IT STINKS!!! ...or not.

[Reply #640 on:]

The gnome rules!!!!

A Mighty Wind

I finally saw this movie. And it's excellent. It's not extremely funny but it has it's moments. The acting is great, they're all very good comedians. The songs are incredible also (go buy the soundtrack now!!)And the end is very touching and funny. Highly Recommended.

[Reply #641 on:]

 

Originally posted by Mr. Potter:
The gnome rules!!!!

He said it! You all saw it! And nobody was injecting anyone with anything while he did!

[Reply #642 on:]

The Core
This movie was horrible. The science was totally wrong, the acting was horrible, and that hacker guy's nose kept distracting me. The core of the earth stops spinning, superstorms (Which apparently create movie cliches), microwave outbreaks, and birds attacking british people (Where have I heard that before?). So, in order to get it spinning again, they want to nuke it with a measly thousand megaton blast. Good luck, scientists of the moron! So, the only part I really liked about this was

Show spoiler

everyones various deaths and the part where the hacker guy is visited by the FBI, and starts defribulating his computers (Which is dangerous, by the way), and throwing CDs/Floppies into the microwave/toaster

Speli gives it a D+

[Reply #643 on:]

Lost in Translation

Amazing movie! Sofia Coppola has a great future in front of her if she keeps doing movies as great as this one. The screenplay is Academy Award worthy. Bill Murray's performance is one of the best, if not the best of the year (much better than Sean Penn in Mystic River). Scarlett Johansson was robbed of a nomination for her excellent performance as a confused and lonely married young adult. The technical aspects are very good. This movie obviously doesn't need special effects and that kind of things, but the cinematography and the editing are top notch. Easily the 2nd best movie of the year (after Return of the King).
Highly Recommended

[Reply #644 on:]

School of rock

I went to the cinema and I saw School Of Rock today. The film was brilliant and Jack Black was so cool. The kids are the stars from the movie they can really play their instrument. I also like that song in the end of the film. I am downloading it right now.

[Reply #645 on:]

The Big Bounce
To paraphrase a good movie (Ghost World), this movie is so bad it went past good and back to bad. I can enjoy a lot of really bad movies but this honestly had me sitting quietly in jaw-dropped shock. Nothing about this movie was good. Not even Owen Wilson. He was the least bad thing about it but not good enough to even justify watching the movie for free. Entertainment Weekly gave this movie a B+. They must be on drugs because I rate this the worst movie ever made.

[Reply #646 on:]

If anyone other than Native NYC'ers (like me) are interested in the NYC gangs, then the movie for you to see is The Warriors. Its set on a one nite time, where a gang known as the warriors is blamed for the shooting death of the head honco of all the gangs Cyrus. Now there is a man hunt out for the gang. Meanwhile the Warriors are trying hard to get back to their "safe grounds". It was a very interesting movie. Showed me how much the area has changed since the late 70's (would you believe the subways are cleaner now?) anywell, thats all I got.

[Reply #647 on:]

So, those are modern gangs? Or the gangs depicted on Scorsese's Gangs of New York?

[Reply #648 on:]

70s gangs.  Really styilizd ones, with names like "The Baseball Furies" and "The Grammercy Riffs."

I agree, though, The Warriors is a really good movie.  A friend just bought it for me on DVD.  Would you believe it's loosely based on Greek mythology?

[Reply #649 on:]

I never new that it was based on Mythology. But now that you mention it, it kinda does make sense.

[Reply #650 on:]

Yeah, it's loosely based on Xenophon's "Anabasis," an historical account of how ten thousand Greek mercenaries fought their way across Persia in a long retreat to the sea in 401 B.C., constantly tested by the gods through a series of potentially deadly trials.  Or so I hear.

[Reply #651 on:]

Wow, thats good to know. Kinda cool too. Thanks for the info!!!

[Reply #652 on:]

I just took in my first ever viewing of the Portland International Film Festival, and if all the movies are this good, I think I may just be spending $230 each year for a full pass.

The Saddest Music in the World
I just saw this less than two hours ago and I'm still dizzy with excitement and enthusiasm for a film that is immediately on my Top 20 list of favorite movies.  Not counting its Sundance screening, PIFF is the American premiere of this film, and boy am I glad I'm among the first Americans to see it.  From start to finish, it is simply the greatest, funniest, most unique film I've seen in God knows how long. 
As I doubt many here know the gist of the film, I'll give a brief plot summary:
It's 1933.  Legless beer baroness Lady Port-Huntly (Isabella Rosselini) knows the prohibition movement will soon be over in America, and she wants to get a piece of the action.  But what will put people in the mood to drink her beer?  Sad music.  She decides to hold a contest to locate the country with the saddest music.  The winners will receive twenty-five thousand Depression-era dollars.  Competitors in this gala include sleazeball Chester Kent (Mark McKinney) and his girlfriend/sex object Narcissa (Maria de Medeiros), who happens to have a talking tapeworm, from America.  There's also Chester's father (David Fox) competing for Canada, and estranged brother Roderick (Ross McMillan), a depressed Serbian hypochondriac who carries around his dead son's heart "preserved in my own tears" in a jar.  If the contest and characters weren't strange enough, there's also two love triangles involved, both of which are tied to Chester.
The film is directed by Guy Maddin and shot in Super 8mm black and white, and what my PIFF guide calls "melan-color."  It's grainy and blurry at times, but that only adds to the notion that this is, indeed, a 30's film.  The acting is top-notch.  Every actor, no matter how small the part, excels here.  The set design is also wonderful in a cross between Christmastown and something Ed Wood might have concocted.  Kazuo Ishiguro and Maddin have crafted a witty, intelligent script here that never loses its freshness and vitality.  Maddin's direction is also wonderful.  I haven't seen any of his prior work, but if it's half as unique as this, I'll definitely check it out.  IFC Films has picked this up for distribution, and I highly recommend that everyone see this film if they want a truly engrossing, truly odd and truly hysterical cinema experience.

For those in the Portland area, on Wednesday at 7 at the Guild Theater, there will be another screening of this film and there is a high possibility Guy Maddin will be present.  I know I'm going.  If not to see the director, then to drool over the crude yet sophisticated character that is Chester Kent. 

[Reply #653 on:]

The Hot Chick – I like this one and I thought it was good. Rob Schneider was really cool. There this scene that I like where he was in the night club and he was showing off his dance skills. Anna Faris was in it as Rob’s best friend. I think I seen her somewhere but I can’t remember what film she is from. I can look it up over the Internet soon

[Reply #654 on:]

@Juliet: 1) Anna Farris was the main character in all 3 Scary Movies.
2) You're joking, right?  You actually liked the Hot Chick?  Well, whatever.

[Reply #655 on:]

Oh yes she plays Cindy with the black hair. Yeah that’s where I seen her. I liked The Hot Chick a little bit.

[Reply #656 on:]

"Rob Schenider has been an animal. Rob Schneider has been a woman. And now...Rob Schneider...is a STAPLER! And Rob Schneider is going to find out that being a stapler. Is
harder than it looks!"

[Reply #657 on:]

 

Originally posted by BumbleBeeTheta:
I just took in my first ever viewing of the Portland International Film Festival, and if all the movies are this good, I think I may just be spending $230 each year for a full pass.

Hooray! Enjoy visiting Oregon as much I enjoy living here. Portland's a pretty cool city, though I live in the 'burbs myself.

[Reply #658 on:]

Actually, I live in Oregon too.  I've just never been to PIFF before.  There's a first time for everything, though. 

[Reply #659 on:]

The Runaway Jury

I liked this movie.  Of course, I'm a little biased, Gene Hackman being my all-time favourite actor.  Still, considering all the ways that legal thrillers can go wrong (and there are hundreds), this one didn't do too bad.

I gotta wonder why the big, heartless corperation the case involved in the movie was switched to a gun manufacturer, instead of a tobacco company, as in the book.  If I was 100% cynical, I'd believe the stories that 20th Century Fox has vested interest in tobacco companies.  If I was 100% naieve, I'd believe the sotries that the screenwriters though tobbacco trail stories had been done to death by other movies like A Civil Action.  Unfortunatly, I'm neither, and so don't know who to believe.  Anyway, the switch is handeled well, even if it does require a bit of suspension of disbelief.

My biggest complaint is that the sub-plot about Millie Dupree and her husband Hoppy (which seemed tacked-on in the book) is given even less of an excuse to exist in the film: it's mentioned twice, and then nothing is ever done about it, nor is it ever spoken about again.  I actually believe if one of the references to it didn't lead into the big scene between John Cusack and Cliff Curtis, it'd gotten cut.  (Interestingly, the DVD contains a deleted scene that gives a little more of a conclusion to this subplot by suggesting something will maybe be done, but nothing definate).  Come to think of it, none of the jurors is given anything much to do (which is especially unfortunate becuase one of the jurors is Luis Guzman) but react to John Cusack's character.

Hackman is great, but this is the kind of role he can play in his sleep.  Dustin Hoffman is great as well, although the Southern accent he uses sounds very similar at times to the voice he used as Tootsie.  John Cusack... well, I like John Cusack, but it seemed to me that he was just coasting along on this movie being "likeable John Cusack character 3c."  As for Rachel Weiz, considering she had such an important role, I find it hard to believe she left no real impression on my mind.

In the end, though, a film like this lives or dies by it's script.  While the script is nothing special, the movie doesn't die.

Rating: B

[Reply #660 on:]

My Architect

If you enjoy a good documentary, I highly recommend this. This film is by Nathaniel Kahn, son of architect Louis Kahn, as he digs through his father's past... which proves to be quite hard. Louis had 3 lives... with his wife and eldest daughter, and with two other women, with whom he had Nathaniel and his half-sister. The families never met until his funeral. Louis Kahn died in 1974 at the age of 73, while his son was 11 years old. He was found dead of a heart attack in a men's bathroom in Penn Station, his passport scribbled over. As a result, he was not identified for several days... and in this film Nathaniel tries to find what brought his father to that point, by visiting the people and places he knew, interviewing old friends, co-workers, and his own family along the way.

I dunno if this review is any good... I haven't done one here. Eh... anyway, the movie is a good watch, funny at times, and Kahn's buildings are truly impressive, particularly the capital of Bangladesh. Go see it if you can, unless your more interested in Eurotrip...

...in which case you're an idiot.   

[Reply #661 on:]

The Passion
Without the kinda crappy ending, this is an awesome movie. What more can I say? They did a great job illustrating the pain and suffering Jesus went through. The acting was terrific, and the whole is just entirely compelling, even if you're not a christian. The gore is what you would expect to see in any horror movie, but it does get pretty intense. Also, all the talk about anti-semeticism is completely phony, because if you think that the jewish people/Jesus were depicted as evil in this movie, you completely missed the point. It wasn't the jews or the romans or anybody in particular that put him there; it was us. Anyways, class movie. A++

Show spoiler

Jesus dies in the end

[Reply #662 on:]

The School of Rock

This was actually an okay movie, I really liked it 

[Reply #663 on:]

The Passion

I have a hard time rating this film honestly, with all the controversy and hubbub surrounding it. It's not exactly the kind of movie that you're supposed to enjoy, so it's hard to grade on that kind of scale.

Personally, I thought The Passion drew out the least compelling parts of Jesus life -- I can only watch Jesus fall down in slow motion on the road to Golgotha so many times before it loses its impact. I realize that the movie is meant to focus on the last 6 hours of Jesus' life alone, but that limitation leaves the movie entirely out of context. I often thought during the film whether someone unfamiliar with the story would even comprehend anything that was going on. Had the movie a broader foucs, incorporating Jesus message as well as his suffering, I would like it more.

There are a lot of elements that I did find compelling though; most of them were the parts that took more creative license with the story. For example, the presentation of Judas' descent to insanity was very wll-done, as was the constant, androgynous presence of Satan in Jesus' shadow.

Perhaps the most interesting piece of imagery came very near the movie's end: after Jesus has died and storm clouds have gathered, we see and overhead shot of the top of Mount Golgotha, with soldiers milling around, taking down the crucifixes. The lense then seems to get out of focus and watery, and we see a single drop of water fall from the sky and hit the ground -- causing the ground all through the city to shudder as if there was an earthquake. Like God shed a single tear.

The compelling visuals, generally good performances and realistic use of native languages do much for the movie, but the overly brutal scenes of violence and too-narrow focus make it less than what it could have been. B+

[Reply #664 on:]

LAN, the earthquake right after Jesus's death wasn't creative license - It was in the bible 

[Reply #665 on:]

The Passion

Much like Bowling for Columbine, this is the sort of movie you see one time and think is great and then you see it again and begin to notice more and more flaws. Contrary to popular belief, this movie isn't entirely about Jesus being tortured. There's quite a few subplots such as Judas descending into depression and insanity (brought on partly by the taunts of Satan and partly by his own guilt), flashbacks about Jesus, and Mary, Mary M., and John who just seem to follow Jesus around the majority of the movie.

I like good camera effects and this movie has a ton of them. The best being how the teardrop of God is done which LAN mentioned earlier. This movie is very gorey and although it doesn't have the most gore of any movie I've ever seen, it does have the most realistic.

It is an emotional movie but I didn't cry like some people claimed it would make me. I did well up a bit when one of the thieves hanging near Jesus asks him if he would remember him in paradise. Things were balanced out though when the thief on the other side of Jesus who had just been making fun of him starts getting his eye pecked out by a crow. I think I was the only one in the theater to find that funny enough to laugh.

One last part made me giggle a bit. It didn't make me giggle the first time but it sure did the second.

Show spoiler

When Jesus is resurrected at the end, the way the scene is shot it looks like the stereotypical ending to some movie where it looks like the hero  was just killed, but then he steps up to show the audience he's okay and the movie's going to have a happy ending.

I'm sure I got a few angry glares for laughing at that.

A - Mainly for presentation and realism. 

[Reply #666 on:]

 

Originally posted by Speli:
LAN, the earthquake right after Jesus's death wasn't creative license - It was in the bible   

But the tear (apparently) shed by God was.

[Reply #667 on:]

Yeah, there was a lot of artistic license - Some good, some bad. And also, the ending could've been better. An extra thirty seconds of Jesus meeting his disciples again would have done it for me.

[Reply #668 on:]

IT's wierd that the 666th post on this thread would be about the passion, but the 667th will be as well.  The film was a truly moving film in which I was shedding tears quite frequently. 

I liked the ending, becuause it was left open for perhaps a sequal.

^---Joke.

[Reply #669 on:]

Sounds like a good movie.  Maybe I'll go and see that.

What's with all the controversy surrounding it, though?  You'd think that no one ever made a movie about Jesus before.

[Reply #670 on:]

 

Originally posted by Pitt Clemens:
I liked the ending, becuause it was left open for perhaps a sequal.

^---Joke.

Jesus 2: The Reckoning!

Jesus: "I've come to exact my revenge, Pontius Pilate!"

[Reply #671 on:]

If they made a sequel like that it'd be my favorite movie of all time... for sure. I heart blasphemy.   

[Reply #672 on:]

I hope they re-release Life of Brian in the cinemas now!

Or where's Mel Brooks when you need an urgent parody?

[Reply #673 on:]

He seems to have vanished since Dracula: Dead and Loving It, which was made almost ten years ago.

[Reply #674 on:]

Actually, he's working on a remake of The Producers.

[Reply #675 on:]

That reminds me, I saw Gene Wilder in an episode of Will and Grace the other day...   

Why!?!

[Reply #676 on:]

 

Originally posted by David A:
Actually, he's working on a remake of The Producers.

Why? That's easily his best film, and as damn near perfection as he's ever going to get. You can't top Gene Wilder, folks.

 

Originally posted by David A:
What's with all the controversy surrounding it, though?  You'd think that no one ever made a movie about Jesus before.

I think it has something to do with Mel Gibson's supposed "fanaticism" when it comes to his traditionalist Catholic beliefs. It just goes to show you how out of touch the media is with religion; Gibson's religious opinions are from from fanatical, or even unusual.

[Reply #677 on:]

 

Originally posted by LAN.gnome:
Why? That's easily his best film, and as damn near perfection as he's ever going to get. You can't top Gene Wilder, folks.

I'd be inclined to agree with you, but you have to remember that it was also his first film.  As an artist, he might not be as satisfied with it as you and I are as an audience.  Perhaps he feels that with 35 more years of experience as a filmmaker (not to mention a bigger budget) he can do a better job of it.

Or maybe he just likes the idea of a movie based on a stage show based on a movie based on a stage show, all about a stage show.

[Reply #678 on:]

Matchstick Men

I hate Ridlet Scott.  I hate Alien.  I hate Blade Runner.  I hate Gladiator.  And while I wouldn't say I hate Hannibal and Black Hawk Down, I'm not their biggest fans.  I've always felt Ridley Scott is an amazing visualist, but can't tell a story worth a damn.

Matchstick Men is the best surprise I've had since Joel Schumacher directed Tigerland and Phone Booth.

I love, love, love this movie.  I love it so much, I'm thinking of going back and giving Alien and Gladiator another shot.  There is nothing about this movie I don't love.  I love the lead performances by Nicholas Case and especially Allison Lohman (HOW did she not get an Oscar nomination?.  I love the supporting turn by Sam Rockwell.  I love the amazing script by Nicholas Griffen & Ted Griffen.  I love the jumpy editing.  I love Ridley Scott's sure hand at direction, pulling off things that make me think I've been underestimating him all this time.

The movie has Nicholas Cage as an con man with what I guess is obsesive-compulsive disorder (I'm not a psychiatrist and can't say for sure if it is).  He's on medication, but the disorder is still affecting his work, much the the irratation of Cage's partner Sam Rockwell.  (There's a wonderfully-done scene where while finishing a con, a mark leaves the door of her house open, totally distracting Cage, and the brightness of the sun shining through threatens to swallow him whole.)  Rockwell refers Cage to the psychiatrist his aunt went to see after her divorce, who in turn encourages him to get in touch with his daughter, who he's never met before.  I could go on, but why spoil the fun for everyone else?

Ridley Scott: I no longer hate you.  Two or three more films like this, and you could become one of my favourites.  Keep up the good work.

Rating: A+

EDIT: On the strength of this moive, I gave Gladiator a second chance.  It wasn't nearly as bad as I remember it being.  While it's not the best picture of 2000, I don't hate it.  I'd give it a B-.

[Reply #679 on:]

Starsky & Hutch

As a kid I used to watch the original TV series, so I the prospect of a movie was appealing.  The fact that it would be Stiller and Wilson playing the lead roles (especially after the fantastic Zoolander) made it even more exciting.

For me, this movie couldn't fail.

...and for me, it doesn't.

There are a number of masterstrokes in this movie, the first of which is the casting, Stiller, Wilson and especially Snoop Dogg as Huggy Bear are all perfect.  The second of which is setting the movie in the 70's, and having a soundtrack which is extremely like that of the TV Show.  It's as faithful a homage to the show as they could possibly get.

It's obvious that the cast are all having a blast in this movie and it shows.

There are some great gags too (look out for Wilson singing David Soul's "Don't Give Up On Us Baby" ), the best of which is Will Ferrell's cameo as "Big Earl".

However, the stand-out of the movie (as it was in the TV Show) is the car, which gets the killer entrance it deserves.

Excellent, highly recommended.

9/10