Ebert Gave This Movie Reviews Thread 3 of 4 Stars!

[Reply #280 on:]

2012

First half was good the last half sucked also I got my pull-ups.

C

[Reply #281 on:]

9

Despite of all the lovely women dancing around and singing their heart out, I fell asleep. Boriiiiiiiiiiiiiiing.

C-

[Reply #282 on:]

Hard Times

Filmed in New Orleans & Lousiana back in the mid 70's, this film captures the bleakness of the depression with great visual images.  The story focuses on a drifter named Chaney (played by Charles Bronson, at his physical peak) who fights bare knuckle fights for money.  He partners with a fast talking promoter (played by James Coburn) and they work their way up the rankings until they fight the bare knuckle champion.  Then their problems with the mob begin.

This film, written & directed by Walter Hill, is very spartan & bleak visually (to reflect the hopelessness of the depression); the story is strong and you care about the characters.  This is a fun rental and I recommend it.

8/10

[Reply #283 on:]

Zombieland

You know what?  I liked this better than Shawn of the Dead.  Not as much as Hot Fuzz, though.  As anyone who has seen my night of the living dead poster would know, I'm a huge fan of the genre, and I just expect certain things to be delivered.  All those things were present, all of those things were revered and all those things were lampooned; in that order.  Characters were engaging.  Action and gore was at exactly the level it was supposed to be, and

Show spoiler

Bill Murray's Cameo went from flatteringly cringe-worthy, to nutbustingly hilarious

.   The arc of the plot is nothing out of the ordinary; road trip/teen love story.  Suspension of disbelief peters out towards the end, but at that point you're only in it for the zombie-hacking, guts blasting head-'sploding fun.  All that, and a pro-pot message to boot.  How can I not love this movie?

B+

Boring Shit:

Show spoiler

My Ten favorite Zombie movies:

1) 28 days Later
2) Night of the Living Dead (1968)
3) Evil Dead
4) Dawn of the dead (1978)
5) Dawn of the dead (2004)
6) Day of the dead
7) 28 Weeks later
8) Land of the dead
9) Night of the living Dead (1990)
10) Zombieland

[Reply #284 on:]

   9

   Despite of all the lovely women dancing around and singing their heart out, I fell asleep. Boriiiiiiiiiiiiiiing.

   C-

Don't you mean Nine? 9 is a whole different movie (with virtually no women and definately no dancing).

[Reply #285 on:]

Where the Wild Things Are

They should have called it "Never ending Story part Whatever". No wonder this was remade so many times. Wasn't fun or magical in the least. Why do they make films that looks like they came from the 80's that the stories to them suck badly?

D-

[Reply #286 on:]

9

You mean Nine I think, 9 is another film!

The Men Who Stare at Goats
Pretty good, lots of laughs from the cast of Clooney, McGregor, Spacey and Bridges in whacky situations.

B+

Capitalism: A Love Story
Michael Moore pointing fingers at the fatcats in Washington again after the banking crash, and the hilarious criminality of capitalism in the US and nothing's really been done about it.
I liked the comparison with ancient Rome at the start, spectacles used to distract the masses like gladiator fights and the modern day equivalent is American Idol and stuff.
Also that "Dead Peasant" insurance thing is fucked up.

C+

[Reply #287 on:]

The Lovely Bones

went in expecting oscar bait and got an awesome horror movie. It's like if terry gilliam directed the original Stepfather. I love that pj hasn't lost all his goofy genre tropes. This could've been horribly serious and middlebrow but Jackson managed to make it fun.

B+

[Reply #288 on:]

Don't you mean Nine? 9 is a whole different movie (with virtually no women and definately no dancing).

You mean Nine I think, 9 is another film!

Oh, yes. Err... Nine. Silly me 

[Reply #289 on:]

Why is a raven…

 Alice in Wonderland*

I liked it but wasn't blown away by it.

The CG wasn't great, the 3D wasn't innovative (or subtle), and it could have done with more humour but the story wasn't bad, the performances were good, and the look and feel of the whole thing was cool in a Charlie and the Chocolate Factory kind of way. The iconic characters from the book were given a bit more personality and… well, character than I had expected, but some reviewers have criticized the movie for this reason (amongst others).

I suspect that if you go to see this movie with high expectations you'll probably be disappointed. But since I didn't, I wasn't.

Rating: B  —"Could do better." (And has done, in the past.)—


* Disclaimer: I've never actually read the original books or seen any previous movie/TV adaptations of this story so I'm not particularly clear on how much of what I saw was from Carroll and how much was Burton.

…like a writing desk?

[Reply #290 on:]

Dogville (2003)

Dogville is the sort of film the viewer will either be engrossed in from start to finish or they will won't to turn off after a few minutes... thankfully I was in the former group. As the film opens it becomes apparent that it is something very different; in a time when many films have stunning locations or large CGI landscapes this goes the other way and has virtually no scenery being filmed on a stage where locations are labelled but not actually shown; so a house will just be white lines drawn on the stage. The only props we see are those that that are essential to the plot.

Show spoiler

Set in a small hamlet in the Rocky Mountains where nothing much happens until one day Grace, a beautiful young woman arrives; she is trying to get away from a group of gangsters. The townsfolk agree to let her stay for two weeks, and at the end of that time they will vote on whether she can stay; if one person says no she must leave though. During that time she offers to help them out in various ways. At first they say they don't need help but soon she is doing little things for all of them and at the end of the two weeks they vote to let her stay. Not long afterwards a policeman comes looking for Grace, the people once again decide to let her stay although as time passes the little things they don't really need help with grow to fill most of her time. Later the police man returns and says Grace is wanted for a bank robbery; even though they know she could not have committed they crime they expect her to do more and more to let her stay. After being raped by one of the men she tries to leave Dogville but the person she paid to take her away betrayed her and returns her to the town where the people chain her up to prevent her escaping. At this point they give up all pretence of being decent and treat her like a slave as well as all but one of the men raping her. That one claims to love her but when she declines his advances he contacts the gangsters who where looking for her all that time ago. What he does not know is that that gangster was Grace's father and when he gets there he just wants to bring Grace into his business and while she is initially willing to forgive the townspeople she soon decides something must be done so that they can never do to another person what they did to her... after she is finished the town's name is chillingly appropriate: the only living creature left in the township is Moses the dog.

When I watched this I'd already seen its sequel; "Manderlay" so wasn't sure how I'd like seeing a different actress in the role of Grace as Bryce Dallas Howard was great in the later film, I needn't have worried though as Nicole Kidman was equally good. Strangely the open set managed to make the town of Dogville seem very claustrophobic, nothing was done that everybody doesn't know about making everybody complicit in her suffering. While Grace is the centre of the film that doesn't mean Nicole Kidman is the only actor that gets to show off her acting skills all of the cast perform well, especially Paul Bettany who plays Tom, the man who claims to love Grace but who does as much as any of the others to keep her there. Mention must also go to John Hurt who narrates the story and obviously to Lars von Trier who had the vision to create such a different film. I'd certainly recommend giving this film a go; just don't expect it to be like anything you've seen before; unless you've seen Manderlay.

9/10

[Reply #291 on:]

Good night, and good luck

Speak no ill of the dead...Unless it's Joseph McCarthy.  Clooney's subtle and brilliantly staged take on American TV's first political war between Edward R. Murrow and the Junior Senator from Wisconsin examines politics, propaganda, demagogueary and the expansive power of the media at its first burgeoning into televised news and editorials.   There is political preaching to the film to be sure, but when squared against the historically debunked, clearly manipulative, boastful, drunken bully that was Joseph McCarthy it is not a hard stance to take, nor one to be found particularly objectionable.

The cast did a great job delivering a film that clearly wanted to say more with subtlety than shouting.  I'm willing to face facts that in modern cinema drama will eventually equal people screaming at each other.  My watching of Infernal Affairs and retroactively comparing it to its American remake The Departed had me convinced of this.  However, not so with this film.   Given the chance to say something big without shouting it, and without falling flat; the cast delivers.   I could praise Clooney and Downey Jr, and Daniels for their Low-key yet engaging performances but the real heart of the film is David Stratherin who vanishes into his portrayal of Murrow, a man hell bent on journalistic integrity in an era gearing itself more and more toward corporate meddling and political power.

Joesph McCarthy's portrayal of himself in this film is spot on.  Seeing his glassy-eyed slurred accusations of communism and treason squared against innocent citizens puts him in stark, historical and accurate clarity.  The decision to use stock footage of McCarthy rather than having him portrayed by an actor seems at first avante-garde and risky, but that decision in the context of the film gave the material an ominous quality.  We know seeing his face and hearing his voice who he was, what he did, and how he operated, and we know his legacy.  To that you add on the knowledge that he has been dead for quite some time, and yet here he was making trouble for our heroes, another creepy thought.  To that you add that he is never shown interacting with the characters, which in fact he never did, which gives him the presence of a puppet master.  McCarthy is presented as a villain unseen who appears only on celluloid to manipulate his adversaries from the shadows.  It couldn't have happened to a better man.  The way it was done was so spot-on and subtle that I honestly don't think it would have worked to have him cast by an actor, which would inevitably give rise to cliche scenes of design and intent.  McCarthy presented in this film is, cinematicaly and historically the real Joseph McCarthy; a boogieman inventing boogiemen.

8.5/10

---------

W.

Josh Browin:  Damn Straight!  That's my Bush.

Richard Dreyfus: Holy shit!  That's the kind of guy who shoots you in the face and then makes you apologize.

Oliver Stone: No.  Bush was dumber than that.  Thanks for clipping out Katrina.   Also what was all that Daddy-Bush-doesn't-love-me Emo bullshit?

Whoever played Condoleezza Rice: FUCK!  STOP!  My ears!

C

[Reply #292 on:]

Alice in Wonderland Or, Alan Rickman Is A Butterfly
I actually quite enjoyed this movie. Aside from the guy snoring behind us in the theatre, and that weird dance Johnny Depp did at the end that lamed up everything else which had so far been fairly entertaining. All I can remember from the Disney version of the film was being confused and bored and not watching the whole thing. But it has been quite a long time since I tried to watch it. This version was very colourful and shiny, and indeed, did have that 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' feel to it. Which I happen to like, even though I can't really describe it. Dark yet shiny and colourful? Something like that.

7/10

Kara says: how was Alice in Wonderland?
Maz says: It was okay. Alan Rickman is a butterfly.
Kara says: I don't know who that is???
Maz says: Then you haven't lived.

So true.

[Reply #293 on:]

   Alan Rickman Is A Butterfly

Given that the butterfly doesn't have any lines of dialogue I'm guessing that they just used an Alan Rickman stand-in for it's scene.

   weird dance Johnny Depp did at the end that lamed up everything else

Agreed. Perhaps the name of the dance was too much for anything to live up to. I initially thought that 'futter-whacking' might be an euphemism for, ahem… something else.

[Reply #294 on:]

If I want to think of him as a butterfly I will. Nobody can stop me.

Yeah, futter whacking doesn't sound..right.

[Reply #295 on:]

The Road

Possibly the most depressing movie ever Trying to survive a nuclear(?) holocaust in the most burnt out locale ever used. Being chased by canibals and cutthroats trying to live another day of miserable existence.
The road refers to the path people use to walk from one end of the wasteland to another. The Father and son played by Viggo, you need no last name credit when your first name is Viggo and Kodi Smit-McPhee are trying to reach the coast in the mistaken belief that it is somehow better there.
Abandoned by the mother, played by Charlize, again no last name needed, the  father tries to give his son the skills needed to survive. They meet other travelers wheeling around shopping carts with their meager possessions. You will never recognize Robert Duvall who gives the film 10 minutes of brilliance as the old man, dying.
Kodi, who Viggo compared to Brando, will go onto other projects. But will never show more acting talent than in this movie. He is destined for greatness.
If you are the least bit suicidal, do not even think about seeing this movie. But for the rest of you this movie, based on a Cormac McCarthy novel should be a must see.
Flawless acting brilliant direction and editing with a ray of hope at the end.

Superb

10/10

[Reply #296 on:]

The Road is uplifting if you stop thinking of it as speculative fiction and start thinking of it as literature. It's all just a big metaphor for Cormac's relationship with his son. It's saying he should stop being so protective because his son can take care of himself - that's a positive and uplifting message.

[Reply #297 on:]

As I never knew  the dynamic of the McCarthy family I must bow to your knowledge on the subject. Would you happen to be Cormac's son?
Knowing this info makes this movie a real gigglefest!! Now that I look back on it the scene with the swinging farm family  

Where the Wild Things Are

They should have called it "Never ending Story part Whatever". No wonder this was remade so many times. Wasn't fun or magical in the least. Why do they make films that looks like they came from the 80's that the stories to them suck badly?

D-

Nope, a sweet journey into the imagination of a young boy.

B

[Reply #298 on:]

I know that Cormac is like 70 and he has a pre-teen son. As does everyone who saw his appearance on Oprah.

(But if that's what I took away from it then that's what I took away from it, regardless of my knowledge of Cormac McCarthy's family life)

Where the Wild Things Are is a masterpiece. One of my faves of the decade!

[Reply #299 on:]

Meh, I have a Y chromosome so I did not catch him on Oprah.
Every sentiment of even the most well spelled out piece of art, as a movie or a book for example, is open for interpretation. I took it to be a piece of post-apocalyptic fiction but if you can see a deeper meaning, great.

[Reply #300 on:]

Here's someone I can agree with.

His appearance on Oprah was amazing. Those two people don't exist in the same universe. 

[Reply #301 on:]

I feel the same way about Philip Pullman. Such an intelligent storyteller and since my world view is drifting towards materialism, I consider him to be my guru.

[Reply #302 on:]

Where the Wild Things Are

They should have called it "Never ending Story part Whatever". No wonder this was remade so many times. Wasn't fun or magical in the least. Why do they make films that looks like they came from the 80's that the stories to them suck badly?

D-

Nope, a sweet journey into the imagination of a young boy.

B

That had all this symbolism and emotional appeal, and did absolutely nothing with it. If they didn't have the stupid scenes in the 'real' world, then I would have been fine with the movie. But I freaking HATE the last 7-10 minutes of that movie, it was just stupid.

Alice in Wonderland

Was pleasantly surprised, the last Tim Burton I watched was Charlie and the Chocolate Factory which even for me -a long time TB fan- was too ridiculous. But I really liked this movie. And goddamit, if you go see this movie, you WILL come out loving the Chesire Cat. He is one of the coolest characters ever.

A-

[Reply #303 on:]

   you WILL come out loving the Chesire Cat. He is one of the coolest characters ever.

Agreed.

Actually, from what I saw of the trailers I was quite aprehensive that they wouldn't do the cat justice. Oh me of little faith!

[Reply #304 on:]

That had all this symbolism and emotional appeal, and did absolutely nothing with it. If they didn't have the stupid scenes in the 'real' world, then I would have been fine with the movie. But I freaking HATE the last 7-10 minutes of that movie, it was just stupid.

The whole point is the fantastical stuff is all in Max' head. It's about how kid's imaginations reflect what's going on in their lives. It wouldn't make any sense without the real-world stuff. (it's alot like Time Bandits)  

[Reply #305 on:]

Alice in Wonderland

The movie felt more like Labyrinth than Alice. It was still an ok movie.

about a C+

[Reply #306 on:]

That had all this symbolism and emotional appeal, and did absolutely nothing with it. If they didn't have the stupid scenes in the 'real' world, then I would have been fine with the movie. But I freaking HATE the last 7-10 minutes of that movie, it was just stupid.

The whole point is the fantastical stuff is all in Max' head. It's about how kid's imaginations reflect what's going on in their lives. It wouldn't make any sense without the real-world stuff. (it's alot like Time Bandits) 

Regardless, the end of that movie is stupid. The kid has been missing for apparently more than a day, the mom acts like nothing happens, they don't even say anything, there's no reconciliation with his sister, and she falls asleep watching him eat soup. I'm sure there's some reason for this, but I was pissed when I saw the ending.

[Reply #307 on:]

I want to punch you in your stupid 11-year-old head.
And I'm pretty sure he was in his room the whole time.

[Reply #308 on:]

In the book he was in his room the whole time. I think in the movie he was out in the woods near his house for a while (everything from when he finds the boat on is in his head)

And I think one of the things Max learns is that his sister didn't do anything wrong, so there's no need for reconciliation.

[Reply #309 on:]

Yeah, but in the beginning you see him playing with the boat on blue sheets, and there's also the twig thing that they build and a bunch of stuffed animals. It doesn't make as much sense for him to be in the woods imagining things that he has in his room. Surely he would have imagined a TV or a toilet. Or spacedal's boobs.

[Reply #310 on:]

You mean Oscar and Biscuit?

[Reply #311 on:]

Surprisingly Oscar doesn't look as appetizing as Biscuit though.

I DEMAND TO SEE MORE OF BISCUIT!

[Reply #312 on:]

I saw Invictus tonight, a message movie masquerading as a sports pic. Morgan Freeman  gives a stellar performance as Nelson Mandela and was worthy nominee as such. Matt Damon gives a decent performance as Francois Pineaar, the captain of the Springboks. Mandela is so wise a man as portrayed by Freeman, I could only hope to have such a great leader in the US.
 It's easy to see why they got the Oscar noms. And whoever cast Feaunati  as Jonah Lomu did a great job. He looks exactly like the rampant ex All Black. Lomu looks like the Walter Peyton of Rugby. One person could not bring him down and he would make you pay for trying.
Really an inspiring movie.


9/10

[Reply #313 on:]

Did someone mention the rugby world cup?

[holds hand over ears] La la la la… I'm not listening. La la la la…

[Reply #314 on:]

 

[Reply #315 on:]

Did someone mention the rugby world cup?

[holds hand over ears] La la la la… I'm not listening. La la la la…

still a year till you guys can finally embarrass yourself in your own country

[Reply #316 on:]

Sherlock Holmes
My dear PEELers I found this to be quite titillating.
Mark Strong is an awesome bad guy.

B+

[Reply #317 on:]

Synecdoche, New York

It makes no sense but that's the whole point. It's about how when artists try and make their masterpiece, they often disappear into their own head and make something that's completely incomprehensible to everyone but themselves. (I heard an interview with Guy Ritchie where he said that that's why Revolver was so unsuccessful - everything in that film has a deep meaning and makes perfect sense...to Guy Ritchie) Makes for a not-entirely-pleasant viewing experience but a fascinating film.

A-

[Reply #318 on:]

The Road
Fuck you Academy Awards, where was this in your stupid crappy movie club for jerks?
Pretty much every actor in this was great and it was very well adapted, shot and everything, just as harrowing as the book... <:'(

A+

[Reply #319 on:]

It fucking sucked