• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

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

The movie just got a re-release over here so I might just blind buy it.



I have no idea, that sort of thing doesn't interest me. I just know it's the first Coen flick.

Tis it is, however it does make a difference because the mechanics of making an independent film and a studio film are completely different which lead to very different products.
 
Yeah I get that. But I do not purposely seek out independent films or avoid studio films, I just watch those that interest me. :)
 
Yeah I get that. But I do not purposely seek out independent films or avoid studio films, I just watch those that interest me. :)

Same but for a while I ignored independent films because some are ridiculously pretencious, however after watching a couple... I'm finding myself hook... I'm going need to see more... Sex, Lies, and a Videotape was great :up:
 
Yeah i have it on Dvd its a good film, Franka Potente is sexy as hell. must have been pretty fit to be running about all over town for 80+ mins

id give it 6 or 7 out of 10

Everyone got pissed at me and some stupid feminist in my film class(this is a very basic film class, you have to take just to make sure everyone gets the basics of film) said that the only reason that I think she's dispictable is because she's a female and not a guy. And someone said it's unnerving because the female is saving the guy yet in every story she completely ****s up and in the end doesn't even save him, he saves himself... Christ are people that starved for a female heroine they'll take anything with a pair of ****?
 
In tradition of hte title... My elitist porcupines, cringe at the utter stupidity of the latest addition to our humble forum.. OptimusCannibis

I considered it but those movies kind of suck in most peoples opinions. The percentage of people who would watch these movies over any on the list is so small it's almost not worth mentioning. Are they classics? To my grandma. If you think these should be on the list then you obviously think they have a chance at winning but I'm sorry, Deuce Bigelow is more entertaining than any of those you mentioned. Call me a stupid boob but I'm honest and thinking for myself. A case can be made for King Kong but that's why I put the all new and improved remake on the list. Scarface? We got Pacino dude. Metropolis is one I almost put on and I still may the problem is I made this tournament for casual movie fans too, not just movie buffs, and most won't know any of these movies or vote for them for that matter. They would have been wasted brackets.

Just wondering, do you know the 1939 movie I have on the list off the top of your head?

I have but Mvies2O5 wants me to include the caveman short film 'How to Make the Wheel' and the sequel 'Burn, Fire Burn.'

Seriously though. I do have a mix of the two but of course, there are more newer films. Basically the older ones are eliminated because not as many people have seen them and know them. The question to hopefully be answered is not which movie is older, the question to be answered is... RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW... WHAT IS THE ALL-TIME BEST MOVIE???



???
???
???​

IN response to his own first round of Zodiac Vs. 2001: Space Odyessy

Haven't seen Zodiac yet and don't need to...

Zodiac

The difference is Kubrik's and Hitchcock's works aren't as old as the movies you listed. I see those movies and they don't talk like anyone I know, they don't act like anyone I know, and they don't look like anyone I know. They are seriously outdated and in need of remakes and if they aren't remade then they can't be that good.

Honestly, would you rather see King Kong(1933) or King Kong(2005)? I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying most people would choose the later. My point is, if it's good enough it will be remade or re-released and in most cases the remake will be the better of the two, hence - there IS no point in listing the movies in question.

I don't feel like getting into a rather useless argument, but I'll say this, I completely disagree with that statement and pray to god most people don't think so, but then again I know they don't, most people over the age of 30 at the very least... Kid will be kids...

If you don't think the newer version is better it is probably because you have a simple mind and are still blown away by the special effects. Wait another twenty years to catch up to what i'm saying, you'll see.:cwink:

Given the artists who meet that criteria I'd say he's in pretty good company.



I'm not considering them dull and boring BECAUSE of their age, I'm considering them dull and boring because they are. It just a coincidence that they are old.

Age does not matter to me or have anything to do with it. There are many classics of the 60's and 70's that I would say are better than most movies of the modern era. They have stood the test of time. My early prediction for best movie of all time is The Wizard of Oz from 1939. Not to mention, are the slew of other pre 1980 movies included: Raging Bull, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Last Tango in Paris, Cool Hand Luke, M.A.S.H., Planet of the Apes, Superfly, and Patton amongst many others from that time frame.

I'm not biased against old movies, I'm just a realist. They aren't as good. That's not to say, 15 years down the road I change mind. I just don't see them as quality films right now. Seriously, How are houses built around the 20's and 30's that have not had improvemnts viewed? Their viewed as trashy garbage most people don't want to bother with, regardless of how cheap they are. Same can be said for most of the older(pre-1960's) movies. That's the truth and that's all there is to it.


CHRIST... Someone tell me most people don't think this way or god help me :(
 
I'm not biased against old movies, I'm just a realist. They aren't as good. That's not to say, 15 years down the road I change mind. I just don't see them as quality films right now. Seriously, How are houses built around the 20's and 30's that have not had improvemnts viewed? Their viewed as trashy garbage most people don't want to bother with, regardless of how cheap they are. Same can be said for most of the older(pre-1960's) movies. That's the truth and that's all there is to it.

Sucker.
 
Just saw Glengarry Glen Ross. Dynamite performances. Al Pacino, Ed Harris, Jack Lemmon and Kevin Spacey burn the ****ing screen. I like this type of film. An ''actors film'' (25th Hour is another good example). You can count the locations of this movie on the fingers of one hand. Actors and dialouges are all that count.
 
I wouldn't say 25th Hour is an actors film given it's by Spike Lee, obvious attention to detail while Glengarry Ross is directed by a gun for hire with a DAvid Mammet script... Any film director by a script-writer or with a gun for hire going be an actor's film, since it usually comprised of standard shots and letting the actors take it away.
 
The Three Musketeers (1973)
Michael York, Oliver Reed, Christopher Lee and Charlton Heston.

9/10.

Sweet movie! Comedy that's actually funny, very witty script, amazing actors, and great swordfights choreographed by William Hobbs.

Yay!

I'm off to see the sequel (included in the same DVD set, it's supposed to be a bit darker, but better)

511E0FRP1CL._AA240_.jpg
 
The Three Musketeers (1973)
Michael York, Oliver Reed, Christopher Lee and Charlton Heston.

9/10.

Sweet movie! Comedy that's actually funny, very witty script, amazing actors, and great swordfights choreographed by William Hobbs.

Yay!

I'm off to see the sequel (included in the same DVD set, it's supposed to be a bit darker, but better)

511E0FRP1CL._AA240_.jpg

That set is supposed to be the COMPLETE Musketeers, but there is a third film, The return of the Musketeers, from 1989. Which is crap, but even so.

The best ever Musketeer film is the Gene Kelly/Lana Turner 1948 version.
 
That set is supposed to be the COMPLETE Musketeers, but there is a third film, The return of the Musketeers, from 1989. Which is crap, but even so.

The best ever Musketeer film is the Gene Kelly/Lana Turner 1948 version.

I love Charleston Heston though... So I need to see this version... How was that musketeer movie Chris O'Donnal made back in the daY?
 
That set is supposed to be the COMPLETE Musketeers, but there is a third film, The return of the Musketeers, from 1989. Which is crap, but even so.

The best ever Musketeer film is the Gene Kelly/Lana Turner 1948 version.

It is very crappy, indeed! I don't really mind not having it on the set, everyone looked really embarrassed to be in it :down

Yeah, the Gene Kelly one....I need it.
Here's a cool scene!


I love Charleston Heston though... So I need to see this version...

He was so evil as Cardinal Richelieu, I loved him :up:

How was that musketeer movie Chris O'Donnal made back in the daY?


Crappy fights :( :down
 
2001: A Space Odyssey
Directed by Stanley Kubrick
____________________________

What a film. That was my first impression. Whether it was good or not, I couldn't be too sure though. I know a lot of film addicts would crucify me for writing that down, but, this film is very peculiar. I think even it's admirer's will be able to admit that...Hell, even Kubrick would've admitted that.

The pacing is just so agonizingly slow, that you sometimes have to check your own pulse to make sure that you're still alive. There is very little dialogue in this over two hour film, and the story moves along at a snail's pace. In most movies, this would probably destroy the film's integrity, because a slow pace is nice, but when it's crawling...that's stretching it. But, when you realize what kind of movie this is, which pretty much is nothing like anything else I've personally seen, it somehow makes it not so bad. Believe me, at times the pacing can still be disheartening, but, it isn't such a huge problem as one would think.

The story, for the most part, is rather confusing unless you pay really good attention. It's really four short stories in one film, all circling around one important theme. Man's intelligence and his evolution. The movie starts off, and we are subjected to man at the very dawn of existence, when we were but lowly gorilla-like beings. After discovering this monolith, they grow intelligent. Jump a few thousands years or so, and here we are. The 21st Century. The film then shows off our advances in technology, but then shows the monolith once more, having been discovered in a crater on the moon. After it radiates a sound, we jump again, only slightly further in time. An expedition has been set out for Jupiter for confidential reasons, that only the super computer known as HAL 9000 knows. But, when the computer gets the idea that it's occupants are trying to somehow sabotage the mission, HAL 9000 turns on them, and systematically tries to kill them, hoping to protect this mission. And then, another slight jump in time, in which one of the main characters takes a jump through what seems to be a strange, evolutionary portal, in which he sees things that are even harder to explain than the film itself.

As you can see, the plot is extremely convulted.

So, the plot is confusing, there is no characterization whatsoever, the pacing is horrific, and to top it all off...it's really quite long.

Kubrick is a genius.

What he accomplished here is something that I can admit is very astonishing. I personally did not like the movie. I said it, there we are. I would not wish to watch it again, because there isn't enough there for me to enjoy. But, this is a landmark in filmmaking. It's just so well-made, so meticulous in all the details. And then, the wonderful camera-work, the colors...nevermind the special effects for the space scenes, which are years upon years ahead of their time.

So, in the end, this film, for personal taste, it would rate very, very low. But I can honestly say that I truly appreciate the movie for what it is...a legend.

Personal Vote: 4/10
Appreciation Vote: 8/10
 
SIMPSONS REVIEW


The Simpsons have been around ever since I could remember. We all grew up with Homer, Bart, Lisa Marge and Maggie. It was only a matter of time before these iconic characters would jump to the big screen. A lot of Simpson fans have waited for this moment. I was a huge Simpsons fan when I was younger but as I grew up the seasons decreased in entertainment in my opinion. Because the show for me didn’t have that same appeal as it used to, I didn’t think much when I heard the movie was coming. I finally started to hear good news like the old writers were coming back. The trailers that were released made me chuckle and I began to get excited. So what did I think of The Simpsons Movie? It was a solid good movie.
The movie itself was kinda refreshing animation wise as all we get now are 3D animations. The Simpsons stuck with 2D and thats where this movie shines. It was so good to see a 2D animation back on the screen. The movie didn’t feel long and boring. It was an hour and twenty seven minutes long I believe. Not once during the movie did I check the time or got bored. The Simpsons did what it used to do for me and thats ENTERTAIN!!!!
Homer is the highlight of this movie and that’s never a bad thing. Homer always makes you laugh especially with his new pig which was my favorite part of the movie. A lot of secondary characters don’t get even a line in but that’s ok we know who all these characters are, we don’t need them on screen for the movie.
One thing this movie does is, it highlight’s a few emotional scenes which worked in some parts but didn’t in some. When an emotional scene came up you felt for the characters because you know them, but the end result of the emotional impact falls dead in it’s tracks.
One thing did strike me watching the movie, this whole movie does not add anything new to The Simpson franchise. It doesn’t necessarily do anything new for The Simpsons but one thing that stuck in my head on the way out, they should stop making Simpson season’s on tv and release a movie once every two years. The movie was far more entertaining then any of the new episodes could ever be.
Overall The Simpsons movie was funny, entertaining and I left with a smile on my face. It’s downfall was the stupid end results of the emotional scenes which I kinda felt like they’ve done already on the show. The Simpsons is worth checking out, it’s a solid good movie. I’d give this one a GO!

Rating-7/10
 
Saw Hitchcock's Rope tonight. What an excellent movie. Probably the second best I've seen of the respected director. (Rear Window being the best) The fact that the film consists of only 9 takes is utterly amazing. Especially for the time it was made. I love James Stewart more with each role I see him in. And the speech he gives at the end gives one goosebumps. :up:
 
Saw Hitchcock's Rope tonight. What an excellent movie. Probably the second best I've seen of the respected director. (Rear Window being the best) The fact that the film consists of only 9 takes is utterly amazing. Especially for the time it was made. I love James Stewart more with each role I see him in. And the speech he gives at the end gives one goosebumps. :up:

I gtg but this is one of my favorite films... I'll talk about it later..
 
Saw Hitchcock's Rope tonight. What an excellent movie. Probably the second best I've seen of the respected director. (Rear Window being the best) The fact that the film consists of only 9 takes is utterly amazing. Especially for the time it was made. I love James Stewart more with each role I see him in. And the speech he gives at the end gives one goosebumps. :up:

Yeah, It's like my 4th fav hitchcock! Vertigo being the best :woot:
 
Saw Hitchcock's Rope tonight. What an excellent movie. Probably the second best I've seen of the respected director. (Rear Window being the best) The fact that the film consists of only 9 takes is utterly amazing. Especially for the time it was made. I love James Stewart more with each role I see him in. And the speech he gives at the end gives one goosebumps. :up:
Now that movie is simply brilliant. I reviewed it last year. Just so wonderfully dark. Hitchcock was very, very good at what he did.
 
Now that movie is simply brilliant. I reviewed it last year. Just so wonderfully dark. Hitchcock was very, very good at what he did.

Quite. And technically one of the best movies I've seen. Have you seen those HUGE cameras they used?

So far I've seen 7 Hitchcock movies. Posted here in the order from best to worst. (IMO, ofcourse..)

Rear Window
Rope
The Man Who Knew Too Much ('56)
North By Northwest
Vertigo/Shadow of a Doubt
Psycho
 
Wait, wait, WAIT.

You haven't seen The Birds?
 
My hitchcock list would be something like this:

Vertigo
Psycho
Strangers On A Train
Rope
Rear Window
Shadow Of A Doubt


Those are the cream of the crop for me. His early work seemed more like an inferior attempt at Robert Sidomak's filmaking.

Only in the late forties did Hitchcock develop a classy unique style, rpe was the turning point in his career for me, after that, the quality increased greatly.
 
Turned it off after 30 minutes of bad acting and ludicrous plot. Sorry.
Oh man. You passed on one of Hitchcock's most terrifying films. I wouldn't call the plot anymore ludicrous than Vertigo's, and the acting is just fine. It's only towards the middle that things really start to go insane. I mean, The Birds provides one of the most tense, frightening scenes in film history. Crows on a playground, that's all I have to say.

Hey, who else here has seen Dial M For Murder?
 
I've seen almost all hitchcock's, Dial M for murder was pretty good, prob in the top ten of his works.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"