Futurama   Planet Express Employee Lounge
The Futurama Message Board

Design and Support by Can't get enough Futurama
Help Search Futurama chat Login Register

PEEL - The Futurama Message Board    It's got a TV!    Lord of the Movies: The Return of the Review Thread « previous next »
 Topic locked! 
Author Topic: Lord of the Movies: The Return of the Review Thread  (Read 8034 times)
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 19 Print
Dr. Morberg

Professor
*
« Reply #40 on: 05-03-2004 17:40 »
« Last Edit on: 05-03-2004 17:40 »

Godsend

There might be unintentional spoilers here.

This movie was pretty bad. It's about two people whose kid is killed, and a man offers to clone the kid so that he would be exactly like the original boy. That's the first problem I had with this movie. What kind of parents would clone thier kid right after he died? That's kind of heartless. So anyway, they move far away and the kid is cloned. After he passes the age he died at, wierd things start happening. Scary.... The movie too often goes for the cheap scare, by playing loud music and having things jump out. It was not creepy, there were just sudden moments that made you jump a little. Most of it was explained in a half-ass way, like why the kid is acting weird. It seemed like they were just trying to make you jump rather than actually tell a story. The ending is what ultimately made this movie crap, because

Grade: D+

TOTPD!!!
LAN.gnome

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #41 on: 05-03-2004 21:29 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Nixorbo:
 True story: in the first two books, they called it "soccer."  In the second two, they called it "football."

British slang is the best slang ever, by the way.

Exhaustive guide to changes between British/American versions of the Harry Potter books. Now I know that "Spellotape" is, in fact, a pun.

You guys really do have some wacky ones, don't you? "Jacket potato"? "Pop my clogs"? "Gormless"? Crizz-azzy.
Nixorbo

UberMod
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #42 on: 05-03-2004 23:15 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by davierocks:
I heard that they changed it to sorcerers in America because Ameican children would be too dumb to get their young heads around the word "philosopher".  Is their any truth in this?

 
Quote
According to that website LAN just linked to:
The original book, published in the UK, was entitled Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, in reference to the mythical substance that alchemists believed would transmute base metals into gold. When the American publisher, Scholastic, brought the book out in the U.S., it changed the book's name to Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone in the belief that American children would be confused by the apparent reference to philosophy.

I have a thousand years of power.
"NOOOOO HE WAS MY BROTHER!" and then got tired and slept.


"He has the special talent, though, of being able to help people and make them feel utterly stupid all at the same time. ... In short, he's a great moderator, but a terrible human being."
-SlackJawedMoron
eggsandwich

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #43 on: 05-03-2004 23:25 »

Time for some reviews.

Elephant
Written/Directed by Gus Van Sant

Ok, I was hella psyched for this film - therefore I had big expectations from this mainstream writer/director, Gus Van Sant. The plot is simple; tell a story of an "unimportant" high-school day in Columbine from the kids point of view. Sounds simple in theory, but a very complicated task indeed - alas, Gus does somewhat do a fantastic job of focusing on the kid's views. Yes, this film was based on the Columbine high-school shooting, but Gus doesnt focus the attention onto that, instead he see's it as an underlying sub-plot within the film's whole story.

From the start of the film, you are put into the high-school kids normal routine. Gus shows several stories at once to get your attention on the whole, instead of focusing on one person. I dont want to give away the whole story because its a film that you really have to see for yourself.

Long winding shots (sometime very tedious), irregular camera positions & excellent directing by Gus - and particular fantastic acting by the actors.

A very nice film altogether.
A-


Gothika
Directed by Mathieu Kassovitz

Well, I had money left over to see another film - but nothing good was showing, so I thought I might aswell see this. Bad idea - I should have went to 7/11 and got a slurpee & some donuts instead.

This "film" is not even worth reviewing.
F
LAN.gnome

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #44 on: 05-04-2004 04:11 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by eggsandwich:
Sounds simple in theory, but a very complicated task indeed - alas, Gus does somewhat do a fantastic job of focusing on the kid's views.

Why "alas"? It sounds like he succeeded.

Also, though Elephant is certainly inspired by Columbine, the setting is not meant to be in fact Columbine (to my knowledge), nor the two shooters Klebold and Harris. It's supposed to be two fairly anonymous kids in a fairly anonymous high school -- suggesting that the story could take place anywhere.
alenacat
Starship Captain
****
« Reply #45 on: 05-04-2004 06:17 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by LAN.gnome:
 Exhaustive guide to changes between British/American versions of the Harry Potter books. Now I know that "Spellotape" is, in fact, a pun.

You guys really do have some wacky ones, don't you? "Jacket potato"? "Pop my clogs"? "Gormless"? Crizz-azzy.
Aww, they're taking all the culture and quirkyness out of it, how dare they? If I bought a book set in the US I'd want some of their slang and such in it, it adds to the feel of the book. At least they left numerous references to "git" in. I think.

That would be so funny if one of the UK broadcasters decided to do the same and make Futurama more British, dubbing Sal with a strong cockney/brummie/glaswegian accent and bleeped out Hermes' fanny reference in The Sting. Also "Bite my shiny metal [father jack]ARSE![/fj]"  <IMG SRC="http://peel.gotfuturama.com/ubb/biggrin.gif">

Anyway getting on topic, I saw Kill Bill part 2 recently. I liked that it balanced the first out in terms of pacing and storyline. Though I feel the second part didn't have as many crazy arty moments and not-taking-itself seriously humour as the first. Still, worth an A
boxie

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #46 on: 05-04-2004 10:28 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by LAN.gnome:
You guys really do have some wacky ones, don't you? "Jacket potato"? "Pop my clogs"? "Gormless"? Crizz-azzy.

I never call it a jacket potato, rather a baked tattie.

And gormless is a wicked word!

So, anyway, back on topic...
eggsandwich

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #47 on: 05-04-2004 23:54 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by LAN.gnome:
 Why "alas"? It sounds like he succeeded.

Also, though Elephant is certainly inspired by Columbine, the setting is not meant to be in fact Columbine (to my knowledge), nor the two shooters Klebold and Harris. It's supposed to be two fairly anonymous kids in a fairly anonymous high school -- suggesting that the story could take place anywhere.

Maybe I should have said "loosly based"? Well, you knew what I meant - and thats why said a 'underlying sub-plot' (suggesting slightly what you've stated).

homerjaysimpson

Space Pope
****
« Reply #48 on: 05-07-2004 15:59 »

Kill Bill Vol 1

This had to be one of this most sillyest and bloodest movies I have ever seen. I worder how much fake blood they used? Where's the plot in this movie and why I'm not seeing it?
D+
Otis P Jivefunk

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #49 on: 05-07-2004 16:15 »

Because you've got blood in your eyes...
OC_James

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #50 on: 05-07-2004 16:26 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by homerjaysimpson:
Kill Bill Vol 1

This had to be one of this most sillyest and bloodest movies I have ever seen. I worder how much fake blood they used? Where's the plot in this movie and why I'm not seeing it?
D+

Because you have the intelligence of lice.
But really, there is no real plot to volume one. You know why? A real plot's not needed. It's a lot like 2001: A Space Odyssey, it's about style.

If you want to see one with character development, plot, and the style of the first, go see volume 2.
boingo2000

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #51 on: 05-07-2004 19:49 »

Van Helsing

Do not see Van Helsing.  Do not watch it in first-run theatres.  Do not catch it as it makes the rounds in discount theatres.  Do not see it on Pay-Per-View.  Do not rent the DVD.  Do not watch it on TV.  Do not borrow a friend's copy.  In fact, if anyone, anywhere, ever says to you "Hey, let's watch Van Helsing!", that person is not your friend.

This movie is terrible.

To start with, everyone in this movie except Hugh Jackman has an annoying accent.  Everyone.  Special demerits go to the actor playing Dracula, who, on top of having one of the most annoying accents, cannot act to save his life (a fact which becomes immediatly apparent 2 minutes into his first big scene).

Next, the script.  An example of some of the brilliant dialouge in this film:

 
Quote
Frankenstien's Monster: Save me!
Van Helsing's Sidekick: But you're supposed to die!
FM: I want to live!
VHS: Okay.
And the sidekick character has best lines in the film.  This is to say nothing of how contrived the overall story is.  Perhaps the most telling thing about that is many of the dramatic plot points have been handled better in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

The editing is hideous, that over-the-top, MTV style, cut-a-second-with-stobe-lighting I've come to loathe over the past years.  Does anyone actually enjoy movies done in that style?

On the plus side, Alan Silversti's score was adequate, and the cinematography was too good for this film.  Plus, this film's release has resulted in some very nice DVD editions of the original Frankenstien, Dracula and Wolf Man films which I must add to my collection.  Overall, however, I want to prevent Stephen Sommers from ever making a movie again using whatever means necessary.

Grade: D-
~FazeShift~

Moderator
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #52 on: 05-07-2004 22:14 »

boingo, you gotta get another hobby as going to see movies is apparently too unfullfilling for you!

Or maybe don't be so gullible when it comes to movie trailers!  <IMG SRC="http://peel.gotfuturama.com/ubb/tongue.gif">
Mr. Potter

Professor
*
« Reply #53 on: 05-07-2004 22:26 »

If it's anything like The Mummy Returns, I won't get near 2 kilometers of a theater.
Grim

Professor
*
« Reply #54 on: 05-07-2004 23:23 »

I saw Van Helsing last night, and for a main stream story combination movie, it wasnt that bad. I went in there expecting average and thats what I got.

I dont think it was meant to be a stunning, ground breaking piece of film and I feel boingo's review to be a little too critical.

Overall it was much better than LXG, and that was all I was expecting from it
newhook_1

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #55 on: 05-07-2004 23:49 »
« Last Edit on: 05-07-2004 23:49 »

I enjoyed Van Helsing. I thought it was nice to see a movie that doesn't take itself to seriously. Yes the plot was utter shit and the Cgi effects were laughable, but it was nice to see something that for  wasn't over the top dramatic (Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind), trying to be like Lord Of The Rings (Troy and about 50 other movies), or a historical action movie (Master and Commander and others). I won't buy Van Helsing on DVD, I'll probably never watch it again, but it is fairly enjoyable if you just take it for what it is. It's a mindless action movie set in the victorian era, with more emphasis on over the top action scenes than plot, there's nothing wrong with that. It's entertaining which is, I belive, the reason movies came into being in the first place.

Oh and Boingo, I think the point was, Van Helsing's sidekick felt sorry for Frankenstien's Monster when he said the words "I want to live", and the sidekick realized that the monster had normal human emotions, and therefore was on some level, human.   

I'm giving it a C. Don't see it in theatres, but check it out when TBS airs it 10 times in a single weekend, in a few years.
Ricky

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #56 on: 05-08-2004 00:30 »
« Last Edit on: 05-08-2004 00:30 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by boingo2000:
Do not see Van Helsing.


I agree. The only good about it was that I didn't have to pay to see it. There's some cultural festival thingy going on in my town these days, and as a part of that festival, a huge screen and some seriously expensive speakers were erected in our main city square to show the premiere of Van Helsing for free. The setting was perfect; thousands of people, midnight, about 20'C and a starry sky. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, Van Helsing sucked so badly that the thing I enjoyed the most about it was . The dialogue was ridiculous, acting was bad, and the cgi effects were horrible. There's a new fighting scene every two minutes and the "monster overload" is pretty much pathetic. And just how many times can a person be flung 150 metres into a stone wall and just get up and continue fighting as if nothing had happened? Let me tell you, the laws of physics are as real in Van Helsing as they are in cartoons.
Van Helsing is what would have happened if someone had given Ed Wood a $100 million budget.
David A

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #57 on: 05-08-2004 01:25 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Ricky:
Van Helsing is what would have happened if someone had given Ed Wood a $100 million budget.

Well, now I want to see it.
boingo2000

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #58 on: 05-08-2004 10:14 »
« Last Edit on: 05-08-2004 10:14 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by newhook_1:
Oh and Boingo, I think the point was, Van Helsing's sidekick felt sorry for Frankenstien's Monster when he said the words "I want to live", and the sidekick realized that the monster had normal human emotions, and therefore was on some level, human.   

I get that, but that's a really profound idea.  The notion of the monster whose only real crime is wanting to be human is the drive behind all the great Frankenstien films.  So, given that it's such a brillinat concept, could we maybe devote more then four lines to the character's realization of it?  No, because the movie has to cut back to the showdown between Kate Beckinsale and the annoyingly-accented vampiress (who shows a hell of a lot of clevage for a PG-13 movie, not that I'm complaining).

The classic horror movies have ideas behind them, most of them derived from Freudian sexual anxiety (at night, boys [who are recently covered in fur] are unable to control themselves; girls find themselves mysteriously drawn to that seductive European foringer).  But Sommers, who claims to love the originals and their tones, turns Van Helsing into a James Bond movie!  NOt even a cool, classic Bond film, but crappy The World Is Not Enogh-style Bond.  (In the comparison I've worked out between Van Helsing and the Bond franchise, Van Helsing is Bond, the annoingly-accented Cardinal at the beginning is M, the Friar is Q, Dracula is Blofeild, The Wolf Man is Oddjob, Kate Beckinsale is Jinx, Dracula's Brides are the girls from Diamonds Are Forever who kick Bond's ass, and Frankenstien's Monster is Pussy Galore.)

Now in the movie's defense, the projectionist at the theatre I saw it at screwed up, and the first five munites were played with only the botton half of the picture on the screen.  This created an annoyance that I problay carried with me through the rest of the film.  In fact, I saw the trailers on TV last night and have trouble beliving a film that looked so cool could be the same dissapointing dreck I saw yesterday.  Maybve I was too hard on the film.  But then I remember Dracula's "I am hollow... and I shall live forever!" scene, and the awful writing and acting therin (but, as I stated in my review, nice cinematography) and all that doubt goes away.

Now, on a nicer note:
Shattered Glass

I saw this movie to see if Hayden Christensen is as bad an actor as George Lucas made him seem.  As it turns out, no.  Noone is as bad an actor as George Lucas can make them seem.

But Hayden is actually pretty good in the role of Stephen Glass, associate editor for The New Republic.  I don't know if anyone already knows this, but in May of 1998, Glass was fired when it was discovered that 27 articles he wrote (out of 41) were either partially or totally fabricated.  When the on-line version of Forbes tries to do a follow-up piece on an article of his called "Hack Heaven", they can discover none of the people, companies, etc. that Glass has sourced.

The acting is exceptional.  Christensen's portrayal of Glass is note-perfect, as a man who desperatly invents more lies to explain his lies, but who refuses to admit to the truth.  Peter Sarsgarrd is also excellent, as the editor who just wants the truth from Glass.  Fine support is given from Chloë Sevigny, Steve Zahn, Hank Azaria, Melanie Lynskey, and Rosario Dawson.  The direction is nothing exceptional, but a movie like this stands or falls on the strength of it's script and it's performaces, both of which are plenty strong here.  Highly reccomended.  Rent it this weekend (instead of going to see Van Helsing).

Grade: A-

The Forbes article that exposed Glass
~FazeShift~

Moderator
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #59 on: 05-08-2004 12:04 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by boingo2000:
...and Frankenstien's Monster is Pussy Galore.
*mental image*

GAAAH!
Uncool boingo, uncool!!
Bender Waffles
Crustacean
*
« Reply #60 on: 05-08-2004 22:05 »

I absolutely LOVED the movie. I thought it was better than the other two. I can't wait till it comes out on DVD...

Here is the story of the Grasshopper and the Octopus. All year long, the grasshopper kept burying acorns for the winter, while the octopus mooched off his girlfriend, ate candy, and watched TV. But then the winter came, and the grasshopper died, and the octopus ate all his acorns. And also he got a racecar. Is any of this getting through to you???
~FazeShift~

Moderator
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #61 on: 05-08-2004 22:54 »

Another victim of the thread title...
This is a general movie review thread cleverly disguised as a LOTR thread!

Unless there's two other Van Helsing movies I'm not aware of...
boingo: The horrorrrrrr!!  <IMG SRC="http://peel.gotfuturama.com/ubb/tongue.gif">
Mr. Potter

Professor
*
« Reply #62 on: 05-08-2004 22:58 »
« Last Edit on: 05-08-2004 22:58 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Bender Waffles:
I absolutely LOVED the movie. I thought it was better than the other two. I can't wait till it comes out on DVD...


Express your opinions on the amazing and unofficial Lord of the Rings thread right here on PEEL!
Alliteration

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #63 on: 05-08-2004 23:48 »

I think the thing that really bothered me about Van Helsing was the brides of Dracula(and Dracula himself), I could not take them seriously at all.

The action was okay but repetitive.
"Oh look, a rope, lets swing on it with wild abandon!"

Or...

"Hey a wall, I hope there are no monsters around to throw me through it!"

But it was fun I guess... sort of...

It was definatly hollywood fluff though.
chay´s head

Space Pope
****
« Reply #64 on: 05-09-2004 01:11 »
« Last Edit on: 05-09-2004 01:11 »

VAN HELSING

just saw van helsing, thought it was awsome. it had a very cool begining, loved the black and white. it was cool how it had all the character from old monster movies, Dracula, Frankensteins Monster, Mr. Hyde. the music was great it added so much to the movie, couldent quite figure out what the string instrument was something similar to a guitar though. want the game soundtrack and DVD when they all come out.

"Dan1248" - If we can't break his spirit, lets just break his legs...
OC_James

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #65 on: 05-09-2004 22:20 »
« Last Edit on: 05-09-2004 22:20 »

Godsend

Saw this Friday night and was rather disappointed. The evil clone movie was done to death for a while, but in a world where cloning is fast becoming a possibility, the pulse is starting to beat again on this old storyline.

A couple has just lost their son at the age of eight in a rather unlikely death. The wife's old professor pops up out of nowhere at the funeral and offers to clone the boy. Being the kind, caring, and sensible parents they are, they think about it for about half an hour (fortunately, we don't see this length of time go by) and decide to let the cloning begin. The parents must move to a secluded little town where nobody knows them that's close to the laboratory where the boy will be cloned. The boy's successfully cloned and seven years pass by without trouble...then he turns eight. He starts having night terrors, acting like the kid from The Ring, and becomes slightly more agressive.
The rest of the movie (spoilers) will be reviewed below:


This movie's sole purpose is to make the viewer jump. We never connect with the characters, the bad guy's motives are never explained, the ending isn't explained well at all (at least not enough for today's audiences), scenes seem to be added just for the hell of it, and a character can somehow teleport from a burning church miles away to their house, and this particular person doesn't have magical powers. But what pissed me off was that
Come on, people. If you're going to make a movie, please let it be finished before releasing it.
D+


Dear Robert Deniro,
You are a competent actor. You were in Taxi Driver. You were in Jackie Brown. You made Mary Shelley's Frankenstein watchable. You could be doing so much better than you've been doing in recent years. For the love of God, start reading the scripts for a movie before you sign on. Please.
Future Angel
Bending Unit
***
« Reply #66 on: 05-10-2004 14:45 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by boingo2000:
Now in the movie's defense, the projectionist at the theatre I saw it at screwed up, and the first five munites were played with only the botton half of the picture on the screen. 

That's why you go tell a theater staff member. They can call the projectionist and get that fixed in like, 5 seconds. It's a lot better than sitting throughout the whole movie pissed off.

But Van Helsing did suck. I couldn't stand the female vampires, all they did was whine. I can't even remember 1 part that I liked. I think I nearly fell a sleep quite a few times. Only the thunder in the movie kept me awake.
wu_konguk

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #67 on: 05-10-2004 16:24 »

I know there is awhole thread for this film but I want ot review the film not how it affected me spititually.

The Passion of The Christ

First I will review this as a movie before I go discuss some of it's other point's As a movie I thought it was preaty bad. Some bits seemd totally ramndom and unessassary, I mean it's fine if you know the Bible back to front but frankley i don't. Too be honest this film was not made for people like me but for Christians.

As for the gore. For the film it may have been abit on the excessive side. That said far worse things have been portrayed in films. Although I am not Christian, I am a historian of sorts and I do know that the Romans did far worse than what was portrayed in the film.

I did think it was interesting too have the film in Aramaic and Latin. it did give the film a little more credibility as historical. Although I do nto all the in accuracies I do know one. you do not crucifiey someone through their hands (teh wait of you body would cause the nail to rip through) the nails should be driven through the wrists (even that Turin shroud thing agrees with this).

Now for the big thing. Did I find the film anti semetic? and I answer yes. Through the film the blame is placed on the Jews and Jedus. The Romans seemed to be absolved of the act of killing Jesus. The majority of the Jews portayed come off as coniving and self serving. This film solely places the death of Jesus on the Jews and this made me uncomfortable while watching the film.

As I film I do not rate this movie very highly. I'll give credit to the make up department, they did a great job.

People are not going to care how I rank this film. Sdo I will say it is like Marmite, either you love it or you hate it (I personnaly am indifferent to Marmite)
~FazeShift~

Moderator
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #68 on: 05-10-2004 16:27 »

I thought the Turin shroud was debunked as a hoax ages ago?
But I think you're right about the nails in the wrists bit.
wu_konguk

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #69 on: 05-10-2004 16:34 »

I believe so. I think I rember readin about the wrists being the points in a book about the death of Sparticus.
Mr. Potter

Professor
*
« Reply #70 on: 05-10-2004 17:27 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by wu_konguk:

Now for the big thing. Did I find the film anti semetic? and I answer yes. Through the film the blame is placed on the Jews and Jedus. The Romans seemed to be absolved of the act of killing Jesus. The majority of the Jews portayed come off as coniving and self serving. This film solely places the death of Jesus on the Jews and this made me uncomfortable while watching the film.


Well, I don't find the movie anti smethic. Of course the Jews get the blame, but only because they were defending their religion, they're not evil. (it's the same in the bible)

And now is time for a review:

Angels in America Part 1

Now this is what I call an amazing acting ensemble (not that overrated snore fest called Mystic River). The performances by the whole cast are so good, that I'm sure that if this had been a movie released in theaters, it would have won at least 3 acting Oscars. My favorite performance came from Justin Kirk but really, everyone is excellent, including Meryl Streep as a Rabbi. The music by Thomas Newman enhances the drama and the screenplay is just great. Now if you're easily bored, you won't like this too much because it's basically 3 hours of pure dialogue with scenes lasting as long as 8 minutes, but it's worth it. I can't wait for the second part.
wu_konguk

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #71 on: 05-15-2004 13:02 »

I could try to argue that The passion is anti semetic until I am blue in the face. Unfortunanly this would not help some people listen.

So rather than wasting my breath, I will do a review.

City of Lost Children

What can I say, this film is extremely wierd but not in a totally bad way. I would find it emmenssly hard to describe the plot but will try to give a general gist. A Strong man called One (Ron Pearlman) is looking for his "little brother" who has been stolen by a bunch of extreme wierdos.

Visually this film is most impressive. The set designs  and costumes give a post apocolyptic look to the film. The effects used in the dream sequences are most impressive and quite surreal.

I must also say, Poor Ron Pearlman. In this film he lays an idiot stongman and unless he has tons of makeup on peopel don't seem to let him play anything else.

I saw the dub but feel that it might be better in the orginal language. Last thing I will say is that film could not be made in Hollywood, whch is a shame because if Hollwood films would trey to be as different as this film we may get soem really cool movies.

This is very wierd but good so I give it
B+
Coilette

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #72 on: 05-15-2004 16:15 »

Von Ryans Express

This is an onle move (made in 1965) which focuses on an escape attempt of British POW's in Italy in the the 2nd World War. Overall I thought is was a gripping thriller which showed the brutality of the Nazi regime.
         
      This film was made in an era when films depended more on the plot than the special effects so it had a certain charm to it. The acting (both Trevor Howard and Frank Sinatra) was superb.

I'd give it an A
Bobby King

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #73 on: 05-16-2004 09:00 »

Troy

Woa, this movie was great. Really cooooool too. Eric Bana was great as Hector , Brad Pitt as Achilles and Sean Bean as Odysseus. Even if you already know what was going to happen it was a good movie from the beginning to the end. No spoilers this time...

A+
~FazeShift~

Moderator
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #74 on: 05-16-2004 19:31 »

I'm wondering has anyone seen Starship Troopers 2 and if it's any good?
I'm assuming it went straight to DVD and video because I never saw it advertised as a cinema release.
homerjaysimpson

Space Pope
****
« Reply #75 on: 05-19-2004 13:31 »

Shrek 2

Was not as good as the first but was funny as first. Not that much of donkey in this one.

C
termos

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #76 on: 05-19-2004 15:26 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Bobby King:
Troy

Woa, this movie was great. Really cooooool too. Eric Bana was great as Hector , Brad Pitt as Achilles and Sean Bean as Odysseus. Even if you already know what was going to happen it was a good movie from the beginning to the end. No spoilers this time...

A+

But is it true to the good old stories? I think it would be annoying if it has been modernized too much.
Mr. Potter

Professor
*
« Reply #77 on: 05-19-2004 17:12 »

Troy

This movie was nice. It had the potential to be a masterpiece but it didn't reach that point. It was just a good epic. The script is horrible in some parts, but it has some good lines here and there. Brad Pitt was physically a good choice for the role of Achilles, but he didn't had enough charisma to follow him to war from place to place for so many years. If I would have to follow one of the men in that movie I would choose Sean Bean's Odysseus, now that's a charismatic character. The other actors did a fine job with their roles, but Peter O'Toole was specially good. In the end, it's a good movie, but it's not a great one (like it should have been).
BumbleBeeTheta

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #78 on: 05-20-2004 01:45 »

I don't have much money, so I've mostly been renting and watching videos, but here are the best films I've seen lately:

Super Size Me
Excellent, pure and simple.  Morgan Spurlock is a born muck-raker, and his film is witty and intelligent.  This better get a Best Documentary nomination.  Oh, and it was also quite funny to see all these people with jumbo popcorns and giant sodas watching this movie.  It reminded me of when I saw Passion of the Christ, and everyone there had huge popcorn containers.  It makes you think, "Are you *sure* you wanna be eating that during this movie?"

The Saddest Music in the World
Saw this for the third time.  I love it to death.  It's pretty straight-forward, but also very strange.  I haven't seen much of Guy Maddin's work, but this is pure genius.

Dark City
I've heard you either love or hate this film, and I belong to the group of individuals who adore every frame.  I think Roger Ebert's done enough gushing over this film to last a lifetime, but I personally think it deserves every praise.  Mesmorizing.

Shock Treatment
It took three weeks for this film to arrive at Suncoast.  I got it last Tuesday, ran home and stayed up until midnight watching it.  I then spent a good hour, lying awake, thinking, "What the hell did I just watch?"  Of course, once I'd tasted blood, I wanted more.  I've watched it 5 and a half times since I got it, and I love, love, love the movie.  True, it's not nearly as good as the original, but it's not really a sequel.  It's more like "The Continuing Adventures of Brad and Janet," with a Riff Raff and Magenta-esque couple tossed in for good measure (The siblings in question- Cosmo and Nation McKinley- were originally supposed to be Riff and Magenta in disguise.  The songs were also originally written for a direct sequel, "Rocky Horror Shows His Heels," but that's another story.).  Clearly, Jim Sharman and Richard O'Brien bubble over with creative energy.  I've never seen a film quite like this one.  While RHPS has more memorable music, the lyrics here are still very witty (See "Look What I Did to My Id": "We may look like we're phony medics, but we took our look from a book by Frederick's!" ), and I love the soundtrack too.  I can't imagine how it managed a PG-rating though.  Don't films with incest immediately become PG-13?  Well, perhaps the MPAA assumed that since they had the same last name, they must be married.  Never mind that Cosmo refers to Nation as his sister.  Cosmo McKinley has actually become my obsession du jour, and I'm enamoured with Ritzy himself and Little Nell as well.

Speaking of the two, has anyone seen their film Jubilee?  No store near me rents it, and I'm dying to see it.  $40 seems a little steep for a single DVD though.  Is it worth it?

Who is Agent Codename: Dragonfly?
Zed 85

Space Pope
****
« Reply #79 on: 05-20-2004 04:00 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by ~FazeShift~:
I'm wondering has anyone seen Starship Troopers 2 and if it's any good?
I'm assuming it went straight to DVD and video because I never saw it advertised as a cinema release.

Checked out IMDB and it was marked as a TV movie, and the score is not too promising I'm affraid. Though I found this review off RottenTomatoes (the only review for it actually) and it's slightly more encouraging.

I'm curious about Troy, surely if you took the list of cast and crew and put them together you'd get a great movie, right?
I know not everything Wolfgang Peterson touches turns to gold, but...
Oh well, I'm still interested in seeing it.  smile
So I can point out General Veers and piss everyone off  smile
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 19 Print 
 Topic locked! 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines | some icons from famfamfam
Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.
Page created in 0.283 seconds with 18 queries.