Movies205's Review and Discussion Thread: Vol. 3- Revenge of the Elitist Porcupines!

[Movies205]

Come one, Come all, the carnival is back in town! That's right, back for it's
third year is the REVIEW AND DISCUSSION THREAD! This is the third year and running for this thread, it comes during the summer when I have quite a bit of free time to just review the movies I see. So I invite all, you don't have to write reviews, you can just come and discuss other people's reviews or simply a movie you saw or want to talk about!

The Regulars
The Amazing Lee
Black Dust
Carmine Falcone
Gammy79
Hunter Rider
JollyJohnny
Kevin Roegele
Longshot
Movies205
Mr. Webs
War Party


The Reviews

The Amazing Lee
Run Lola Run (1998) - 8.5/10

Black Dust
28 Weeks Later (2007) -7/10
The Departed (2006) - 10/10
Idocracy (2006) - 7/10
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007) - 9/10

Carmine Falcone
Casino (1995) - 9/10
The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974) - 9/10

Cyrusbales
Deathwatch (2002) -
Fantastic Four 2: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007) - :
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975) -
A Scanner Darkly (2006) - Thumbs down

DACrowe
Donnie Brasco (1997) - 8/10

Hippie Hunter
Ghost Rider (2007) - 5.5/10
Zodiac (2007) - 9/10

Hunter Rider
Lake Placid (1999) - 7.5/10
Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006) - 6/10

JollyJohnny
Pathfinder (2007) - 1/10
They Live (1988) - 8/10

Longshot
Blades of Glory (2007) -
Spider-Man 3 (2007) -

Kevin Roegele
Azumi (2003) - :

Movies205
All About My Mother (1999) - 9/10
The Bicycle Thief (1948) - 9/10
Catch and Release (2006) - 6.5/10
Daughters of Darkness (1971) - 7/10
Dressed to Kill (1980) - 6/10
Fantastic Four (2005) - 5/10
The Fly (1986) - 10/10
G-Men (1935) - 7.5/10
The General (1927) - 8/10
Guess Who's Coming Home to Dinner (1967) - 9/10
Night at the Opera (1935) - 8/10
Nights of Cabiria (1957) - 10/10
Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht (1979) - 7/10
Rashomon (1950) - 10/10
Seventh Seal (1957) - 8/10
Spider-Man 3 (2007) - 7/10
Transformers (2007) - 8/10
X: The Man with the X-Ray Eyes (1963) - 6.5/10

Mr. Webs
16 Blocks (2006) - 6/10
28 Days Later... (2002) - 7/10
1408 (2007) - 7/10
Boondock Saints (1999) - 8/10
Gone with the Wind (1939) - 6.5/10
Hard Candy (2005) - 9/10
Keane (2004) - 9/10
Running Scared (2006) - 7/10

The Storm
300 (2007) - 9/10

WarParty
Closer (2004) - 8/10
Empire of the Sun (1987) - 10/10
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1999) - 10/10
Hackers (1995) - 3/10
Virgin Suicides (1999) - 8/10

Other User Reviews
Grindhouse (2007) - 10/10 ANTHONYNASTI
Spider-Man 3 (2007) - 8/10 Cmill216
Spider-Man 3(2007) - 7.6/10 IncredibleJeff
Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (2002) - 10/10 Shingsy2003
Transformers (2007) - 7/10 - Golgo13: The Hitman​

 

[Movies205]

Volume 2

The Regulars
The Amazing Lee
Black Dust
D.A. Crowe
D.Rex
Golgo13: The Hitman
Hippie Hunter
Hunter Rider
JLBats
Movies205
Mr. Webs
Obsidean
The Question
Sandman138
UltimateFan
US War Machine
The Vile One

Guest Starring:
Eric Draven

The Amazing Lee
American Beauty (1999) - 10/10
Battle Royale (2000) - 8.5/10
Kung Fu Hustle (2004) - 8/10
The Mask (1994) - Thumbs Up
Trainspotting (1996) - 10/10
Shaun of the Dead (2004) - Thumbs Up

Black Dust's Reviews
Big Momma's House 2 (2006) - 4/10
Date Movie (2006) - 3/10
Final Destination 3 (2006) 7/10
Firewall (2006) 8/10
The Fog (2006) - 5/10
The Hills Have Eyes (2006) 9/10
Lady Vengence (2005) - 7/10
Lucky Number Slevin (2006) - 8/10
Munich (2005) - 8/10
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) - 8/10
The Ringer (2005) - 8/10
Running Scared (2006) - 6/10
Superman Returns (2006) - 9/10
Underworld: Evolution (2006)- 7/10
X-Men 3: The Last Stand (2006) - :

Bloody Wolverine's Reviews
Click (2006) - 7/10
Pirates Of The Caribbean : Dead Mans Chest (2006) - 9.5/10

Carmine Falcone
The Hit (1984) - 9/10

DACrowe's Reviews
The Da Vinci Code (2006) - 7.5
Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut (2005) - 9/10
A Prarie Home Companion (2006) - 9.5/10

Golgo13:The Hitman's Reviews
Blade Trinity (2004) - 3/10
Office Space (1999) - 9.5/10

Hippie Hunter's Reviews
Jason X (2001) - 2.5/5
Samurai X: Trust and Betrayal (1999) - 5/5
X-Men 3:The Last Stand (2006) - 2.5/5

Hunter Rider
Casualties of War (1989) - 8/10
The Descent (2005) - 8.5/10Hidalgo (2003) - 8/10
Notorious (1946) - 8/10
The Proposition (2005) - 6.5/10
V for Vendetta (2005) 9/10
Wrong Man (1956) - 4/10
XXX 2: State of the Union (2005) - 2/10


Movies205's Volume 2 Reviews
8½ (1963) - 8½/10
2001: Space Odyssey (1968) - 8/10
All About Eve (1950) - 10/10
All About Lilly Chou-Chou (2001) - 7/10
Amadeus (1984) - 9.5/10
Apartment, The (1960) - 10/10
Bride of Frankenstein (1935) - 8/10
Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, The (1920) - 8/10
Clerks 2 (2006) - 9/10
Crank (2006) - 8/10
Daredevil: The Director's Cut (2004) - 7.5/10
DaVinci Code (2006)- 6.5/10
Dead Alive (1992) - 8.5/10
Fast and the Furious 3 (2006) - 6.5/10
Frankenstein (1931) - 8/10
French Connection 2 - 8/10
Gone With the Wind (1939) - 8/10
Haunted Palace (1963) - 7/10
I'm a Fugitive From a Chain Gang (1932) - 10/10
La Dolce Vita (1960) - 8½/10
Lady in the Water (2006) - 6.5/10
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005) - 10/10
Man Who Would Be King (1975) - 9/10
Master and Commander of the Far Side of the World (2003) - 9/10
Mean Streets (1973) 7.5/10
Miami Vice (2006) - 7/10
Mighty Joe Young (1949) - 8/10
Modern Times (1936) 8/10
Neon Genesis Evangelion (1995) 7.5/10
Network (1976) 9/10
The Philadelphia Story (1940) - 7/10
A Prairie Home Companion- 8/10
Samurai X: Trust and Betrayal (1999) - 8.5/10
Scanner Darkly (2006) 6/10
Scoop (2006) 8/10
SLC Punk! (1998) - 7.5/10
Snakes on a Plane (2006) - 7/10
Starship Troopers (1997) - 7/10
Superman Returns (2006) - 6.5/10
Third Man (1949) - 10/10
World Trade Center (2006) - 8/10
X-Men 3: The Last Stand (2006) - 5.5/10

Mr. Webs' Reviews
A Bridge Too Far (1977) - 6.5/10
Boogeyman (2005) - 6.5/10
Chasing Liberty (2004) - 6/10
Click (2006) 7/10
Edward Scissorhands (1990) - 8/10
Failure to Launch (2006) - 6.5/10
Gremlins (1984) - 5.5/10
Grumpy Old Men (1993) 7.5/10
Hills Have Eyes (2006) 6.5/10
Jerry Maguire (1996) 9/10
Libertine (2004) - 6/10
Lock Up (1989) - 7/10
House of Wax (2005) - 2.5/10
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) - 10/10
My Cousin Vinny (1992) - 7/10
The Philadelphia Story (1940) - 9/10
Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) - 8/10
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) - 7/10
Rocky (1976) - 8.5/10
Rocky II (1979) - 7.5/10
Rocky III (1982) - 6.5/10
Rocky IV (1985) - 6/10
Rocky V (1990) - 7/10
Secret Window(2004) - 5.5/10
Serendipity (2001) - 7/10
Shall We Dance (2004) 7/10
Superman (1978) - 4.5/10
Underworld (2003) - 5.5/10
Walk the Line (2005) - 8.5/10

Obsidian's Reviews
Blade: Trinity (2004) - 3/10
Kingdom of Heaven: Director's Cut (2005) - 10/10
Monster House (2006) - 10/10
The Omen (2006) - 7/10
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest(2006) - 9/10
The Promise (2005) - 1/10
The Prophecy (1995) - 7/10
Water (2006) -

Sandman138's Reviews
2046 (2004) - 8.5/10
The Aristocrats (2005) 10/10
A History of Violence (2005) - 10/10
Mirror Mask (2005) - 10/10
Pirates of the Carribean 2: Deadman's Chest (2006) 6.5/10
Stay (2005) - 5/10Superman Returns (2006) - 9/10

Ultimatefan's Reviews
O Brother, Where Art Thou (2000) - Thumbs Up
Ice Age 2 (2006) 5.5/10
In Good Company (2005) -8.5/10
Superman Returns (2006) - 8/10
X-Men 3:The Last Stand (2006)-

Under the Rose's Reviews
Inside Man (2006) - 8/10
V for Vendetta (2006) - 6/10

TheVileOne's Reviews
The Break Up (2006) - 4.5/5
Cars (2006) 4/5
The Devil Wears Prada (2006) - 3/5
District B13 (2004)- 3.5/5
Kung Fu Hustle (2004) - Thumbs Up
Lady Vengeance (2005) - 4/5
Lake House (2006) - 1.5/10
Nacho Libre (2006) - 2/5

Warparty's Reviews
11:14 (2003) - 8/10
Audition (1999) - 9/10
Fight Club (1999) - 10/10
Layer Cake (2005) - 9/10
Lock, Stock, and Barrels (1999) - 8.5/10
The Machinist (2003) - 8.5/10
Memento (2000) - 10/10
Real Genius (1985) - 10/10
Rounders (1998) - 8/10
Slapshot (1977) - 8/10
Snatch (2000) - 9/10
Tae Guk Gi-The Brotherhood of War (2004) 10/10

Other User Reviews
Enter the Dragon(1973) -9/10 - D.Rex
Mission Impossible 3 (2006) - 2.5/5 - Spider-Bat
X-Men 3: The Last Stand (2006) - 8.2/10 - Matt
X-Men 3: The Last Stand (2006) - - The Question
X-Men 3:The Last Stand (2006)- 5.5/10 - Erzengel​

 

[Movies205]

Volume 1

40 Year Old Virgin, The (2005) 7/10
Aristocrats, The (2005) 9.5/10
Bad Day at Black Rock (1955) 7/10
Beverly Hills Cop 2 (1987) 8/10
Bewitched (2005) 6.75/10
Beyond the Sea (2004) 5.5/10
Blow (2001) 7.5/10
Brothers Grimm, The (2005) 8/10
Buffalo '66 (1998) 7.5/10
Cape Fear (1991) 6.5/10
Cocoon (1985) 7/10
Devil's Rejects (2005) 5/10
Dog Day Afternoon (1975) 7.5/10
Dr. No (1962) 8/10
Dukes of Hazzard (2005) 6/10
Edward Scissorhands (1990) 9/10
Evolution (2001) 7/10
A Face in the Crowd (1957) 10/10
Fantastic Four (2005) 5/10
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) ?/10
Field of Dreams (1989) 7.5/10
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967)
Herbie: Fully Loaded (2005) 5/10
Hotel Rwanda (2004) 10/10
Howl's Moving Castle (2004) 8/10
Independence Day (1996) 6/10
The Island (2005) 5/10
Kung-Fu Hustle (2005) 9/10
Labyrinth (1986) 6.5/10
Land of the Dead (2005) 4/10
M (1931) 6/10
The Machinist (2004) 7/10
The Magnificent Seven (1960) 7/10
March of the Penguins (2005) 7.5/10
Midnight Cowboy (1969) 8/10
Mission Impossible (1996) 6.5/10
The Muppet Christmas Carol (1993) 9/10
Must Love Dogs (2005) 7/10
Mystery Alaska (1999) 6.5/10
Oldboy (2003) 8.5/10
Overnight (2003) 6.5/10
Platoon (1986) 8/10
Red Eye (2005) 6.5/10
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) 8/10
Scent of a Woman (1992) 7/10
Sixteen Candles (1984) 6.5/10
Spy Who Loved Me, The (1977) 7.5/10
Strangers on a Train (1951) 9/10
Suspiria (1977) 8/10
True Romance (1993) 7.5/10
Taxi Driver (1976) 7/10
The Transporter (2002) 6.5/10
The Transporter 2 (2005) 8/10
Upside of Anger, The (2005) 8/10
Waterworld (1995) 6.5/10
War of the Worlds (2005) 6.5/10
Wedding Crashers (2005) 7.5/10
Wrong Man, The (1956) 7.5/10​

 

[Movies205]

*Reserved*

 

[Movies205]

*Reserved*...

 

[L0ngsh0t]

I guess I'll get things started, I'll only get a couple of reviews in cause I will be working at a camp most of the summer, but here is my Spider-man 3 review I wrote in my blog

Spider-man 3

Three times the story, three times the characters, three times the action, three times the drama, three times three times three and three. This is without a doubt one of the best superhero movies ever, I am not sure if it tops my personal favorite of Batman Begins nor Spider-man 1 but I do think it is an improvement over 2. The change in writers helps this movie appeal toward me more than Spider-man 2 which was written by the great Alvan Sergent, but in the monster of the screen play was lost the core of Spidey, his comic book roots where lost in favor of a Happy Accedents like plot. Now, that is all well and good, and it equalled my probably my fourth favorite Superhero movie (Spider-man 2 that is), but again the comic book flare from the first had been lost a bit, although Doc Ock rules in multitudes.
The story, though seemingly complex is simple in its beauty, Peter Parker/Spider-man finally has everything going right for him, but the people he cares about are not in the greatest situations, Mary Jane the love of his life is a struggling actor, who must resort to jazz club singing, Harry Osbourn wishes nothing better than to kill Spider-man, and his best friend for taking his fathers life, and Eddie Brock (He can hardly be called a friend, but is an almost mirror to Peter) can't catch a break, living in a dillusional world where is the love of Gwen Stacy's life. Peter chooses not to adress the issues with his friends, rather living his life vicariously how he thinks Spider-man should, he makes his classes on time, he can keep a job now (actually winning one), and he is dating the girl of his dreams.
The major conflict in the story occurs when Flint Marko escapes from jail, and Sergent Stacy (played by the President of the United States James Cromwell) tells Peter that Flint was the actual killer of his uncle, enraging Peter thinking justice hasn't been served properly and wants to take it into his own hands. Flint Marko though gets trapped in a very comic book like experiment that alters his genes so they are made completely out of sand, he proceeds to use his new found powers to steal money so he can help his dying daughter. During their first encounter Sandman beats Spidey, but by no means dominates him but none the less he gets away with the money.
That night Peter has dreams of how enraged he is at Marko for killing his uncle, and the symboite feels its rage clinging itself to Peter, becoming one with him. This starts the main plot point when Peter becomes this whole different person with the symboite on him, alienating all his friends, and murdering (at least attempting) Sandman. After a talk with Aunt May (Played by the ever so flawless Rosemary Harris), and a embarissing momment at Mary Janes jazz club, where Peter plays the ultimate ***** using Gwen to make MJ jellous, Peter knows he has to get this thing off of him cause it makes him do stuff that he doesn't want to do.
Once off the symboit attaches to Eddie Brock because of his wish to kill Peter Parker, hightening his feelings of rage and hatred transforming him to the monster Venom

That is where I will finally stop the elongated plot summary of Spider-man 3, and get into actually reviewing the movie. One reason I wanted to have such a long review of it, is to show how much is actually going on in the movie, I barely even touched on Harry (which I will get to), and I thought he was easily the best part of the movie. My two big problems with the movie: 1.) Choice of villains, Sandman and Venom are great villain choices if they aren't in the same movie together, but the problem occurs with the fact that they both represent 2/3's of the pie in terms story. Sandman is traditionally a character with absolutley no back story at all, but he presents a almost unrivaled adversary to Spidey in terms of battles, I really really felt they surprised the **** out of me with this representation, THC took the character to a whole new place that I didn't think was possible with such a dry character, humble, apologetic it was painful to see anything bad happen to him reminding me of a Frankenstien like scenario type monster. Venom on the other hand I have never been a big fan of, Eddie Brock is an interesting character, and he is what makes Venom remotley possible, but Venom in my book is a rough one-dimensional character. I also felt their take on Venom was excellent too, no snake like voice, no referring to himself in the plural, it is just Eddie Brock, and all his hate bottled into one suit. Topher Grace was phenominal in my opinion he played such a weak character so well, gave him so much depth, Brock thought he was the ****, and played it off like one, but inside he was weak, in one of my favorite scenes in the movie when he runs to save the symbiote cause he knows that is the only way for him to be strong, Grace was almost masterfull in my opinion. This is a small problem for me that went away once I saw how the villain's where portrayed, but I would have still rather seen a more polished and important villain in this instead of one of the two like Lizard, Mysterio, or Scorpion who can play into the main story a lot better (i.e. Quentin Beck's career is ruined thanks to Spider-man so he turns into Mysterio and terrorizes Mary Janes movie thus bringin New Goblin into the fold and paying Mysterio well to help destroy Spider-man so the story is all one big connected chain). My second issue with the film 2.) too many scenes that could have been 10's where made 7's, like the Sandman Venom incounter, they could have made that much more than it was, more internal conflict with Sandman, maybe Venom has taken his daughter etc. that would have been nice.
All in all I thought this was so far the best film of the year, I hope they don't end the franchise now, but if they do Harry's demise was beautiful and more than enough clouser to end the franchise.

Raiting: A-

 

[Movies205]

Spider-Man 3
Rating: 7/10
Directed By Sam Raimi

It's interesting that Vol. 2 was kicked off with reviews of the highly disappointing X3, and this year is being kicked off by Spidey 3... My opinion is Spidey 3 is disappointing but no where near as disappointing as X3. The problem with Spider-Man 3 is that it forgot the errors of the past which were corrected by Spider-Man 2 which is the cheese factor. Spider-Man 3 is obviously the culmination of the character arcs being formed in 1 and 2 which is part of the reason for the cheese.

The movie really feels like the writers just writing things that HAVE to be written. What I mean by that is like I said before that Spider-Man 3 is the culimination of the trilogy so it’s as if they said, "Well yeah this is suppose to happen, we knew this was going happen, here it is!" A prime example of this is Peter Parker’s relationship to MJ. It took two movies of real struggle but in the end Peter Parker got the girl. So the question is now what? Well obviously marriage is a question but also how do they keep it interesting? There has to be some conflict, and herein lies the problem. Writing is simply a series of plot devices to show what characters are feelings, now the writers had awesome intent with the characters but their choice of plot devices is terrible. Mary Jane puts Parker through so much **** just because he kissed a girl at a public event? The guy’s been nothing but faithful to her, he’d move mountains for her, which has been evident by the first two movies. So let say this does make her jealous, well now the audience is left in distain of the character because she’s *****.

Then of course there’s Harry, Green Goblin 2. Obviously there need to be a resolution to this so what do they do? They pick a plot device that must of come from a bad Spanish soap opera, HE LOSES HIS MEMORY! The list goes on and if you haven’t notice the movie seemingly has no main plot, it’s made up of many subplots. Which goes back to my earlier point its as if the writers felt they had to write these things in while introducing a new villain. That’s not to say the movie doesn’t have a central theme, the them of the movie is Peter Parker finally burying his anger and becoming the hero he’s meant to be which is what ultimately holds the movie together. Now this is where the writers had a great idea, which is to use the alien symbiote as a way to personify his anger. The problem being again, they felt they had to then write in Eddie Brock and Venom. Then they had Gwen Stacey which seem to be another “HAD TO” simply because she was in the comics, and they tied Eddie Brock to it. The movie is a string of “Had Tos” which while they pull off an entertaining movie leads to a rather predictable and mediocre effect.

But of course the fight scenes really took it up a notch in this film. The amount of acrobatic feats Spidey does in this film are quite simply awesome. When he saves Gwen Stacey, it’s as if it’s like, “Damn… my boy parker come along way from that kid jumping off roof-tops” The CGI was pretty top-notch too, watching Sandman in action was a real treat. But that leaves us with the score which was god awful, at one point I thought I was watching pink panther it was so cheesy.

In the end, the movie did right by the characters, and tied up all the plot strings they had running through the trilogy. Could they have done it better? Absolutely but could they have done it worse? Absolutely. So what we’re left with is some awesome action scenes placed in between a mediocre movie of a beloved character… Yeah that deserves a 7…

 

[Movies205]

THC took the character to a whole new place that I didn't think was possible with such a dry character, humble, apologetic it was painful to see anything bad happen to him reminding me of a Frankenstien like scenario type monster.

Have to agree here, didn't touch upon it but THC did a wonderful job, of course he's a great actor. But the scene with his daughter was great and you really feel for him at the end.

Venom on the other hand I have never been a big fan of, Eddie Brock is an interesting character, and he is what makes Venom remotley possible, but Venom in my book is a rough one-dimensional character. I also felt their take on Venom was excellent too, no snake like voice, no referring to himself in the plural, it is just Eddie Brock, and all his hate bottled into one suit. Topher Grace was phenominal in my opinion he played such a weak character so well, gave him so much depth, Brock thought he was the ****, and played it off like one, but inside he was weak, in one of my favorite scenes in the movie when he runs to save the symbiote cause he knows that is the only way for him to be strong, Grace was almost masterfull in my opinion.

The character of Venom is not weak, the movie portrayal of the character is what was weak. Venom much like Brock should have been the opposite of Spidey, you'd need an entire movie to do this, it was too much of a rush job to simply have Venom in the last 15 minute of the movie. But the symbiote was great to phsyically show what Peter was going through.

This is a small problem for me that went away once I saw how the villain's where portrayed, but I would have still rather seen a more polished and important villain in this instead of one of the two like Lizard, Mysterio, or Scorpion who can play into the main story a lot better (i.e. Quentin Beck's career is ruined thanks to Spider-man so he turns into Mysterio and terrorizes Mary Janes movie thus bringin New Goblin into the fold and paying Mysterio well to help destroy Spider-man so the story is all one big connected chain). My second issue with the film 2.) too many scenes that could have been 10's where made 7's, like the Sandman Venom incounter, they could have made that much more than it was, more internal conflict with Sandman, maybe Venom has taken his daughter etc. that would have been nice.

IF anything it showed the weakness of the movie simply that the entire movie is not independent it feels completely forced and had to be done so when you get to Sandman and venom it's "LET'S TEAM UP AND KILL SPIDEY"... "YEAH!" If anything it'd make more sense for GG to team up with Venom than Sandman.

 

[Cmill216]

Spider-Man 3
Rating: 8/10

THIS REVIEW CONTAINS POSSIBLE SPOILERS!

Well, well, well. Here we go.

After literally years of anticipation, it's finally arrived. After all of the spoilers and reports and images and trailers over the months past, 'anxious' barely described my feelings towards finally seeing this film. I spent the last couple of weeks sitting through the buzz, the glowing reviews, the fall of the Tomatometer, the mixed word-of-mouth. And yatta yatta yatta. But finally, I got to sit down in that AMC theatre to watch Spider-Man 3.

I'm going to start this review by making a very brash statement: at this point in time, after my first view of the film, anyone who thinks this is the best of the series clearly didn't see the same film I did. Now, before you gasp in horror at the thought that I loathed the film, you can catch your breath. I really enjoyed Spider-Man 3. For my money, it was the most "entertaining" of all three films. Is it the best? Absolutely positively NO.

This was one of those films that had so many moments and glimpses of brilliance, only for those scenes to be brought down to earth by some of the most "What the heck...." moments I've experienced in a film like this.

Ironically, although this was the longest of the series, it actually paced really really well for me. I was completely surprised when the Bell Tower scene began, because I realized that the film was beginning to reach its end. It really didn't feel like 139 minutes.

The Actors

Let me begin with the good. Tobey Maguire? Loved him. Peter's character was written all over the place, and yet Tobey handled it all well. He nailed the angst, he nailed the heartbreak, he nailed the joy, and....well.....he ain't a bad dancer either.

.....okay.....I totally snickered as I wrote that. More on that goodness later.

Kirsten Dunst? Wow. I actually loved Mary Jane here. Easily Kirsten's best performance of the entire series. Raimi and Sargent gave her a lot to work with, and she really stepped up her game. And her makeup was a massive improvement over the last film.

James Franco? Again, a lot thrown at him. Some good (he plays sinister well). Some....not so good (the silly one liners during the battle royale...ugh...). James once again delivered a fantastic performance overall, and it'll be sad to see him go.

Topher, Topher, Topher. Sigh......there wasn't enough of ya, buddy. Grace knocked it out of the park. Every scene where Eddie rears his head Grace brought life and a spark to the movie. Regarding his development, there was really just too big of a leap from Peter's humiliation of him to "PSYCHO CRAZY VENOMSSSS!!" Eddie needed another scene or two to flesh him out more. He just seemed kinda thrown in there (ironic, seeing as how....he WAS literally thrown in there).

Rosemary Harris? Good performance. Horrible dialogue. Every little speech she gave felt like a poor man's Aunt May in Spider-Man 2. Someone give this woman an advice column NOW.

Thomas Haden Church? Really great. Was there enough of him? Of course not. All of those rumored scenes with him and the doctor and with his family NEEDED to be in this movie. There just wasn't enough here. And jeepers were those giant Sandman roars annoying.

Bryce Dallas Howard? Gorgeous and delightful. Was there enough of her? Fill in the blank.

The Action

It's unfortunate for me to admit this, but none of the major fight sequences in this film were as good as the train sequence. Of course we all know the Harry/Peter aerial duel was a doozy, but there were just too many cartoony CG shots that were distracting. With that said, that battle is easily the second best fight of the franchise.

Both Sandman fights were a major letdown, mainly because I was expecting more. Unfortunately, thanks to my desire for spoilers, I HAD essentially seen them in their entirety.

The crane sequence? WOW, WOW, WOW. My jaw....the floor....'nuff said. Though, what the heck was up with Captain Stacy's really weak reaction? Who the heck cares who Eddie Brock is, dude. You're daughter's about to fall to her death!

The Harry/Peter rumble? A-mazing. Brutal, brutal, brutal. Didn't care for some of Harry's quips, but still. What an amazing smackdown.

And then there's THE BATTLE ROYALE. And it was......good. Not "great", but good. I'll touch on this more at a later time.

All in all, though, the effects were dazzling. Some questionable uses of CG, sure. But still, the birth of Sandman? One of the most amazing visual effects moments I've ever seen.

The Symbiote

Like much of this movie, the symbiote had its good moments, and its bad. Everything about Peter with the symbiote OUTSIDE of the dancing was really strong. Maguire played Bad Pete pretty darn well, with a confidence and bounce that was truly different from his normal persona. His fight with Harry was well built towards and delivered MIGHTILY. And I really liked how he was able to put the suit away early in the film, but as more was built on top of him (more frustrations, more pain, more anger) he succumbed to the power. Very cool.

That being said, I just don't know what to make of the complete and utter randomness of it all. Where did it come from? What the heck is it, really? For such a major plot device, its origin was just too clouded in mystery for me. They could have (and probably should have) gone with a hybrid version of the Ultimate Symbiote being manmade and a cure for cancer (hello Penny Marko). But...that's for fan fiction, I guess.

The Dancing

Did I mind the strutting down the street? Actually, no. Did I mind the pelvic thrusts? Yes.

And as for the jazz club scene BEFORE he danced with Gwen? Dumbest idea in the history of blockbuster cinema (no hyperbole). One word, folks: WHY???????????????? If they had just left it at the point where Peter dances with Gwen in front of MJ it would've been swell. But, my god. Who the heck thought that was a good idea? Who?!

That one scene brought this movie down a notch. Seriously. Take that scene out and this film is actually a point or two better than it is. But as it stands, that ridiculously over-the-top "What were they on when they wrote that" moment nearly killed this entire film. Raimi, or whoever is to blame, needs to be sent to the corner with no snacks for that one. Good god.

The Flashbacks

I actually had a flashback to the beginning of this review when I wrote this sentence. Seriously, it seemed like everybody and their mother had a flashback in the film. I was half expecting Eddie, as he was being consumed by the symbiote, to have a flashback of all three of his scenes before that one. Okay, I jest a bit. But jeepers, we didn't need all of that.

The Butler

Why Harry didn't pimp slap the guy is beyond me. How can you sit there through essentially two films and withhold that kind of information until the very last second? I'll tell you how: the writers needed some motivation for Harry to go to the site. So what did they do? "Hi, Harry. Your dad killed himself. Okay. Thanks. Bye."

Wha?????

The Humor

This movie was hilarious in spots. A great balance between the humor and darker elements. The JJ scenes? All top notch, but it felt like the whole gang was forgotten about a bit at the end. Though, it was great to see Peter flirt with Betty. Come on, dude. She's the finest girl in this series. SHOW THAT WOMAN SOME LOVE!

Bruce Campbell? Genius. 'Nuff said.

Stan Lee's cameo? Friggin' gold. He just shows up randomly, says something wise, and walks off. Just classic.

The VENOMSSSSSZZZZ

Time for the most overhyped aspect of the film. Venom fans have a lot to be pissed off about. Yes, he looked amazing. But man, was he even onscreen for three minutes? Wow. Thank god I didn't go in with him as my #1 priority. I would've killed myself if I was a Venom fanatic and after waiting all this time all I got was that.

Topher nailed it pretty well. I'm not too sure about the voice (it sounded like a deeper Grace), but it was just blah.

There really isn't much else to say about him. Oh, there is one thing. That alley scene? WHAT...THE...HECK? Can you kids spell "rushed"?

Final Verdict

Is Spider-Man 3 a disappointment? In some ways, yes. It is. Is it a complete disaster? Absolutely not. The movie suffers from some QUESTIONABLE decisions on the part of Raimi, Arad, Ziskin, and the lot. But that doesn't stop it from being one heck of a night at the movies. It's a shame, however, to know that there was so much more that this film could have been. I look forward to an extended cut DVD with additional scenes. For me, I don't think this theatrical version will be the definitive version of the film.

This is a far more flawed film than the first two, but it's actually more fun and has less drags. There are a slew of problematic areas, but Raimi and company still delivered an immensely entertaining adventure. Spidey, you weaved a conflicted web, but it got the job done just enough for this guy.

 

[Hunter Rider]

This is a tradition thread at the Hype,it's for more in depth reviews of films and a place to review all movies you're watching as opposed to just posting a DVD box and a thumbs up/down in the "Last movie you watched" thread.

If you're not interested in it then don't post.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

This is kind of a Blade of Glory review I was going to do, but it turned into how sweet random movies are, but never-the-less...a Blades of Glory review

I recently viewed the new Will Ferrel comedy Blades of Glory, funny ass flick, but besides that, the best ending I have ever witnessed

I am a firm believer, and founder of the movemnt that I am one of few regestered to, that movies that have no reason to have a great ending that is ether perfect closuer i.e. Return of the Jedi, kicks mega ass i.e. Halloween, or ends a great movie, by letting yourself invision the ending in your head letting you decide what hope is left i.e. Children of Men; then I would wish that movies would go for the completely over the top tip

for example, I was in no. 23, lame movie, it was worth the money, but it still was about as anti climatic as movies get, there is this hint that the no. 23 symbolizes the mark of the beast i.e. 3/2 equels .66747409484483048668-55. or .666; which I thought would have been a great take to go on...the ending i drew up in my head was that of Satan rizing up and telling Jim Carrey that his soul is now Satans, and that he will be his agent of death....only for no. 23 Michael Jordan to kick down the house, dressed in full chicago Bulls uniform shouts out "Yo' Satan, whats half of 45?" and shoots him with a Shot Gun "23.5, 45 was my brothers favorite number, but unlucky for you, 23 is now my number" and puffs the smoke away fromt the shot gun, as Satan is finally defeated forever....and then in the blink of an eye MJ turns to Jim Carrey and says "Alright, lets party"...and the house they are in folds up like a fake Hollywood set peice, and a stage is errected, where a happy pop band plays poppy music or whatever, and every star in hollywood is hanging out, having a drink or whatever, Steven Segal is caged up needing to be force fed acting lessons, and animals are free, and they all can talk...and there are pokemon, and everyone is having a good time, the camera pans out montage style to an endless sky, where tinker bell floats up towards the screen waves her pixie dust, and poof! Credits....why aren't there endings like this

luckily for me barley 2 months after I made that wish it came true

I was digging BoG the whole movie, I would have given it like a B or like 3 stars or whatever, not an instant classic, but a sweet movie none the less, but the last 45 seconds of the movie is possibley the greatest scene in the history of motion pictures

A

 

[black_dust]

Nice one movies for posting as those back links to reviews! Must have taken awhile!

I will begin the summer of Reviews starting this friday with 28 Weeks later, and shall continue with what ever i watch Start to finish

 

[War Party]

My favorite thread is back. Hey Movies, there were some reviews that I did last year in your thread that aren't in the second post of links to reviews. I'll grab them and send them to you so you can post them, if you want to. I'll post my first review tonight.

 

[War Party]

For my first review, I'll start with a very positive one.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas(1998)
Director: Terry Gilliam
Rating: 10/10

Having read the semi-autobiographical book before seeing this movie, I really had no idea what to expect. I still don't think one is better than the other, they both have different feels; the book is darker, like reading a seedy, nightmarish LSD trip. The movie is different, slightly lighter (only slightly) and is an absolute assault on the senses.

I have heard that the original director was fired, before the subsequent director, Terry Gilliam was hired. What a piece of luck for this adaptation. Gilliams brilliant vision makes this an amazing film to watch. Every time I see this, there are scenes that blow my mind in terms of camera work. Gilliam combines the most stunning scenery with crazy angles and cuts to make this a surreal adventure through and through.

Aside from this is the pure attention to detail that gets me every time; there is more in this movie than you could pay attention to with three or four people watching the movie for days. Every time I watch it I see some new character, hear new background dialogue, or notice an effect that had previously gone unnoticed. My favourite is the archangel holding a burning sword outside the restaurant in L.A when Duke first recieves his orders to go to vegas.

In terms of the story, the movie is everything I hoped for. Las vegas is portrayed perfectly as the seedy, tacky, heart of the american dream that is the entire point behind this satirical monologue. The characters within vegas are desperate hopeless people in search of happiness they will never find in a freak circus town such as Gilliam displays. The main characters were picked for perfection.Johnny Depp, being a personal friend of Thompson's, plays a role he must know well. However, the real star of the film is Benicio Del Toro: this man can play a character to a T. Dr. Gonzo transforms from a semi-professional "attorney" to a drug-crazed fiend within the space of the lobby of a hotel and the soundproof room the pair occupy. There are scenes featuring Del Toro that make me laugh out loud, and there are scenes that disgust me in how sincerely Del Toro looks like he's just eaten a whole sheet of acid and wants himself to be electrocuted. The multitude of star cameos in the film do their job well; everyone from Penn of Penn & Teller to Thompson himself are in the film, and the high quality cameos keep on coming - a personal favourite of mine is Flea from the Red Hot Chili Peppers licking LSD off Duke's arm in a public toilet - it's really hilarious.

There is not a minute of this movie I didn't enjoy. It is admittedly a very in your face film, but thats what was intended. This is the clash of two great american dreams, the hippies vs. the norm, so what do you expect? The extended title says it all; a savage journey to the heart of the american dream. It is savage, but it is also hilarious, mind bending, depraved, and amazing, all in the same movie. What more could you want from a great adaptation?

 

[The Chairman]

Here's my Grindhouse review as copied from amazon:

Directors Quentin Tarrentino (Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill) and Robert Rodriguez (Sin City, The El Mariachi trilogy) seem to be a dream team-up in the movie world. They are great friends in real life, and excel in the same style of moviemaking -long, violent tales of characters either on the edge of insanity, trying to seek redemption or simply looking for a good time. Seeing the two collaborate was a dream for their fans, and we got a taste of what it would be like in Rodriguez's 2005 comic book masterpiece Sin City, which featured a sequence directed by Tarrentino.

Now, two years later, a full-on collaboration between the two has come into fruition. Grindhouse is a tribute to an old form cinema that was famous back in the 1970s'. "Grindhouse Cinema" as it was called was when two films were combined into one and played straight through, with a few trailers for other movies shown in between. Tarrentino an Rodriguez revive this art form to sizzling perfection with a one-two punch of two brilliantly conceived, viciously entertaining thrill rides.

The first is Rodriguez's sci-fi / horror zombie vehicle, Planet Terror. The film starts off by introducing us to its main character and heroine, Cherry Darling (Rose McGowan, of Charmed fame), a troubled go-go dancer tying to find a more reasonable calling in life. Meanwhile, a biochemist named Abby (Naveen Andrews, aka Sayid from Lost), has blown a trade with the corrupt Lt. Muldoon (an uncredited Bruce Willis), and has released a gas into the small backwoods town the film takes place in, turning its citizens into homicidal, brain munching zombies. Unbeknownst to the terror about to unfold, Cherry unwinds at J.T.'s Steak Pit, where she meets her former flame Wray (Freddy Rodriguez), thus rekindling unwanted feelings.

Meanwhile, the dysfunctional couple of Dr. William Block (Josh Brolin) and his nurse wife Dakota (Marley Shelton, who played Wendy Peffercorn, the hot lifeguard in The Sandlot) have had their lovely interrupted by an emergency at the hospital involving various town patrons being infected by a mysterious chemicals eating at their flesh and turning them into the living dead. When these ghoulish maniacs attack Cherry and tear off her leg (leading to several amputee jokes before the world famous machine gun leg is inserted), Wray teams up with the local sheriff (Michael Beihn) and his team to put an end to the mayhem these ghouls have caused.

Essentially, you can guess your way through the rest of the film, though there are definitely a few interesting plot twists along the way.

After some fake previews comes Tarrentino's Death Proof. This story revolves around Stuntman Mike (the legendary Kurt Russell, aka Snake Pilssken), a murderous stunt driver who gets his kick out of massacring young ladies with his "death proof car". Mike's way involves wooing" a bevy of beauties, stalking them around town as they travel, then finally crashing into him, killing his victims while he remains unscathed. 5 unlucky ladies (including McGowan in a role different from Cherry Darling) fall prey to him after a wild night on the town.

His blood lust at an all time high, Stuntman Mike sets his sights on four traveling teenage girls: Lee (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), Abernathy (he always wonderful Rosario Dawson), Kim (Rent's Tracie Thoms) and Zoe (Zoe Bell, Uma Thurman's stunt double in both Kill Bill movies). The four girls are on a quest for a specific model of car, which they buy from a farmer (Lee stays behind), and perform the most dangerous car stunt known to man. Unbeknownst to them, Stuntman Mike is on their tail, and he isn't looking to be their friend. This leads to a spectacular climax in which Zoe Bell steals the show. I won't divulge the details, except that if you're blood is not pumping, your heart isn't racing and you're not on the edge of the seat during the last 20 minuets of the film, you probably died some time during the showing of the film, as you are witnessing one of the most exciting things you will ever see on film.

Overall, Grindhouse is 191 minutes (over three hours) of pure adrenaline provided by two top notch action thrill rides helmed by two of the best directors working today. As I said earlier, we get fake trailers throughout the film, directed by guest directors. Among others, Eli Roth of Hostel fame provides the terrifyingly funny horror spoof Thanksgiving, Rob Zombie (who I'm normally repulsed by) scores the highlight with Werewolf Women Of The S.S, a WWII - era Germany parody featuring Nicolas Cage's best work since Face / Off, and Rodriguez cohort Danny Trejo stars in the action thriller Machete (which will be a real film from what I read).

In conclusion, Grindhouse scores an easy 10 out of 10.

 

[Mr.Webs]

Nice to have this thread back. I'll try to get to reviewing Spidey 3 if I get a chance.
_______________________

28 Days Later
Directed by Danny Boyle
Starring Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris, Brendan Gleeson, and Christopher Eccleston
______________________________________________________

This disturbing horror film is one of the latest, and one of the last, to actually give the horror genre some hope. It's all around a fantastic film, but before I start, here's a synopsis courtesy of IMDB.com. - A powerful virus escapes from a British research facility. Transmitted in a drop of blood and devastating within seconds, the virus locks those infected into a permanent state of murderous rage. Within 28 days the country is overwhelmed and a handful of survivors begin their attempts to salvage a future, little realising that the deadly virus is not the only thing that threatens them. -

The acting in this film is actually, really, really good. Murphy's record so far has been perfect, and while this performance isn't as brilliant as some of his others (Batman Begins, Red Eye), but that doesn't mean that this one is bad, not in the slightest. Every emotion that he needs to express is done well, and he plays intense better than nearly anyone. Harris does a wonderful job here, transforming her hard character into a sympathetic hero. If she hadn't of done such a good job of it, then the entire transition just wouldn't work, resulting into a broken film. Gleeson, who's been in many fantastic films, has also delivered an equal amount of fantastic performances to go along with his resume. And it doesn't stop here...as possibly the most humanizing, likable character of the entire picture, he plays his part so perfectly that I can't think of anyone else in the role. Then we have Eccleston, who plays a sinister realist to a tee, never making the villain too hammy, which is always a good thing. The rest of the cast does a fine job, never putting a glaring mark on this already great film.

The story isn't all too original. Not at first, at least. A horrific disease is released, turning thousands of people into murderous zombies, and now our heroes must survive. But, this is false...this is not a zombie film. The monsters are nothing but people who have contracted a disease that results in continuous rage, and they can be killed. And for that, I applaud them. They could've gone for the zombie idea, but they thankfully didn't. Also, they handle the lonliness aspect of the aftermath of the outbreak so damn well, that it creates this amazing atmosphere that lasts throughout the film. Then, we have actually good characterization! In...in a horror film! They actually develop the characters, make you like/love them, and then put them into terrifying situations, so that you actually care what happens to them. Who would've thought it? Then of course, we have the near-perfect music/camera work, which truly makes this movie what it is. It looks real, feels real, moves real. It's great.

But, it isn't all giggles and greatness. The scenes of Murphy's character roaming the streets of England are a bit too long, and with nothing really happening, it feels even longer. Then, we have the disease itself...it moves way too fast. There is no incubation period whatsoever, and the transformation is generally within the time frame of twenty seconds. That is just not realistic, and for a film that trys so hard to be so, it puts, albeit a small, error on the film.

But other than that, there isn't much wrong. All around, this is one of the three or five good horror films of the past six years, and I only hope that horror films in the future will take heed of this movie. Lord knows they need the help.

Final Vote: 8/10

 

[Mr.Webs]

Gone with the Wind
Directed by Victor Fleming
Starring Vivien Leigh, Clark Gable, Olivia de Havilland, and Hattie McDaniel
______________________________________________________________

This classic film, made over sixty-eight years ago, has been heralded as one of the best films ever made. It's at the number four slot on the AFI Top 100 Films List, and, with adjusted inflation, is the highest-grossing film ever released, making more than one and a half billion dollars. But, is it actually any good? Does it live up to the reputation? Honestly? No, not by a long shot. Now, before anything else, here is the brief synopsis. American classic in which a manipulative woman and a roguish man carry on a turbulent love affair in the American south during the Civil War and Reconstruction.

The acting in this film is questionable at times, it's true. Liegh overacts through the whole thing, but, it might be the fault of the script, and of the character herself, so, I won't say anything bad about it. Gable...Gable is just the man. He is perfect as the wonderful character Rhett Butler, and he has justly gone down as one of the greatest characters in film history. He is just that good. Havilland is heartwarming and simply charming, and she's truly the moral compass through the movie, I'd say. McDaniel won an Oscar for her perfomance, and I can see why. While most of the film she is simply comedic relief, a few scenes calls for some true acting, and boy, does she deliver. The rest of the cast does a good job, and everyone fits their characters well, but except for Gable as Butler, there isn't much to write home about.

The story? Well, the actual story in of itself is good. It certainly is an epic one. It expands several years, and you get to watch these characters grow up, so to speak, get to see them evolve. How long the film is isn't a problem whatsoever, I didn't mind it. The movie needed four hours to be told, and that's that. The secondary characters don't hurt the movie either, they are just fine.

It's that freaking Scarlett O'Hara. First, before I say anything, I don't mind evil or mean characters. Hell, Willard Styles and Norman Bates are two of my favorite characters of all time, and they're cold-blooded killers. But, it they aren't likable in some way, empathetic, or above ALL, interesting, then, what's the use?

That's what I felt with Scarlet. This horrible, ghastly woman who's played by a vaguely decent Leigh, just isn't enough to carr such a long film. If Butler had been the main character, then the movie would've worked, but, this downright cruel character isn't leading character material. There just isn't anything redeeming, or even entertaining, about her. If the script had been just a little bit better, maybe show something else about Scarlet so that she wasn't so one-dimensional, my score would be higher. But they didn't.

Is the film bad? No...does it deserve so much acclaim? Definitely not.

Final Vote: 6.5/10

 

[Movies205]

My favorite thread is back. Hey Movies, there were some reviews that I did last year in your thread that aren't in the second post of links to reviews. I'll grab them and send them to you so you can post them, if you want to. I'll post my first review tonight.

The way I did it was simply copy the post from the last thread, some people have sent me that there reviews are missing, I apologize, most likely something happen where I either forgot, etc... Just send me your reviews and I'll make sure I'll post them, I apologize... Anyway I got study for my last exam, and then I'll be back in full force posting people's reviews etc... Also love the support, it helps me keep the motivation to run this thread(Which takes a great deal of time t: )

 

[Elisha Cuthbert]

PATHFINDER(2007)
Directed by Marcus Nispel
Starring Karl Urban, Russel Means and Moon Bloodgood
This is one of those movies that you go see in theaters, pay money for it and then hate yourself for the rest of you life for wasting 2 and a half hours of it. I went to see this movie with my friend who has ancestry of both Native American and Scandinavian descent, and both of us wound up disappointed.

The movie is about a supposed legend involving a viking left in early America who grew up around Indian people. I don't think the film is ever clear on the particular tribe of Indians, though it is clear on exactly what stereotype of Indians we will see on film. Yes sir, these are the Indians that know voodoo, beat up bears, smoke peyote and enjoy it all immensely.

As for the Vikings, they have almost no humanity to them. We are supposed to believe that their only motivation is to kill, and that they have no humanity at all. Every scene that they are in evokes the kind of ridiculous post-modern obsession with vast amounts of violence and torture that is currently desensitizing all of society. Okay, don't get me wrong, I'm fine with a little violence in my movies. I like big fight scenes. But I don't like to watch gruesome torture scenes when they're better reenacted on shows like Lost and 24. The violence in the film goes way too far, has no real ground in reality, and it seems like the director gets a hard-on every time somebody gets their eye stabbed out.

Our hero is a Viking (Karl Urban) who, while being blood-thirsty like the Vikings, has been calmed down by the pot-smoking, peace-loving Indians and is now a bonified badass. Thus, Mr. Urban spends the whole movie doing the traditional "don't I look cool without my shirt, but not gay or anything like that" action stance that takes its origins all the way before Schwarzenegger's Conan the Barbarian. What are Urban's motivations, how does he feel about being outcast, and why doesn't he feel any remorse for the Vikings, the people that raised him? Who cares, he's going to kill some people and get the hot Indian chick who, while never getting naked, is threatened with torture throughout the whole movie (which really, nowadays, is the replacement for the totally predictable topless flash).

Overall, Pathfinder manages to take what could be a cool concept for an action film, if only it paid a little more attention to history, took some time to think outside the box and actually developed its characters. Really, if you're looking for something in this vein, just watch 300--I didn't really like that movie the first time I saw it, but after sitting through this piece of garbage, I have a newfound respect for it.

RATING: 1/10

 

[Movies205]

All About My Mother
Directed by Pedro Almodóvar
Rating: 9/10

My opinion on this thread is that you should watch the movie without knowing anything about it, so take my word for it and go see the movie, read my review, then comment.
---

The beginning of the film completely catches one off guard especially with the title. It's why I stress not to read the review since it might cheapen the impact. But the beginning of the film, starts with a mother and son, who obviously deeply care each other however, there are some deep seated issues. Then fifteen minutes into the film, the son dies, and you're left with a big "WTF?" The character then leaves her town and moves back to a place she hasn't been since before her son was born to a mysterious past.

The film's most compelling point is how it asks some rather serious questions about society, women, and what "motherhood" means while never forgetting to tell the story. Each scene in the film perfectly fits, there are no preachy scenes, no ever inspiring monologue, just characters trying to deal with their problems. In many ways Almodóvar reminds me of Alexander Payne's writing style, in which he doesn't rely on movie-esque plot-devices to move the story, but simply the struggles and internal struggles of characters to move the plot along. However a key difference is that Payne's characters are deeply flawed and a lot of the times, tend to not be that great as people, or deeply confused and make some terrible choices. The characters in this film while flawed, never sacrifice their morality, even the mother comes through in the end.

The use of an all "female" cast is equally brilliant. This idea that in between the women is Agrado, the "man" turned woman. It really sort of blurs the line between man and woman. I like how each character represented a different type of woman, there was the nun, ****e, mother, actress, and junkee. In the end, the story asks some powerful questions while presenting a story that will keep you widely interested.

My only beef with the film would be with some of the cinematography choices, sometimes it was a bit too experimental. What it would do is create a disconnect because you start thinking about the shot rather than the movie and I didn't really like that. There are some other little things but that has more to do with my own sheltered existence, like all the talk about men with ***** really was kind of uncomfortable at times for me but again that's more of a personal gripe than one I can say against the film. All in All great film, and I'll need to check out more Almodóvar!

 

[Movies205]

Gone with the Wind
Directed by Victor Fleming
Starring Vivien Leigh, Clark Gable, Olivia de Havilland, and Hattie McDaniel
______________________________________________________________

This classic film, made over sixty-eight years ago, has been heralded as one of the best films ever made. It's at the number four slot on the AFI Top 100 Films List, and, with adjusted inflation, is the highest-grossing film ever released, making more than one and a half billion dollars. But, is it actually any good? Does it live up to the reputation? Honestly? No, not by a long shot. Now, before anything else, here is the brief synopsis. American classic in which a manipulative woman and a roguish man carry on a turbulent love affair in the American south during the Civil War and Reconstruction.

Mr. Webs I hope your accounting for it's significance in film history, along with it perhaps having one of hte most elaborate set of costumes and sets. Also the fact that it stars the amazing Clark Gable

The acting in this film is questionable at times, it's true. Liegh overacts through the whole thing, but, it might be the fault of the script, and of the character herself, so, I won't say anything bad about it.

How can you say that? Scarlet O'Hara to this day is one of the best female characters to come out of film, considering at the time, most female characters were pretty much sexual fodder for soft focus till Film Noir came around. The leading lady does a damn fine job, and her character is very compelling, her story of torment and anguish is compelling partly because as you see her fall, you’re saying to yourself it’s her own damn fault, hence making the last line of the movie very impact. Also you have to take into account that the writing/acting style of the time is difference than we have now. Things were over-acted, it's only 12 years after the first talkie so talkies were still relatively new. Which one can expect that the acting style reflects more of theatre in being more dramatic.

Gable...Gable is just the man. He is perfect as the wonderful character Rhett Butler, and he has justly gone down as one of the greatest characters in film history. He is just that good. Havilland is heartwarming and simply charming, and she's truly the moral compass through the movie, I'd say. McDaniel won an Oscar for her perfomance, and I can see why. While most of the film she is simply comedic relief, a few scenes calls for some true acting, and boy, does she deliver. The rest of the cast does a good job, and everyone fits their characters well, but except for Gable as Butler, there isn't much to write home about.

I have to disagree... What about Thomas Mitchell? His despair over his dead wife is so heart-wrenching.

The story? Well, the actual story in of itself is good. It certainly is an epic one. It expands several years, and you get to watch these characters grow up, so to speak, get to see them evolve. How long the film is isn't a problem whatsoever, I didn't mind it. The movie needed four hours to be told, and that's that. The secondary characters don't hurt the movie either, they are just fine.

It's that freaking Scarlett O'Hara. First, before I say anything, I don't mind evil or mean characters. Hell, Willard Styles and Norman Bates are two of my favorite characters of all time, and they're cold-blooded killers. But, it they aren't likable in some way, empathetic, or above ALL, interesting, then, what's the use?

You miss the point, Scarlett is the way she is due to the war. She was a frickin debutant, her life was ripped away from her, she was pampered her entire life, she wasn't made to deal with such a situation, there sort of a great deal of pity that one feels toward the character while at the same time you grow to hate her and pity Clark Gable's character. It's an awesome story.

That's what I felt with Scarlet. This horrible, ghastly woman who's played by a vaguely decent Leigh, just isn't enough to carr such a long film. If Butler had been the main character, then the movie would've worked, but, this downright cruel character isn't leading character material. There just isn't anything redeeming, or even entertaining, about her. If the script had been just a little bit better, maybe show something else about Scarlet so that she wasn't so one-dimensional, my score would be higher. But they didn't.

Is the film bad? No...does it deserve so much acclaim? Definitely not.

Final Vote: 6.5/10

You didn't even touch on the sets, costumes, or cinematographies! It ranks up there as one of the most beautiful films ever made. However, is this one of my favorite movies? No. Was I disappointed considering all the hype and ranking it gets? No. Any movie that successfully holds your interest for four hours, and doesn’t waste any time or feel like it could be shorter, is a damn good movie in my book. It’s a great story with beautiful visuals, however I can agree some parts are far too “Hollywood” and hokey. Also for such a long movie with complex characters, it doesn’t have the depth I feel it should, I wish it had packed a little more into it. I mean, I think your completely wrong in saying Scarlet is a one dimenional character, and also you don't seem to take into account you're watching a film that's 68 years old, quite a but has changed in that time. So again, I'd say it's more of an 8 than a 6.5, and truely deserves it's status due to it's significance in film history.

Note: Some of this post was culled from my review I posted last year.

 

[Movies205]

I finish the first post lata...

 

[L0ngsh0t]

Mr. Webs I hope your accounting for it's significance in film history, along with it perhaps having one of hte most elaborate set of costumes and sets. Also the fact that it stars the amazing Clark Gable



How can you say that? Scarlet O'Hara to this day is one of the best female characters to come out of film, considering at the time, most female characters were pretty much sexual fodder for soft focus till Film Noir came around. The leading lady does a damn fine job, and her character is very compelling, her story of torment and anguish is compelling partly because as you see her fall, you’re saying to yourself it’s her own damn fault, hence making the last line of the movie very impact. Also you have to take into account that the writing/acting style of the time is difference than we have now. Things were over-acted, it's only 12 years after the first talkie so talkies were still relatively new. Which one can expect that the acting style reflects more of theatre in being more dramatic.




I have to disagree... What about Thomas Mitchell? His despair over his dead wife is so heart-wrenching.



You miss the point, Scarlett is the way she is due to the war. She was a frickin debutant, her life was ripped away from her, she was pampered her entire life, she wasn't made to deal with such a situation, there sort of a great deal of pity that one feels toward the character while at the same time you grow to hate her and pity Clark Gable's character. It's an awesome story.



You didn't even touch on the sets, costumes, or cinematographies! It ranks up there as one of the most beautiful films ever made. However, is this one of my favorite movies? No. Was I disappointed considering all the hype and ranking it gets? No. Any movie that successfully holds your interest for four hours, and doesn’t waste any time or feel like it could be shorter, is a damn good movie in my book. It’s a great story with beautiful visuals, however I can agree some parts are far too “Hollywood” and hokey. Also for such a long movie with complex characters, it doesn’t have the depth I feel it should, I wish it had packed a little more into it. I mean, I think your completely wrong in saying Scarlet is a one dimenional character, and also you don't seem to take into account you're watching a film that's 68 years old, quite a but has changed in that time. So again, I'd say it's more of an 8 than a 6.5, and truely deserves it's status due to it's significance in film history.

Note: Some of this post was culled from my review I posted last year.

sets, costumes, cinematography, writting and acting, all great parts of a film indeed, but what can't these movies do for Gone with the Wind?

speed it up

its a classic indeed, but much like Citizen Kane (although far more watchable than that horse ****) Gone with the Wind is unwatchable to anyone who has had any amount of sugar go through their body in that day. When it was realeased, it was a classic, its been reviewed many times through the years and always reviewed as a classic, but people back then didn't have explosions, and sandmans, and stuff that kicks ass. Look I am all for a good movie with no action (Almost Famous) but the pacing still has to be that of an action movie at times so we don't get bored.

The guy can sure think that way about Gone with the Wind, some stuff I agree with, some I don't, but it definatley is a god forsakenly slow movie

 

[Carmine Falcone]

Here's my first review for this volume:

Casino

Martin Scorsese is my all-time favorite director. That's a fact. I love pretty much everything he has done, and as everyone who loves movies knows, he is the KING of Gangstermovies, even though he only made four... Casino easily ranks among the top 5 of Scorsese's best films. And that means alot. The movie is about Sam ''Ace'' Rothstein (Robert DeNiro), a bookie who gets to run a very big Casino: The Tangiers. One of his old friends Nicky Santoro (Joe Pesci) moves out to Vegas to, but the fact is that he is a psychopath who kills guys like you take a piss. Then there is Ginger (Sharon Stone), a goldigger who marries Sam. The movie is mostly about the downfall of these people.
Martin Scorsese's directing is fantastic. The crane flies throught the Casino, the steadicam follows the gamblers, some of the shots are beautifully constructed and I could go on and on. The acting is top-notch, De Niro is perfectly cast and so is Joe Pesci. The scene is the desert is which they have a huge argument is one of the best of the film. Sharon Stone really succeeded is portraying a very greedy *****. And the small roles are cast very well to, the mobbosses back home are hillarious and it is nice to see Catherine Scorsese again. Then there is the editing by Thelma Schoonmaker, which is brilliant ofcourse, the woman hasn't won many awards for no reason. The movie is 2 hours and 45 minutes long, but never gets boring. The soundtrack is jam-****ing-packed with classic rock including songs like, The House of the Rising Sun, Nights in White Satin, Love is the Drug, Go your Own Way and multiple songs by The Rolling Stones, whose music fits Scorsese's music PERFECTLY and I'm glas he uses their songs so often.
But there are a few negative points to, first, there are some pretty ****ed up versions of the Rolling Stones songs Gimme Shelter and Satisfaction, the former is one of the best songs ever IMO and the latter is great to so it is too bad that bad versions of those songs were used. Secondly, the violence is hardcore. A guy gets stabbed in the throat, someone gets his head put in a vise, there are many graphic headshots and 2 guys get battered with baseball bats...it might be the most violent movie I have ever seen. Even though, I've seen the movie a few times, it still makes me cringe. But the good thing about it is that the violence isn't glorified, it makes you cringe, because it should. Martin Scorsese is also very good at this, just look at Goodfellas, The Departed and ofcourse Raging Bull.
Conclusion: A great film, with a few minor flaws.

Rating: 9/10

Best Quote:
Ace Rothstein: No matter how big a guy might be, Nicky would take him on. You beat Nicky with fists, he comes back with a bat. You beat him with a knife, he comes back with a gun. And you beat him with a gun, you better kill him, because he'll keep comin' back and back until one of you is dead.

 

[Incrediblejeff]

I have never written a full review before so bear with me.

Spider-man 3

Spider-man 3 is the third movie in the Spider-man series.It's not a bad movie,but it's also not a Great one.I felt that the movie had too much stuff crammed into it.If they would have trimmed the story lines some it would have been better for me.

The best thing this movie had going for it was the Peter/MJ/Harry storyline.It felt liked the most established storyline in the movie.I would really have loved to see a better ending to it,but other than that It was a high point.They have such great chemistry with each other on screen.

I also thought the Mary Jane/Gwen Stacy/Peter story had it's moments.It wasn't as good as Harry's story,but I liked it.Gwen Stacy is an interesting Character that I would love to see continued .I actually like her better than Mary Jane.Mary Jane can be an annoying Character at times,While Gwen Stacy seems more likable.

Harry as the Green Goblin was interesting.His look was slightly worst than the original Goblins.The action scenes between the Goblin and Pete were the best action scenes in the film.

The Sandman Story was ok.It was probably my least favorite part of the movie.The best parts about the Sandman's plot were the action scenes and the flashbacks.(Which isn't saying much).Needless to say I was disappointed with the Sandman.There was so much potential in the Character.It too bad Raimi didn't make him the only villain in the movie.

Then there was the Symbiote plot.The Symbiote story was so over the top that I cringed,but as I cringed I enjoyed it.It was pure cheese.I loved the Ridiculousness of Peter Dancing in the streets,or him telling Ursula to get him some more cookies.
Lastly I felt that Venom really served no purpose.He felt like he was just thrown into the mix,just for the hell of it.I think he would have been much better if he was given his own movie.With his own movie he could have shined.

With that said.I'll give the movie a 7.6/10