Movies205's Review and Discussion Thread: Vol. 3- Revenge of the Elitist Porcupines!
- Thread starter Movies205
- Start date
Cyrusbales
Avenger
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2006
- Messages
- 11,031
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I was sceptical about this film, putting off watching it for some time, finally got round to it yesterday, and wow, I really should have watched it sooner!
GRIZZLY MAN
Grizzly Man(Details here),is a documentary by Werner Herzog, collecting together footage by Timothy Treadwell as well as filming interviews and extra footage for this sole purpose. To capture something so unique on film saw massive recognition for this film, and rightfully so.
Timothy Treadwell was a curious man, who spent each summer living with grizzly bears in Alaska, as their protector, he was in love with their simple beauty, after thirteen years, he was finally killed by a bear. This film shows peoples views of him, including those close to him, building up an even handed picture of the man. Werner Herzog narrates, giving us his conclusions about Treadwell, as well as showing us a great deal of the amazing footage Treadwell had recorded over the last five years of his time with the bears.
The imagery captured here is simply amazing, some of the shots here are clearly the product of Treadwells entire life, never before has anyone come so close to living with animals in such a way. Aside from the animal side, Treadwells own nature and personality is something to behold, as we watch a man who is clearly troubled and most assuredly detached from society conduct himself in such a way.
The music is fantastic, specifically composed by the brilliant Richard Thompson, it acts like a free flowing session, thus mirroring the soul of the film itself. Throughout the movie, we see Werner Herzogs own personal journey into this mans life, who is clearly effected and moved numerous times.
In conclusion, this is possibly one of the finest documentaries ever made, hugely compelling on two levels, the nature of the man involved as well as the wilderness itself. Almost bringing the audience to tears and awe at many stages, this is an unmissable cinematic event that will deeply effect those who view it.
(I will accept money for this great thread save here)
GRIZZLY MAN
Grizzly Man(Details here),is a documentary by Werner Herzog, collecting together footage by Timothy Treadwell as well as filming interviews and extra footage for this sole purpose. To capture something so unique on film saw massive recognition for this film, and rightfully so.
Timothy Treadwell was a curious man, who spent each summer living with grizzly bears in Alaska, as their protector, he was in love with their simple beauty, after thirteen years, he was finally killed by a bear. This film shows peoples views of him, including those close to him, building up an even handed picture of the man. Werner Herzog narrates, giving us his conclusions about Treadwell, as well as showing us a great deal of the amazing footage Treadwell had recorded over the last five years of his time with the bears.
The imagery captured here is simply amazing, some of the shots here are clearly the product of Treadwells entire life, never before has anyone come so close to living with animals in such a way. Aside from the animal side, Treadwells own nature and personality is something to behold, as we watch a man who is clearly troubled and most assuredly detached from society conduct himself in such a way.
The music is fantastic, specifically composed by the brilliant Richard Thompson, it acts like a free flowing session, thus mirroring the soul of the film itself. Throughout the movie, we see Werner Herzogs own personal journey into this mans life, who is clearly effected and moved numerous times.
In conclusion, this is possibly one of the finest documentaries ever made, hugely compelling on two levels, the nature of the man involved as well as the wilderness itself. Almost bringing the audience to tears and awe at many stages, this is an unmissable cinematic event that will deeply effect those who view it.
(I will accept money for this great thread save here)
L0ngsh0t
Superhero
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2006
- Messages
- 5,002
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Bourne Ultimatum:
9/10
very good, standard Bourne movie, up the anti a little bit with it being the possible conclusion to the unbelievably cohesive Bourne trilogy. I think the thing I like best about this movie, and franchise in general is that they never loose sight of the characters goal, or story. My favorite franchise Pirates I think initially hurt by taking the story to left field and throwing a curve ball in the 2nd movie, once that wore off I loved the sequels, but the Bourne movies don't suffer from any of that.
I think it's lone problem is the fact that it pretty much doesn't stand alone, or stand out from the rest of the pack of Bourne movies, FBI/CIA thrillers, or general action movies.
SuperBad:
10/10
In my opinion the best movie of the summer so far, I was thoroughly impressed with Rogen/Goldbergs balls in going the extra mile with every joke. I rarely stopped laughing the whole movie, I enjoyed everything I think both George Micheal, and Jonah Hill are already great comedic actors, with this being the icing on the cake, and Seth Rogen is on the fast track to superstardom.
people generally give Comedies alot of crap, because of the lack of "emotion" displayed, or "connection with the audience" but imo they are the movies that last better than anything, and this movie connects with anyone who has been a senior in highschool. When's the last time Citizen Kane has been quoted? Just last night at the race tracks I swear I heard three Anchorman quotes, and that movie was released like 4-5 years ago, few movies in general last that long in pop-culture. I don't see why comedies are never up for Academy Awards, at least for writing, but I definatley think this should be, if Little Miss Sunshine cock sucked its way to a best screen play win, and best picture nominee, SuperBad is more than deservent of the same recognition.
War:
5/10
A very short review for this movie, it is a competent action movie, when there is action happening, without the action this movie is pulseless
Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix:
9/10
very good, this review is alot like my Bourne one, cause while this is a great movie, and a great bridge movie being kind of the turn in the story for the Potter series, it doesn't stand out as a Potter movie, I think 3-4 are easily just as good if not better. But at the very least this solidified the Potter movies as probably the strongest franchise that is continually going, getting both box office and strong critical response.
9/10
very good, standard Bourne movie, up the anti a little bit with it being the possible conclusion to the unbelievably cohesive Bourne trilogy. I think the thing I like best about this movie, and franchise in general is that they never loose sight of the characters goal, or story. My favorite franchise Pirates I think initially hurt by taking the story to left field and throwing a curve ball in the 2nd movie, once that wore off I loved the sequels, but the Bourne movies don't suffer from any of that.
I think it's lone problem is the fact that it pretty much doesn't stand alone, or stand out from the rest of the pack of Bourne movies, FBI/CIA thrillers, or general action movies.
SuperBad:
10/10
In my opinion the best movie of the summer so far, I was thoroughly impressed with Rogen/Goldbergs balls in going the extra mile with every joke. I rarely stopped laughing the whole movie, I enjoyed everything I think both George Micheal, and Jonah Hill are already great comedic actors, with this being the icing on the cake, and Seth Rogen is on the fast track to superstardom.
people generally give Comedies alot of crap, because of the lack of "emotion" displayed, or "connection with the audience" but imo they are the movies that last better than anything, and this movie connects with anyone who has been a senior in highschool. When's the last time Citizen Kane has been quoted? Just last night at the race tracks I swear I heard three Anchorman quotes, and that movie was released like 4-5 years ago, few movies in general last that long in pop-culture. I don't see why comedies are never up for Academy Awards, at least for writing, but I definatley think this should be, if Little Miss Sunshine cock sucked its way to a best screen play win, and best picture nominee, SuperBad is more than deservent of the same recognition.
War:
5/10
A very short review for this movie, it is a competent action movie, when there is action happening, without the action this movie is pulseless
Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix:
9/10
very good, this review is alot like my Bourne one, cause while this is a great movie, and a great bridge movie being kind of the turn in the story for the Potter series, it doesn't stand out as a Potter movie, I think 3-4 are easily just as good if not better. But at the very least this solidified the Potter movies as probably the strongest franchise that is continually going, getting both box office and strong critical response.
War Party
Ve vant ze money,Lebowski
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2005
- Messages
- 6,969
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Inland Empire (2006)
Director: David Lynch
Rating: 10/10
If "Inland Empire" is not David Lynch's best work, it is certainly his most fascinating. More than any of his other films, "Inland Empire" is the culmination of everything Lynch has done, tried to do, said, and tried to say, throughout his entire career. It is vastly different from any of his other works, but is the very definition of "Lynchian." No film has ever explained what Lynch is all about so perfectly as this. It is his greatest experiment into surreality, his most complicated work, and perhaps also his most rewarding. It requires repeated viewings, and many of them, but not to understand. Simply to experience, like looking at the world's most bafflingly intricate impressionist painting. "Inland Empire" is undeniable proof that, more than a filmmaker, David Lynch is an artist.
Trying to explain "Inland Empire" is like trying to explain existence. As Lynch's deepest foray into the surreal, there is no clear plot of any sort. One of the strongest points that Lynch has emphasized with his films is that the cinema was invented as an art form, not simply as a storytelling device. There is a story, perhaps numerous stories, hidden within "Inland Empire," and many ideas as well, but anyone searching for a linear plotline will be left thoroughly flummoxed. Story lines include an actor and actress who are pushed into an affair by various forces, and who are also working upon a remake of a "cursed" film; a Polish town where women are being abused; a woman who sits by her television set, crying, as she watches a sitcom about a family of rabbits, where the laugh track pops up at the most absurd moments; and two apparent mobsters scheming something. The film is structured like most of Lynch's films: the first part is the mystery, the second part the dream, and the third part, the revelations and the descent into the nightmare.
When questioned as to what the film was about, David Lynch said that "it's about a woman in trouble, and it's a mystery, and that's all I want to say about it." Furthermore, Lynch offers a clue to the film in the form of a quote from the translation of the Aitareya Upanishad: "We are like the spider. We weave our life and then move along in it. We are like the dreamer who dreams and then lives in the dream. This is true for the entire universe."
What that means, I'm not sure. Lynch says he understands the film perfectly, and no doubt he does, but I feel that the key to accepting the movie is in something Lynch always says about each one of his films: he will never explain the film, because what matters is what each film means to you, the viewer.
But the meaning is not nearly as important as the filmmaking, which ranks Lynch among the likes of Alfred Hitchcock. "Inland Empire" is nothing if not the work of a brilliant visionary. Lynch is a man to be idolized by any filmmaker with a dream: for "Inland Empire," Lynch didn't even bother to search for a distributor. He funded much of the project out of his own pocket. He decided to experiment by filming it with everyday digital video cameras rather than the traditional film equipment, adding frightening realism to the picture, as well as a major artistic twist. Filmed on the standard film stock, "Inland Empire" would be more instantly recognizable as a work of brilliance, but the amateurish look of the digital video footage makes this as unique an experiment as any attempted in recent cinematic history. Lynch is an artist, with a dream, a vision, and he pursues that vision without regard to what the other filmmakers are doing or have done before him.
He is an extraodinarily talented individual. The entire cast of the film has said that they have no clue just what is going on in the picture; but Lynch's direction wrings out such compelling, convincing performances in a film that would seemingly leave anyone clueless. Laura Dern is just stupendous. This is easily and undoubtedly the best performance of her career by far. Supporting her with similarly excellent and mysterious performances are Justin Theroux, Jeremy Irons, Harry Dean Stanton, Peter J. Lucas, and Julia Ormond, with brief appearances by Diane Ladd, Ian Abercrombie, William H. Macy, Grace Zabriskie, Laura Harring, and Naomi Watts, who voices the speaking member of the Rabbit family.
As with most of Lynch's films, though, the power lies within the visuals, and "Inland Empire" has some of the most spectacular visuals in any Lynch production. Lynch manages to make the film look lush and sparse at the same time. It contains all the trademark Lynchian images: the red curtains; the long, tall, lamp which casts an eerie and stale orange glow around small, barely-decorated rooms; the dark, ghastly corridors - it's all here, and more important than ever. Lynch is deeply involved with everything, from the construction of sets to the ever-so-prominent sound design. With ominously-staged visuals, frighteningly enigmatic dialogue and scenes, and the most downright terrifying sound in any Lynch production, "Inland Empire" is easily his scariest film. He sets the audience up, building the suspense ounce-by-ounce with such masterful style that he comes to rival Hitchcock. The most delightfully absurd and spontaneous moment in "Inland Empire": as usual, Lynch sets us up for pure terror, the dialogue becoming more twisted, the visuals darker, more claustrophobic, the inhuman sounds growing louder and louder, but just as we brace ourselves, the characters align themselves and begin some well-choreographed dancing to "The Locomotion."
What is the appeal of David Lynch's work? Is he truly a genius, or as some have said, just a trashy director with a lot of pretention? In my mind, Lynch is an unquestionable genius, and he ranks among the most original, visionary, and brilliant filmmakers who ever lived. There is something about the absurdity, the confusion, the unorthodox approach taken in Lynch's work that really touches something inside of us, something which we can no understand and which frightens us. After watching "Inland Empire" for the first time, and trying to organize my thoughts, the most peculiar knowledge came to me: I understood what the film was about. I could understand the entire thing. However, I couldn't grasp my understanding, put it in terms simple enough for me to explain to another person. But I understood. There is something in Lynch's films far more intellectual and meaningful than anything else in cinematic history, thinly concealed within dozens of thick layers which only repeated viewings can reveal. I feel as though Lynch has a greater idea of what life is all about than any of us, and he explains it through his films. There is much more to be said and which I could say about this film - but for the first time, I understand. As Lynch says, his films speak for themselves. And "Inland Empire" speaks loudest of all.
Director: David Lynch
Rating: 10/10
If "Inland Empire" is not David Lynch's best work, it is certainly his most fascinating. More than any of his other films, "Inland Empire" is the culmination of everything Lynch has done, tried to do, said, and tried to say, throughout his entire career. It is vastly different from any of his other works, but is the very definition of "Lynchian." No film has ever explained what Lynch is all about so perfectly as this. It is his greatest experiment into surreality, his most complicated work, and perhaps also his most rewarding. It requires repeated viewings, and many of them, but not to understand. Simply to experience, like looking at the world's most bafflingly intricate impressionist painting. "Inland Empire" is undeniable proof that, more than a filmmaker, David Lynch is an artist.
Trying to explain "Inland Empire" is like trying to explain existence. As Lynch's deepest foray into the surreal, there is no clear plot of any sort. One of the strongest points that Lynch has emphasized with his films is that the cinema was invented as an art form, not simply as a storytelling device. There is a story, perhaps numerous stories, hidden within "Inland Empire," and many ideas as well, but anyone searching for a linear plotline will be left thoroughly flummoxed. Story lines include an actor and actress who are pushed into an affair by various forces, and who are also working upon a remake of a "cursed" film; a Polish town where women are being abused; a woman who sits by her television set, crying, as she watches a sitcom about a family of rabbits, where the laugh track pops up at the most absurd moments; and two apparent mobsters scheming something. The film is structured like most of Lynch's films: the first part is the mystery, the second part the dream, and the third part, the revelations and the descent into the nightmare.
When questioned as to what the film was about, David Lynch said that "it's about a woman in trouble, and it's a mystery, and that's all I want to say about it." Furthermore, Lynch offers a clue to the film in the form of a quote from the translation of the Aitareya Upanishad: "We are like the spider. We weave our life and then move along in it. We are like the dreamer who dreams and then lives in the dream. This is true for the entire universe."
What that means, I'm not sure. Lynch says he understands the film perfectly, and no doubt he does, but I feel that the key to accepting the movie is in something Lynch always says about each one of his films: he will never explain the film, because what matters is what each film means to you, the viewer.
But the meaning is not nearly as important as the filmmaking, which ranks Lynch among the likes of Alfred Hitchcock. "Inland Empire" is nothing if not the work of a brilliant visionary. Lynch is a man to be idolized by any filmmaker with a dream: for "Inland Empire," Lynch didn't even bother to search for a distributor. He funded much of the project out of his own pocket. He decided to experiment by filming it with everyday digital video cameras rather than the traditional film equipment, adding frightening realism to the picture, as well as a major artistic twist. Filmed on the standard film stock, "Inland Empire" would be more instantly recognizable as a work of brilliance, but the amateurish look of the digital video footage makes this as unique an experiment as any attempted in recent cinematic history. Lynch is an artist, with a dream, a vision, and he pursues that vision without regard to what the other filmmakers are doing or have done before him.
He is an extraodinarily talented individual. The entire cast of the film has said that they have no clue just what is going on in the picture; but Lynch's direction wrings out such compelling, convincing performances in a film that would seemingly leave anyone clueless. Laura Dern is just stupendous. This is easily and undoubtedly the best performance of her career by far. Supporting her with similarly excellent and mysterious performances are Justin Theroux, Jeremy Irons, Harry Dean Stanton, Peter J. Lucas, and Julia Ormond, with brief appearances by Diane Ladd, Ian Abercrombie, William H. Macy, Grace Zabriskie, Laura Harring, and Naomi Watts, who voices the speaking member of the Rabbit family.
As with most of Lynch's films, though, the power lies within the visuals, and "Inland Empire" has some of the most spectacular visuals in any Lynch production. Lynch manages to make the film look lush and sparse at the same time. It contains all the trademark Lynchian images: the red curtains; the long, tall, lamp which casts an eerie and stale orange glow around small, barely-decorated rooms; the dark, ghastly corridors - it's all here, and more important than ever. Lynch is deeply involved with everything, from the construction of sets to the ever-so-prominent sound design. With ominously-staged visuals, frighteningly enigmatic dialogue and scenes, and the most downright terrifying sound in any Lynch production, "Inland Empire" is easily his scariest film. He sets the audience up, building the suspense ounce-by-ounce with such masterful style that he comes to rival Hitchcock. The most delightfully absurd and spontaneous moment in "Inland Empire": as usual, Lynch sets us up for pure terror, the dialogue becoming more twisted, the visuals darker, more claustrophobic, the inhuman sounds growing louder and louder, but just as we brace ourselves, the characters align themselves and begin some well-choreographed dancing to "The Locomotion."
What is the appeal of David Lynch's work? Is he truly a genius, or as some have said, just a trashy director with a lot of pretention? In my mind, Lynch is an unquestionable genius, and he ranks among the most original, visionary, and brilliant filmmakers who ever lived. There is something about the absurdity, the confusion, the unorthodox approach taken in Lynch's work that really touches something inside of us, something which we can no understand and which frightens us. After watching "Inland Empire" for the first time, and trying to organize my thoughts, the most peculiar knowledge came to me: I understood what the film was about. I could understand the entire thing. However, I couldn't grasp my understanding, put it in terms simple enough for me to explain to another person. But I understood. There is something in Lynch's films far more intellectual and meaningful than anything else in cinematic history, thinly concealed within dozens of thick layers which only repeated viewings can reveal. I feel as though Lynch has a greater idea of what life is all about than any of us, and he explains it through his films. There is much more to be said and which I could say about this film - but for the first time, I understand. As Lynch says, his films speak for themselves. And "Inland Empire" speaks loudest of all.
War Party
Ve vant ze money,Lebowski
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2005
- Messages
- 6,969
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Network (1976)
Director: Sidney Lumet
Rating: 9/10
With the possible exception of Stanley Kubrick's 1964 masterpiece "Dr. Strangelove," there hasn't been as sardonic or prophetic a cinematic satire as the 1976 classic "Network." Thanks to the talents of screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky (MARTY) and director Sidney Lumet (12 ANGRY MEN), both of whom got their starts in the early days of television, "Network" is a powerful indictment of television and its ability to make an audience believe anything it sees on that 21-inch screen.
The film revolves around a fictional fourth-place TV network, UBS, and its news anchorman Howard Beale (Peter Finch) who has just been canned because his ratings have slipped badly. After announcing on the air that he is contemplating killing himself, however, the head honchos at UBS soon realize that they've got a potential ratings bonanza on their hands and exploit Finch's rantings and ravings for profit by making him "The Mad Prophet Of The Airwaves." Robert Duvall and Faye Dunaway are the two who mastermind this, and William Holden is Finch's best friend, who can't do anything but sit on the sidelines as he sees Finch falling apart.
Eventually, however, Finch's rantings against corporate hypocrisy, including UBS being bought out by a Saudi Arabian-based conglomerate, attract the ire of the real head honcho (Ned Beatty), who steers Finch into telling the world that corporate control is a "good thing." The ratings fall right through the floor, and a disturbing decision is made by Duvall and Dunaway.
"Network" justifiably won Oscars for Chayefsky's original screenplay, and Dunaway's and Finch's performances (the latter posthumously). When it was released in late 1976, television network executives were openly dismissive of the film's savage attack on what Chayefsky perceived TV was becoming. It seemed like a paranoid fantasy then. It isn't now--not when we have nutjobs like Jerry Springer, Sean Hannity, and others turning television upside down with foolish stunts and political fascism masquerading as entertainment. Chayefsky definitely saw this coming even then. But in the guise of Howard Beale, he gave rise to a battle cry that has gone down in movie history: "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GONNA TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"
Besides Finch and Dunaway, the entire cast, including Holden in one of his greatest roles, and Duvall in one of his most steely performances ever, explodes with gusto, and Lumet's precise direction keeps things rolling along. It is Great American theatre, complete with extremely salty dialogue and concise points made about television's corrupting influence on people, and it definitely retains its considerable satirical and prophetic power today in the 21st century.
Director: Sidney Lumet
Rating: 9/10
With the possible exception of Stanley Kubrick's 1964 masterpiece "Dr. Strangelove," there hasn't been as sardonic or prophetic a cinematic satire as the 1976 classic "Network." Thanks to the talents of screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky (MARTY) and director Sidney Lumet (12 ANGRY MEN), both of whom got their starts in the early days of television, "Network" is a powerful indictment of television and its ability to make an audience believe anything it sees on that 21-inch screen.
The film revolves around a fictional fourth-place TV network, UBS, and its news anchorman Howard Beale (Peter Finch) who has just been canned because his ratings have slipped badly. After announcing on the air that he is contemplating killing himself, however, the head honchos at UBS soon realize that they've got a potential ratings bonanza on their hands and exploit Finch's rantings and ravings for profit by making him "The Mad Prophet Of The Airwaves." Robert Duvall and Faye Dunaway are the two who mastermind this, and William Holden is Finch's best friend, who can't do anything but sit on the sidelines as he sees Finch falling apart.
Eventually, however, Finch's rantings against corporate hypocrisy, including UBS being bought out by a Saudi Arabian-based conglomerate, attract the ire of the real head honcho (Ned Beatty), who steers Finch into telling the world that corporate control is a "good thing." The ratings fall right through the floor, and a disturbing decision is made by Duvall and Dunaway.
"Network" justifiably won Oscars for Chayefsky's original screenplay, and Dunaway's and Finch's performances (the latter posthumously). When it was released in late 1976, television network executives were openly dismissive of the film's savage attack on what Chayefsky perceived TV was becoming. It seemed like a paranoid fantasy then. It isn't now--not when we have nutjobs like Jerry Springer, Sean Hannity, and others turning television upside down with foolish stunts and political fascism masquerading as entertainment. Chayefsky definitely saw this coming even then. But in the guise of Howard Beale, he gave rise to a battle cry that has gone down in movie history: "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GONNA TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"
Besides Finch and Dunaway, the entire cast, including Holden in one of his greatest roles, and Duvall in one of his most steely performances ever, explodes with gusto, and Lumet's precise direction keeps things rolling along. It is Great American theatre, complete with extremely salty dialogue and concise points made about television's corrupting influence on people, and it definitely retains its considerable satirical and prophetic power today in the 21st century.
War Party
Ve vant ze money,Lebowski
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2005
- Messages
- 6,969
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Been extremely busy with a video project as well as work
Same man. I manage a pizza place, and me and my bro are trying to get our film off the ground. Just finished the 2nd draft.
Prognosticator
Superhero
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Messages
- 8,244
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
So I'm confused, this thread isn't about Movies's er, movie? It's about his movie reviews?? I'm grateful either way, just confused is all.
Cyrusbales
Avenger
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2006
- Messages
- 11,031
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Batman,released in 1989 became an instant contemporary classic, receiving such reverence as The movie of the decade, featuring some of the most iconic scenes in modern cinema, as well as legendary performances from its cast. Often classed as the pinnacle of comic book adaptations, Tim Burtons film is truly unmissable.
Gotham city, terrorised by crime and poverty is in the midst of something new. Reports of the Batman have flooded across the city, thugs being punished by this mysterious avenger. As investigations into him continue, another character steps on the scene, the betrayed psycho Jack Napier soon appears, who causes much mayhem and chaos as the new head of crime, now only known as the Joker.
An approach unique at the time was taken with this film, rather than positioning the audience directly with the central character throughout the film, Tim Burton made the decision to explore Batman through others, perpetuating the notion of mystery and myth that surrounds this creation. This furthers the concept of his own psychological issues and turmoil, which is further enhanced when the Joker comes on the scene, which then shifts our audience perspective to that of Batmans, who is focused intently on this menace.
In terms of performances, Jack Nicholsons portrayal of the Joker is often classed as one of his best, and has become something of an institute of cinema, often being paid homage to in other mediums and films. Michael Keaton infuses the movie with a darker essence, even the supposed good guy here is most assuredly brooding and psychologically unwell. Other supporting characters help create an array of tones and moods, to make the film feel much more of a whole.
Direction here is definitely pivotal, providing something mesmeric on screen. Tim Burton provides an extensive social commentary throughout the movie, drawing respective parallels between our world and Gotham, looking at aspects of the media as well as the notion of ethics, tied up neatly with the postmodernist concept of how we construct our identity. All this is bathed in sumptuous darkness, with great focus on lighting and some fantastic framing throughout.
However, this film is not without its faults, at times the dialogue seems a little hollow with a few moments of incongruence within its characters behaviour. Kim Basingers development as Vicky Vale is near perfect all over, yet her final jump in characterisation seems unprovoked and unsound.
Danny Elfman provides an enchanting soundscape for Gotham city, with an instantly recognisable score that generates much within the viewer. Set designs favour the original version of Batman from the comic books, giving us a Gotham city steeped with many decades of architecture and culture, further putting across some of Tim Burtons messages about society as well as paying a massive tribute to Fritz Langs unrelenting masterpiece Metropolis.
Overall, Batman is one of the must see films from the last few decades, handled with swathes of quality from every angle, it clearly is a massive cut above the general level of cinema. Whilst a very good film, it is of course not perfect, however the uniquely fantastical world portrayed is often the topic of discussion within critical film circles and with the rest of its elements, has earned this film a classic status.
Gotham city, terrorised by crime and poverty is in the midst of something new. Reports of the Batman have flooded across the city, thugs being punished by this mysterious avenger. As investigations into him continue, another character steps on the scene, the betrayed psycho Jack Napier soon appears, who causes much mayhem and chaos as the new head of crime, now only known as the Joker.
An approach unique at the time was taken with this film, rather than positioning the audience directly with the central character throughout the film, Tim Burton made the decision to explore Batman through others, perpetuating the notion of mystery and myth that surrounds this creation. This furthers the concept of his own psychological issues and turmoil, which is further enhanced when the Joker comes on the scene, which then shifts our audience perspective to that of Batmans, who is focused intently on this menace.
In terms of performances, Jack Nicholsons portrayal of the Joker is often classed as one of his best, and has become something of an institute of cinema, often being paid homage to in other mediums and films. Michael Keaton infuses the movie with a darker essence, even the supposed good guy here is most assuredly brooding and psychologically unwell. Other supporting characters help create an array of tones and moods, to make the film feel much more of a whole.
Direction here is definitely pivotal, providing something mesmeric on screen. Tim Burton provides an extensive social commentary throughout the movie, drawing respective parallels between our world and Gotham, looking at aspects of the media as well as the notion of ethics, tied up neatly with the postmodernist concept of how we construct our identity. All this is bathed in sumptuous darkness, with great focus on lighting and some fantastic framing throughout.
However, this film is not without its faults, at times the dialogue seems a little hollow with a few moments of incongruence within its characters behaviour. Kim Basingers development as Vicky Vale is near perfect all over, yet her final jump in characterisation seems unprovoked and unsound.
Danny Elfman provides an enchanting soundscape for Gotham city, with an instantly recognisable score that generates much within the viewer. Set designs favour the original version of Batman from the comic books, giving us a Gotham city steeped with many decades of architecture and culture, further putting across some of Tim Burtons messages about society as well as paying a massive tribute to Fritz Langs unrelenting masterpiece Metropolis.
Overall, Batman is one of the must see films from the last few decades, handled with swathes of quality from every angle, it clearly is a massive cut above the general level of cinema. Whilst a very good film, it is of course not perfect, however the uniquely fantastical world portrayed is often the topic of discussion within critical film circles and with the rest of its elements, has earned this film a classic status.
Movies205
Corporate Money
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2003
- Messages
- 27,512
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Yeah it's just my ramblings... I'm just ****in busy as hell lately... I'll get a review of death sentence up in a little bit...
L0ngsh0t
Superhero
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2006
- Messages
- 5,002
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Who are you? this has to be one of the most pretentious reviews for a film I have ever seen
Vicky Vale was near perfect until her final jump in characterisation? wow
film critics don't even get that nit picky, get off your high horse mate
Carmine Falcone
So it goes.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 19,576
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Who are you? this has to be one of the most pretentious reviews for a film I have ever seen
Vicky Vale was near perfect until her final jump in characterisation? wow
film critics don't even get that nit picky, get off your high horse mate
A perfect introduction to cyrusbales
t: Personally I think it's a mediocre movie. Nicholson is awesome ofcourse.
L0ngsh0t
Superhero
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2006
- Messages
- 5,002
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
A perfect introduction to cyrusbales
Personally I think it's a mediocre movie. Nicholson is awesome ofcourse.
I've been aware of cyrus for awhile but that was disgusting-there was nothing passably acceptable about that review, as pretentious as definition
Cyrusbales
Avenger
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2006
- Messages
- 11,031
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
What's the problem then? Call me pretencious or whatever, but actually have a look at what I've written and comment on that please, in another thread someone commented on the high quality of that review, weird huh? Objective criticism is nice, go ahead and try some...
Cyrusbales
Avenger
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2006
- Messages
- 11,031
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
PRIMER
Primer, described as “Donnie Darko for grownups” most certainly makes the respective film pale in comparison. A quote from the Guardian sums up the film beautifully “A glorious rebuke to a dumbed-down movie world”.
In a group of four low key innovative inventors, creating systems and devices cheaply for sale, two decide they are better than that and embark on a much more elaborate project, which seems them wrestle with many issues from ethics and personhood to existence itself.
This movie is almost impossible to tear yourself away from, the direction from Shane Carruth utilises colour to an awesome degree, and the fabulous use of lines and shape in almost all sequences adds extra poignancy and connotation to the proceedings.
Characters here are beyond the normal realms of cinema, becoming something real, yet eerily abstract by their situation, helped along with the direction, it seems we are privy to conversations rather than a reading of a screenplay. Dialogue has the feel of real life, with the surrealist nature of it’s content, deepening the richness of symbolism harness in the direction.
The narrative itself is highly impressive, although towards the end, the complications arise a little too quickly for it’s own good, and most viewers come to resent the piece due to a lack of understanding and saturation with the formulaic approach that a lot of cinema has resorted to. Nevertheless, the story is fascinatingly absorbing and will indulge the viewer.
Overall, this film is full of wonderful assets, and portrays only a few small flaws. However is most assuredly not suitable for the majority of audiences due to it’s complex nature in both narrative and direction, bringing a great deal to the proverbial table of cinema. For the minority of those well versed in cinema with a great enough ability to comprehend, this film is unmissable.
Primer, described as “Donnie Darko for grownups” most certainly makes the respective film pale in comparison. A quote from the Guardian sums up the film beautifully “A glorious rebuke to a dumbed-down movie world”.
In a group of four low key innovative inventors, creating systems and devices cheaply for sale, two decide they are better than that and embark on a much more elaborate project, which seems them wrestle with many issues from ethics and personhood to existence itself.
This movie is almost impossible to tear yourself away from, the direction from Shane Carruth utilises colour to an awesome degree, and the fabulous use of lines and shape in almost all sequences adds extra poignancy and connotation to the proceedings.
Characters here are beyond the normal realms of cinema, becoming something real, yet eerily abstract by their situation, helped along with the direction, it seems we are privy to conversations rather than a reading of a screenplay. Dialogue has the feel of real life, with the surrealist nature of it’s content, deepening the richness of symbolism harness in the direction.
The narrative itself is highly impressive, although towards the end, the complications arise a little too quickly for it’s own good, and most viewers come to resent the piece due to a lack of understanding and saturation with the formulaic approach that a lot of cinema has resorted to. Nevertheless, the story is fascinatingly absorbing and will indulge the viewer.
Overall, this film is full of wonderful assets, and portrays only a few small flaws. However is most assuredly not suitable for the majority of audiences due to it’s complex nature in both narrative and direction, bringing a great deal to the proverbial table of cinema. For the minority of those well versed in cinema with a great enough ability to comprehend, this film is unmissable.
L0ngsh0t
Superhero
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2006
- Messages
- 5,002
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
First Snow
B+
Guy Pearce is flat out one of the best leading men in all of film right now, its to bad the man has kind of a mainstream apprehension cause he could really turn some heads if her where to take some bigger roles. This just like last years "The Proposition" just make me want more and more of Pearce. He owns this movie, the movie lives and dies with his excellent performance, it needs it too, but there is no I would rather have my above average modern noir film in than Pearce. The story is very simple, but only semi-intriguing, I wish they had made the fortune teller in this (JK Simmons) have a little more defined hypnotic control over Pearce, while its there it is all in Pearce's head, leading to a more random outcome than say a Memento had where that was a precision flick conversely in this more Random outcome thriller.
I liked this movie a lot, I loved the cast I wish everyone in this, Pearce, Piper Pirabo, JK Simmons, and the Amazing Bill Fitchner where all to get way more roles than they do. The story runs a tad flat during the middle of it, but easily this movie is up there with the Lookout for like a "best movie you haven't seen" ranking.
B+
Guy Pearce is flat out one of the best leading men in all of film right now, its to bad the man has kind of a mainstream apprehension cause he could really turn some heads if her where to take some bigger roles. This just like last years "The Proposition" just make me want more and more of Pearce. He owns this movie, the movie lives and dies with his excellent performance, it needs it too, but there is no I would rather have my above average modern noir film in than Pearce. The story is very simple, but only semi-intriguing, I wish they had made the fortune teller in this (JK Simmons) have a little more defined hypnotic control over Pearce, while its there it is all in Pearce's head, leading to a more random outcome than say a Memento had where that was a precision flick conversely in this more Random outcome thriller.
I liked this movie a lot, I loved the cast I wish everyone in this, Pearce, Piper Pirabo, JK Simmons, and the Amazing Bill Fitchner where all to get way more roles than they do. The story runs a tad flat during the middle of it, but easily this movie is up there with the Lookout for like a "best movie you haven't seen" ranking.
The Riddler
WITH NEW MATERIAL
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2004
- Messages
- 19,336
- Reaction score
- 100
- Points
- 73
blood simple was trash in terms of the overall film. just bad.
Killgore
Sidekick
- Joined
- May 7, 2003
- Messages
- 2,734
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Grace Kelly. *swoon*
I mean, uh...Hitchcock's direction is, uh...really tight in that movie, very well though out. That makes it good too.
Actresses just aren't as beautiful, talented, dignified and completely *****-rific as they once were.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
Staff online
-
SwordOfMorningSuper Moderator -
Lily Adler🔥 Hot Scoops 🍨 -
DKDetectiveBoo Boo Bubbles (he/him)
Members online
- Pennywise
- LifesEnd
- Moncton
- SwordOfMorning
- MAN O STEEL
- DarkKnight88
- Chip Chipperson
- -Arya-
- TheFuture
- Herolee10
- eddyg
- J.Drangal
- hopefuldreamer
- Kane52630
- FrankenCastle
- KentClark
- Still Wynning
- Sithborg
- Lobo
- aNarcHy2day
- Lily Adler
- phasernut
- donuts
- BobJM
- Hurm...
- WayneMB
- Primal Slayer
- DKDetective
- CaptainCanada
- Venom 1988
- Superark
- Luke995
- SupermansPal
- DeadlyWest
- king666
- Stringer
- Rick190293
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Fantastic Four: First Steps General News & Discussion Thread (TAG SPOILERS) (8 Viewers)
- Latest: donuts
-
Mystery/Thriller Apple TV+ Spy drama 'Slow Horses' (Staring Gary Oldman and Kristin Scott Thomas) (3 Viewers)- Latest: Filmfreak