Movies205's Reviews and Discussion Thread, VOL 2.- THE SUMMER HAS RETURNED!
- Thread starter Movies205
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2004
- Messages
- 162,714
- Reaction score
- 12,118
- Points
- 203
I heard the story was a bit hokey with twin brother of ChowEric Draven said:I wasn't that huge of a fan of Better Tomorrow 2. Well, besides that crazy-ass end shoot-out. That was a great scene. But everything preceding that just sucked. I guess that's what happened when Tsui Hark took over directing duties....
The last shoot out im sure was directed by Woo himself even though he is only listed as producer
Eric Draven
Avenger
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 24,267
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 56
hunter rider said:I heard the story was a bit hokey with twin brother of Chow
The last shoot out im sure was directed by Woo himself even though he is only listed as producer
Oh, you haven't seen it yet?
Yeah, it's very, very hokey how Chow was brought back for the sequel. Very soap-opera-ish
The movie is very uneven though. I think Woo had a falling out with producer Hark and Hark was left to direct most of the movie. A lot of the non-action sequences quite frankly, sucked. And they retconned a character into the movie that basically became the main character of the sequel.
The Hero
Superhero
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2003
- Messages
- 5,315
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Alright,I can maybe see someone liking the first two quarters of Dreamcatcher if you haven't read the book,but if you had,you would know the enormous opportunity wasted.Mr.Webs said:Hero, right you are. All of Dreamcatcher is brilliant...save for the last ten minutes or so.Damian Lewis is a great actor...I wish he'd make more American films, but no, he has to make only British films that I have to buy so I can see them!
For the record,in the book Duddits isn't an alien,the movie doesn't end in a big,noisy action scene,Kurtz is a cold-blooded badass as opposed to a senile old man,and Mr. Gray isn't a big red cloud with an outrageous British accent.
The book has a very linear Point A to Point B to Point C plot,with most of the focus being on the character development and subplots.The movie,logically,guts everything that made the book worth reading,leaving just the main plot,the weakest part of the book.
I'm sure you noticed that there was a lot of stuff with no bearing on the plot just thrown in there for the hell of it.Why keep the Underhill and Kurtz subplot,just to limit it to a few scenes? Why keep the fungus if you're never going to explain what purpose it serves? Why keep Henry suicidal if you're never going to go anywhere with it?
Admittedly,if you try to condense a nearly 900-page book into a two-hour movie,you're going to run into trouble,but damn it man.It's like they didn't even try.
Okay,power-point presentation over.Go about your business.
War Party
Ve vant ze money,Lebowski
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2005
- Messages
- 6,969
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Snatch (2000)
Director: Guy Ritchie
9/10
If, as currently seems possible, Guy Ritchie's career as a director of unconventional British crime movies has come to a premature conclusion, it's truly a great loss for the film world. In his first two movies, Ritchie created a pair of classics that effectively mixed action, comedy, and intrigue with a flair the likes of which you'll rarely find. With Snatch, he succeeded for the second time at crafting a gangster flick filled with colorful characters and bizarre happenings and managing to be rather original in the process.
Like its predecessor, Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch concerns gangsters and thievery in the less reputable sections of London, and like its predecessor Snatch is a hyperactive roller coaster ride of a movie that replaces the deep gravity of such old-time gangster flicks as the Godfather with Ritchie's stylized violence and offbeat characterizations. Right from the opening scene, when a gang led by the aptly named Franky Four Fingers stages a daring jewelry heist while dressed as a group of Hasidic Jews, this movie offers the promise of something different, and it more than delivers. For most of its running time Snatch borders on sheer sensory overload, with Ritchie's camera cutting constantly and the laughs coming as fast as the bodies pile up. Bullets, fists, and profanities all fly as a seemingly endless number of plot strands come together, leading up to a blood-soaked finale that makes the conclusion of a John Woo movie seem almost tame by comparison.
Despite everything I've written above, it's really the dialogue and characterization that elevate Snatch above the crime-movie plain. This movie doesn't just show you a bunch of colorful criminal types, it actually manages to make you like some of them, although maybe not always for the best reasons. Here Ritchie assembled an extremely diverse ensemble cast, and it's one filled with memorable and perfectly portrayed figures ranging from a shady unlicensed boxing promoter to a legendary thug with two bullets for teeth to a local mob kingpin with a highly unusual method of disposing of victims. Of course, it's the surprise casting of Brad Pitt that raised a lot of eyebrows when this movie came out, and with good reason. Pitt strays far from his typical fare with his portrayal of a fast-talking gypsy boxing champ, but he's note-perfect in his role, right down to his semi-intelligible accent. Ever since I watched Seven and Fight Club years ago, I've thought Pitt was an excellent character actor who just happened to be a star, and this movie only served to confirm that impression. Vinnie Jones is once again brilliant as well in his role as Bullet Tooth Tony, even if his calm-and-collected-one-minute-raving-lunatic-the-next role isn't much of a stretch from his work in Lock, Stock.
Throughout its relatively brief running time, Snatch never lets up its frenetic pace, ensuring that even those possessed of the shortest attention spans won't wind up bored. Now, as many have noted, Snatch isn't much of a depature from Ritchie's first film, right down to the repeated casting of Jason Statham in a leading role. That fact notwithstanding, though, there's something to be said for staying in the same niche, especially when that niche isn't exactly being filled by too many other people at the moment. Anyone who can churn out such distinctive and entertaining movies should be welcomed, regardless of such piddling complaints as repetitiveness. Now, where's the third movie?
Director: Guy Ritchie
9/10
If, as currently seems possible, Guy Ritchie's career as a director of unconventional British crime movies has come to a premature conclusion, it's truly a great loss for the film world. In his first two movies, Ritchie created a pair of classics that effectively mixed action, comedy, and intrigue with a flair the likes of which you'll rarely find. With Snatch, he succeeded for the second time at crafting a gangster flick filled with colorful characters and bizarre happenings and managing to be rather original in the process.
Like its predecessor, Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch concerns gangsters and thievery in the less reputable sections of London, and like its predecessor Snatch is a hyperactive roller coaster ride of a movie that replaces the deep gravity of such old-time gangster flicks as the Godfather with Ritchie's stylized violence and offbeat characterizations. Right from the opening scene, when a gang led by the aptly named Franky Four Fingers stages a daring jewelry heist while dressed as a group of Hasidic Jews, this movie offers the promise of something different, and it more than delivers. For most of its running time Snatch borders on sheer sensory overload, with Ritchie's camera cutting constantly and the laughs coming as fast as the bodies pile up. Bullets, fists, and profanities all fly as a seemingly endless number of plot strands come together, leading up to a blood-soaked finale that makes the conclusion of a John Woo movie seem almost tame by comparison.
Despite everything I've written above, it's really the dialogue and characterization that elevate Snatch above the crime-movie plain. This movie doesn't just show you a bunch of colorful criminal types, it actually manages to make you like some of them, although maybe not always for the best reasons. Here Ritchie assembled an extremely diverse ensemble cast, and it's one filled with memorable and perfectly portrayed figures ranging from a shady unlicensed boxing promoter to a legendary thug with two bullets for teeth to a local mob kingpin with a highly unusual method of disposing of victims. Of course, it's the surprise casting of Brad Pitt that raised a lot of eyebrows when this movie came out, and with good reason. Pitt strays far from his typical fare with his portrayal of a fast-talking gypsy boxing champ, but he's note-perfect in his role, right down to his semi-intelligible accent. Ever since I watched Seven and Fight Club years ago, I've thought Pitt was an excellent character actor who just happened to be a star, and this movie only served to confirm that impression. Vinnie Jones is once again brilliant as well in his role as Bullet Tooth Tony, even if his calm-and-collected-one-minute-raving-lunatic-the-next role isn't much of a stretch from his work in Lock, Stock.
Throughout its relatively brief running time, Snatch never lets up its frenetic pace, ensuring that even those possessed of the shortest attention spans won't wind up bored. Now, as many have noted, Snatch isn't much of a depature from Ritchie's first film, right down to the repeated casting of Jason Statham in a leading role. That fact notwithstanding, though, there's something to be said for staying in the same niche, especially when that niche isn't exactly being filled by too many other people at the moment. Anyone who can churn out such distinctive and entertaining movies should be welcomed, regardless of such piddling complaints as repetitiveness. Now, where's the third movie?
War Party
Ve vant ze money,Lebowski
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2005
- Messages
- 6,969
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Fight Club (1999)
Director: David Fincher
10/10
"Fight Club" has many naysayers. They call it plotless, they call it pointless, some even call it fascist. They complain about the amazing amount of graphic violence, the plot's twists, and the film's lack of intelligence.
These people need to take a deep breath, count to three, and watch the movie over again. If they still can find nothing to like, they need to have their head checked.
"Fight Club" is one of the best films I've ever seen. Beyond it being one of the finest novel-to-screen adaptations ever, it is simply an astounding film. Everything about it is designed to shock the viewer out of complacency: the subliminals, the fantasy cutaways, even the brutal violence are really just punctuation marks, underscoring the movie's actual statements. Beneath the action movie facade, "Fight Club" is really an intellectual film.
"Fight Club" is about the modern American male, and the state of permanent angst and adolescence they've been forced into by a society which raises them without fathers, force-feeding them dead-end jobs, consumerist garbage and idiotic "everyone-is-special-in-their-own-way" psychology. What's interesting is that the film not only provides a counter-argument, but an argument against its own argument. It suggests a parallel extreme, wherein we would be forced back into another Dark Age, would be wrong as well.
The narrator in "Fight Club", who is nameless throughout the film, seeks to escape from the urban nightmare his life has become, as it causes him terrible insomnia. First, he tries attending support groups for people with lethal illnesses, despite his lack of any. This helps him to confront death and despair in a tangible way, and appreciate the fact that he's alive, curing his insomnia. That is, until he meets Marla Singer, a fellow faker who makes him unable to find the release he so desperately needs. Marla and the Narrator manage to come to an agreement about who can attend which group, but the damage has been done.
A little later, the Narrator meets Tyler Durden, a man who is the polar opposite of him. Tyler lives on the edge, making soap, being a waiter at fancy buffets (where he does various obscene things to the food), and changing reels at the movie theater (where he splices frames of dirty movies into kiddie pics). Something about Tyler is magnetic to the Narrator, and through a series of events the two come to live together, and create the eponymous Fight Clubs.
To tell anymore would spoil the movie's many delights; it's subversive, funny, thought-provoking, thrilling and consistantly entertaining. Fincher's direction takes major risks and constantly manages to succeed, and the thought that's been put into every frame is evident. The cinematography is excellent, the Dust Brothers music hip and appropriate, the writing stylized and snappy, capturing the novel's tone without being overly derivative. "Fight Club" is a masterpiece, the best Hollywood film in a very long time. Enter with an open mind, and you'll come out singing its praises.
Director: David Fincher
10/10
"Fight Club" has many naysayers. They call it plotless, they call it pointless, some even call it fascist. They complain about the amazing amount of graphic violence, the plot's twists, and the film's lack of intelligence.
These people need to take a deep breath, count to three, and watch the movie over again. If they still can find nothing to like, they need to have their head checked.
"Fight Club" is one of the best films I've ever seen. Beyond it being one of the finest novel-to-screen adaptations ever, it is simply an astounding film. Everything about it is designed to shock the viewer out of complacency: the subliminals, the fantasy cutaways, even the brutal violence are really just punctuation marks, underscoring the movie's actual statements. Beneath the action movie facade, "Fight Club" is really an intellectual film.
"Fight Club" is about the modern American male, and the state of permanent angst and adolescence they've been forced into by a society which raises them without fathers, force-feeding them dead-end jobs, consumerist garbage and idiotic "everyone-is-special-in-their-own-way" psychology. What's interesting is that the film not only provides a counter-argument, but an argument against its own argument. It suggests a parallel extreme, wherein we would be forced back into another Dark Age, would be wrong as well.
The narrator in "Fight Club", who is nameless throughout the film, seeks to escape from the urban nightmare his life has become, as it causes him terrible insomnia. First, he tries attending support groups for people with lethal illnesses, despite his lack of any. This helps him to confront death and despair in a tangible way, and appreciate the fact that he's alive, curing his insomnia. That is, until he meets Marla Singer, a fellow faker who makes him unable to find the release he so desperately needs. Marla and the Narrator manage to come to an agreement about who can attend which group, but the damage has been done.
A little later, the Narrator meets Tyler Durden, a man who is the polar opposite of him. Tyler lives on the edge, making soap, being a waiter at fancy buffets (where he does various obscene things to the food), and changing reels at the movie theater (where he splices frames of dirty movies into kiddie pics). Something about Tyler is magnetic to the Narrator, and through a series of events the two come to live together, and create the eponymous Fight Clubs.
To tell anymore would spoil the movie's many delights; it's subversive, funny, thought-provoking, thrilling and consistantly entertaining. Fincher's direction takes major risks and constantly manages to succeed, and the thought that's been put into every frame is evident. The cinematography is excellent, the Dust Brothers music hip and appropriate, the writing stylized and snappy, capturing the novel's tone without being overly derivative. "Fight Club" is a masterpiece, the best Hollywood film in a very long time. Enter with an open mind, and you'll come out singing its praises.
War Party
Ve vant ze money,Lebowski
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2005
- Messages
- 6,969
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Layer Cake (2005)
Director: Matthew Vaughn
9/10
"Layer Cake" is lean, mean, tough, and, ultimately, tragic. It is a gangster film in the tradition of "The Long Good Friday," and if it doesn't have the epic scope that elevated "Casino" above other entries in the genre it's got echoes of that Scorcese masterpiece and a lot of good stuff of its own vintage.
Like "Casino," "Layer Cake" tells the story of a man who is very, very good at being a criminal, but makes the mistake of believing that he can stop being one. Both DeNiro's Sam Rothstein and Daniel Craig's unnamed drug dealer want to go straight, but quickly find that they've gotten in too deep, that people depend on them, and that those people will not just let them walk away. Craig's drug dealer is a smart, but self-centered man who believes he's better than the guys he works for and the guys who work for him. By the end of the film, he's learned his lesson.
Craig's slimy, serpentine performance is very convincing and effective. He's surrounded by similarly talented performers in the always dependable Colm Meaney and Michael Gambon. Sienna Miller, who plays his love interest, radiates so much warmth and sensuality that it's not difficult to believe that Craig's dealer would be distracted by her, even when it becomes clear that next week is not promised for him.
The film also looks great. Though it was shot on the cheap, you wouldn't know it for a second, as the compositions in every scene are superb and everything has a cold, barren, metallic feel to it that perfectly suits the tone of the movie. This isn't the London you've got in your minds' eye-- this is a place without history, without culture, without values. It's a bleak, soulless world. There's nothing comfortable about it.
What impressed me most about "Layer Cake," however, was not the tragic arc of the story, nor the performances, or the cinematography. It was the fact that the film didn't make mistakes, anywhere. There were no unnecessary scenes, no comic relief that didn't emerge organically out of the material, no attempts to placate the audience or make them feel better about what they were watching. The soundtrack doesn't provide easy emotional cues but picks its spots and nails them, then fades back and lets us draw our own conclusions about what we see. The romantic subplot that develops doesn't seem like an attempt to engage those put off by the rough stuff-- it's a vital part of the story, even if we don't realize it at first. The violence is profuse, but relatively bloodless-- it's cold, and businesslike, not passionate. Just like the characters engaged in it.
Finally, there are scenes that are so good, they inspire a kind of awe. I'm thinking first of a scene in which a character says precisely the wrong thing at the wrong time and violence erupts in such a controlled way that you'd think it was premeditated. Then, there's the scene with Craig and Miller in the hotel room, which is sexy without being exploitive and ends in a very unexpected way. Lastly, there's the final scene-- both the set-up, with Craig walking away from his table of friends, thinking hard, and the payoff, when the inevitable takes place just when we're thinking the movie's let its protagonist too easily off the hook.
Three great scenes. No bad scenes. No mistakes. No messiness. "Layer Cake" is an excellent film.
Director: Matthew Vaughn
9/10
"Layer Cake" is lean, mean, tough, and, ultimately, tragic. It is a gangster film in the tradition of "The Long Good Friday," and if it doesn't have the epic scope that elevated "Casino" above other entries in the genre it's got echoes of that Scorcese masterpiece and a lot of good stuff of its own vintage.
Like "Casino," "Layer Cake" tells the story of a man who is very, very good at being a criminal, but makes the mistake of believing that he can stop being one. Both DeNiro's Sam Rothstein and Daniel Craig's unnamed drug dealer want to go straight, but quickly find that they've gotten in too deep, that people depend on them, and that those people will not just let them walk away. Craig's drug dealer is a smart, but self-centered man who believes he's better than the guys he works for and the guys who work for him. By the end of the film, he's learned his lesson.
Craig's slimy, serpentine performance is very convincing and effective. He's surrounded by similarly talented performers in the always dependable Colm Meaney and Michael Gambon. Sienna Miller, who plays his love interest, radiates so much warmth and sensuality that it's not difficult to believe that Craig's dealer would be distracted by her, even when it becomes clear that next week is not promised for him.
The film also looks great. Though it was shot on the cheap, you wouldn't know it for a second, as the compositions in every scene are superb and everything has a cold, barren, metallic feel to it that perfectly suits the tone of the movie. This isn't the London you've got in your minds' eye-- this is a place without history, without culture, without values. It's a bleak, soulless world. There's nothing comfortable about it.
What impressed me most about "Layer Cake," however, was not the tragic arc of the story, nor the performances, or the cinematography. It was the fact that the film didn't make mistakes, anywhere. There were no unnecessary scenes, no comic relief that didn't emerge organically out of the material, no attempts to placate the audience or make them feel better about what they were watching. The soundtrack doesn't provide easy emotional cues but picks its spots and nails them, then fades back and lets us draw our own conclusions about what we see. The romantic subplot that develops doesn't seem like an attempt to engage those put off by the rough stuff-- it's a vital part of the story, even if we don't realize it at first. The violence is profuse, but relatively bloodless-- it's cold, and businesslike, not passionate. Just like the characters engaged in it.
Finally, there are scenes that are so good, they inspire a kind of awe. I'm thinking first of a scene in which a character says precisely the wrong thing at the wrong time and violence erupts in such a controlled way that you'd think it was premeditated. Then, there's the scene with Craig and Miller in the hotel room, which is sexy without being exploitive and ends in a very unexpected way. Lastly, there's the final scene-- both the set-up, with Craig walking away from his table of friends, thinking hard, and the payoff, when the inevitable takes place just when we're thinking the movie's let its protagonist too easily off the hook.
Three great scenes. No bad scenes. No mistakes. No messiness. "Layer Cake" is an excellent film.
Mr.Webs
Something Witty Here
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2002
- Messages
- 18,321
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
....I really need to read that book.The Hero said:
___________________________________
Spider-man
Directed by Sam Raimi
Starring Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, William Dafoe, and James Franco
_______________________________________________________
This film, one which we all salivated over for months and months and months, and broke several box-office records, is still an entertaining piece of cinema. But, that doesn't mean there aren't problems. Now, a synopsis from IMDB.com, in case you somehow don't know Spider-man's origin.
- When bitten by a genetically modified spider, a nerdy, shy, and awkward high school student gains spider-like abilities that he eventually must use to fight evil as a superhero after tragedy befalls his family. -Sadly, the acting is spotty throughout the film. Maguire does a good job, but sometimes he looks lifeless...wooden, almost. Sometimes his words don't even sound convincing because of their lack of life in them. Dunst, in my opinion, was a horrible choice for Mary-Jane Watson, and her acting in this film doesn't justify the casting choice either. Franco plays his character too soft, and like Maguire, his dialogue is usually said without conviction. But thankfully, it get's better from here...a lot better. Dafoe couldn't have done a better job as the villainouss Green Goblin/uncaring father Norman Osborn. The rest of the cast is golden as well, especially Harris (Aunt May) and Robertson (Uncle Ben), who couldn't have done a better job in their roles. And of course, we have J.K Simmons, who plays the hilarious J. Jonah Jameson. I seriously believe he was born to play this part...he was perfect.
The story was amazing forty years ago, and the story is amazing now. Weakling gains super-powers, but, despite this, is personally destroyed when his Uncle Ben is killed by a criminal Peter allowed to get away. There is some great drama here, and the script thankfully does the story justice. But, there are MANY, MANY things that I could've done without. The dialogue here is sometimes way too corny for my taste. Then we have Harry Osborn's character, who is not all that interesting whatsoever. Sadly, this same thing applies with Mary-Jane, who is generally not like her comic character at all. Then, we have some extremely idiotic mistakes with Peter discovering his powers. He generally showcases all of them infront of about twenty different people, and about a week later, Spider-man swings onto the scene. No one makes a connection? And then, there is no explanation for Spider-man's official super-hero costume, which got under my, and many other people's, skin.
Some of the direction is off-kilter, especially the last fight scene and
Norman's Death
In the end, it's entertaining enough, and for us Spider-man fans, it's enjoyable. But sadly, it has too many problems to truly get it's feet off the ground, never mind swing between a building or two.
Fanboy Vote: 7.5/10
Final Vote: 6.5/10
Carmine Falcone
So it goes.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 19,576
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
War Party: you reviewed three of my fav movies (excellent reviews) and you mentioned The Long Good Friday. This means you are now officially in my cool book. 
up:
up:
War Party
Ve vant ze money,Lebowski
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2005
- Messages
- 6,969
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Carmine Falcone said:War Party: you reviewed three of my fav movies (excellent reviews) and you mentioned The Long Good Friday. This means you are now officially in my cool book.
Why thank you. Yeah, those 3 films are in my top ten favorite movies. I watched all three yesterday and felt that I needed to put reviews up for them. I can never get tired of them.
Carmine Falcone
So it goes.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 19,576
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
This is the most badass movie ever made. There is no point in denying it really. It has Clint Eastwood (coolest actor ever), Lee van Cleef (the man who looks menacing in everything he does) and Eli Wallach.
This is not only the most badass movie, it also happens to be the best western ever. The world that Sergio Leone has created is extremely credible every step of the way. The characters are driven by greed and revenge and don't have a second of hesitation to betray eachother. They keep changing sides and use their so called ''old friends'' to get to the gold.
Some of my favourite moments are: When Tuco and Blondie are in the destroyed village and they reform their alliance. ''Were you going to die alone?'' Eli has a hint of a smile on his face and the theme music kicks in. Together they kill all of Angel Eyes' henchmen.
The final sequence on Sad Hill is amazing. When Tuco arrives there he goes crazy, and he starts running, blinded by greed. And ofcourse the standoff, with it's incredible editing it stays exciting through all viewings.
In short: I love this movie.
10/10
This is the most badass movie ever made. There is no point in denying it really. It has Clint Eastwood (coolest actor ever), Lee van Cleef (the man who looks menacing in everything he does) and Eli Wallach.
This is not only the most badass movie, it also happens to be the best western ever. The world that Sergio Leone has created is extremely credible every step of the way. The characters are driven by greed and revenge and don't have a second of hesitation to betray eachother. They keep changing sides and use their so called ''old friends'' to get to the gold.
Some of my favourite moments are: When Tuco and Blondie are in the destroyed village and they reform their alliance. ''Were you going to die alone?'' Eli has a hint of a smile on his face and the theme music kicks in. Together they kill all of Angel Eyes' henchmen.
The final sequence on Sad Hill is amazing. When Tuco arrives there he goes crazy, and he starts running, blinded by greed. And ofcourse the standoff, with it's incredible editing it stays exciting through all viewings.
In short: I love this movie.
10/10
Carmine Falcone
So it goes.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 19,576
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
War Party said:
I feel that Layer Cake is The Long good Friday for this generation and I can't wait to see what Vaughn will do next. (after Stardust I'm hoping for a new gangstermovie)
Carmine Falcone
So it goes.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 19,576
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
War Party said:
Yeah I saw it. Like you, I think Snatch is superior tot that movie. IMO is Snatch the perfect execution of the LS&TSB formula.
BTW: Have you seen Get Carter? (probably..) I think of that as the 2nd best british gangstermovie. (I fancy myself as a bit of an expert in that genre
Rez
Sidekick
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 2,073
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
A Prarie Home Companion
Directed by Robert Altman
*****/*****
(five/five)
Let me get right to the point. This may be the most hilarious movie I have ever seen. I saw it in a small arthouse theater in CT with an audience that consisted of myself and 2 friends, and all together about 3 other groups 2-4 people.
And I was on the floor laughing. Out of my seat and on the floor laughing.
This is intelligent humor, minimilistic humor at the best it's ever been. Rather than the loud, in your face humor and success of recent films like 40 Year Old Virgin, Anchorman, Wedding Crashers, this is the film where the joke happens so quickly or silently that half the viewers might miss it. But it makes the ones who see it laugh that much harder.
Just in case you don't know, the film revolves around the radio show of the title. I've heard many people say that the film has no plot; I disagree, this is one of the most focused films I've seen in a while. It is the very last show of the Prarie Home Companion, from start to finish(with some hilarious bookends covered well by Kevin Kline) and how the people involved with the show are dealing with it.
Highlights for me include the constant commercial ads for products(especially one sung for pizzas in grand operatic style), the quirky noir detective Guy Noir, played masterfully by Kevin Kline, and the "Bad Jokes, I love 'em" song performed by two of the funniest charecters I've ever seen on screen.
Beyond the humor, there is also bittersweet, sadness, love, death, life, and rememberance. This is one of the greats, so layered I can't even imagine how well it will hold up over repeat viewings.
This may well have upsurped or is at least on the level with my other favourite comedies of all time, most notably The Big Lewboski, Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, and The Life Aquatic.
On a final note, this would be a more focused and objective review, but DaCrowe already did it for me earliar in the thread, I advise you to check out his review if you haven't already. It's great, everything he says is true, and the film is well worth checking out.
Directed by Robert Altman
*****/*****
(five/five)
Let me get right to the point. This may be the most hilarious movie I have ever seen. I saw it in a small arthouse theater in CT with an audience that consisted of myself and 2 friends, and all together about 3 other groups 2-4 people.
And I was on the floor laughing. Out of my seat and on the floor laughing.
This is intelligent humor, minimilistic humor at the best it's ever been. Rather than the loud, in your face humor and success of recent films like 40 Year Old Virgin, Anchorman, Wedding Crashers, this is the film where the joke happens so quickly or silently that half the viewers might miss it. But it makes the ones who see it laugh that much harder.
Just in case you don't know, the film revolves around the radio show of the title. I've heard many people say that the film has no plot; I disagree, this is one of the most focused films I've seen in a while. It is the very last show of the Prarie Home Companion, from start to finish(with some hilarious bookends covered well by Kevin Kline) and how the people involved with the show are dealing with it.
Highlights for me include the constant commercial ads for products(especially one sung for pizzas in grand operatic style), the quirky noir detective Guy Noir, played masterfully by Kevin Kline, and the "Bad Jokes, I love 'em" song performed by two of the funniest charecters I've ever seen on screen.
Beyond the humor, there is also bittersweet, sadness, love, death, life, and rememberance. This is one of the greats, so layered I can't even imagine how well it will hold up over repeat viewings.
This may well have upsurped or is at least on the level with my other favourite comedies of all time, most notably The Big Lewboski, Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, and The Life Aquatic.
On a final note, this would be a more focused and objective review, but DaCrowe already did it for me earliar in the thread, I advise you to check out his review if you haven't already. It's great, everything he says is true, and the film is well worth checking out.
Rez
Sidekick
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 2,073
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Scoop
Starring: Scarlett Johansson, Hugh Jackman, Woody Allen, and Ian McShane
Written and Directed by Woody Allen
Damnit. That's the first thing that comes to mind with this film.
Because it's good. Damn good. Funny. Charming. Well acted, well written. Except for one minor detail:
Woody Allen.
After his last film, the brilliant and much talked about Match Point, I had hoped he was back on the top of his game. And in many ways, he is. But his need for a starring role in his own movie damn near wrecked it.
Scoop opens with a brilliant shot of Death, leading a boat down the river Styx. Some hot shot journalist(Deadwood's brilliant Ian McShane) is poking around rather confused for a moment, not scared, just clearly out of place. He sits down, eased and relaxed next to a woman, and she asks him how he died. He tells her, both eager and reluctant, like a great story you have that you're afraid might offend someone, that he was murdered.
And off starts the mystery of Scoop.
McShane, gathering clues and getting them to our world in some hilarious fashions, starts reporting to a young wannabe reporter, the always amazing Scarlett Johansson. He tells her he has the scoop of a lifetime, and that she's going to be the one to break the story.
Had the film been a buddy team up between the ghost McShane and the quirky, absent minded Johansson about them tracking down the killer, it would be hands down one of the best comedies of the year.
Unfortunately, it's not.
Enter Woody Allen: The completely useless and unfunny charecter. He is so unfunny, I didn't even realize he was trying to be funny- my mother had to clue me in on most of his old flop jokes. It's not even his performance that annoys me so- he is just completely unnecessary. He's a magician, and it's during his stage act that Johansson first comes in contact with Ian McShane. He's a plot device, and one that isn't even needed. McShane just appears to her on stage, telling her that he was "focusing on journalist energy." With that logic, he could have appeared in her shower or something, for much greater laughs. And I just want an excuse to have her be in a shower. But it's not enough that Allen becomes a plot device for whenever we need to meet up with McShane- it's that even when he's not needed, he is there. Johansson seems to cling to him, invite him everywhere, and it makes no sense. They aren't friends, they are strangers. They have no connection other than piss poor writing. Rather than take the obvious and well made match up of a girl and a ghost(See: Ghost, where this worked awesome), Woody Allen decided to throw in another charecter to take the spot of the ghost: Himself.
As a result, McShane has virtually no screen time, and it's a damn shame. Anyone who has watched Deadwood knows this, unfortunately I don't think any audiences unfamiliar with him are going to be overly wowed by his 5 or so minute long scenes.
As for the mystery itself, the prime suspect turns up as Hugh Jackman. Obviously most famous for his role as Wolverine, I've always preferred him in his lesser known roles- he's a master and the reason to watch the romantic comedy Someone Like You, his performance elevates lesser films like Kate & Leopold, and he ripped up the stage in the most amazing thing I've ever seen in the Broadway musical, A Boy From Oz(And don't even get me started on The Fountain or I'll have to grab some new pants). Luckily, this is a small, subdued roll, and there are some great quirky antics in the "whether or not he is the killer" fashion and they are played up to the fullest before the reveal. At the end of the day he was probably the main reason I saw the film, even if there is less of him than I would have liked.
Catch a similar feeling here? That's right. Woody Allen takes up more screentime than perhaps anyone else, and the film suffers miserably because of it. With such great talents as McShane and Jackman taking a very far back seat to Allen, the film becomes a massive example of "what might have been."
It's hard for me to reccomend this, but it's hard for me not to. Everything is good, except for Allen, and sadly he's on screen for almost the entire film. It's a mixed bag, and one you'll ultimately have to decide on for yourself.
***/*****
Three/Five
Starring: Scarlett Johansson, Hugh Jackman, Woody Allen, and Ian McShane
Written and Directed by Woody Allen
Damnit. That's the first thing that comes to mind with this film.
Because it's good. Damn good. Funny. Charming. Well acted, well written. Except for one minor detail:
Woody Allen.
After his last film, the brilliant and much talked about Match Point, I had hoped he was back on the top of his game. And in many ways, he is. But his need for a starring role in his own movie damn near wrecked it.
Scoop opens with a brilliant shot of Death, leading a boat down the river Styx. Some hot shot journalist(Deadwood's brilliant Ian McShane) is poking around rather confused for a moment, not scared, just clearly out of place. He sits down, eased and relaxed next to a woman, and she asks him how he died. He tells her, both eager and reluctant, like a great story you have that you're afraid might offend someone, that he was murdered.
And off starts the mystery of Scoop.
McShane, gathering clues and getting them to our world in some hilarious fashions, starts reporting to a young wannabe reporter, the always amazing Scarlett Johansson. He tells her he has the scoop of a lifetime, and that she's going to be the one to break the story.
Had the film been a buddy team up between the ghost McShane and the quirky, absent minded Johansson about them tracking down the killer, it would be hands down one of the best comedies of the year.
Unfortunately, it's not.
Enter Woody Allen: The completely useless and unfunny charecter. He is so unfunny, I didn't even realize he was trying to be funny- my mother had to clue me in on most of his old flop jokes. It's not even his performance that annoys me so- he is just completely unnecessary. He's a magician, and it's during his stage act that Johansson first comes in contact with Ian McShane. He's a plot device, and one that isn't even needed. McShane just appears to her on stage, telling her that he was "focusing on journalist energy." With that logic, he could have appeared in her shower or something, for much greater laughs. And I just want an excuse to have her be in a shower. But it's not enough that Allen becomes a plot device for whenever we need to meet up with McShane- it's that even when he's not needed, he is there. Johansson seems to cling to him, invite him everywhere, and it makes no sense. They aren't friends, they are strangers. They have no connection other than piss poor writing. Rather than take the obvious and well made match up of a girl and a ghost(See: Ghost, where this worked awesome), Woody Allen decided to throw in another charecter to take the spot of the ghost: Himself.
As a result, McShane has virtually no screen time, and it's a damn shame. Anyone who has watched Deadwood knows this, unfortunately I don't think any audiences unfamiliar with him are going to be overly wowed by his 5 or so minute long scenes.
As for the mystery itself, the prime suspect turns up as Hugh Jackman. Obviously most famous for his role as Wolverine, I've always preferred him in his lesser known roles- he's a master and the reason to watch the romantic comedy Someone Like You, his performance elevates lesser films like Kate & Leopold, and he ripped up the stage in the most amazing thing I've ever seen in the Broadway musical, A Boy From Oz(And don't even get me started on The Fountain or I'll have to grab some new pants). Luckily, this is a small, subdued roll, and there are some great quirky antics in the "whether or not he is the killer" fashion and they are played up to the fullest before the reveal. At the end of the day he was probably the main reason I saw the film, even if there is less of him than I would have liked.
Catch a similar feeling here? That's right. Woody Allen takes up more screentime than perhaps anyone else, and the film suffers miserably because of it. With such great talents as McShane and Jackman taking a very far back seat to Allen, the film becomes a massive example of "what might have been."
It's hard for me to reccomend this, but it's hard for me not to. Everything is good, except for Allen, and sadly he's on screen for almost the entire film. It's a mixed bag, and one you'll ultimately have to decide on for yourself.
***/*****
Three/Five
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2004
- Messages
- 162,714
- Reaction score
- 12,118
- Points
- 203
The Wrong Man
Plot Summary
Manny Ballestero is an honest hardworking musician at New York's Stork Club. When his wife needs money for dental treatment, Manny goes to the local insurance office to borrow on her policy. Employees at the office mistake him for a hold-up man who robbed them the year before and the police are called. The film tells the true story of what happened to Manny and his family.
-----------------------------
I'll admit i fell asleep in the middle of this for a few minutes i was so bored
The film starts off fine but Henry Fonda's character is so dull it's like he's barely alive.the segway from thriller to his wife's out of the blue breakdown makes the focus of the film uneven and disjointed The
investigation is so contrived it is hard to believe it is accurate to the real events and the somewhat flukey nature of the ending may be real but it feels very unconvincing and almost a case of "quick we need to wrap it up"
The cinematography is stunning and the main dramatic shots are beautifully framed but otherwise it's disappointing
4/10
Plot Summary
Manny Ballestero is an honest hardworking musician at New York's Stork Club. When his wife needs money for dental treatment, Manny goes to the local insurance office to borrow on her policy. Employees at the office mistake him for a hold-up man who robbed them the year before and the police are called. The film tells the true story of what happened to Manny and his family.
-----------------------------
I'll admit i fell asleep in the middle of this for a few minutes i was so bored
The film starts off fine but Henry Fonda's character is so dull it's like he's barely alive.the segway from thriller to his wife's out of the blue breakdown makes the focus of the film uneven and disjointed The
investigation is so contrived it is hard to believe it is accurate to the real events and the somewhat flukey nature of the ending may be real but it feels very unconvincing and almost a case of "quick we need to wrap it up"
The cinematography is stunning and the main dramatic shots are beautifully framed but otherwise it's disappointing
4/10
Movies205
Corporate Money
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2003
- Messages
- 27,512
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
hunter rider said:
Oh man I love this movie! The movie is a character study of what would happen to the average joe if he was tried for a murder he didn't commit, it's not a hammy over-the-top action or thriller movie, it simply a slow and deliberate movie about the effects of being a tried man.
The Hero
Superhero
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2003
- Messages
- 5,315
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
You should.It's sort of a Stephen King Greatest Hits album:Boyhood chums,psychedelic trips into the subconscious,and profanity.Lots and lots of profanity.Mr.Webs said:....I really need to read that book.
I think it was a crime against humanity to cover William Dafoe's face(it's a hell of a lot scarier than the mask.And your right about Dunst.I agree with what someone else said somewhere in this forum:If Scarlett Johansson was better known at the time,she would of made a perfect Mary-Jane.Mr.Webs said:
The biggest problem with the script is that David Koepp is just not a good screenwriter (so I guess you could say this is his masterpiece).Spider-Man a lot like Donner's Superman:The real strength isn't in the script,but in the sense of "feel-like-a-kid-again" wonder it creates.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2004
- Messages
- 162,714
- Reaction score
- 12,118
- Points
- 203
Movies205 said:
Glad you liked it,i didn't
Elisha Cuthbert
old school stalker
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2006
- Messages
- 915
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
Movies, I just want to say thank god you agree with me on scarface... I thought I was the only one who perferred the Hawkes' version.
I thought I was the only one who perferred the Hawkes' version.Similar threads
