Movies205's Reviews and Discussion Thread, VOL 2.- THE SUMMER HAS RETURNED!

[Movies205]

Starship Troopers
Directed by Paul Verhoeven
Rating: 7/10

Here's a film I always felt got too much flack but it's movie that doesn't hold up as well when I first saw it 4-5 years ago, when I first bought it. I'm a fan of Verhoeven but as time has passed, and I think as I've gotten older, his appeal had died a little, he seems to appeal to the little kid inside with a huge intellect. Because this film is really a cartoon, with it's characitures of common stereotypes instead of actual characters, on the nose dialouge, over-the-top grandoise actions like when Zim throws a knife at the guy's hands, etc. To me the film has always been a live-action cartoon, and the entire film seems to be an allegorical joke on the Nazis. So with that said, the film still is entertaining and I think it's solid, but even though it's going for htat cartoon atmosphere, or at least that's what I percieve these things still hold it back.

The plot courtesy of IMDB.com:

"Set on the future earth, Johnny rico is a young student dating a girl named Carmen. When Carmen decides to join the military in order to become a class citizen (citizenship is only achieved through serving your country), Johnny follows and joins as well. He soon realizes that he joined for the wrong reasons but just as he is about to quit, an asteroid that originated from the orbit of planet "klendathu" hits Buenos Aires (his home town) and kills his family. Johnny and his fellow troopers set out to destroy the planet's inhabitants: a type of deadly and very large scaled space bugs. Through a seemingly ordinary action flick, director paul verhoeven creates a subtle anti-war theme, that shows us a fascist and military world far more frightening than WW2's Germany, Italy or Russia, the kind of world that is actually functioning."

---

One of the things I like about this movie is even though the characters are charicture stereotype they all go through character development, and it's not like your put off by the character because you can emphasize with them, and you grow to feel for there pain. But the blunt dialouge and just very cliche/stereo-typical characters is a put off in the beginning and you won't forget it till probably half-way through when the film really starts to take off. That's something that was a little jarring is that the beginning of film I consider weak because of how cliche/stereotypical it is, it doesn't pick up till after there first battle, it still entertaining, and I think there are some great scenes for example the class room scene or the stuff with Zim but it's slower. And then after that, it seems to shake off it's cliches and gets more real perse.

The film's look also I find to be a little off, it's far too bright! This type of movie, the set designs are crap, it looks like an episode out of star trek a lot of it, and the lighting makes it worse. But I did love the commericials, the satire was great, it reminded me of Robocop.

But let us get to the part of why half the score of this movie is due to the CGI, this is great CGI, why? Because it's not used like a ****ing crutch, it's not overly-abundant, the guys are actually walking through the dessert, the floors actually cave in, just the bugs are CGI, and they look awesome. I love the creativity that comes with the bugs, that one huge bug that he blows up with a grenade is ****ing awesome.

But back to the cheese, it's part of the charm. When Rico wants to re-enlist after his parents die or when he uses his old commanders catch phrases, your just jumping for joy. So the film's charm more than makes up for it, and it's a solid flick.

 

[Movies205]

World Trade Center
Director: Oliver Stone
Rating: 8/10

I thought the film was great for what it is, it does exactly what it was advertise as is, which is bring you into the after-math of 9/11. First let's get out of the way the issue on everyone's mind, does Stone use this movie to Soap Box? The question is no, and he even makes George Bush look kind of good. His use of camera angles, sound, and script are all working together to make a powerful piece of two men struggle under 9/11. But as for the movie outside of that it lacks much depth. I mean everything takes the precharted course as you'd predict, it simply about two men trapped underneigth the rubble. This isn't a bad thing mind you, but I doubt I'll go back and watch this again. But all in all it's a solid flick, that should be watched at least once in your life-time.

 

[Movies205]

Snakes on a Plane
Directed by David R. Ellis
Rating: 7/10


I was a big fan of Ellis' Final Destination 2, which I consider to be the best in the series. In fact, I might of been more incline to rush out to see this had I know he was behind the helm, but alas I did not find this out till I was sitting in the seat and saw his name up on the silver screen. First off this is not the end all be all of B films, sorry that goes to Evil Dead 2. But it's a flick that's earned it's place right beside Bruce Campbell and Vicent Price.

The plot if it isn't already known simply based on the title is as follows courtesy of IMDB.com:

Nelville Flynn escorts a witness onto a plane headed for Los Angeles. Problem is, an assassin who is bent on killing the witness has released a crate containing about 450 snakes onto the same plane. Nelville finds out and he's bent on doing his job and getting the snakes back where they belong; on land. Or in snake heaven, where they'd be harmless. But can he get the snakes off the plane before it's too late?

---

Let me get to the main problem with Snakes on a Plane which I can't pin-point is the film's fault or the hype the company created around it. Which is it feels forced at times, or I'd rate it higher. Part of the problem is the script is dull and lack any energy what so ever. All the thrill and excitement is brought to the screen by cast and crew. Because I can pretty much guarantee that if you read the script it'd be boring as hell. Because it's pretty obvious some crappy screen-writers were writing a serious script(the guy who wrote the Big Bounce wrote this), and it wasn't till Jackson got hold of it, it took off. So what does this lead to? Mix signals, there's a positive and a downside. The negative, I already said, is that it's kind of dull at points and the cheese is forced. The positive is that it's not stupid wink wink look at how cheezy we are, which I liked.

I liked how none of the actors hammed it up, and the only guy who induced cringe like moments was the guy in the witness protection program. There were lovely cheeze moments like the gratutious sex in the bathroom was hilarious. A lot of the Snake kills were great and I love the pilot. There was a good cast in place and the movie benefited from it. I like how Samuel played his character with respect and like any other role, and it showed. The snake cgi was great because it had the effect of what it'd be like if it was made in the 60s with rubber snakes which is crappy. I like the variety of snakes. I thought the sub-plot with the snake doctor was useless and drag the film down. Over-all the film is fun but it slow cuz of the script's lack of excitement.

 

[Movies205]

For Hunter Rider who recommended this flick some time ago

Samurai X: Trust and Betrayal, Director's Cut
Directed by Kazuhiro Furuhashi
Rating: 8.5/10

Great animation, great story, great characters, and great action. So why is it an 8.5/10 instead of a 10/10, it's so hard to ****ing follow at times! I felt like Shelby Leonard told the story every 15 minutes there was some new plot point, that would involve something completely different wtih completely different characters. It's hard to explain but watch the movie, and during the entire thing, you'll be slightly confused and by the end you'll have it all figured out. But the animation is great, the character is great, and the action is great.

 

[Obsidian]

Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani

Shahrukh Khan and Juhi Chawla star as two reporters who vy for the title of "the best reporter" and of course the hatred shared between the two eventually turns to love. The first half of the film is full of melodrama and camp, while the 2nd half turns dark and grisly. Frankly, I was surprised by the second half and how quickly it turned from traditional Bollywood camp to dark and serious drama with hints of unneeded silliness. I despised the first half, but the 2nd half of the film did intrigue me and did have a good message of "unity and strength" and "democracy". If the first part of the film had been cut out, I would have given the film a higher rating, but alas because of the first half I have to call it a mediocre movie. If you do happen to rent this or God forbid buy it, skip the romance and camp and go straight to the actual story. The performances are decent, but none of them are really anything to scream about.

4/10

 

[War Party]

But summer ain't over for the next three weeks

 

[Movies205]

But summer ain't over for the next three weeks

School started... Summer's over

 

[Mr.Webs]

Poseidon
Directed by Wolfgang Peterson
Starring Kurt Russel, Josh Lucas, Emmy Rossum, Mike Vogel and Richard Dryfuss
__________________________________________________

This remake of the exhilirating 1972 film, The Poseidon Adventure, tries to be as equally entertaining, and tries so hard to be a truly good film, but sadly, it's weak script never allows for this to happen. Now, first, a synopsis from IMDB.com. - While ringing in the new year aboard the cruise ship Poseidon, a giant wave crashes into the ship and flips it upside down. A ragtag group of survivors realize their only chance is to make their way to the deepest bowels of the ship, now at the top, if they are going to have any chance of getting out. -

The acting is generally lackluster throughout, save for a few good performances. Russel does well with what he has...there is only so much you can do with such a dull script. Lucas is just plain bad and unbelievable...either with no conviction in his voice, or way too much anger or melodrama. Then we have a simply horrendous performance from Vogel, who usually isn't all that bad. But in this, his delivery is just hilarious. Dreyfuss is generally wasted, as is Andre' Braugher, who's in the film possibly a total of three, five minutes. Thankfully, the rest of the cast does a fine job, especially Emmy Rossum, who, despite the material, still provides a very strong performance.

The story is interesting enough, but it's execution is horrendous, thanks to undeveloped characters. You never really care enough to invest into the film, but, also, this movie is eighty-minutes long. That is way too short to have a well developed film. I can honestly say Peterson did something wrong when he deleted all of that 'boring characterization'. Bad move indeed, because it is the thing that hurts the film the most. On a good note, the production values are all here. The effects are extremely well done, and the action is solid, but none of this matters when you have little to no character development.

In the end, you can tell that they tried...but, they just didn't try hard enough.

Final Vote: 5.5/10

 

[Imagination_13]

Crank b**ch. Someone better review Crank.

 

[War Party]

School started... Summer's over

Whatever.

 

[hippie_hunter]

For Hunter Rider who recommended this flick some time ago

Samurai X: Trust and Betrayal, Director's Cut
Directed by Kazuhiro Furuhashi
Rating: 8.5/10

Great animation, great story, great characters, and great action. So why is it an 8.5/10 instead of a 10/10, it's so hard to ****ing follow at times! I felt like Shelby Leonard told the story every 15 minutes there was some new plot point, that would involve something completely different wtih completely different characters. It's hard to explain but watch the movie, and during the entire thing, you'll be slightly confused and by the end you'll have it all figured out. But the animation is great, the character is great, and the action is great.

It took me 2 times to fully understand and follow the movie.

 

[Movies205]

It took me 2 times to fully understand and follow the movie.

Is the movie culled from the series or is that just simply how it's made?

 

[hippie_hunter]

Is the movie culled from the series or is that just simply how it's made?

The movie while being in continuity with the anime series, was not that faithful to the manga. It was made because the Jinchu arc of the manga was never animated because the third arc of the anime sucked major balls. So to appease bitter fans Trust, Betrayal, and Reflections were made, though Reflections didn't help calm down too much of the bitterness. It changed quite a few things such as

- Kenshin and Tomoe were ACTUALLY married, not pretending to be so

- Saito despite having a small role, was given a slightly larger role

- Nakajo (the first oponent Kenshin faced in the forest) had his arms cut off in the manga and blew up his explosive with his foot in a cave

- While Tomoe originally planned to kill Kenshin, Kenshin never went into the forest debating to kill her, he was going to go save her right from the beginining. Izuka never went in telling Kenshin that Tomoe was the traitor. In the manga, Tatsumi and the others expected to ambush Hitokiri Battosai, not a man fighting for his woman.

- The creation of Kenshin's cross shaped scar was a complete accident, not intentional like the OVA.

- Tomoe doesn't apologize for her last words. She dies with a smile telling him that her death is what happened and that's the way it is.

- The assassin of Izuka is known in the manga. In the OVA the only way you'll know who the assassin was, is if you read the manga. Also Izuka wasn't trying to flee Japan when he was assassinated, he was killed on a mountain side.

- No Kenshin/Tomoe sex scene in the manga

- The OVA version of Tomoe is more spiteful and shows her emotions more while the manga version of Tomoe is more quiet and cold

- The OVA completely ignored Kenshin constantly playing with children.

 

[Movies205]

So is the ova betteR?

 

[black_dust]

Dont think i will fit any more reviews in by tomorrow so bye bye thread its been a blast until next year!!!

Movies remind me on again when its made in 2007

 

[Movies205]

Dont think i will fit any more reviews in by tomorrow so bye bye thread its been a blast until next year!!!

Movies remind me on again when its made in 2007

Will do!

 

[hippie_hunter]

So is the ova betteR?

Some parts of the manga are better, some parts of the OVA are better.

The manga had Enishi drawing up a very elaborate revenge plan on Kenshin.

The OVA completely ignores most of it. No Six Comrades, no attacks on the Akabeko, Chief Urama, the Makewa Dojo, etc.

I liked the manga better for that.

In the manga, after Kenshin tells Kaoru about Tomoe she tells Megumi that she will always stay by Kenshin's side and will never get killed by an enemy of Kenshin (particularly Enishi)

In the OVA, Kenshin told Kaoru about Tomoe and Kaoru freaks out and runs away from him.

Personally I liked the OVA scene better because it's a bit more realistic.

Kenshin was also more of a badass in the manga. After Nakajo runs away with no arms into a cave, he hears a thud and notices his arms on the ground. Kenshin's right behind him telling him that he forgot them and tells him if he talks about Tomoe's location, he'll kill him painlessly.

 

[The Amazing Lee]

why does this thread have to close?

 

[Obsidian]

Frequency

Dennis Quaid and James Caviezel star as father and son respectively communicating to each other through different timelines. The son (James Caviezel) is in the 90s, while the father (Dennis Quaid) is in the 60s. Thanks to some weird circumstances involving the Aurora Borealis, the communication between to the two men is possible, even though in the 90s, the father is long dead from an incident on his duty as a fireman. The son, whose name is John Sullivan, helps prevent his father's death because of that mysterious connection that allows John Sullivan and his father, Frank Sullivan to speak to each other. Is this great for the two men? Sure, until this interference in the timeline causes a serial killer to kill more women than he originally was supposed to. And, one of his victims happens to be John Sullivan's mother/Frank Sullivan's wife. Now it's a race against time as both John and Frank work together to help save Mrs. Sullivan and the other women who are soon to be the victims of this serial killer. Now that I've got the plot laid down, it's time to actually comment on the movie. What kind of movie is it? It's a taut and engaging thriller that holds on to you and never lets go. The logic of the whole time-changing and such is really confusing. But the movie is not focused on the science of this predicament, but on the characters involved, especially John and Frank Sullivan. James Caviezel and Dennis Quaid give quite convincing performances as father and son. They play it straight as ordinary men who react realistically to the situation at hand and don't go over the top as some actors would. The direction is solid and the acting ranges from good to really great. I'd give this a 9 out of 10.

 

[Movies205]

why does this thread have to close?

Because all good things must come to an end! Just wait a month for christ sakes an alternative thread will be up, MOVIES205's OSCAR WATCH!... It's coming... BE WARNED

 

[Cmill216]

Mr. Mike's Mondo Video
Directed by Michael O'Donoghue

Wiki Synopsis:
Mr. Mike's Mondo Video was a 1979 movie conceived by Saturday Night Live writer/feature player Michael O'Donoghue.

Many cast members of SNL (Dan Aykroyd, Jane Curtin, Laraine Newman, Bill Murray, and Gilda Radner) made cameo appearances in this film.

It was originally produced on videotape as an NBC television special that would have aired during one of SNL's live breaks. But much of the controversy surrounding the film lies in its raunchy adult content. NBC declared the show inappropriate for the network. The special was then cancelled.

My Take:
One of the single most bizarro films I've ever seen. And yet, it's absolutely hysterical.

Describing this film would be impossible. It's one of those movies you've seriously got to see to believe. Cats being hurled into a pool, weaponized bras, Anti-American French restaraunts, bunnies, webbed feet. I really don't know how to explain it, so I won't.

Comedically, it can be rather hit or miss. Some of it is genuinely hilarious (look for the "Armageddon" film shoot bit). And yet, some of the pieces (like the aforementioned kitty scene) run on WAY too long and simply become annoying after a while. And some of the "sketches" (if you can even call them that) are literally too bizarre for anyone to find humor in them.

In the end, I found myself enjoying this film a lot more than I probably should have. 75 minutes of my life was spent watching this movie, and I actually don't regret it. Bizarre with a capital "B", and one I recommend just for the experience.

7.5/10

 

[Obsidian]

Lower City

Sérgio Machado directs a steamy tale of a love triangle between two childhood friends and a prostitute named Karinna. The two friends are played by Lázaro Ramos and Wagner Moura, while Karinna is played by Alice Braga from Fernando Meirelles's brilliant "City of God". The men meet Karinna at a bar and allow her passage to a city on their steamboat in exchange for..well...you guessed it...sex. I mean, after all, she is a prostitute. The sex scenes in the movie are pretty explicit and a good chunk of the movie is devoted to Karinna and her sexual escapades, as well as those of other women. This movie has a similiar setup as Alfonso Cuaron's "Y Tu Mama Tambien" where two friends fall in love with the same woman. But this is a more simplified tale than the coming of age story that was "Y Tu Mama Tambien". So this movie has the been there, done that feel, but that doesn't mean this film isn't worth watching. It's a decent film, mainly because of the performances by the actors. They give some real, raw performances and the gritty feel of the film is worth noting. Out of a 10, I give this a 6.

 

[Movies205]

Frankenstein
Directed by James Whale
Starring: Boris Karloff
Rating: 8/10

Another movie in which the actor deserves due credit since Boris Karloff does a fabulous job as the monster. I had seen this movie once before but strangely did not remember one thing from it besides the little girl scene. First off I was surprised at the short running time, a hour and ten minutes. But if anything it keeps the movie running at a brisk pace. All of the characters are fleshed out more than one might expect, and each have there various character arcs end in satisfying ways. But most importantly the Monster kicks ass. I was suprised how frightening and disturbing the monster actually is considering the countless spoofs of that incarnation including Van Helsing and Conan's Frankenstein The atmosphere and mood is great, and Frankenstein is great. But due to the fact that it came off shortly after sound was first introduced, the acting can be rigid and down right hammy at times. The story also is very simplestic, but the scene with Frankenstein and the girl is classic. I mean I like the concepts it threw in there such as the poor beast that should never of been created, how he's tormented. But the problem is, the whole thing feels like it's on a predestined course, and perhaps it's because the story is so classic. Over-all it's a solid film, that'll get a bit stale at times, but the monster is great, there are some great scenes, and hte character are good so over-all I liked it quite a bit and I'll be rewatching it. Now on to something I been meaning to see for years BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN!

 

[Movies205]

Posting some final reviews, then updating the front page, and the doors are shut on this baby till Oscar Season in a month or so, c ya

 

[Movies205]

Crank
Directed by Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor
Rating: 8/10

This film was an awesome mindless acton flick! Balls to the wall action and excitement. I like how the movie gets to the point straight from the get-go with no exposition, since the director seem to have the sense to realize he wasn't crafting a hugely deep film and his character was the same character we all know and love, that gritty hitman with a heart, so there was no need for expoisiton we could just fill in the blanks. The pace is fast, and there's some action at least every five minutes. The short running time of 80 minutes was great, since the movie never gets too bog down. But don't worry there's still character development and you grow to love teh characters, thus making the action not worthless. There's plently of memorable scenes, and an ending that'll send you for a doozy. My only beefs are as follows. The movie strides a fine line between riduculeness and reality, it doesn't go head first in to ridiculouness/self-parody like Transporter 2, but at times it does trip over the line, these times does cause an eye-brow to be raised, and some of the gratuious nudity/violence wasn't needed, and felt un-natural, like it didn't seem very Statham like. Over-all I liked it more than Transporter 2 because while self-parodies are fun, when it can be done in a somewhat serious manner it's even better.