Recently viewed movie thread - Rental Edition (4 Viewers)

[yinzer]

I saw most of BeerFest the other night. I laughed. Pretty much any thing the Indian cat did made me chuckle.

Whats with the ?!?! Beerfest was great! I really haven't been disappointed with anything Broken Lizard has put out.

Did they do Club Dread? I could only take a couple of minutes of that.I dunno- in advance Beerfest didn't really seem like it would hold up as a whole movie- thus the bag- but it worked well enough for me.

Club Dread is pretty bad when in comparison to ST or Beerfest, but its not that bad.I didnt like it the 1st time I watched it either, but after seeing it a couple times more times, its okay. Like I said, vs. the other movies it seems really bad, but its average. Theres some funny stuff that you can easily miss. Plus, Brittany Daniels in a bikini the whole movie?! mmm, mmm, good.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I saw most of BeerFest the other night. I laughed. Pretty much any thing the Indian cat did made me chuckle.

Whats with the ?!?! Beerfest was great! I really haven't been disappointed with anything Broken Lizard has put out.

Did they do Club Dread? I could only take a couple of minutes of that.I dunno- in advance Beerfest didn't really seem like it would hold up as a whole movie- thus the bag- but it worked well enough for me.

Club Dread is pretty bad when in comparison to ST or Beerfest, but its not that bad.I didnt like it the 1st time I watched it either, but after seeing it a couple times more times, its okay. Like I said, vs. the other movies it seems really bad, but its average. Theres some funny stuff that you can easily miss. Plus, Brittany Daniels in a bikini the whole movie?! mmm, mmm, good.

I found Club Dread to be cheesy-funny. I still the the Pac-man maze idea is funny and laugh at that, and Paxton usually makes me chuckle in all his movies so there's that too. I thought Club Dread was decent enough, but not as good as Supertroopers (which I hated the first time I saw it)

 

[yinzer]

I saw most of BeerFest the other night. I laughed. Pretty much any thing the Indian cat did made me chuckle.

Whats with the ?!?! Beerfest was great! I really haven't been disappointed with anything Broken Lizard has put out.

Did they do Club Dread? I could only take a couple of minutes of that.I dunno- in advance Beerfest didn't really seem like it would hold up as a whole movie- thus the bag- but it worked well enough for me.

Club Dread is pretty bad when in comparison to ST or Beerfest, but its not that bad.I didnt like it the 1st time I watched it either, but after seeing it a couple times more times, its okay. Like I said, vs. the other movies it seems really bad, but its average. Theres some funny stuff that you can easily miss. Plus, Brittany Daniels in a bikini the whole movie?! mmm, mmm, good.

I found Club Dread to be cheesy-funny. I still the the Pac-man maze idea is funny and laugh at that, and Paxton usually makes me chuckle in all his movies so there's that too. I thought Club Dread was decent enough, but not as good as Supertroopers (which I hated the first time I saw it)

Paxton was fantastic. He def helps that movie out a boatload. And now that I think about it, he's really the only 'name' actor in any of their movies (outside of Cloris Leachman and Jurgen Prochnow, if theyre name actors anyway).Now that I think about it, Paxton is a pretty solid actor who really hasnt been in too many movies. Frailty and Simple Plan (both very good IMO) are the only movies I can even think of him being in over the last decade outside of Club Dread

 

[krista4]

The boyfriend and I are in the midst of 10 days of Master Cleanses, so we'll be watching a lot of movies since we can't go out for anything fun. :(

Amazingly, everything in this report is in English!

Dan in Real Life: A few others have reviewed this one already. Thought it was pretty good for the genre...definitely a few moments (when he "joined" the kids skipping rocks) and parts that were subtle and clever (the officer's reaction when he gives him his driver's license). But also too many over-the-top sappy parts for me to give a great rating, especially the incredibly trite ending for which I'll subtract a full star. Good cast, even Dane Cook. Fairly amusing if you want a light movie. Adding 1/2-star for the Sondre Lerche soundtrack gets it to 3.5/5.

The Hoax: True story of an author who pretends to have an exclusive for the biography of Howard Hughes. Who knew Richard Gere could act? Hope Davis and Alfred Molina are fabulous as always. Pretty interesting, with a good cast, but too predictable to get any more than 3.5/5.

For All Mankind: Documentary about the space program and in particular the first moon landing. Amazing never-before-seen footage. Trivia: anyone know what the second guy to set foot on the moon said after Neil Armstrong's famous line? I didn't, until I watched him talk about the background and say it in this movie. Also a lot of fun other moon-landing footage I'd never seen before. While the photography is incredible and sense of accomplishment is stunning, what struck me is that these guys were actually having a hell of a lot of fun. If you're into space stuff, definitely a 5/5. For regular people like me, 4.5/5.



The History Boys: Film adaptation of the play...has been compared to Dead Poet's Society (for the "boarding school chaps finding themselves"), though I think this one has more depth. Outstanding performances across the board, and a good look at smart kids facing "real life" and the choices they'll have. On the other hand, the film's treatment of pedophilia is somewhat...flippant. All the great things about the movie are a bit balanced by feeling somewhat disturbed by this. As a result, 3.5/5.

The Castle: Absolutely hilarious Aussie movie about a man fighting against his house being taken by eminent domain. Has been compared to The Full Monty, with good reason. Laugh-out-loud funny in many parts, as it follows this very simple family facing some simple life events. Had no expectations on this one and was highly surprised. 4.5/5

 

[Musesboy]

I have read this entire thread over the past week and noted a few movies that I want to check out:

Carnivale Series 1 and 2

Once

Persona

Gone Baby Gone

A History of Violence

There Will Be Blood (watching this as soon as I finish this post)

Into The Wild

The Sweet Hereafter

Death Proof

Reading through all of the posts, I saw that quite a few people enjoy documentaries. I recently bought one for a friend and had little interest in it myself, but after seeing one of the eight episodes online I decided to buy the series for myself as well. It was one of the better decisions I have made.

The Blue Planet - Seas of Life Collector's Set

This was re-released last year with a number of bonus segments and is difficult to describe without using superlative after superlative. The photography is the best I have ever seen. There are no shots in murky water, no shaking cameras, no shots that are taken from too far away. The shots are crystal clear. It's stunning.

The narration is provided by David Attenborough. This set does not include distorted comments by divers; the narration was added afterwards. Attenborough has years of experience with documentaries such as these. He's interesting, informative, and his presentation seems urgent and filled with suppressed excitement.

The music is very fitting and adds to the mood.

My favorite episode was The Deep which is simply astounding. The footage includes 60 percent of creatures never captured on camera before, and 30 percent which are completely new to science.

The crew are not the stars of these discs; the creatures are. This is not one of those documentaries that is full of people wanting to get their faces on film.

As I said, I didn't know I would be interested. This was a great addition to my DVD collection and I urge you to see it if at all possible. It will overwhelm you, give you a new appreciation for life, and make you feel very small.

Amazon currently has the whole set (around ten hours) for $38.99.

Here's an example, but please try to catch it on DVD http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9Er4dpUfrM

Warning: Very small children might find a couple of scenes shocking. A few creatures get eaten.

 

[jdoggydogg]

The boyfriend and I are in the midst of 10 days of Master Cleanses...

...The Hoax

 

[krista4]

I have read this entire thread over the past week and noted a few movies that I want to check out:

Carnivale Series 1 and 2

Once

Persona

Gone Baby Gone

A History of Violence

There Will Be Blood (watching this as soon as I finish this post)

Into The Wild

The Sweet Hereafter

Death Proof

Reading through all of the posts, I saw that quite a few people enjoy documentaries. I recently bought one for a friend and had little interest in it myself, but after seeing one of the eight episodes online I decided to buy the series for myself as well. It was one of the better decisions I have made.

The Blue Planet - Seas of Life Collector's Set

This was re-released last year with a number of bonus segments and is difficult to describe without using superlative after superlative. The photography is the best I have ever seen. There are no shots in murky water, no shaking cameras, no shots that are taken from too far away. The shots are crystal clear. It's stunning.

The narration is provided by David Attenborough. This set does not include distorted comments by divers; the narration was added afterwards. Attenborough has years of experience with documentaries such as these. He's interesting, informative, and his presentation seems urgent and filled with suppressed excitement.

The music is very fitting and adds to the mood.

My favorite episode was The Deep which is simply astounding. The footage includes 60 percent of creatures never captured on camera before, and 30 percent which are completely new to science.

The crew are not the stars of these discs; the creatures are. This is not one of those documentaries that is full of people wanting to get their faces on film.

As I said, I didn't know I would be interested. This was a great addition to my DVD collection and I urge you to see it if at all possible. It will overwhelm you, give you a new appreciation for life, and make you feel very small.

Amazon currently has the whole set (around ten hours) for $38.99.

Here's an example, but please try to catch it on DVD http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9Er4dpUfrM

Warning: Very small children might find a couple of scenes shocking. A few creatures get eaten.

Sounds fantastic! Thank you for the recommendation!

 

[krista4]

The boyfriend and I are in the midst of 10 days of Master Cleanses...

...The Hoax

Depends upon what you're doing it for. But this is hardly the thread for that, GBJDD.

 

[jdoggydogg]

The boyfriend and I are in the midst of 10 days of Master Cleanses...

...The Hoax

Depends upon what you're doing it for. But this is hardly the thread for that, GBJDD.

You brought it up

 

[Musesboy]

There Will Be Blood

That's the first time I have ever seen Daniel Day-Lewis act

One of the most powerful performances I have ever seen. I thought the subject matter would bore me, but I was riveted throughout. The simple, repetitive score was effective in places too. I like movies that make me think. He was ruthless.

 

[jdoggydogg]

There Will Be Blood

That's the first time I have ever seen Daniel Day-Lewis act

One of the most powerful performances I have ever seen. I thought the subject matter would bore me, but I was riveted throughout. The simple, repetitive score was effective in places too. I like movies that make me think. He was ruthless.

Ruthless, and yet his relationship with his son was very powerful.Other must-see Lewis movies:

My Left Foot

The Last of the Mohicans

In the Name of the Father

Gangs of New York

 

[Musesboy]

There Will Be Blood

That's the first time I have ever seen Daniel Day-Lewis act

One of the most powerful performances I have ever seen. I thought the subject matter would bore me, but I was riveted throughout. The simple, repetitive score was effective in places too. I like movies that make me think. He was ruthless.

Ruthless, and yet his relationship with his son was very powerful.Other must-see Lewis movies:

My Left Foot

The Last of the Mohicans

In the Name of the Father

Gangs of New York

Thanks. I will definitely be checking those out at the earliest opportunity.

 

[urbanhack]

Death At A Funeral (2007)

Hilarious. That's the loudest I've laughed out loud watching a movie in a long time.

Eyes Wide Shut

This movie loses something after you've seen it once. I really, really liked it the first time I saw it, but thought it was "meh" the second time around.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

The Fall - 8/10

Gorgeous (especially on Blu-Ray) with very good performances by the leads. Excellent resolution to the story.

Soylent Green - 5/10

Further proof that there are precious few movies worth watching that were made pre 1976.

 

[jamny]

Forgetting Sarah Marshall The movie got funnier as it went along. I was annoyed by the long-haired guy in the beginning but was cracking up to him by the end. Might need a second viewing.

Good Lord is Mila Kunis amazing in it. Stunning. The movie isn't great but it's worth it just to see her.

 

[guru_007]

The Savages

I'm sure I saw this one based on a recommendation from this thread. Not sure who it was, but I didn't really think this movie was that good. My wife found it boring and I tended to agree with her. There were a few scenes/lines that made you chuckle, but all in all not that great. Like it didn't have anywhere near anything as good as "Little Miss Sunshine" had.....and if I want to recommend a movie about an elderly person dealing with dementia/alzheimers, I would be much quicker to recommend "Away from Her", as I found the performances (and score) in that one much superior. I don't necessarily think this is a bad movie, but I doubt I'll find myself ever watching it again. Rank it a 1.5/5.0 (add .5 if you are a big Laura Linney or Philip Seymour Hoffman fan).

 

[jdoggydogg]

The Savages

I'm sure I saw this one based on a recommendation from this thread. Not sure who it was, but I didn't really think this movie was that good. My wife found it boring and I tended to agree with her. There were a few scenes/lines that made you chuckle, but all in all not that great. Like it didn't have anywhere near anything as good as "Little Miss Sunshine" had.....and if I want to recommend a movie about an elderly person dealing with dementia/alzheimers, I would be much quicker to recommend "Away from Her", as I found the performances (and score) in that one much superior. I don't necessarily think this is a bad movie, but I doubt I'll find myself ever watching it again. Rank it a 1.5/5.0 (add .5 if you are a big Laura Linney or Philip Seymour Hoffman fan).

I agree with all of this. Away From Her was fantastic.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Eyes Wide Shut

This movie loses something after you've seen it once. I really, really liked it the first time I saw it, but thought it was "meh" the second time around.

I am the opposite. First time I saw it, I was , but I watched a couple more times and think it's great now.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Soylent Green - 5/10

Further proof that there are precious few movies worth watching that were made pre 1976.

That's a bold statement (and one I might agree with for the most part). Wondering why the cutoff is '76, though.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Watched Kung Fu Panda last night.

Was pleasantly surprised by this movie. Would say that it's my favorite kids movie for quite some time, and would probably rate it slightly ahead of The Incredibles (thought Incredibles was a tad too long and was annoyed by the character that made their superhero outfits). I'd recommend this movie to anyone.

 

[krista4]

The Savages

I'm sure I saw this one based on a recommendation from this thread. Not sure who it was, but I didn't really think this movie was that good. My wife found it boring and I tended to agree with her. There were a few scenes/lines that made you chuckle, but all in all not that great. Like it didn't have anywhere near anything as good as "Little Miss Sunshine" had.....and if I want to recommend a movie about an elderly person dealing with dementia/alzheimers, I would be much quicker to recommend "Away from Her", as I found the performances (and score) in that one much superior. I don't necessarily think this is a bad movie, but I doubt I'll find myself ever watching it again. Rank it a 1.5/5.0 (add .5 if you are a big Laura Linney or Philip Seymour Hoffman fan).

I was underwhelmed by The Savages but would highly recommend Away from Her.La Moustache: Seems half the movies I see these days have Emanuelle Devos and Mathieu Amarlic in them. My boyfriend and I were both really taken by the description of this movie: "Marc (Vincent Lindon) has worn a mustache all his adult life. One day on a whim, he decides to shave it off. Certain his wife will comment on the drastic change in his appearance, Marc is baffled when neither she nor friends notice at all. Even more disturbing is that once he calls attention to it, everyone insists he's never had a mustache." I mean, how could you not want to see that? In the end, it turns out to be a psychological suspense film, very well done, very well acted. I'm still a bit baffled by it, though. If you want clear plotlines and a tidy ending, this is NOT the movie for you. If you'd like something that reminds you of a Murakami story, this would be it. I'm eager to read the book on which it was based. Very interesting and odd, and worth seeing. 4.5/5

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Soylent Green - 5/10

Further proof that there are precious few movies worth watching that were made pre 1976.

That's a bold statement (and one I might agree with for the most part). Wondering why the cutoff is '76, though.

Because I think the "blockbuster" format, which started with Jaws in '76, has a lot going for it.The two biggest problems with movies like Soylent Green are:

1. The pacing is all off. Seems like every shot is a beat or two too long.

2. Lack of musical score to compliment the mood. Soylent Green, for example, has no music playing during the climax of the movie.

I guess I just like quick edits and soundtracks.

 

[yinzer]

There Will Be Blood

That's the first time I have ever seen Daniel Day-Lewis act

One of the most powerful performances I have ever seen. I thought the subject matter would bore me, but I was riveted throughout. The simple, repetitive score was effective in places too. I like movies that make me think. He was ruthless.

Ruthless, and yet his relationship with his son was very powerful.Other must-see Lewis movies:

My Left Foot

The Last of the Mohicans

In the Name of the Father

Gangs of New York

IMO, Last of the Mohicans is the greatest native american focused (i guess its more french and indian war focused, but..) movie ever madeIm sure theres a few Dances with Wolves fans here, but I think Last of the Mohicans takes the cake

If you dont think so, ask Magua

(and I think Gangs of New York is pretty underrated as..I remember it getting pretty bad reviews from critics and being talked about warmly by most, but I thought it was very well done)

 

[jdoggydogg]

Eyes Wide Shut

This movie loses something after you've seen it once. I really, really liked it the first time I saw it, but thought it was "meh" the second time around.

I am the opposite. First time I saw it, I was , but I watched a couple more times and think it's great now.

 

[jdoggydogg]

There Will Be Blood

That's the first time I have ever seen Daniel Day-Lewis act

One of the most powerful performances I have ever seen. I thought the subject matter would bore me, but I was riveted throughout. The simple, repetitive score was effective in places too. I like movies that make me think. He was ruthless.

Ruthless, and yet his relationship with his son was very powerful.Other must-see Lewis movies:

My Left Foot

The Last of the Mohicans

In the Name of the Father

Gangs of New York

IMO, Last of the Mohicans is the greatest native american focused (i guess its more french and indian war focused, but..) movie ever madeIm sure theres a few Dances with Wolves fans here, but I think Last of the Mohicans takes the cake

If you dont think so, ask Magua

(and I think Gangs of New York is pretty underrated as..I remember it getting pretty bad reviews from critics and being talked about warmly by most, but I thought it was very well done)

I've seen Last of the Mohicans and Dances With Wolves recently. Wolves is a joke. It has aged very poorly. Every year that goes by makes Mohicans look like the far better movie.Gangs of New York is a great movie with a horrific performance by Cameron Diaz.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Soylent Green - 5/10

Further proof that there are precious few movies worth watching that were made pre 1976.

That's a bold statement (and one I might agree with for the most part). Wondering why the cutoff is '76, though.

Because I think the "blockbuster" format, which started with Jaws in '76, has a lot going for it.The two biggest problems with movies like Soylent Green are:

1. The pacing is all off. Seems like every shot is a beat or two too long.

2. Lack of musical score to compliment the mood. Soylent Green, for example, has no music playing during the climax of the movie.

I guess I just like quick edits and soundtracks.

I always had a problem b/c to me in a lot of the old movies the actors seem wooden. It's as if they all speak a little faster and monotone or something (can't quite put my finger on it), but I do have problems sitting through a lot of old movies, which is unfortunate.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Soylent Green - 5/10

Further proof that there are precious few movies worth watching that were made pre 1976.

That's a bold statement (and one I might agree with for the most part). Wondering why the cutoff is '76, though.

Because I think the "blockbuster" format, which started with Jaws in '76, has a lot going for it.The two biggest problems with movies like Soylent Green are:

1. The pacing is all off. Seems like every shot is a beat or two too long.

2. Lack of musical score to compliment the mood. Soylent Green, for example, has no music playing during the climax of the movie.

I guess I just like quick edits and soundtracks.

I always had a problem b/c to me in a lot of the old movies the actors seem wooden. It's as if they all speak a little faster and monotone or something (can't quite put my finger on it), but I do have problems sitting through a lot of old movies, which is unfortunate.

As a guy that likes old movies, I still agree. The fact is that acting in a lot of these classic films is awful. I like the movies, I like the camera work. But some of these classic films are entertaining in spite of their mediocre acting.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Soylent Green - 5/10

Further proof that there are precious few movies worth watching that were made pre 1976.

That's a bold statement (and one I might agree with for the most part). Wondering why the cutoff is '76, though.

Because I think the "blockbuster" format, which started with Jaws in '76, has a lot going for it.The two biggest problems with movies like Soylent Green are:

1. The pacing is all off. Seems like every shot is a beat or two too long.

2. Lack of musical score to compliment the mood. Soylent Green, for example, has no music playing during the climax of the movie.

I guess I just like quick edits and soundtracks.

I always had a problem b/c to me in a lot of the old movies the actors seem wooden. It's as if they all speak a little faster and monotone or something (can't quite put my finger on it), but I do have problems sitting through a lot of old movies, which is unfortunate.

As a guy that likes old movies, I still agree. The fact is that acting in a lot of these classic films is awful. I like the movies, I like the camera work. But some of these classic films are entertaining in spite of their mediocre acting.

I agree that "some" are definitely worth while, but the hit rate is a lot less for me so I get frustrated and tend not to watch them. I could watch 10 recent movies and like 7-8 of them, or 10 old movies and like 1-2 of them.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Soylent Green - 5/10

Further proof that there are precious few movies worth watching that were made pre 1976.

That's a bold statement (and one I might agree with for the most part). Wondering why the cutoff is '76, though.

Because I think the "blockbuster" format, which started with Jaws in '76, has a lot going for it.The two biggest problems with movies like Soylent Green are:

1. The pacing is all off. Seems like every shot is a beat or two too long.

2. Lack of musical score to compliment the mood. Soylent Green, for example, has no music playing during the climax of the movie.

I guess I just like quick edits and soundtracks.

I always had a problem b/c to me in a lot of the old movies the actors seem wooden. It's as if they all speak a little faster and monotone or something (can't quite put my finger on it), but I do have problems sitting through a lot of old movies, which is unfortunate.

As a guy that likes old movies, I still agree. The fact is that acting in a lot of these classic films is awful. I like the movies, I like the camera work. But some of these classic films are entertaining in spite of their mediocre acting.

I agree that "some" are definitely worth while, but the hit rate is a lot less for me so I get frustrated and tend not to watch them. I could watch 10 recent movies and like 7-8 of them, or 10 old movies and like 1-2 of them.

I think that critics tend to glamorize the golden age of cinema and just assume that movies were better back then. I think that if you take 1940 - 1970 and then take 1970 to the present, you have a ton of bad movies in there. Somewhere around an 80% failure rate. But I wouldn't assert that any random modern movie is any better than any random classic film.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Soylent Green - 5/10

Further proof that there are precious few movies worth watching that were made pre 1976.

That's a bold statement (and one I might agree with for the most part). Wondering why the cutoff is '76, though.

Because I think the "blockbuster" format, which started with Jaws in '76, has a lot going for it.The two biggest problems with movies like Soylent Green are:

1. The pacing is all off. Seems like every shot is a beat or two too long.

2. Lack of musical score to compliment the mood. Soylent Green, for example, has no music playing during the climax of the movie.

I guess I just like quick edits and soundtracks.

I always had a problem b/c to me in a lot of the old movies the actors seem wooden. It's as if they all speak a little faster and monotone or something (can't quite put my finger on it), but I do have problems sitting through a lot of old movies, which is unfortunate.

As a guy that likes old movies, I still agree. The fact is that acting in a lot of these classic films is awful. I like the movies, I like the camera work. But some of these classic films are entertaining in spite of their mediocre acting.

I agree that "some" are definitely worth while, but the hit rate is a lot less for me so I get frustrated and tend not to watch them. I could watch 10 recent movies and like 7-8 of them, or 10 old movies and like 1-2 of them.

I think that critics tend to glamorize the golden age of cinema and just assume that movies were better back then. I think that if you take 1940 - 1970 and then take 1970 to the present, you have a ton of bad movies in there. Somewhere around an 80% failure rate. But I wouldn't assert that any random modern movie is any better than any random classic film.

Maybe part of it is the hype/expectations that I have going into it. All of the "best of" lists are clustered with old movies, giving the illusion that they are to be that much better. That combined with the acting/pacing in the movies and I usually end up being disappointed more often.

 

[El Floppo]

There Will Be Blood

That's the first time I have ever seen Daniel Day-Lewis act

One of the most powerful performances I have ever seen. I thought the subject matter would bore me, but I was riveted throughout. The simple, repetitive score was effective in places too. I like movies that make me think. He was ruthless.

Ruthless, and yet his relationship with his son was very powerful.Other must-see Lewis movies:

My Left Foot

The Last of the Mohicans

In the Name of the Father

Gangs of New York

IMO, Last of the Mohicans is the greatest native american focused (i guess its more french and indian war focused, but..) movie ever madeIm sure theres a few Dances with Wolves fans here, but I think Last of the Mohicans takes the cake

If you dont think so, ask Magua

(and I think Gangs of New York is pretty underrated as..I remember it getting pretty bad reviews from critics and being talked about warmly by most, but I thought it was very well done)

I've seen Last of the Mohicans and Dances With Wolves recently. Wolves is a joke. It has aged very poorly. Every year that goes by makes Mohicans look like the far better movie.Gangs of New York is a great movie with a horrific performance by Cameron Diaz.

The New World by Mallick is probably at the top of the Native American list for me- but I really like Mohicans too. Too much like Thin Red Line for me to call it great, but still a really beautiful movie worth seeing. I like Little Big Man too.

Wolves... I'm not going out on a limb- but Costner just can't act. He also doesn't seem to direct actors to give very good performances... unless we're talking about Postman, in which case everything is genius.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Just watched "The Host"...it's a Korean creature flick.

If you enjoy monster flicks at all...you should watch this...it's worth the rental. It can get a little slow in parts but I'm very surprised at the quality.

I can second that this is a worth a watch, it has good effects and a twisted sense of humor, perfect for a creature flick.

I saw the Host this weekend on cable television - have been wanting to see it for a while but it never made its way to the top of my netflix cue. I think it is quite a bit above average in the monster/horror category, definitely worth the time. The monster is very well done, the ending had a unique twist and the back story is great in my opinion. At a commercial break they said it is the most successful Korean movie of all time and that a 2009 sequel is underway (as was obviously expected given the ending). Also noted that it is a rare example of a S. Korean movie being accepted and very popular in north Korea, likely in part due to the US military's role as the bad guys.

 

[Cymru]

Snow Angels: excellent film, but a total bummer.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Soylent Green - 5/10

Further proof that there are precious few movies worth watching that were made pre 1976.

That's a bold statement (and one I might agree with for the most part). Wondering why the cutoff is '76, though.

Because I think the "blockbuster" format, which started with Jaws in '76, has a lot going for it.The two biggest problems with movies like Soylent Green are:

1. The pacing is all off. Seems like every shot is a beat or two too long.

2. Lack of musical score to compliment the mood. Soylent Green, for example, has no music playing during the climax of the movie.

I guess I just like quick edits and soundtracks.

I always had a problem b/c to me in a lot of the old movies the actors seem wooden. It's as if they all speak a little faster and monotone or something (can't quite put my finger on it), but I do have problems sitting through a lot of old movies, which is unfortunate.

As a guy that likes old movies, I still agree. The fact is that acting in a lot of these classic films is awful. I like the movies, I like the camera work. But some of these classic films are entertaining in spite of their mediocre acting.

I agree that "some" are definitely worth while, but the hit rate is a lot less for me so I get frustrated and tend not to watch them. I could watch 10 recent movies and like 7-8 of them, or 10 old movies and like 1-2 of them.

I think that critics tend to glamorize the golden age of cinema and just assume that movies were better back then. I think that if you take 1940 - 1970 and then take 1970 to the present, you have a ton of bad movies in there. Somewhere around an 80% failure rate. But I wouldn't assert that any random modern movie is any better than any random classic film.

Maybe part of it is the hype/expectations that I have going into it. All of the "best of" lists are clustered with old movies, giving the illusion that they are to be that much better. That combined with the acting/pacing in the movies and I usually end up being disappointed more often.

I have a hard time believing this is anything more than nostalgia. I have old movies that I love dearly (The Bad Seed, The Lady in the Lake, The Maltese Falcon, Sleeping Beauty, The Third Man, etc., etc., etc.) but I would never contend that they are any better than my modern favorites.

 

[jdoggydogg]

There Will Be Blood

That's the first time I have ever seen Daniel Day-Lewis act

One of the most powerful performances I have ever seen. I thought the subject matter would bore me, but I was riveted throughout. The simple, repetitive score was effective in places too. I like movies that make me think. He was ruthless.

Ruthless, and yet his relationship with his son was very powerful.Other must-see Lewis movies:

My Left Foot

The Last of the Mohicans

In the Name of the Father

Gangs of New York

IMO, Last of the Mohicans is the greatest native american focused (i guess its more french and indian war focused, but..) movie ever madeIm sure theres a few Dances with Wolves fans here, but I think Last of the Mohicans takes the cake

If you dont think so, ask Magua

(and I think Gangs of New York is pretty underrated as..I remember it getting pretty bad reviews from critics and being talked about warmly by most, but I thought it was very well done)

I've seen Last of the Mohicans and Dances With Wolves recently. Wolves is a joke. It has aged very poorly. Every year that goes by makes Mohicans look like the far better movie.Gangs of New York is a great movie with a horrific performance by Cameron Diaz.

The New World by Mallick is probably at the top of the Native American list for me- but I really like Mohicans too. Too much like Thin Red Line for me to call it great, but still a really beautiful movie worth seeing. I like Little Big Man too.

Wolves... I'm not going out on a limb- but Costner just can't act. He also doesn't seem to direct actors to give very good performances... unless we're talking about Postman, in which case everything is genius.

Costner seems to make movies that work when they are released (Bull Durham, Dances With Wolves). But these movies are embarrasingly bad when re-watched today.

 

[trogg78]

They Live. 8/10

"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ###, and I'm all out of bubblegum. "

YWIA

 

[KarmaPolice]

They Live. 8/10"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ###, and I'm all out of bubblegum. "YWIA

Love the 1/2 hour fight with Roddy and his buddy when he tries to get him to put on the sunglasses.

 

[jamny]

They Live. 8/10

"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ###, and I'm all out of bubblegum. "

YWIA

Love the 1/2 hour fight with Roddy and his buddy when he tries to get him to put on the sunglasses.

Always loved this movie.
.

 

[Bogart]

Playing a bit of catch-up:

Watched Brick with the wife last night. Dialog extremely over the top. My comment to my wife was "It was a bit chessy, yet entertaining. But if I was back in high school and this was out, I would have obsessed over it well into my early college years."

 

[belljr]

Not sure if this was mentioned.

Watched "We Own the Night" - Mark Walhberg, Jaquin Phoenix, Robert Duval. Pretty solid popcorn flick. A bit predictable but over all decent.

Plus you get to see Eva Mendes boob

 

[jdoggydogg]

Playing a bit of catch-up:

Watched Brick with the wife last night. Dialog extremely over the top. My comment to my wife was "It was a bit chessy, yet entertaining. But if I was back in high school and this was out, I would have obsessed over it well into my early college years."

This is a very highly-acclaimed movie I just don't get. I loved the concept of a film noir set in high school. Problem is, most young people are ####ty actors.

 

[saintfool]

Playing a bit of catch-up:

Watched Brick with the wife last night. Dialog extremely over the top. My comment to my wife was "It was a bit chessy, yet entertaining. But if I was back in high school and this was out, I would have obsessed over it well into my early college years."

i caught it again the other night on HBO actually. it held up pretty well for me. it's stylized but if you surrender to its ambition then it's very entertaining. it felt assured and not overwhelmed by its shtick.

 

[E Street Brat]

Soylent Green - 5/10

Further proof that there are precious few movies worth watching that were made pre 1976.

That's a bold statement (and one I might agree with for the most part). Wondering why the cutoff is '76, though.

Because I think the "blockbuster" format, which started with Jaws in '76, has a lot going for it.The two biggest problems with movies like Soylent Green are:

1. The pacing is all off. Seems like every shot is a beat or two too long.

2. Lack of musical score to compliment the mood. Soylent Green, for example, has no music playing during the climax of the movie.

I guess I just like quick edits and soundtracks.

I always had a problem b/c to me in a lot of the old movies the actors seem wooden. It's as if they all speak a little faster and monotone or something (can't quite put my finger on it), but I do have problems sitting through a lot of old movies, which is unfortunate.

As a guy that likes old movies, I still agree. The fact is that acting in a lot of these classic films is awful. I like the movies, I like the camera work. But some of these classic films are entertaining in spite of their mediocre acting.

I agree that "some" are definitely worth while, but the hit rate is a lot less for me so I get frustrated and tend not to watch them. I could watch 10 recent movies and like 7-8 of them, or 10 old movies and like 1-2 of them.

I think that critics tend to glamorize the golden age of cinema and just assume that movies were better back then. I think that if you take 1940 - 1970 and then take 1970 to the present, you have a ton of bad movies in there. Somewhere around an 80% failure rate. But I wouldn't assert that any random modern movie is any better than any random classic film.

Maybe part of it is the hype/expectations that I have going into it. All of the "best of" lists are clustered with old movies, giving the illusion that they are to be that much better. That combined with the acting/pacing in the movies and I usually end up being disappointed more often.

I have a hard time believing this is anything more than nostalgia. I have old movies that I love dearly (The Bad Seed, The Lady in the Lake, The Maltese Falcon, Sleeping Beauty, The Third Man, etc., etc., etc.) but I would never contend that they are any better than my modern favorites.

I came here to mention that I've been renting some of the so-called classics that I've never seen.

So far I rented "To Kill a Mocking Bird" & "Citizen Kane"

I thought "To Kill a Mocking Bird" was just awful, and C.Kane wasn't much better.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Death Sentence

Kevin Bacon is a lot better than this. While Jodie Foster's The Brave One was hardly a triumph of cinema, it at least contained a scintilla of worth. Death Sentence is an ugly, manipulative, gory, hoary, sophomoric revenge fantasy. Just horrible.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Soylent Green - 5/10

Further proof that there are precious few movies worth watching that were made pre 1976.

That's a bold statement (and one I might agree with for the most part). Wondering why the cutoff is '76, though.

Because I think the "blockbuster" format, which started with Jaws in '76, has a lot going for it.The two biggest problems with movies like Soylent Green are:

1. The pacing is all off. Seems like every shot is a beat or two too long.

2. Lack of musical score to compliment the mood. Soylent Green, for example, has no music playing during the climax of the movie.

I guess I just like quick edits and soundtracks.

I always had a problem b/c to me in a lot of the old movies the actors seem wooden. It's as if they all speak a little faster and monotone or something (can't quite put my finger on it), but I do have problems sitting through a lot of old movies, which is unfortunate.

As a guy that likes old movies, I still agree. The fact is that acting in a lot of these classic films is awful. I like the movies, I like the camera work. But some of these classic films are entertaining in spite of their mediocre acting.

I agree that "some" are definitely worth while, but the hit rate is a lot less for me so I get frustrated and tend not to watch them. I could watch 10 recent movies and like 7-8 of them, or 10 old movies and like 1-2 of them.

I think that critics tend to glamorize the golden age of cinema and just assume that movies were better back then. I think that if you take 1940 - 1970 and then take 1970 to the present, you have a ton of bad movies in there. Somewhere around an 80% failure rate. But I wouldn't assert that any random modern movie is any better than any random classic film.

Maybe part of it is the hype/expectations that I have going into it. All of the "best of" lists are clustered with old movies, giving the illusion that they are to be that much better. That combined with the acting/pacing in the movies and I usually end up being disappointed more often.

I have a hard time believing this is anything more than nostalgia. I have old movies that I love dearly (The Bad Seed, The Lady in the Lake, The Maltese Falcon, Sleeping Beauty, The Third Man, etc., etc., etc.) but I would never contend that they are any better than my modern favorites.

I came here to mention that I've been renting some of the so-called classics that I've never seen.

So far I rented "To Kill a Mocking Bird" & "Citizen Kane"

I thought "To Kill a Mocking Bird" was just awful, and C.Kane wasn't much better.

These are classic movies that hold up well and don't suffer from a ton of hype:The Night of the Hunter

A Night At The Opera

Beauty and the Beast

Twelve Angry Men

Fail Safe

Rififi

Diabolique

Repulsion

Shadow of a Doubt

 

[KarmaPolice]

Soylent Green - 5/10

Further proof that there are precious few movies worth watching that were made pre 1976.

That's a bold statement (and one I might agree with for the most part). Wondering why the cutoff is '76, though.

Because I think the "blockbuster" format, which started with Jaws in '76, has a lot going for it.The two biggest problems with movies like Soylent Green are:

1. The pacing is all off. Seems like every shot is a beat or two too long.

2. Lack of musical score to compliment the mood. Soylent Green, for example, has no music playing during the climax of the movie.

I guess I just like quick edits and soundtracks.

I always had a problem b/c to me in a lot of the old movies the actors seem wooden. It's as if they all speak a little faster and monotone or something (can't quite put my finger on it), but I do have problems sitting through a lot of old movies, which is unfortunate.

As a guy that likes old movies, I still agree. The fact is that acting in a lot of these classic films is awful. I like the movies, I like the camera work. But some of these classic films are entertaining in spite of their mediocre acting.

I agree that "some" are definitely worth while, but the hit rate is a lot less for me so I get frustrated and tend not to watch them. I could watch 10 recent movies and like 7-8 of them, or 10 old movies and like 1-2 of them.

I think that critics tend to glamorize the golden age of cinema and just assume that movies were better back then. I think that if you take 1940 - 1970 and then take 1970 to the present, you have a ton of bad movies in there. Somewhere around an 80% failure rate. But I wouldn't assert that any random modern movie is any better than any random classic film.

Maybe part of it is the hype/expectations that I have going into it. All of the "best of" lists are clustered with old movies, giving the illusion that they are to be that much better. That combined with the acting/pacing in the movies and I usually end up being disappointed more often.

I have a hard time believing this is anything more than nostalgia. I have old movies that I love dearly (The Bad Seed, The Lady in the Lake, The Maltese Falcon, Sleeping Beauty, The Third Man, etc., etc., etc.) but I would never contend that they are any better than my modern favorites.

I came here to mention that I've been renting some of the so-called classics that I've never seen.

So far I rented "To Kill a Mocking Bird" & "Citizen Kane"

I thought "To Kill a Mocking Bird" was just awful, and C.Kane wasn't much better.

Huh. Maybe it's more the book/story, but TKaMB is a top 10-20 movie all time for me.

 

[krista4]

Snow Angels: excellent film, but a total bummer.

I reviewed this one several pages back. It really is a fantastic movie, but so depressing.

 

[krista4]

Playing a bit of catch-up:

Watched Brick with the wife last night. Dialog extremely over the top. My comment to my wife was "It was a bit chessy, yet entertaining. But if I was back in high school and this was out, I would have obsessed over it well into my early college years."

This is a very highly-acclaimed movie I just don't get. I loved the concept of a film noir set in high school. Problem is, most young people are ####ty actors.

Couldn't get into it at all.

 

[trogg78]

They Live. 8/10"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ###, and I'm all out of bubblegum. "YWIA

Love the 1/2 hour fight with Roddy and his buddy when he tries to get him to put on the sunglasses.

I just read this on wikipedia:

The fight scene in They Live was reproduced nearly shot for shot in the South Park episode "Cripple Fight."

 

[Mrs. ACP]

These are classic movies that hold up well and don't suffer from a ton of hype:

The Night of the Hunter

A Night At The Opera

Beauty and the Beast

Twelve Angry Men

Fail Safe

Rififi

Diabolique

Repulsion

Shadow of a Doubt

I would add Arsenic and Old Lace to this list, but YMMV.