What Have You Just Seen... Marks Out of 5

the68monkey · Post by **the68monkey** » 15 May 2005, 01:23

bradavon wrote: OMG I just had to comment Seven is in another league compared to the VERY overrated average Memories or Murder.

Sure it has moments of great power but they are some what lost in all the unfunny and not needed comedy, and general silliness. I couldn't believe what ridiculousness I was watching at times.

Please, tell me you're kidding, brad.

ReconFive · Post by **ReconFive** » 15 May 2005, 03:26

Bradavon...with all due respect, I must voice my complete disagreement with your assessment of Memories of Murder. Overall there was very little humor in the film, and I fail to see where you are getting the idea of "general silliness from.
Its anything but silly.

I wont repeat all my opinions since they are already in my recent review, but I simply do not understand where you are coming from.

Nonetheless, I completly respect your opinion

As for Failan, I agree that the 2nd half is MUCH better then the 1st, however there is a reason for the events that take place during the first half. Its simply building up Choi's character, and IMO that makes the events of the 2nd half much more effective.

I love film debate

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 15 May 2005, 09:37

The film is full of (so called) slapstick comedy or at least that's how I took it and at the same time it has many powerful scenes but to me the silliness killed it.

Like when they start hitting that disabled kid with a shoe. Some of the comedy is so stupid I was in amazement they thought it fitted with the more serious tone of the rest of the film.

There are many others but I don't tend to remember poor films. This isn't the first film I've thought was overrated when "everyone" else thinks it's excellent and I doubt it will be the last (Drunken Master 2 springs to mind).

the68monkey wrote:Please, tell me you're kidding, brad.

No I'm being very serious I really don't get why this is so revered.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 15 May 2005, 09:40

Back to Alexander does anyone know what the purpose of the red sepia effect was near the end? It was odd to say the least.

I thought my DVD was dodgy for a second.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 15 May 2005, 15:42

bradavon wrote:Like when they start hitting that disabled kid with a shoe. Some of the comedy is so stupid I was in amazement they thought it fitted with the more serious tone of the rest of the film.

I think this scene is rather one that is not supposed to be meant as a funny one. A funny scene to me is when Song Kang-ho goes into the public bath and tries to find suspects according to their shaven pubic hair. This was indeed meant to be funny.

But all the scenes involving the retarded kid seem serious to me and more of a display of how cops used to investigate at that time.

ReconFive · Post by **ReconFive** » 15 May 2005, 15:48

thelostdragon wrote:I think this scene is rather one that is not supposed to be meant as a funny one. A funny scene to me is when Song Kang-ho goes into the public bath and tries to find suspects according to their shaven pubic hair. This was indeed meant to be funny.

But all the scenes involving the retarded kid seem serious to me and more of a display of how cops used to investigate at that time.

Could not have said it better myself, lostdragon.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 15 May 2005, 17:48

What of my thoughts on Alexander? Surely they're controversial

. What nationality was Olympias (Jolie)?

thelostdragon wrote:A funny scene to me is when Song Kang-ho goes into the public bath and tries to find suspects according to their shaven pubic hair. This was indeed meant to be funny.

You've made my point for me I don't want to see slapstick in a film that is supposed to be serious!

ReconFive · Post by **ReconFive** » 16 May 2005, 00:00

bradavon wrote:You've made my point for me I don't want to see slapstick in a film that is supposed to be serious!

I don't see how this is slapstick humor. That whole bit was a very small comic relief element that could be argued as being unnessasary, but it most certainly does not make the film seem silly overall.

As for Alexander, I did not bother seeing it based on terrible reviews I heard from quite a few people. Maybe i'll give it a shot.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 16 May 2005, 00:28

Appleseed - 3.5/5
Wonderful animation, good story, good music and awesome action sequences. I was a bit let down by some slow moments like when they talk and talk and talk about stuff that could have been told in other ways. It could easily have been a 4/5.

Animation - 5/5
Action - 4/5
Story - 3/5
Music - 3/5

The Korean "Wonderful Days" is a good alternative here.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 16 May 2005, 00:48

Dodgeball **.5/4

Some laughs, but patchy as I expected.

ReconFive · Post by **ReconFive** » 16 May 2005, 07:57

12 Monkeys - 4/5 -

Brilliant. Still remains one of my favorite sci-fi films of the 90s.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 16 May 2005, 09:03

Yojimbo - 4/5

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 16 May 2005, 13:07

I'm glad I saw Alexander as I must've watched a different film to every one else.

ReconFive wrote:I don't see how this is slapstick humor. That whole bit was a very small comic relief element that could be argued as being unnessasary, but it most certainly does not make the film seem silly overall.

That was one of many examples.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 16 May 2005, 14:39

bradavon wrote:Is .5 a mark so much?

How can you give the great T&L 3 out of 5 and say it's average but PS 3.5 out of 5 and say it's excellent?

Where did I say Police Story as an overall film was excellent? I said the stunts and action sequences were. It's what lifted an otherwise average action film (3/5) to slightly above average (3.5/5). Thelma & Louise is definately a well-made road movie with fully-rounded characters (at least the leads) and delightful performances from Sarandon and Davis, but it just struck me as too much of "a Hollywood feel-good movie".

bradavon wrote:I couldn't disagree more well as far as Alexander is concerned. I saw it earlier and am at a complete loss why it has been slated so much.

Sure it has the odd flaw and continuity issue, Angelina as Alexander's mother took a lot of getting used to, the last major scene with King Philip (Val Kilmer) would've worked better earlier on in the film and why do the Macedonian's have Irish accents?

But these are really just niggles. Angelina is such a good actress she managed to make me forget about their ridiculous age differences, the two main battles were outstanding (especially the first). I've not seen battles so good since LOTR. The cinematography was outstanding. I loved the level of detail about Alexander, sure it skimmed over a fair bit but come on there is no way Stone could show it all in one film.The first battle was truly outstanding, my jaw was open with amazement all the way through and that elephant vs. horse charge was awesome.

EvaUnit02 wrote:Alexander - 1/5
Fucking fucking dire, made Troy look like gold. Awful over-acting (especially Angelina Jolie, who doesn't deserve the Oscar she won for the craptacular Girl, Interrupted); way over-long; a lack of battles, and the two battles which there were badly shot with shaky-cam cinematography. The WORST film of 2004.

The elephant "bullet time" in the latter battle was cool though.

It's a sorry state of affairs when the most people can concentrate on is the openly conveyed fact Alexander was bisexual which to me he looked more gay. He didn't even seem to like women let alone fancy them. I thought he only slept with women so he could have an air, which never happened.

Meh, couldn't give a toss about his "orientation". Stone should focused on Alexander the great military tactician/general, rather than Alexander "the soap star".

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 16 May 2005, 14:52

Bullitt - 4/5
A solid cop thriller. The car chase is still very good, despite being bettered in numerous subsequent movies. Steve McQueen was flawless and perfectly cast in his role and Robert Vaughn was totally slimy as Chalmers the ambitious politician at odds with Bullitt.

thelostdragon wrote:Appleseed - 3.5/5
The Korean "Wonderful Days" is a good alternative here.

No way, nothing can stack up against something bestowed by the great Shirow Masamune.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 16 May 2005, 17:50

Dawn of the Dead (2004)
**/4

Pointless remake dispenses with everything that made the original a seminal classic and replaces it with better gore effects. Not what I'd call a fair trade off. This version's best "new" invention - the Zombies can run like buggers - was actually stolen from 28 Days Later. If this is Hollywood's best stab at horror? Oh dear!

Man on Fire
**.5/4

Over-directed and under-written star revenge vehicle. Denzel is good, so is the story, which keeps the audience involved, but this could (and should) have been so much better. Tony Scott's self-consciously flashy direction makes MTV look sedate. Scores a bonus point for being the only film I ever seen that has a bomb stuck up a guy's ass.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 16 May 2005, 18:30

Elephant bullet time that is funny, it looked like slow motion to me!

I disagree again Jolie was excellent in Girl, Interrupted. The film is excellent also.

p.s - Mark do you really have to always use * for your ratings? 8)

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 16 May 2005, 20:51

bradavon wrote:p.s - Mark do you really have to always use * for your ratings? 8)

No. But I want to. 8)

ReconFive · Post by **ReconFive** » 16 May 2005, 23:06

Memento - 5/5
Absolutly brilliant film. One of the most well written mystery/thrillers ever made. The narrative style, and general structure of the movie is just amazing. Still so much fun to watch, even though i've seen it several times now.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 16 May 2005, 23:57

Alexander is far from a great film, in fact I thought the final fight was unwatchable crap no idea what he was thinking colouring it red, it ruined it even more

dont get me wrong I watched the film and its ok, but cruddy in too many places, a shame really.

Kingdom of Heaven kicked its arse thats for sure, in every way except length, spectacular bordom and Gayness. But it had Angelina in it so I dont mind

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 16 May 2005, 23:59

Hey I think Troy is better than Alexander, strangleyTroy grows on you and I liked Troy better second time around, maybe Alexander will grow on me too.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 17 May 2005, 00:27

romerojpg wrote:in every way except length, spectacular bordom and Gayness.

LOL only you Romero would write such a line

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 17 May 2005, 00:49

Ray - 4/5
Wow! Jamie Foxx did a wonderful job as Ray Charles Robinson. He wasn't portrayed as an angel. His heroin problem and him cheating his wife play a big role in this film. Although you don't see his eyes in most of the scenes (as he is wearing sunglasses in almost every scene), he manages to display feeling by facial expressions you don't see all too often.

Great film, even if you're not a fan of Ray Charles.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 17 May 2005, 13:36

The amazing thing is the prosthetics that covers Jamie Foxx's eyes are kept on ALL the time, even when he is wearing glasses. It says so in the extras.

That's dedication!

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 17 May 2005, 16:44

Shaun of the Dead
**.5/4

Inspired, but uneven comedy spoof of (aw, you guessed?)

Not as funny as it wants to be (or thinks it is...) but it's still more inventive than the big budget Hollywood remake.