyzing for this review. Naming the tropes now would make it impossible for any reader of this review to keep them out of his or her mind while watching the film and it would spoil the experience.This film is directed by Jim Henson and is similar to his other film, The Dark Crystal (and, on another note, The Never Ending Story). It belongs to the same genre and, like many of Henson’s creations, features prominently the use of puppets and costumes. There was a great satisfaction in watching a film and knowing that everything on screen was actually in front of the camera. This is becoming a lost art, and I would really like to see more fantasy stories told through this medium.The effects don’t date the film. If anything does that, it’s the music, which has 80’s written all over it. Viewers can decide for themselves whether or not that’s a good thing. I thought it was.Be warned, though. It falls into the same general category as The Princess Bride, but it lacks the same universal appeal. The Princess Bride is famous for having something for everyone and can be watched in almost any mood because it hits so many other genres. Labyrinth, on the other hand, is tailored to fit as a bedtime story for a person like its protagonist, Sarah.Your Honor,Emperor Kraggh

Edited July 5, 2012 by Emperor Kraggh

FireEmblem · July 8, 2012

I just saw The Amazing Spider-Man again last night, this would be my 3rd time.Since Kraggh did reviews of films, I figured I'll do a review of this film, hopefully not as long. Apologies if I get carried away.The Amazing Spider-Man pales in comparison to Spider-Man 2. Doesn't sound good, does it? Well let's be honest. Every superhero film except the Avengers and the Dark Knight pales in comparison to Spider-Man 2. Even the original Spider-Man pales in comparison to Spider-Man 2. Now, TAS-M compared to the original? I'd say slightly better. Tobey Maguire portrayed the perfect geek. However, Peter Parker was a little more than a geek, and Andrew Garfield understood that. Like Robert Downey, Jr. is Tony Stark, Andrew Garfield is Peter Parker.The film shows Peter's intellect well, with his mechanized door-lock and his own mechanical web shooters, and that's something I felt was missing from the original trilogy. The original 3 emphasized his love for photography, but this film balances his love for science and photography. It also shows his lack of money and therefore lack of material; his camera is a cheap film camera, his web shooters were originally wristwatches, his glasses are actually his father's, etc. It shows that he can work with what he has.I didn't care much for the romantic parts of the movie, but I felt that Stone and Garfield were extraordinary onscreen. Both of them also had their share of humor, Garfield more as he's the title character, and it was actually kind of funny.The action scenes in TAS-M are, well, amazing. The Lizard was done beautifully in the fight sequences. 3D really worked with this movie, but you can see it in 2D and it won't make a difference. Also, on the subject of the Lizard, I felt he could have used a little more development as Dr. Connors. I thought we would've gotten more development when Ifans said he's Connors more than half the movie, but he didn't say Connors was in the movie more than his alter ego. If Connors had a little more development, he could have been as good a villain as Molina's Doc Ock.A few complaints with the movie were the multiple scene cuts and the resulting plot holes. *SPOILERS FORWARD ON!* Half of the scenes you see in the trailers aren't actually in the movie. They were obviously last-minute cuts, so they must have looked at it and said "whoop, this isn't right". Some others are inconsistencies, like what happened to the Indian doctor, or how Peter and his father had the same prescription for glasses? It's odd.Overall, aside from obvious scene cuts and the resulting plot holes, The Amazing Spider-Man is an amazing film that has an enjoyable cast and a intense plot, and it leaves you wanting more after the end. Go see it.EDIT: And Kraagh, Maria Hill is the name of Nick Fury's right hand woman.

Edited July 8, 2012 by karpinskijd

**Varaka** · July 8, 2012

I recently saw Hancock, Ted, The Amazing Spider-Man, and D3: The Mighty Ducks.

Klak · July 8, 2012

The Amazing Spiderman. I enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed the previous films. It's a fitting reboot. Might post a review here if anyone's interested.

Edited July 8, 2012 by MakutaKlak

**Dorek** · July 8, 2012

Saw The Amazing Spider-Man yesterday. Darn good film. The music was pretty whack at times, but the script was tight and smart, and didn't treat people like they were in a lesser class of intelligence.

Core: Matoran of Chaos · July 8, 2012

The last movie I saw was The Amazing Spider-Man. The writing was good and while I didn't care for the way they butchered the origin story I'm excited to see what they do next.

**Jean Valjean** · July 16, 2012

:kaukau: I'm sorry this review took so long. I watched the movie on the 4^th of July and said I'd get it written the following weekend, but I put it off. I'm assuming that most of the people who were going to watch the film already have, but just in case, I hope this helps people make up their minds.The Amazing Spider-Man: The film was designed to be more contemporary. It's a bit difficult, considering how clearly Spider-Man falls into the category of a prototypical hero in bright tights, in contrast to figures like the armored Batman or Green Arrow wearing a hoodie and sunglasses, but in some ways The Amazing Spider-Man is visibly the result of a superhero genre that has gradually been evolving since Christopher Nolan'sDark Knight trilogy. The Amazing Spider-Man takes off in a different direction than Raimi's trilogy and seeks a more mature narrative. Though it's a little darker, it knows where to cross the line and doesn't venture into Gotham-like doom and gloom, since the roots of the story are still, after all, in a lovable nerd named Peter Parker who dresses up in a flashy leotard and makes witty jokes while crushing on a high school girl. However, it's the type of film that will use a song from the radio just as much as it would a dramatic original score for the right scenes, and other conventions from non-superhero films are brought in.The new Peter Parker is the heart of the film, as he should be. Andrew Garfield plays him with convincing nerd charm, where it's conceivable that bumbling awkwardness and lame excuses aren't signs of incompetence, but merely shyness, and it would make sense that he should be shy. The unexplained disappearance of his father would rightfully scar a child, something that many incarnations of Spiderman neglect to touch upon. So it's conceivable that a backward, stammering fellow could secretly be a supergenius. This new incarnation actually takes a lot more from the comics than the Toby version, encompasses more of Peter Parker's personality, and explores deeper emotional reasons for acting the way he does.Even the bully understands this. The high school dynamic is far more convincing. Like I said, the storytelling is a bit more mature and doesn't fall into the rut of stereotypes that superhero films do. There is a bully, but like Smalleville's Whitney Fordman, he's more than just that. His role isn't terribly prominent in the film, but he changes, and he shows that he's human just like the rest of us. I ended up liking him. That's what this film was actually very good at, which was humanizing the world around Peter Parker and making it more than just an environment. There's a moment in the film when Spider-Man's effect on the people he saves shows up, where people begin to become inspired by him and the city ultimately helps their best man. It's a classic struggle for Spider-Man to get people to believe in him, in which he has more trouble than some other heroes, but when the moment finally came around it was definitely very cool and received its due amount of drama.As many were made aware, his love interest in this film is Gwen Stacy instead of Mary Jane. Perhaps it's nothing more than a name change to some, but Gwen has a different back story than Mary, and it's of genuine relevance to the story and to the character. It makes their relationship all the more interesting, and in a way that she's more than just the chick and an object of emotional desire mandatory for many a superhero stories, but a legitimate element of the story as well. Thank heavens the only moment she needed to be saved was due to the villain targeting her, but when she got in the villain's way in order to help save the day. That's far more than what can be said of Mary Jane, whose only role was to emotionally compromise Peter Parker and provide a conveniently easy target for hostage scenarios.I can see why Entertainment Weekly marked her as the pop-cultural bulls-eye. There's genuine chemistry, and my first thought on the character was that she was a nice person with an appealing personality, not that she was pretty. When Peter Parker first expresses his interest in her, it's understandable that she likes him back because his goofy behavior was genuinely attractive, and the dynamic between them went places that superhero relationships rarely ever tread. For one, the hero's love is often unrequited or unnoticed, but the case was very different, and I'm happy to report that he can have a positive relationship with someone other than his parents or a friend-turned sidekick, which is the usual norm for hero's lonely alter ego. There are other elements to the relationship, but at the risk of dropping spoilers I won't mention them. All I will say is that it takes a few unexpected turns that defied my expectations of a superhero romance.The villain of the story, Rhys Ifan's Curt Conners, was interesting and well done. It was somewhat formulaic and not necessarily that different from the typical story arch of the villain with good intentions, but at least it stands out from other failed attempts to establish a villain's personality. He'll go down in pop culture's collective memory as a proper villain, though he isn't likely to gain the love of more powerful, dramatic characters such as Ras-al-Ghul, Mystique, and Loki. Still, he does better than Obadiah Stain, Whiplash, Paralax, The Abomination, and even a few arch-nemeses such as Red Skull and Venom. The Lizard is no arch nemesis and he isn't written to feel like one. He is, however, worthy of costaring in an expensive Sipderman reboot and made the viewing experience worth it. If anything, I'd compare him to Raimi's Doc Oc and exactly that.Speaking of arch nemeses, there is sequel potential. It's woven throughout the story in ways that are more than mere Chekhov's Guns, and they contribute to the plot in ways that don't feel out of place and necessitate a sequel in order for a sense of completion. When a sequel does come, and I assure that it will, I can guarantee that it will be good due to a definite sense of a broader, overarching story, and I suspect that it will remind me of some of the larger, longer comic stories I've read, which will be a pleasure. So look forward to another episode that doesn't feel episodic, and bask in the suspense as it sets up Spider-Man's eventual encounter with his arch-nemesis.In short, The Amazing Spider-Man is amazing, and it's fun. It's exactly what a Spider-Man film should be.But what did you expect from a director named Marc Webb?The Expendables: This film is so bristling with MANliness that prepubescent boys left the theatre with beards. Normally films with tons of stars, such as New Year's Eve, turn out sucky and are all about cameo appearances, but in the case of this film there's a good reason for that, because the pitch is basically "What were to happen if we brought together all the MANliest actors ever and had a very MANly movie?" So whenever a cameo appears, it's not cheap so much as it is awesome. The best part of the film might very well be when Stallone, Willis, and Schwarzenegger all shared a brief scene together, filling the screen with so much MANliness that it could have cracked, and the best lines were the actor allusions in that scene. The only person missing from the picture was Mel Gibson, the other 80's action icon, who couldn't make it for obvious reasons.You'd think that with this film's reasons to exist it wouldn't ask the audience to take it seriously, yet it does. Normally that's setting up a film to do something cheesy and stumble upon an "epic fail" moment, but it doesn't happen here. The Expendables isn't about drama. It's just about action and lots of it, following in the tradition of the good old days. It's about having action heroes whose single defining trait is being MANly, and who can take out the entire army of a small country purely because with MANliness like that they can do anything. Casting nothing but icons of MANliness perfects the atmosphere.And I can tell you one thing for sure. The sequel is going to be twice as good, purely because it will have twice as much MAN.Merida

Edited July 16, 2012 by Merida

**Vorahk1Panrahk2** · July 18, 2012

Finally caught Brave yesterday, a movie that I have been anticipating since it was announced several years ago. After the critical panning of Cars 2 (which itself followed a pretty successful 'golden era'), I wasn't really sure what to expect. Would this be a critical punching bag a la Cars 2, or a crown gem like WALL-E or Toy Story 3? Ultimately, I think I found it to be somewhere in between.First off, let me say this: It's pretty much a Pixar review cliche by now, but the animation in this movie is spectacular. Merida's hair, as messy as it is, looked incredibly real. Every time there was a close up on her head I felt like ever single strand of hair was visible there. The scenery was bright and vivid when it needed to be, and musty, dark, and grey when the story called for a heavier atmosphere. But even these more atmospheric scenes had a strange beauty to them.With that praise out of the way, I'd like to comment on the story. While the movie delivers a tale of bonding between the leads that almost matches Finding Nemo in emotion, I felt left down by many of the supporting cast members. I don't think the story was meant to be one of female empowerment (no more than, say, Finding Nemo is a movie of male empowerment), but with practically every other character being an inept male, I found it hard to steer myself away from that conclusion. I don't think toning down their incompetence could have hurt the movie. It's possible that this was done to greater emphasize the relationship between Merida and Elinor, but that's mostly me making excuses.With that said, however, the inept males greater illuminate (by contrast) the character of Merida. When we're introduced to her after the intro scene we see a lot of admirable qualities. But these qualities, which start out being portrayed as her character strengths, are played out by the midpoint to be character flaws instead. I don't think that's bad writing. On the contrary, I think it helps illuminate some of the themes of the movie, and the screenwriters use her strengths as flaws to make Merida grow and mature as a character. I was also impressed by the filmmakers ability to disband established Disney tropes without venturing too far into female-superhero territory. In fact Merida's weapon, the one thing that can turn her into a Pixar version of Mulan or Katniss Everdeen, is almost completely useless. Ultimately, unlike those heroes, she doesn't solve her problems with a bow, but rather by taking a quiet moment to admit and take accountability of her flaws. Any viewer, be it man, woman, or child, can relate to how much courage this can take. And suddenly the title of the movie makes perfect sense. For me, this evolution of her character was the real magic of the movie.Unfortunately, this magic was occasionally stomped on by the use of humor. Every Pixar movie since A Bug's Life has had occasional moments of lowbrow humor so this was not unexpected, but in Brave it often fell flat, and there were times when humor should have been downplayed in order to avoid trivializing the dramatic situations at hand. I'm referring mostly to one particular sequence in the film, but I can't say much without spoiling story. It certainly doesn't diminish the overall emotional impact, but much like the incompetent males, I found it hard to overlook or take my mind off of. To sum up, the movie is a fairytale. It's formulaic in this sense, and doesn't break any ground story-wise (except for disbanding some of the princess fairytale tropes already established by Disney), but there's a lot to love about this movie. The animation is gorgeous, Merida is a spunky lovable heroine, and the story, while familiar, was engaging (in no small part due to the animation, score, and setting). Fans hoping for another Pixar masterpiece might be disappointed, but it's got enough charm and heart to stand without shame in their pantheon of films.

**Jean Valjean** · July 18, 2012

I rewatched Brave and wrote another review. Normally, when I write a review a second time, it's much shorter, but this is an exception. As you will find, I have nothing but praise for the film and for many minute details about Merida that stood out to me. Consider me a nerd.Here's the link to my official blog review: BRAVE ReviewPlease read

!In response to the above post, I naturally agree with most things, and now that V1P2 mentions it, the truth about the bow is completely true. All too often it's an element of cheap writing to label the character as being good with a particular weapon and make that their chief strength. It's often a cheap device for moving the plot foreward, whereas in this case I think it contributes more to the characterization of Merida.I'm not sure about the ineptitude of the males, though. I think it was mainly for comic purposes, and to distance them from the central story. That is, they were intentionally made larger-than-life in comedic ways while the family was humanized for the purpose of the narrative. If the suitors would have been as competent as Merida, it would have turned into "Oh sure, Merida is great, but you also have to admire those other guys", which makes the story less personal, which would have been fine for another film but not a fairy tale. I'm having trouble explaining exactly what I'm thinking here, but basically I don't think that most people will interpret it as a tale about female empowerment.Merida

**Angel Beat** · July 20, 2012

The Dark Knight Riseseeeeeeeeeeee <3

SgtPanda · July 20, 2012

Pulp Fiction.Wanna watch the new Batman movie and Ted.

Franz Joseph Haydn · July 22, 2012

8 Mile, featuring Eminem.Fun movie, gives a good feel of what it's like to live on 8 mile, I think. Also chronicles Eminem's rise to stardom fairly well.

Void Emissary · July 22, 2012

The Brothers BloomLewis: Life Born of FireRango-Void

**Velox** · July 22, 2012

Watched The Dark Knight Rises on Friday. Definitely one of the greatest movies ever.

**Queen of Liars** · July 23, 2012

The Dark Knight Rises. It was really good, although I didn't like it as much as the previous one, but I guess it will take a couple more times of watching it.

Zulu Yankee Kilo Echo · July 24, 2012

Mission Impossible: Ghost ProtocolI liked the action scenes and the really tense moments. My only qualms would be that the technology isn't very realistic and the plot was a little difficult to follow. But overall, great movie.

**Jean Valjean** · July 24, 2012

Here's my official Dark Knight Rises Review.The King's Speech: The film is a bit predictable, but it's based off of a true story, so of course it won't be filled with plot twists. What really matters is that it intends to be an inspirational film. While this is not an inspirational film that actually inspired me like others in the past so prominently have, its theme is nevertheless ambitious and uplifting, gearing more toward a happy ending for a person who faced a heavy challenge and found friendship in an eccentric speech tutor.As many know, this won Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinemetography, and Best Actor. The first three tell the viewer right off the bat that the film is going to be formal and fitting of the uptight standards of royalty, so before watching go ahead and put on a hat or something that makes you feel "cultural" or something. It's not super uptight like other Best Pictures, but it's still formal and it's still a slow and steady film. It doesn't stand out so much, and at times it does feel like a normal film, so it shouldn't be so exclusive in its audience. It really loosens up during King Henry's sessions with his tutor, Lionel, when the King himself is loosening up. Easily, the best part of the film is when he tries swearing to smooth out his speech patterns, and then there's the moment when Lionel asks him if His Majesty knows the "F word". Henry's first guess is whimpy and totally off the mark, but with a little prodding he completely lets loose. Who knew that the f-bomb could be so funny? It is at moments like this where the film finds its humor.This is the first time I've ever seen Colin Firth, by the way, and didn't initially think of him as Colin Firth. He's never been that conspicuous, but since my sister once thought that he was the hottest actor alive I was always, well, aware of his presense as "my sister's man". This time, however, the amount in which he sold the role was straight on and really did earn him the Oscar. The same can't be said of Helena Bonham-Carter, who, after being used a million times to play weird roles cast by Tim Burton, was conspicuous and out of place in spite of her professional acting.The major turn-off that I'm sure the film will have on many viewers is its historical inaccuracies. This isn't quite Titanic in its historic precision. The dissociation from reality isn't obvious, but there are moments that most surely did not happen, such as Winston Churchill's presence during Henry's climactic speech and the crowd around the palace during the final scene on the balcony. Many of the aspects of the friendship between Henry and Lionel are questionable, such as the swearing and their casual addressing of each other, and their sessions did not start as early as the film suggested and Henry's progress was evident much earlier. The extent of Henry's stutter was dramatized, and members of his family were antagonized for dramatic effect. It's easy to see the dramatization for those who have an eye for it, and people who dislike this might have a hard time enjoying the film. It certainly gave me mixed feelings.Merida

**Varaka** · July 25, 2012

The Dark Knight Rises, Casa de mi Padre, Scarface, Rango, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, Alien. In that order.

Franz Joseph Haydn · July 25, 2012

DriveHorribly produced movie. For being an action movie, the action sequences were sub-par, the acting was stilted and Ryan Gosling's performance as the Driver was a stunningly horrid tribute to the Driving films of times past. The music, in it's quasi-1980's synthetic style, failed to impress. Scenes of gore were sprinkled in, with certain scenes being somewhat shocking, if not expected. Stereotypes were used heavily, and the use of The Mob as a plot device and enemy was also unimpressive. The Driver's lack of personality and emotion made the movie's main hero seem almost non-existant, his goals unknown. Connections to the Mafia are implied, but not solidly stated. One scene almost gives off this sense of The Driver being an almost super-human computer only capable of thinking in numbers or equations. The character also seemed as though he did not have the proper mental facilities to operate outside of his self-built world of math and cars. The opening scene, often the teller of whether or not a movie will be good, was extremely dull, unnecessarily elongated, and not very exciting overall. The Driver's attire harkened back to a time in the 1980's where scorpion-back jackets and stylized credits were considered astonishing film making.Many plotlines are established, as an example: Early in the movie, The Driver's manager, played by Bryan Cranston, manages a deal with a Mob boss to buy a stock car. It is heavily implied that the main plot of the movie would revolve around The Driver becoming a NASCAR/Getaway car driver. This is not the case. Midway through the movie, the Driver accepts a job helping his neighbor's husband get out of trouble with the mob. This heist goes catastrophically wrong, which leads to another terribly boring car chase. Shortly after the end of the car chase, the Driver figures out, in a hotel room, that Blanche (Played by the beautiful Christina Hendricks) knew that the heist would be rigged against both The Driver and the Husband. After a quick interrogation, the driver allows Blanche to use the bathroom, where her head is literally blown off by Mobsters in tracksuits who followed to duo. The Driver, being the hero of the story, quickly defeats the mobsters and exits, his coat and gloves now drenched in blood.From here he tracks down the connecting mobster to a strip club, quickly interrogates him and kills him, and returns home. This is where I left the theater. Horrible names, such as Standard, Shannon (The name of Bryan Cranston's character), and Nino, are used for the characters. This further solidifies the movie's position as a 1980's Driving Movie wannabe. It also bothered me that one of the Mobsters was Jewish but acted and was played as if he were Italian. It is also of note that this character used foul language more times then any other character present.Overall rating: 3/10Acting: 1/10 (Stilted performances by Ryan Gosling, unrealistic performances by other unknown actors, some characters had too few lines to judge ((I.E. Blance)))Presentation: 7/10 (Visually interesting, use of slow motion shots and few cuts)Action: 3/10 (Highly dull and unrealistic car chases, simple scenes turned boring and violent to compensate for horrible quality of action overall)Story: 1/10 (Several plot lines started, few plot lines explored, none of the plot lines were concluded really)

Edited July 25, 2012 by Red Jacket

**Jean Valjean** · July 25, 2012

The Truth About Love: To put into perspective what type of film this is, I got it from one of those four-in-one DVD purchases that has a quartet of romantic comedies on the cover. Obviously it wasn't of high quality and it's meant to be taken as a fairly simple film. Its target audience is probably couples looking for a random romance film to watch, although there's a second demographic, and that's people like me who only half watched the film and just fast-forwarded to the scenes with Jennifer Love Hewitt, who looks darn cute with her short hair and fun personality.The characters aren't necessarily anything to look at and didn't necessarily come to life, but in these films the important thing is the dynamic between them. Archie is in love with his best friend's wife, Alice (played by JLH), while Alice's husband is secretly having an affair. When Alice gets headwind that he might be having an affair, she at first refuses to believe it, but decides to be on the safe side and test him with anonymous letters and phone calls nevertheless. Be prepared to see some suggestive scenes when Alice practices being sexy and for some explicit sexual dialogue.In the end, Archie gets the girl, but that's to be expected with a name like that. The dirty rotten husband gets caught having an affair within his affair and leaves in shame. Maybe there was more, but I meant it when I said I just fast-forwarded to all the parts with Jennifer Love Hewitt. As far as I'm concerned, the best part of the movie was when she and her sister Felicity went shopping and just goofed around with wearing wigs and the like. It's a romantic comedy, so I looked forward to the most light-hearted parts.Personally, I'd recommend The Sure Thing for a romantic comedy night, or The Decoy Bride, since those two films have a little more to do with the actual process of discovering what love is and are a bit more comedic as a bonus, but if you've already seen those then this would suffice. I'm not going to give it a bad rating, but romantic comedies are traditionally B movies and I'd rate this a C.Being John Malkovich: The synopsis of the film given on the back cover goes something like this...

Craig Schwartz (John Cusack) is an unsuccessful puppeteer married to pet-obsessed wife Lotte (Cameron Diaz). When he finds a new place to work as a filer, he discovers a hidden door that takes him for a 15 minute ride into the life of John Malkovich (played by himself). With the help of his office partner Maxine, he sets up an after-hours business charging people $200 per ticket to experience the famous actors life, until things begin to get complicated.

The film is basically exactly what the back cover says it is and therefore could be considered to be straightforward, but with such an outlandish pitch "straightforward" covers a lot of unusual ground. What I like about the film initially is that when they first discover the door and live inside John Malkovich, the main characters all over-analyze the philosophical implications of the door. Their reactions are all completely sane, and then the further implications are explored in-story. What happens if a woman lives in John Malkovich's mind? What happens if you try to find ways to utilize the door for more than just monetary gain? What happens if John Malkovich goes through his own door? The result is very, very strange.The film is directed by the same man who directed Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. For those who have seen it, Being John Malkovich is less confusing and more straightforward, but it just might fill its quota for weirdness beyond what Sunshine did due to an inspiration further removed from reality.Be warned, however, that basically all the characters, except for the poor John Malkovich, are twisted and messed up, and they spiral downward as the film goes on. As it goes on, it doesn't guarantee a happy ending, but rather something bizarre and rather creepy. Fortunately, it's offsetting in just the right way, although I can easily see how it would have been hit-and-miss if Tim Burton had directed it. That guy needs to take a hint.In some ways the film reminds me of Requiem for a Dream. The characters have their addictions that alienate them from the viewer and they are all clearly on a downward spiral of unhealthy behavior. There are multiple sexual themes that result from a woman visiting the life of John Malkovich and a very unconventional affair. Like Requiem, I can't recommend it to just anybody. The viewer has to be prepared and open to the fact that the film will go places that hit the exit velocity of the comfort zone.The weirdest part of the film, though, is at the end. John Malkovich and Charlie Sheen are both characters portrayed by themselves, but at the end, the very end, there's a footnote at the bottom of the credits that reads:

All persons appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, dead or alive, is purely coincidental.

Tin Man: I will post my actual review on my blog. It's too epic to contain here in the middle of a post.Amistad: At first the film came off as a boring facsimile and ran like a documentary, so I had trouble paying attention and busied myself with other things while the movie played on. About ten minutes later I could immerse myself in the film as it began to flow more naturally, but it still wasn't really taking me in. However, the film got better as it went along, and by the time John Quincy Adams becomes more than just a cameo it's genuinely intriguing. Anthony Hopkins plays presidents exceptionally well, which is ironic because he's British. The payoff is the dramatic speech near the end, which probably belongs to the exclusive list of "famous movie speaches", which when done right like this is a trope that I love and makes for a good movie.Since Amistad focuses on a significant historic event, I would recommend to American viewers. I am of the opinion that people should watch films that teach them about their history and heritage in order to appreciate the world they life in. While I can't recommend it to British viewers on the same basis that I do American audiences, there are British characters involved and the big Americana speech is delivered by a classic British actor, so there might be some appeal. Plus, the British are praised in the film's narrative for outlawing slavery from the start.The film goes some places that many wouldn't these days, of course. There's a lot of Christianity in it and a considerable amount of Jesus talk, beyond that which is necessary in order to establish setting. It's odd, considering that the director, Stephen Spielberg, is Jewish. The Spanish are cast in an antagonizing light, or at least the 11-year-old Queen Isabella II was, but then there had to be an antagonist in a film about the oppressive slave trade. Maybe it comes across as harsh or bigoted, but I'm under the impression that Spielberg was sticking to his American convictions and was willing say, with the hindsight of a historian, who was right and who was wrong.The Usual Suspects: Like Amistad, the film didn't get my attention right away, although I wish I had been paying more attention because this is one of those films you want to rewatch after seeing it the first time after the final reveal. The Usual Suspects is a classic whodunnit, and it pulls it off real well because at first you're not even sure what the crime is. It doesn't go the way you think it will and changes course throughout the film. The final reveal, might I say, was brilliant, and I have to add Keyser Söze to my list of greatest movie villains of all time.I don't give unpredictable films that much praise, but in a whodunnit like this I have to give it credit. At first glance the film seemed to be nothing exceptional, but the ending alone changed all that, and this is a quintessential example of a film with a good plot twist. Merida Edited July 27, 2012 by Merida

**Queen of Liars** · August 3, 2012

In the last few days I've watched:Stranger Than Fiction:I like the idea, however this movie doesn't really take it anywhere too interesting. Still a very enjoyable movie, but it could have been much better if the concept was pushed further. Loved Dustin Hoffman in this though.Snatch.:Not sure how this slipped under my radar for so long, as I love these type of heist movies, even if this one isn't precisely one. Loved pretty much every second of it, didn't get boring for even a moment. Great performances by Brad Pitt, Jason Statham and everyone else in the cast, and a pretty unique style. Will definitely watch this one again soon, really liked it.Office Space:It definitely looks and feels very 90's, but still holds up well and is funny today. Really liked the variety of very different characters found within the same office, from the monotonous boss Lumbergh to the very odd Milton. Very fun movie.Shallow Grave:A great thriller, but at points felt like it was missing something. There are a lot of unexplained things, but I guess that's part of the charm of these types of movies, a lot being left up to the audience's interpretation. Really liked the final scene, although should have probably seen it coming. I love how there's something in every scene that is important to or foreshadows the plot.

Edited August 4, 2012 by -Malchior-

**Jean Valjean** · August 4, 2012

Casino Royale:This is a bond film, so expect the usual conventions. He will introduce himself at least once as "Bond. James Bond." There will be a lavish, surreal credit sequence with a theme song that can't live up to "Live and Let Die". There will be many chases. The villain will be larger than life and kind of cheap. He will play poker with the villain and win because he's simply that good, all the while wearing a tuxedo because he wouldn't be James Bond without one. For some reason women will be irresistibly attracted to him. Expect the classic scenes of Bond and the babe on the beach, followed soon thereafter by Bond and the babe in a boat. The moment he sleeps with the babe, she's doomed to die.The one trope that was really subverted was the new twist on the classic Bond gun-barrel opening. It's still a part of the movie, but in a different manner than all previous incarnations. It might frustrate die-hard fans who think that every Bond film must open exactly the same way, but at least the movie plays strong attention to its roots.I haven't read the original Ian Fleming book, but apparently this Bond film follows Casino Royale very closely, with the exception of placing it in the modern day. Speaking of Ian Fleming, the villain is very typical of him. He's mildly creepy and has a scar over his left eye, which occasionally bleeds blood. You know, in case you needed clarification that he's the bad guy. He's suave and intelligent, but there's not much depth to him. Ultimately, he remains nothing more than the guy with the scar who could hold off Bond for a while, but not a whole lot more. His most interesting moment is when he's torturing Bond and trying to get information out of him, and Bond's stubbornness unnerves him. After that, he's disposed of unceremoneously, and I really couldn't care less.It's fast and confusing, which makes it hard to catch on to everything. I guess that's spy business, but several times I had to either pause or rewind to get the slightest idea of what just happened. It was certainly a spy film I had trouble predicting, but the biggest surprise is the ending. It didn't feel like the movie was supposed to be over yet, so the timing of some of the plot twists threw me off. I expected Bond to discover the bigger villain behind everything, but he didn't. It ended on a "dun-dun-dunnnn" note coupled with a narrative emphasis on "This! Is! BOND!"Then the end credits will have the classic bond theme. Good for them. I mean, they know what icons to reuse and they're not afraid to go ahead with them. James Bond films don't take place in a cultural vacuum where the significance of the other films don't exist. James Bond already has his defining theme, so there's no shame in reusing it. That's more than can be said of the upcoming Man of Steel film, for which I say shame on Christopher Nolan.Now that it was all said and done, I'm fine with Daniel Craig as Bond. At first I was confused at why they would pick a brunette, but he captures the persona perfectly and he's still a suave, debonair man who suppresses his emotions like a Vulcan. He's probably the best bond, with the possible exception of Sean Connery, so don't let him put you off. And really, he completes the feel of the film, which has a definite 00's feel, which is far removed from the 90's and 80's feel of previous films which were slightly campy no matter what. The smooth cinematic style of the 00's is more befitting of him. This is also an origin film, so I sort of expect a younger James Bond who has a different feel than the others. I think that once he puts on the tuxedo, he captures the character perfectly.Quantum of Solace:This is a bit unusual for a Bond film because a direct sequel. Not only that, but it goes the extra mile and literally picks up right where Casino Royale ended. And it opens, of course, with a chase.Boy, was this film filled with chases. There was a car chase, then there was a foot chase, then there was a horse chase in the background, then there was a boat chase, then there was an airplane chase....It kind of broke my willing suspension of disbelief, you know? Fortunately, he never went into space.But anyway, on its own it wasn't as good as Casino Royale, yet on the other hand I watched this immediately afterward. Since Casino Royale ended on such an inconclusive note, they feel like they're both the same movie. Sometimes I even get scenes mixed up. Unfortunately, I can't remember everything that happens, because once again there are a ton of things going on at a very fast rate. I had to put on the subtitles to have a clue.The villain in this is just as dull as the last one. Too bad. I mean, he was competent, but nothing more than that.Now, for once Bond did not sleep with the main action girl. Although he did seduce another agent earlier on, who then proceeded straight to dying, but she wasn't a significant character. He does, however, have a scene in the boat with the main action girl, true to form. Since this film starts with the letter Q and I'm talking about subverted tropes, I might as well take this moment to also mention that Q does not appear in these films yet, although advertisements show that he will be in the next one.It ended with the gun barrel sequence this time instead of starting with it. Then after the credit sequence was done, I mostly remembered the film for being a blur of action and espionage. On its own, I doubt it's worth watching, although I think I might watch it again right before watching Skyfall.Glory:Like Amistad, Glory is a piece of history related to the eventual liberation of American slaves. It also has Morgan Freeman in common, so how about that. What I like more about this film, however, is that it got me invested in the characters far sooner. The cast is definitely an ensemble, and it was pleasing that the characters that mattered connected with the audience fast and stayed connected.This is one of those films that covers a big, noble subject, and I think it works. It also helps that the film was very historically accurate. Like Amistad, it also has those cinematic flashcards with historic information both at the beginning and at the end of the film that help set it up and tell an epilogue to add to the importance of the ending. It definitely ended where it should have ended, where the 54th Regiment of Massachusetts raided Fort Wagner, after which the visual element of the storytelling was no longer necessary. All of the main characters died, after all. Things might as well go black, because the point of the moving picture was to put us in the shoes of the regiment. That's where the flash cards came up to put everything in historic context.That final battle, by the way, was a piece of good cinema which I think probably made it a great big screen movie. There's a certain power to reenacted battles of this type, where all the extras arrive and dress for the part, and then the precise movements of the regiments are brought to life. They're shot realistically, and without any distracting uber-dramatic camera angles. The proper way of capturing these moments is through simple and intuitive angles that simply watch everything play out.Of course, I don't recommend this film just for the final battle. There's good dialogue and evolving relationships between evolving people. The African-American soldiers are humanized, and frankly I didn't see the difference between them and a person with lighter pigmentation, but that's just me as a modern American. It was really cool seeing the 54^th Regiment evolve and grow confidence in itself, and I loved it when they got into uniform. Might I also add that I just like civil war costumes?So basically, this film was exactly what I expected it to be. It was a civil war film, and one of those where the director wasn't overly hard. I knew I had to watch it eventually, especially since I had it in my room this whole time, but I just had to be in the mood. It's hardly my favorite Civil War film (The Blue and the Grey miniseries wins on that front), but as a Civil War film it's already very good, and this one especially so because it didn't dramatize anything.Slumdog Millionaire:Jamal (played by Dev Patel) is a boy who grew up in the slums. At the beginning of the film, he's one question away from the final question in India's version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? when the buzzer signals the end of the show for that day. Since it's incredibly unlikely that someone who grew up living on the streets would know the answers to any of the questions, he's interrogated by the police, and thus ensues the flashbacks. By a series of life experiences, it turns out that all the questions asked of him were things that he happened to have learned while on the streets.The main character is really played by three actors, starting at a young age and then moving up to Dev Patel by the third act. All three boys do a convincing job, especially since they speak in Hindi through much of the film, and Dev is just naturally charming. His character turns into an Indian Aladdin, fighting to survive in a tough world. It's a good thing that the flashbacks went in-depth and took up most of the film, because normally when the Aladdin trope is used as an informed backstory it's a cheap way of making the character likable and special. Yet, in Slumdog Millionaire and the real world, there are many, many people who live like the young Jamal. Even though there's a direction to the story, much of the film could also be seen as a facsimile of a cultural reality.There's also Jamal's brother, who also lives on the streets and eventually learns to survive when he shoots to defend himself for the first time. I can see psychologically how that played out: he tried killing, and it worked for him. After he tried more violence, he found security in a method of survival with simple rules.There was also true love added to the cast. No archetypal story is complete without one, and I'm not criticizing in. It was, after all, a love story at its heart, and a very archetypal one. Among the movie's diverse musical selections, there was a leitmotif of a woman humming that denoted their romance in a very optimistic and comforting tune.So basically, the entire film, with the exception of the miraculous game show gambit, is completely realistic. It was a good idea to tell the story through flashbacks while keeping the game show in the present the entire time, since otherwise it would have been a deus ex machina. In the end it leads to an inevitable feel-good ending, and in hind site I think it carries the appeal and underlying simplicity of a fairytale.Since I have a passionate love for fairytales, this film is an obvious choice for me. If you don't like it for that reason, consider that it's also a pleasure to see films realistically set in foreign cultures. All too many movies are set in New York or London, and this makes for a healthy dose of cultural diversity to one's tastes.Total Recall:Here is my official blog review. Enjoy.Merida Edited August 6, 2012 by Merida

Transcendence · August 7, 2012

A Dangerous Method. A very genius movie, though it is certainly far more fit for those who have large insight to the history of psychology and in specific about Carl Gustav Jung and Sigmund Freud. I felt very good watching it, but it demands that you place all your attention to the dialogue and also at attempting to remember what you know about psychology in the 20th century. Keira Knightley performance stole the show. Keira experienced no difficulty pulling off a role that difficult, portraying a neurotic, traumatized and perverted individual with keen knowledge of medicine. Michael Fassbender's performance wasn't as spotless as his performance as the cyborg David in Ridley's Prometheus. Overall I give the movie 7.5 points out of 10.

SgtPanda · August 8, 2012

Drive...Overall rating: 3/10Acting: 1/10 (Stilted performances by Ryan Gosling, unrealistic performances by other unknown actors, some characters had too few lines to judge ((I.E. Blance)))Presentation: 7/10 (Visually interesting, use of slow motion shots and few cuts)Action: 3/10 (Highly dull and unrealistic car chases, simple scenes turned boring and violent to compensate for horrible quality of action overall)Story: 1/10 (Several plot lines started, few plot lines explored, none of the plot lines were concluded really)

I disagree, but that's just me!

UHFIt's Weird Al's only full movie to date, and it's a bit postmodern with its presentation, but the movie IS funny, especially with the parodies and the little slices of what's on the channel, similar to the presenting style of Robot Chicken, except it has a small plot.about the local UHF radio station being saved by Weird Al's character George Newman (name tributes MAD's Alfred E. Newman), which sort of saves it from being too pointlessly ridiculous.The film's cast isn't exactly A-list, but the acting is well enough, especially considering its ridiculous style. A pre-Seinfeld Michael Richards plays Stanley Spadowski; here you can see the signature tumbles and jittering style of Kramer developing. David Bowe plays Bob, George's best friend. He acts WAY better than Weird Al, although that may be in part because David's an actor. Others include Fran Drescher as reporter Pamela Finklestein, Kevin McCarthy as antagonist RJ Fletcher, and Victoria Jackson as George's girlfriend Teri.Plotwise, it's an underdog story on how a little station becomes most watched in town, and mainly just serves to give a purpose to the admittedly-stupid film. However, it does really help the movie be an actualy movie.The humor in this film is legendary, with references to the mainstream 80's culture and absurd clips like Raul's Wild Kingdom and Spatula City. The SCTV-like presentation helps add to this oddity, and give the film a certain B-movie charm. Mainly the film is sort of childish, mixed with the occasional tad of black humor. It's as if a kid directed the movie in his head, and you can really see it in the acting.Overall, this underrated charm of a comedy gets 8/10 for postmodern funny.

**Vorahk1Panrahk2** · August 8, 2012

DriveHorribly produced movie. For being an action movie, the action sequences were sub-par...

Without reading the rest of your review, it should be said that Drive is by no means an action movie. Maybe the trailer made it look that way, but it isn't. And if you went into the movie expecting one, that isn't the film's fault. This is actually why I loved the opening sequence. It was tense and had brief moments of excitement while still keeping it real, and not delving into action movie cliches.After reading the rest of the review... I disagree with your assessment of the Driver. He's not supposed to turn into a NASCAR star, despite what the film made you imply (I know that I did not think for a minute that the story would progress that direction). I think he's supposed to be a sort of morally ambiguous enigma. He's quiet, and keeps to himself, but isn't afraid to get violent in order to protect himself or those he cares about. I actually thought the director and actor did a great job of showing us the gradual transition between passive-Driver and dangerous-protective-Driver. I think he's supposed to be reminiscent of these mythical hero/Man With No Name type characters, but that's just my interpretation.Also, the Driver didn't kill anyone in the strip club. Small detail, but an important one. He doesn't kill anyone who isn't trying to directly hurt him or the girl.All that being said, I didn't care for the movie either. Not because I think it was a badly made film, but just because the level of violence is not one I'm conformable with. Good movie, just not my type.

**Jean Valjean** · August 23, 2012

The Man Who Knew Too Much:This movie was Alfred Hitchcock's first international success. I have no idea why it was put in a collection of classic horror films, though, other than than it had Alfred Hitchcock's name on it, and if that's enough for it to qualify as a horror film then I worry for the number of movies in the collection pack I bought are actually horror. This film is a simple espionage movie, where a spy is shot and a man finds out too much, resulting in the kidnapping of his daughter. There's a recipe for a thriller story in there, but when the man goes off to find her it all goes down the drain, because there's no use of suspense whatsoever and the audience automatically knows that he's going to get her.The movie suffers from many problems, and I can see why Alfred Hitchcock later directed a remake to his own movie. The villain is nothing more than a silly man with a lock of white hair and a scar on his face, but the actor is a roley-poley little guy who inspires more giggles than shutters. His appearance was the only thing he had going for him, because otherwise he was unmemorable.There were also many technical flaws. The sound editing was the worst have ever heard. You could tell that there were microphones in only select places, and it caused odd moments like the sad attempt for a film early in in Singin' in the Rain. Certain sounds would turn up louder than necessary, whereas other sounds wouldn't turn up at all. The most conspicuous example was when the hero and the villains engaged in a fight by throwing chairs at each other. Throughout much of it, the throwing and breaking of chairs didn't change anything.That scene was also conspicuous for the scene before. The Hero and his loyal Sidekick with a monocle track a message to a church in London. They enter the church, and initially have the best scene in the movie when the Hero and Sidekick communicate by talking while singing to the tune of the religious songs. Everything goes black from there as the singing stops and the head lady begins talking like some cult leader. "We congregate as members of the seven circles within the fourth circle squared" or something like that. Does that sound conspicuous? The protagonists don't think so. They still think they can walk right in like any other church service. Then she says "Those who are new among us must be initiated into the seventh circle" with a pointed glare at the Sidekick. She brings him up, sits him on a stool, and begins the initiation ceremony in front of everyone. She holds up a small fragment of a mirror that reflects the light of a conspicuously bright lamp behind the camera (because that's the only thing it could be reflecting in a room full of candles) and says "Your mind is blank. Completely."Ah, I get it. Movie hypnosis. What's this doing in an espionage movie? It was completely random. It had nothing to do with the plot. It didn't affect anything. What's more, Sidekick's monocle fell out and his reply was "Yes, my mind is blank...completely." Wow, that was fast.Then the movie comes to the chair-throwing scene. The cult leader orders "All those who are not in the fourth circle must leave", which leaves just her and Hero. Then they have a conversation that doesn't go well, the rest of the villains arrive, and there's a fight. Commence the throwing of the magical chairs that don't make any noise! Then one of the chairs hits Sidekick and breaks over his head. He still doesn't wake up. I think I actually laughed at that point. Well, he eventually wakes up and escapes through the window while the Hero is captured.When Sidekick goes to the police, he leads them to the cult church. The villain which a distinct appearance and the cult lady appear at the front door. Their genius response? "Uh, no, we'r not causing trouble. He must be lying. He's been drunk." That's enough for the cop, who then proceeds to beat up Sidekick and drag him away for being a bad citizen. Maybe this is more realistic of a British cop, but I doubt it, and my elementary school sense of justice tells me that is wrong.Don't worry, the hero eventually escapes when the villains' plans are foiled. The police discover where the terrorist conspiracy is lurking and launch a raid on the house. The villains begin barricading the windows and shoot them all down. The police all get guns and start a shoot-out, which seems realistic to me as an American, but this is set in Britain where the police don't carry guns. Was it different in the fifties? I don't know. It stood out as a flaw in the story, though. The shooting leads into the biggest problem in the entire movie.The movie's downfall isn't the hashed audio quality. It isn't the ridiculous plot holes. It isn't even the guns that don't give kickback and don't leave bullet holes. What's wrong with this film is that the acting is simply unforgivable. When people were shot, they always died by slowly lowering themselves to the ground. The only exception was the Hero, who got shot and slowly lowered himself to the ground, but didn't die. Everyone was either chewing the scenery or underacting like kids in a school play. What were Mr. Hitchcock's standards? Even in the fifties, the expectations for actors were better than this. Disney had created a number of great films, Frank Capra directed masterpieces that are still some of the greatest of all time to this day, and The Wizard of Oz had already demonstrated what a movie could be. All of these had acting acceptable to the modern viewer. What went wrong here?Overall, it's a terrible film. I watched it because I wanted to familiarize myself with the works of Alfred Hitchcock. But if you are a classics seeker, this isn't classic enough t be worth it and you can just as well skip it over. It's definitely not a film that can be watched for entertainment and for the modern viewer is merely meant to be analyzed.Total Recall:For the reader's information, I originally watched this movie when I was only a year old. Since then, I can't remember a time when R-rated films were off limits for me. Heck of a life, huh?The original Arnold Schwarzenegger film was a blast. This was only released in 1990, but it was a ride of fun concepts. Comparing it to the remake, I definitely think it was better. The Arnold is a beast, and it's impossible to replace a role he first laid claim to. There are many other reasons why this is superior to the newer film, though. Sharon Stone was a better fake wife. Her importance remained consistent throughout the film, and it was especially nice that she was blond, because in the remake both the fake wife and the girlfriend from another life were brunette, and it felt like there should have been a more distinct visual difference between the two characters. That's one area where this original was right on the spot.Unfortunately, I never liked the girlfriend, Melina, in this movie, either. Everything about her, in a nutshell, was described by Arnold's Character, Douglas Quaid: "Brunette. Athletic. Slutty." I don't quite get what he saw in her. It was a bland personality that took away from the film, and I didn't like her casting, either. Considering how she's been treated, I thought there was potential for the character to be like Ellen Ripley and Sarah Conner, but she's just a forgettable one-dimensional character who was brunette, athletic, and slutty. it was so bad it was even worse than the remake version who had no characterization at all.But back to the reasons why this movie is better than the remake. Half the characters are mutants. It takes place on Mars. He terraforms the planet with alien technology in a big, mysterious alien chamber. And finally, you just can't beat Ah-nuld's one-liners. "Consider dat a divorce." "Screwwww yooouuu!" Really, you can't beat them, especially after Ah-nold said them. The other movie had better special affects which led to its primary strength of creating great futurism, but the concepts just weren't as fun as going to Mars and meeting mutants.And let's not forget Kuato, who was much cooler than Mathias. And trust me, you won't forget, because I was one and I remembered that mutant. "Ope your mind. Open your mind. Open your miiiind!" Then later: "Quaid, start the reactooor..."Ironically, this film actually has less action in the remake, in spite of having a bigger action icon. Most of the action is just Ah-nold being Ah-nold, but otherwise the chase scenes aren't as dynamic and don't involve as much creative forms of fighting. It's an important thing to note, since most people likely have the misconception that with Schwarzenegger in the title it would be nothing more than a guilty pleasure.The Bourne Legacy:Official Blog ReviewThe Terminator:James Cameron created the movie with the idea of imagining the definitive robot film. For all intents and purposes, he succeeded, until he did it again with the sequel. It's a classic film of Kyle Reese, Sarah Conner, and the one and only role Arnold Schwarzenegger is remembered for his character name. It has all the makings of a classic 80's horror movie. While not really scary, the suspense is there, and the iconic Teminator has the unique DNA that makes for great film stalkers.If you haven't seen it, watch it. If you already know everything about the film due to pop culture osmosis, then it basically means that you should watch the movie. You will recognize all the lines (the original "I'll be back") and enjoy it for what it's worth, because it is the seed that spawned one of the most awesome action figures in American canon.That's not to say that it has its problems, however. Sarah Conner has a lot of common sense, but she isn't the stick of dynamite she is in the second movie. She isn't yet The Sarah Conner. The romance between her and Kyle Reese, meanwhile, was awkward and a bit forced. It wasn't quite terrible writing, but it was certainly poor. Ah well, it still became iconic, and in later films it's played in a much cooler way.The Terminator also appears in its full mechanical form for the first and last time in this movie, until its full form is brought up again in Terminator Salvation. Since this was 1984, the effects were a bit crooked, and the stop-motion animation of the robot was pretty obvious whenever you couldsee its legs, but I don't think that's what the original audiences were thinking. I bet they thought "Holy cow! It's an actual robot! A robot that looks like an actual robot!" And because of that, my friend, the Terminator still stands today as the prototypical example of a humanoid machine (although HAL 9000 is still the most iconic piece of artificial intelligence).Terminator 2:Official Blog Review.Terminator 3:It wasn't as good as the iconic second movie, but it wasn't as big of a disappointment as people make it out to be. It's still a Terminator movie and it has a lot going for it. The T-X was pretty cool and adds to the franchise's ongoing legacy of great villains. The fighting followed the rules of physics, which automatically puts it above the standards of most action films. The plot was a clear and relevant part in the Terminator story arc, and it was cool to see the titular rise of the machines.There were, in fact, only a few flaws that brought it down and turned it into a dissapointment. Sarah Conner's awesomeness couldn't be repeated, and the narrative by its very nature had to move more in the direction of John Conner. Now unfortunately, I think he was miscast. Something about the way the actor looked too much like one of the Ashmore twins really got to me. His companion, Kate Brewer, was wonderfully cast, and the character was good, but within the time span of the movie there wasn't enough time to give the two human protagonists enough chemistry, which was the real strong point of T2. It could have been improved if there was more to their preestablished relationship. But alas, they were mainly just two people thrown together.The other real bummer is the latest Terminator to be played by Schwarzenegger, who's technically a different character than the last incarnations. John Conner doesn't create a relationship with it like he did before, because the T2 Terminator couldn't really be repeated. However, he is still the ultimate action icon, and the coolest thing is that Schwarzenegger was in his 50's when this movie came out and he worked to get his body to match the exact measurements of the Terminator's naked form established in the first two films. There's a form of humor in this form that isn't in the later two. At the beginning of the film, he puts on a pair of sunglasses in the shape of stars, then throws them aside and looks for another pair of glasses. When he loses those, he goes for a while without until picking up supplies at a gas station, where he stops in his tracks and glares at the rack of sunglasses. It's not parodying the original incarnations, but it does establish new tones that can be established with the world's most famous killing machine.It should also be noted that T3 is also a daytime movie, which did make a difference in its presentation. The first movie was a nighttime movie, and the second was equal parts day and night, but this one was predominantly set under the light of the sun. Perhaps it fits the advancing technology. Perhaps it gives it the sense of a 4th of July release (I guessed it before I even had to look it up, because does have that feel). In any case, this is the film where the fireworks fly. Or rather, drop.So it was a god film, and I remember it that way. No, it couldn't live up to T2. I suppose there was a chance for that, since Back to the Future and Toy Story showed that lightning can strike thrice, but even though it wasn't a great film I was content with a really good film. In many ways, it was even better than the first installment. John Conner's chemistry with Kate Brewer, while still brewing (ha ha), was a tastier dish than Kyle and Sarah, if not as exotic. James Cameron promised this movie, so it was an inevitable installment and the series as a whole is better off for it.The Expendables 2:Official Blog Review

Edited August 28, 2012 by Michael Phelps

**Angel Beat** · August 26, 2012

The Expendables 2. Loved it.

**Velox** · September 15, 2012

Warrior, for the second time. Oh my gosh is that an extremely powerful movie. Seriously one of the greatest movies every, highly recommended.

**Jean Valjean** · September 28, 2012

Ghost. For once, I am at a loss of words. Really, just wow. This is my pet favorite. I have a strong, irrational love for every second of this movie. Nothing really compares to the perfection it takes in my eyes.No review this time. I just can't.

Phovos · September 28, 2012

The Avengers movie. The Marvel one. Bloody Bahrag, it's amazing. No way in a million years will DC (or Spiderman, X-Men or FF for that matter) ever be able to beat that.The characters are amazingly accurate. Iron Man is exactly as he should be, the arrogant git. Captain America is corny and patrotic, just as he is in the comics. Thor is the big Norse God he should be. The Hulk/Bruce Banner were INCREDIBLY well done. The Hulk actually looked like his human counterpart. Hawkeye was great as well. Loki is an amazing character and was probably the best out of all of them.Plot wise, it is really good. It gets straight to the point right at the beginning. There are some slow bits but there is always an action scene around the corner. There IS an unnecessary death in the story which made me sad, as the person who died was a great character who had been in all the films beforehand (not saying who it was). The special effects were great. I first saw this in 3D and it was mind-blowing, but even in 2D, it's still really good. Problem is, like most action films, the talking scenes are rather quiet compared to action scenes.The only things that irked me were the costumes. Iron Man was fine. Thor and Loki had fine costumes. Nick Fury was Nick Fury, but he lacked his cigar. That's always been a trademark thing, even in the Ultimate comics from which the film's Nick Fury is based on (Nick's actually white in the comics). Captain America's costume is slightly weird. Hawkeye and Natascha/Black Widow could have done with some more... Uniqueness to their costumes.So, 9.9/10. Go watch it.

Terminus · October 1, 2012

Finding Nemo 3DWhile I like 3D as a gimmick, I've never actually seen it used too well (except in some 3DS games, but that's completely different from movies), in a movie there might be one or two really good 3D scenes (Despicable Me is a great example- throwing stuff towards the screen during the end credits is a great example, and the trailer for the sequel has some good 3D effects), but otherwise, it's somewhat pointless, which I was hoping not to be the case with Finding Nemo 3D, mainly because the underwater environments would be a great way to really show off the 3D. Unfortunately, I was wrong.Of course, this is only a 3D remaster, so 3D that isn't super amazing should be expected. It goes from being noticeable at times, to being nearly completely absent at others, but this is still better than most other 3D remasters out there. Of course, seeing the good 3D parts, I do have high hopes for Finding Nemo 2, which will most likely come out in 3D. Anyways, the 3D is never bad, and it's definitely worth seeing to watch a favorite on the big screen again.

**Sumiki** · October 1, 2012

I, Robot. I never saw it all the way through until a few days ago. VIKI reminded me more than a little bit of HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

The Hip Historian Iaredios · October 14, 2012

Premium Rush. It was pretty cool, action packed and fun. I recommend seeing it.

SgtPanda · October 14, 2012

ARGOThe plot follows six American citizens in hiding during the Iranian hostage crisis, and the plan to rescue them; an elaborate fake movie production that the six citizens fake a part of.It's a very good movie. I'd write a review, but I'll probably need a second screening to write it.

**Jean Valjean** · October 15, 2012

I didn't have a choice in these most recent movies. If some people thought my reviews were generally positive, there's a reason why. When I get to choose the film, I'm far, far more likely to pick out something good. However, none of these get any special glam, as my friends picked them out and I was trying to watch completely different stuff altogether. Still, here goes nothing.RocketMan: This 1997 Disney movie was predictable from the get-go. The moment the opening scene was over I knew how the entire movie was going to go. The main character, Fred, would first be underestimated, but his awkwardness and innocent determination would ultimately qualify him to be the unexpected replacement for a defective member of the first manned mission to mars. Stuff goes awkardly wrong on the trip there, and once on the ground again more things go awkwardly wrong. He doesn't think much of it, but everyone around him thinks that he ruined everything. He overcomes the one big challenge presented to him, an emergency circuitry test he didn't quite do well on in his training, and thus comes out of the situation a slightly improved person, although the change is meaningless. It's just circuits. In the end, the woman member of the crew sees him for the lovable person he really is and they dance.I have written in the defense of predictability before, but when I approach RocketMan I have mixed feelings. On one hand, it's a Disney film for children. I totally get that. You want these films to be straightforward. On the otherhand, the plot was one-dimensional with no zingers. Nothing popped at me that I couldn't have predicted five minutes into the film. I'm fine with predictability when I gradually predict things as the movie goes along, but not the whole thing all at once. It would have been better if there was an interesting subplot, which at 95 minutes the film could certainly afford, but there was no such thing.So overall there wasn't much to the film. It's most redeeming feature, however, was the inclusion of the song "When You Wish Upon A Star", which Fred (Harland Williams) sings quite beautifully. It was a brief moment when the mundane directing of the movie amped up to something special and had a "Magic Movie Moment". Like I said, though, it was brief, but it was the most memorable thing about the movie. I'm glad to see that this song still comes up in Disney movies.-I will write the reviews to the other three movies later today due to my immediate time restrictions.

24601

toatali · October 15, 2012

Just saw Kill Bill Vol 1 for the first time, LOVED IT. The only movie I've seen that manages to capture the spirit of manga (apart from the Ace Attorney live action movie, which I also saw recently, and I also LOVED!!!!!!). I'm really looking forward to seeing Vol. 2 and seeing the plot wrap up.

**Vorahk1Panrahk2** · October 16, 2012

Seeking a Friend for the End of the WorldI really didn't expect to like it. The reviews weren't positive, and it's a comedy. With Steve Carell. So my expectations were low. But ultimately, I ended up enjoying it. It's certainly flawed, mostly due to the fact that the motivations of the characters weren't explained, and the relationship drama was incredibly forced. It also took me a while to figure out the relationship status that Carell's character was in, but I'm not sure if that had more to do with a bad script or the fact that I couldn't hear half the dialogue.Other than that, it was an enjoyable mix of laughter and melancholy, mostly due to the acting strength of the two leads. I also really liked the camerawork. For a movie about the end of the world, it was incredibly bright, cheery, with a lot of well framed shots. I can only assume this was an intentional choice on the director's part to try and convey a sense of normalcy. It made for an interesting contrast to the premise of the movie. I also really enjoyed the music track, both instrumental and lyrical. While I can't directly remember the songs, they really enhanced the mood.So while this is definitely a flawed movie, I would most definitely watch it again. I think it has more going for it than against it.

Marsie · October 16, 2012

Scary Movie 4, this morning

Delta Titan Sparta · October 16, 2012

Great film!"This is Chicago before the alien attacks." *sirens, smoke, screaming, gunshots*"This is Chicago now." *same as before, but with alien walkers*Last film I watched was The Village. It was B-grade, to be expected from a M. Night Shyamalan film.

Last Film You Watched

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment