NOW WATCHING

recently in theaters- "I Am Legend" a bit slow but OK and "National Treasure"-very entertaining

For home use, recently got "Planet Terror", seen it in theater and loved it, BTW i am a zombie flick fan, this one is just over the top.
 
Christ...I've seen too many movies since I last posted here.

Well, I'll detail two for starters from the last month or so;

Platoon was on the TV 4 or 5 Saturdays back, so I decided I'd do myself a favour and finally get round to watching it.  It is, simply put, one of the most beautiful and harrowing Vietnam movies of all time (and certainly is up there with the best war movies of all time).  The repetitive use of sections from Barber's 'Adagio For Strings' in the opening and during Sgt. Elias' (Willem DeFoe) death scene halfway through the film is both jaw-dropping and agonising...it's reignited my passion for what is one of the most beautiful pieces of music ever written.  Charlie Sheen's acting is top-notch (which makes a change from all his equally brilliant comedy/parody numbers), and the entire film is well set, well directed, well scripted, and extremely representative.  Two thumbs up.

As for the cinema, I went to see Hitman a week or so ago.  It's nothing special, yet more enjoyable than the usual action fare churned out of the Hollywood factories.  I don't know how closely it follows the plot of the game, but the actions sequences were ridiculously over-the-top, as was to be expected.  The plot was very thin in places, though...as was the acting.  Like I said, an enjoyable way to kill 90 minutes.

I'll probably see I Am Legend tonight, which I'm hoping will be as good as I think it will (I esp. want to see how Will Smith handles with only having one other character to interact with during the first 30 minutes...especially since the said character has four legs and can't speak :P
 
Raven said:
Christ...I've seen too many movies since I last posted here.

Well, I'll detail two for starters from the last month or so;

Platoon was on the TV 4 or 5 Saturdays back, so I decided I'd do myself a favour and finally get round to watching it.  It is, simply put, one of the most beautiful and harrowing Vietnam movies of all time (and certainly is up there with the best war movies of all time).  The repetitive use of sections from Barber's 'Adagio For Strings' in the opening and during Sgt. Elias' (Willem DeFoe) death scene halfway through the film is both jaw-dropping and agonising...it's reignited my passion for what is one of the most beautiful pieces of music ever written.  Charlie Sheen's acting is top-notch (which makes a change from all his equally brilliant comedy/parody numbers), and the entire film is well set, well directed, well scripted, and extremely representative.  Two thumbs up.

As for the cinema, I went to see Hitman a week or so ago.  It's nothing special, yet more enjoyable than the usual action fare churned out of the Hollywood factories.  I don't know how closely it follows the plot of the game, but the actions sequences were ridiculously over-the-top, as was to be expected.  The plot was very thin in places, though...as was the acting.  Like I said, an enjoyable way to kill 90 minutes.

I'll probably see I Am Legend tonight, which I'm hoping will be as good as I think it will (I esp. want to see how Will Smith handles with only having one other character to interact with during the first 30 minutes...especially since the said character has four legs and can't speak :P
Click to expand...

THIS is what reviews should look like... FYI folks. At the very least five sentences...
 
Onhell said:
THIS is what reviews should look like... FYI folks. At the very least five sentences...
Click to expand...

Decided not to take your own advice there Onhell? :P

Onhell said:
And National Treasure was entertaining.

I finally saw Into the Wild and it was great. It differed from the book in that it made it seem his family drama was solely to blame for him traveling cross country and eventually to Alaska, when in the book he was given a deeper dimension of a free spirit... Anywho, great movie.
Click to expand...

I haven't been to the cinema in yonks, but the most recent movie I watched was Revenge Of The Sith, which as always, was excellent. The only thing wrong with this movie is Natalie Portman's scenes, her acting really brings down the level of the film, and her and Hayden Christensen's "love" scenes are crap, on both sides. Aside from that, the battle scenes are brilliantly done, and Anakin's decent into the Dark Side is very believable. Ian McDiarmid is the stand out actor I would say, as his portrayal of Supreme Chancellor Palpatine, and then Emperor Palpatine is just stellar.
 
Rather bizarrely, I haven't watched Revenge of the Sith since I saw it in the cinema...similarly with The Matrix: Revolutions.

I would certainly agree with you with regards to the battle sequences...that opening battle literally made jaws drop in the cinema.  However, I don't think the final lightsaber battle was as good as the one in Episode I; for a start, you know that neither Anakin nor Obi Wan will die, and the only real suspense comes from wondering how badly Anakin gets the shit beaten out of him.

Which, of course, brings us to the plot holes.

1. Obi Wan: 'I've just de-limbed you, Anakin, and I'm going to leave you to die a slow and agonising death by lava.  You're still the dick, though'
2. Obi Wan: 'You can't beat me, Anakin!  I have the high ground...just like General Grievous and Darth Maul did before I beat the crap out of them...'
3. Palpatine: 'Don't worry, Anakin...I have just the machinery you may be looking for, handily stored in my treasure vaults'
Etc., etc.

I'd agree with your assessment of McDiarmid's acting, though; he's easily the best one in the film.
 
In response to:

1. Obi Wan didn't want to have to watch his someone he thought of as a brother die slowly and agonisingly with only his hate fueling him, would you?

2. Grevious didn't have the high ground, and Maul was a different sort of high ground, Anakin and Obi Wan were both on level footing, while Obi Wan and Maul were not. Obi Wan was able to surprise Maul, whereas Obi Wan knew what Anakin was going to do.

3. Prosthetic limbs are very common in the Star Wars universe, hence the arms and legs being readily available, and there are many other advanced treatments, such as Bacta and whatnot, so why shouldn't there be something that can be constructed by medical droids?


Picking holes in plots really gets on my tits, its a movie, made for enjoyment, not so someone can go "Actually, if you look at scene 23, frame 2 and compare that to scene 98, frame 9, Yoda appears 1 millimetre taller. This should not be." ROTS wraps up nearly everything, in a way that pleases most fans, and does a fucking good job of it too.

/rant
 
I watched "The Kingdom".  This movie is based on a true story about an American complex in Saudi Arabia that is attacked by terrorists wishing for the demise of all foreign, i.e. American, presence on Saudi soil.  Jamie Foxx leads an FBI crew of four to the Middle Eastern country to discover the culprit(s) responsible.  The two countries have a good relationship, but their methods of crime solving are completely different.  The American FBI crime scene investigators use modern technology while the Saudi's use torture techniques.  One example of a cultural clash is when Jennifer Garner's character (Mayes), one of the FBI, lifts finger prints off a dead muslim.  The soldiers watching immediately complain and ask her to drop the hand.  The FBI's interpreter and baby-sitter, Faris - a local guard of the American complex, is helpful here by doing the job for the FBI.  The movies ends on a note that suggests violence begets violence.

I was in Arizona on location when this film was being filmed and my cousin pointed it out to me.  Of course, I saw nothing from the street except barricades.

The good parts:

1. The apartment action sequence. 
2. The highway explosion/crash/action sequence.
3. Watching Faris family life which shows the viewer a sympathetic and humane side of muslim life in Saudi Arabia.
4. The opening scene, which shows the inhumane side of muslim life - the terrorists.
5. Faris in general is a likeable character and probably the best one.  Garner's character is also likeable and believable.
6. I like the fact that Faris accompanies the FBI everywhere.  This makes the movie more real.
7. The movies starts with an overview of an American-Saudi history, often focusing on the oil industry.  One of the extras even has a timeline on this subject.  I recommend it for a quick history lesson.

The bad parts:
1. The swearing.  The FBI is in a foreign country.  I'd think they'd be instructed back home to cut down their curse words in front of a culture that clearly does not appreciate it.
2. Foxx' character (Fleury) punches an army general (???) in defense of Faris without consequence.  I find this unlikely.
3. The ending action sequence also suggests that the Saudis don't mind having a whole apartment complex shut up by the FBI.  Nonsense.  The movie makes is very clear that the FBI is there to investigate, not to arrest and certainly not to take justice into their own hands.
4. There is a kidnapping in a movie which was acted well, but the follow-up chase scene is not likely despite its entertainment value.  I think that in reality the most likely course of action would have been for a man like Faris to inform Saudi authorities and leave them to do the rescuing and fighting, but then our heroes would not have had a chance to look so damn cool while kicking ass.  Action was peddled at the expense of reality.  Even though I enjoyed the action scenes, I would have preferred something more slow and cerebral like a CSI movie in Saudi Arabia.
 
from TimesOnline

Ofcom to probe Catherine Tate Christmas special

Watchdogs will launch an inquiry into Catherine Tate’s comedy special after complaints by viewers that it was the most offensive programme ever broadcast by the BBC on a Christmas Day.

Viewers complained of excessive use of the “f-word” by Tate’s foul-mouthed character Nan. A sketch depicting a Northern Irish family as terrorists prompted accusations of bigotry.

The sketch show attracted 6.4 million viewers to BBC One at 10:30pm on Christmas night. The BBC defended the show, describing Tate as a comedy genius. But Ofcom said it would examine the programme after receiving complaints about offensive language. The inquiry will ask whether the programme was appropriate for Christmas night, when many children would be watching.

Viewers complained that the programme, which followed the more placid To The Manor Born, began with an avalanche of swearing from Nan Taylor. Kathy Burke, playing her daughter, embarked upon a swearing competition with Nan.

The representation of a family in Northern Ireland receiving Christmas presents attracted complaints that Tate was exploiting lazy stereotypes. The grandmother opens her present to find a balaclava, which she puts over her head. Her husband receives a knuckleduster which he excitedly uses to punch a chair. The mother’s gift is an apron with a balaclava-clad terrorist and the words “Remember Everything, Forgive Nothing”. A gay son is handed a chocolate penis.

One viewer wrote on the BBC online message board: “What had the contents of this to do with Christmas? Crude language just for the sake of it – and being repeated time and time again.” Another commented: “Maybe the lowest point for BBC One on Christmas Day... ever.”

Ms Tate admitted that the language might have got out of hand. “I don’t know how this Christmas special got so depraved because it isn’t what I set out to do,” she told Radio Times. The sketch between Nan and her daughter required a “climactic aspect when you’re topping each other” with greater feats of swearing.

A spokesman for the BBC said: “Catherine Tate creates characters who are so over the top as to be almost cartoon-like and this is where her genius lies. Her comedy is never meant to offend any viewer and is always based on satire and grotesque exaggeration.” The Nan character’s foul language was “fundamental to what makes her funny” and the show was preceded by a warning that it contained strong language. The BBC received about 100 complaints through telephone and internet message boards.

Tate, 39, was nominated for an Emmy and won a British Comedy Award for her show, which began on BBC Two. She has no plans to make a further series and said that she wanted to retire the show before the characters got stale. She will revive her role as David Tennant’s assistant in the next series of Doctor Who.

A spokesman for Ofcom said: “We have received complaints about offensive language and content in the Catherine Tate Christmas Show and we will look into the matter.”

Tate showed her determination to move on by sending her most famous creation, Lauren, the schoolgirl whose catchphrase was “Am I bovvered?”, in the special episode, on a fatal canoeing trip.

Bovvered?

“Am I bovvered? Look at my face. Is my face bovvered?”
Lauren Cooper

“What a f***in’ liberty!”
Joannie “Nan” Taylor

“The dirty robbing b******s!"
Janice and Ray

“Who, dear? Me, dear? Gay, dear? No, dear!”
Derek Faye
Click to expand...

What I personally find most offensive about this program is that it can be labelled a comedy. It must be the least funny TV program I have ever had the misfortune to view. Has anybody else seen this program, and does anyone have a toolbox full of screws loose that they have actually laughed during it?
 
national acrobat said:
What I personally find most offensive about this program is that it can be labelled a comedy. It must be the least funny TV program I have ever had the misfortune to view. Has anybody else seen this program, and does anyone have a toolbox full of screws loose that they have actually laughed during it?
Click to expand...
Oh, best I not confess to actually finding Catherine Tate funny. :D

I have not seen the Christmas Special yet - but have it recorded to view at another date.

I did watch recently, Spiderman 2. And I have to say it was every bit as enjoyable as the first movie. What I like about these Spiderman movies is they way they show the vulnerability side of Peter Parker - after all, most Super Heroes are 30+, Peter Parker is still a teenager. The scene where he washes his outfit in a laundrette and finds he has put in his white boxer shorts in with it. And when he saves a train load of people from a potentially fatal crash only to have his energy almost completely drained, he collapses, and is saved from falling by some of the passengers. They body surf him back into the train and see his face - "He's just a kid, no older than my own son." Good movie.

I also watched good knows how many screen adaptations of umpteen Dickens novels (well, around five), but the most impressive one was the BBC's Oliver Twist. The casting was pretty good with this effort and just shades Alan Bleasdale's interpretation of which I watched a couple of years back.
 
I'm not a big fan of comic films, but I agree with Albie, the first two Spiderman films are really good.
 
I thought that every Spider-man film was terrible. Bored the hole off me, and yet I went to see the next one, out of hope that they would possibly become better. Sadly, that wasn't the case. If anyone has not seen the trailer for The Dark Knight, please go and watch it now, as it looks amazing. kthxbai
 
Albie said:
Oh, best I not confess to actually finding Catherine Tate funny. :D

I have not seen the Christmas Special yet - but have it recorded to view at another date.

I did watch recently, Spiderman 2. And I have to say it was every bit as enjoyable as the first movie. What I like about these Spiderman movies is they way they show the vulnerability side of Peter Parker - after all, most Super Heroes are 30+, Peter Parker is still a teenager. The scene where he washes his outfit in a laundrette and finds he has put in his white boxer shorts in with it. And when he saves a train load of people from a potentially fatal crash only to have his energy almost completely drained, he collapses, and is saved from falling by some of the passengers. They body surf him back into the train and see his face - "He's just a kid, no older than my own son." Good movie.
Click to expand...

I agree, the third one was a real let down, but the first two, as Perun pointed out and Hunlord is too much of an alien to see (:p), were good films.

I also watched good knows how many screen adaptations of umpteen Dickens novels (well, around five), but the most impressive one was the BBC's Oliver Twist. The casting was pretty good with this effort and just shades Alan Bleasdale's interpretation of which I watched a couple of years back.
Click to expand...

Excuse me sir. Could I have some mo'e? :D
 
No bend?  Why, has Onhell sprained his back?  Will he be unable to tie his shoe laces without squatting down?  Will he ever achieve his goal of picking up 3000 apple cores in a single day?!

On topic, I watched The Good, The Bad and the Ugly the other night, and Spartacus the day after.  The former is as brilliant as I remember, with the battle over the bridge 2/3 of the way through being particularly impressive.  Clint Eastwood's character is brilliant, as is that of Tuco.  Spartacus was very, very long, and sort of disappointing after Yul Brynner died...just kidding, it was epic as they come, and with some great action scenes, too.
 
Raven said:
On topic, I watched The Good, The Bad and the Ugly the other night, and Spartacus the day after.  The former is as brilliant as I remember, with the battle over the bridge 2/3 of the way through being particularly impressive.  Clint Eastwood's character is brilliant, as is that of Tuco. 
Click to expand...

One of the best movies of all time.  I liked it since seeing it as a kid and it is still great.  This is one of the few gems that do not grow old.  The soundtrack is also my favourite of all time.
 
I watched Music and Lyrics with Hugh Grant and Drew Barrymore last night. I thought it was a pretty neat movie. Grant has to write a song for a Britney wannabe in about 5 days. Barrymore, who doesn't have a clue on how to write a song, was watering the plants, and while Grant was playing the piano she was inspired to sing a line and he thought it fit the song. All in all, a good movie, but probably not for the people in this forum  :lol: j/k

Raven: Yul Brynner is brilliant in The Ten Commandments as Rameses II. That movie is a true classic! I have yet to see The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly...

...And over New Year's we watched Goldmember and Beavis and Butt-Head Do America. LMAO!!  :D
 
Genghis Khan said:
One of the best movies of all time.  I liked it since seeing it as a kid and it is still great.  This is one of the few gems that do not grow old.  The soundtrack is also my favourite of all time.
Click to expand...

Everything in this movie fits.  The wardrobe is classic.  I have not seen this movie in a while but what character was wearing black?  The music is awesome.  Love it!  Great movie PG, you have got to rent it!!! :ok:
 
National Treasure 2. As others have said, it's very good. I thought it had slightly more action and slightly less puzzle-solving than the first one. If you're interested in historical accuracy, this sequel is even more outrageously inaccurate than the first, if that's possible. But forget that, suspend thy disbelief, and you'll enjoy it. And don't make the mistake of thinking it's a formulaic plot. Don't make any assumptions about any characters. :bigsmile:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top