Movie Thread (All forms)

[BiscuitintheBasket]

Saw Drive Angry this weekend in 3D.



First things first... Cage's acting is (as usual) awful.



Secondly... the plot is pretty predictable and full of more than a few holes.



With that said, I was really surprised at how much I enjoyed the movie. Since 3D came back into vogue, this is the first movie I've seen to actually utilize the technology without just adding depth to the background of the screen. In fact, I would go so far as to say that they used it better than Avatar... I got through the entire movie and didn't actually get a headache from the glasses. From bullets firing at the screen to barely being splattering with brain matter, it was 3D the way I always imagined it could be.



As for the plot - if you liked the old grindhouse movies... this is right up that alley. Fast cars, tits, guns and satanists - there's really not much more to the movie and for what it is, it's a pretty good time. Definitely not a "thinker" but schlocky fun and made for popcorn.



I don't usually recommend this... but if you're thinking about seeing this, I would say spend the extra couple bucks and go 3D.

Yea we went to go see Drive Angry in 3D over the weekend. I was not expecting Cage or even the plot to entertainment (though I oddly find Cage's poor acting entertaining), I was there for the 3D which I had been told was good. And indeed the 3D was good overall. The best part is the plot fit very well, and the overt 3D-ness was not cheesy. Now if the theater had chairs that moved/vibrated with the action and such I would have thought I was there.

 

[Bringmepie]

Watched "The Limey" last night. It was rated quite highly by Netflix users and appeared on my recommended list for gritty crime dramas. I think all the timeline jumps ruined the story they were trying to tell. Sometimes that works well in a film, sometimes it justs make it wearisome to try and develop the plot/characters. Still worth a netflix if you haven't seen it. Basic story: Terance Stamp plays tuff Brit ex-con searching for answers and vengeance in regards to the death of his daughter.



I'm also really enjoying "The Pacific". Watched episodes 5 & 6 last night.

Wha??? It's not like the time jumps in say "Pulp Fiction", really they were pretty normal flashback sequences, the only novelty being that they used scenes from an old movie Stamp wasin from the 60's for the flashbacks.

 

[Ymono37]

Watched "Monsters" on Netflix this weekend. I remember it being in the theaters for a very short time and it looked interesting so when I saw it on the "new movies" section in Netflix streaming, I figured I'd check it out. The movie was done on a very, very small budget, shot on location and all but the two main leads were locals with no acting experience. This actually added a sense of realism to the movie that I appreciated. I really liked this movie and what could have easily just turned into another creature feature ended up being a romance story with a science fiction background and some social commentary on immigration and war.



The story revolves around a freelance photographer who is trying to get pictures of a an alien creature that has multiplied and "infected" the northern half of Mexico... now known as the "Infected Zone" and predominantly evacuated. In response to this, the US aids in trying to destroy the creatures as well as building a giant wall between the US and Mexico (obviously, the obvious political statement being made in the film). The photog gets re-routed when the owner of the newspaper he works for tasks him with getting his daughter out of Mexico and back home... here the adventure starts and it's a good one. They director/writer/special effects guy does a great job building suspense and finds a way to tell a good story that doesn't revolve around the creatures, but that merely includes them as a device to move the plot along.



Very good... if you like creature features, I'd recommend but would also tell you not to rely on it to be too much of that kind of movie. I was also really impressed that for the small sum they made the movie on, just how good the effects were.

 

[TSD]

Watched "Monsters" on Netflix this weekend. I remember it being in the theaters for a very short time and it looked interesting so when I saw it on the "new movies" section in Netflix streaming, I figured I'd check it out. The movie was done on a very, very small budget, shot on location and all but the two main leads were locals with no acting experience. This actually added a sense of realism to the movie that I appreciated. I really liked this movie and what could have easily just turned into another creature feature ended up being a romance story with a science fiction background and some social commentary on immigration and war.



The story revolves around a freelance photographer who is trying to get pictures of a an alien creature that has multiplied and "infected" the northern half of Mexico... now known as the "Infected Zone" and predominantly evacuated. In response to this, the US aids in trying to destroy the creatures as well as building a giant wall between the US and Mexico (obviously, the obvious political statement being made in the film). The photog gets re-routed when the owner of the newspaper he works for tasks him with getting his daughter out of Mexico and back home... here the adventure starts and it's a good one. They director/writer/special effects guy does a great job building suspense and finds a way to tell a good story that doesn't revolve around the creatures, but that merely includes them as a device to move the plot along.



Very good... if you like creature features, I'd recommend but would also tell you not to rely on it to be too much of that kind of movie. I was also really impressed that for the small sum they made the movie on, just how good the effects were.

Agreed, when I grabbed that on NF, I expected it to be low rate B-movie trash and was pleasantly surprised.

 

[MassHavoc]

Agreed, when I grabbed that on NF, I expected it to be low rate B-movie trash and was pleasantly surprised.

The trailer looks horrible, but putting it together with what was said about it and maybe I"ll give it a chance.

 

[Ymono37]

The trailer looks horrible, but putting it together with what was said about it and maybe I"ll give it a chance.

It's not super long either, so you don't have to make a major time committment.



Hell, I think Ebert even gave it 3.5 stars...

 

[MassHavoc]

It's not super long either, so you don't have to make a major time committment.



Hell, I think Ebert even gave it 3.5 stars...

That's not helping your case with me. hah

 

[Ymono37]

That's not helping your case with me. hah

Out of the movie reviewers I've read, he's the one I typically agree with the most. He's not afraid to call something pretentious or just say something along the lines of, "was this a good movie? no. But it was entertaining..."



Maybe I'm just jaded because I think Matt Pais in the Redeye is a fucking art-house snob and Dan Gire from the Herald is always only so-so.

 

[IceHogsFan]

So Battle: Los Angeles last night. Some corny moments but overall enjoyed the flick and so did my daughter. A good movie to see at the theater with surround sound, deep bass and big screen. Some pretty intense action scenes but it surely to be a low rated film by "critics".

 

[chasman]

Watched the AMERICAN on DVD last night , was not impressed, surprised Clooney was in that one.

 

[MassHavoc]

Watched the AMERICAN on DVD last night , was not impressed, surprised Clooney was in that one.

I was wondering about that one, was going to watch it to give Clooney the benefit of the doubt but after I saw the reviews from EVERYONE... man I just don't think I can do it.

 

[TSD]

Watched the AMERICAN on DVD last night , was not impressed, surprised Clooney was in that one.

Total snoozefest for me. Ive seen enough of the "Im too hardcore to fall in love" story and they did it in a very boring manner.

 

[winos5]

Total snoozefest for me. Ive seen enough of the "Im too hardcore to fall in love" story and they did it in a very boring manner.

I thought it was advertised as spy/suspenseful thriller type flick?

 

[Ymono37]

Saw "Get Him to the Greek" on cable yesterday. I didn't go in with very high expectations, but I absolutely loved "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" so I figured it was worth a shot. It wasn't believable in the slightest, and they never really address (or if they do I didn't notice) whether Jonah Hill's character is supposed to be the same one from Sarah Marshall but it had a certain level of entertainment. Mind you, most of that comes from those people who enjoy Russel Brand or Sean Combs (or whatever the **** his name is this week) swearing, but it was a mindless romp. There was a twist in the third act that didn't really make sense and to me wasn't really necessary to further the plot but just act as a scene to make the viewer uncomfortable... and it really made it hard to tell how the rest of this movie was going to unfold.



Anyway, definitely not for everyone. If Russel Brand already grates on you, this movie is not going to make him any less so. For all the movies fault though, it wasn't horrible - just think they should have had Jason Segel return to writing duties to give a better flow and voice to the characters he created.

 

[winos5]

Watched "Red"



An entertaining action flick. Wondering how this got golden globe nominations though(according to the netflix sleeve). Worth a look.

 

[IceHogsFan]

Watched "Red"



An entertaining action flick. Wondering how this got golden globe nominations though(according to the netflix sleeve). Worth a look.

Enjoyed it as well.

 

[TSD]

Saw "Get Him to the Greek" on cable yesterday. I didn't go in with very high expectations, but I absolutely loved "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" so I figured it was worth a shot. It wasn't believable in the slightest, and they never really address (or if they do I didn't notice) whether Jonah Hill's character is supposed to be the same one from Sarah Marshall but it had a certain level of entertainment. Mind you, most of that comes from those people who enjoy Russel Brand or Sean Combs (or whatever the **** his name is this week) swearing, but it was a mindless romp. There was a twist in the third act that didn't really make sense and to me wasn't really necessary to further the plot but just act as a scene to make the viewer uncomfortable... and it really made it hard to tell how the rest of this movie was going to unfold.



Anyway, definitely not for everyone. If Russel Brand already grates on you, this movie is not going to make him any less so. For all the movies fault though, it wasn't horrible - just think they should have had Jason Segel return to writing duties to give a better flow and voice to the characters he created.

I agree. At that scene I was like...really? and it was just depressing, far too serious for a comedy.

 

[TSD]

I thought it was advertised as spy/suspenseful thriller type flick?

I swear to God there were like 2 action scenes in the entire film.

 

[the canadian dream]

http://www.banksyfilm.com/



http://www.banksyfilm.com/videos.html?reload



Just watched "Exit Through The Gift Shop".



Soooo much to love about this documentary including the conspiracy now surrounding it if it was real or a piece of performance art or what some would call a "hoax". Hard to explain it you will have to watch it and I don't want to give anything away for those who would be interested. And you would have to know about Banksy the street artist to see how it could be a hoax. But even if you don't know about Banksy you can pick up on the "hmmmmm" factor in the film. I am still not sure where I stand on if this is a hoax or not. It def has that Andy Kaufmanesque (thats the easiest person to compare the possible anticts too) qualities behind it though.



Anyone who is interested in street art this is a must see film. BHP this is a film that I know would be right up your alley so I highly recommend it to you. Anyone who is interested in art in general or good docu films this is a must see. And again the ? marks behind it now really add to its enjoyment.



No wonder it was nominated for an academy award. It's actually a brilliant film.



GO WATCH!!

 

[tvltre]

So Battle: Los Angeles last night. Some corny moments but overall enjoyed the flick and so did my daughter. A good movie to see at the theater with surround sound, deep bass and big screen. Some pretty intense action scenes but it surely to be a low rated film by "critics".

I have been trying to get a hold of the reason why critics are panning this movie. Did Columbia Pictures, Jon Liebesman, or Eckhart piss in someones coffee?



For one, it's a sci-fi film, two...its a action flick, three...it's awesome loud!



I of course have a lot of family who are or were in the military. The Corps were very well represented by this film. "Marines don't quit!"



Anyway, the cinematography was awesome and really thank Liebsman from not bending to the industry pressure to go 3D for this film.

In making the film, Liebsman was trying to catch the feel from movies like Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down and United 93's documentary feel. So, that your seeing the action from the soldiers POV. Which he thought would be dangerous if it was converted to 3D.



{From Filmschoolrejects.com} interview:

My final question: There was a bit of talk that Battle may be post converted into 3D, is that happening?



No, no. It’s too handheld, and you’d throw up in two minutes



Would love to see this movie again!