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

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 16 Oct 2007, 18:47

grim_tales wrote:Why?

Why would Mark pick Eva over Franka? Because she's much hotter.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 16 Oct 2007, 19:12

Creep=virtual remake of Death Line

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 16 Oct 2007, 19:30

bradavon wrote:
grim_tales wrote:Why?
Why would Mark pick Eva over Franka? Because she's much hotter.

Blashemy.

btw, isn't Eva in The Dreamers. That's up next. God, I wonder if I'll survive through the film at all

(I get the feeling I'm disagreeing with people more than usual today

)

I watched the first two spider man films. Commenst comming after The Dreamers. Then we'll see who I'll disagree with next

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 16 Oct 2007, 19:40

Yes she is, unshaven too

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 16 Oct 2007, 20:03

saltysam wrote:Creep=virtual remake of Death Line

With a crap monster

he is hilariously poor and silly. Still worked while I could not see the creep for the first half.

The Dreamers is not a film, its a 14 year old boy wank fest.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 16 Oct 2007, 22:16

Spider-Man – 2,5/5
This wasn’t that bad after all. Dafoe’s got his moments (awesome helmet), I don’t hate Kirsten Dunst, Bruce Campbell appears briefly, and spider man’s first steps are pretty good fun to follow. The second half is quite boring with only a few decent scenes.

Spider-Man 2 – 2/5
More spidey, but with uglier daytime visuals this time. The storyline is a cliche collection and action is as lackluster as before. The humour works real nicely, though, and Evil Dead Bruce has a cameo again.

The Dreamers – 2,5/5
Bertolucci’s latest is pretty much what I expected from him,in good and in bad. The first half works quite well. The director’s own experience shows and the content is interesting. But after the halfway the movie loses its interest mostly. Bertolucci can’t get nearly as close to the characters as he should and everything starts feeling too distant, too cinematic. This is one of the few things that some recent film makers (usually with the help of digital video) actually can do better than the old school directors. Good performances from the main cast.

captainjoe · Post by **captainjoe** » 16 Oct 2007, 22:22

28 weeks later: 2/5

Just a rehash of the first but with more people. But it did has some interesting shots.

Blu-ray quality: 5/5

Very well rendered on BD with bit-rates reaching 45 MB/S in AVC encoding! The 1.5 bit DTS track was brilliant.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 16 Oct 2007, 23:00

Yes she is, unshaven too

Saves getting pubes in your mouth.

Creep=virtual remake of Death Line

aka Raw Meat.

I've heard that's an interesting film, but never seen it.

With a crap monster he is hilariously poor and silly. Still worked while I could not see the creep for the first half.

That's how I felt.

Shit, I just agreed with Romero(!!)

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 16 Oct 2007, 23:21

This is one of the few things that some recent film makers (usually with the help of digital video) actually can do better than the old school directors.

What do you mean here? IMO there are few new school director's that come close to old school director. A lot of that has to do with the complete freedom no longer allowed.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 17 Oct 2007, 07:13

bradavon wrote:
grim_tales wrote:Why?
Why would Mark pick Eva over Franka? Because she's much hotter.

No no, why does Hung think he knows better than any reviewer when it comes to movies?

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 17 Oct 2007, 07:14

bradavon wrote: What do you mean here? IMO there are few new school director's that come close to old school director. A lot of that has to do with the complete freedom no longer allowed.

I think he means that really honest raw quality that you get with the performances of first time actors; like in an independent Gus Van Sant film or fictional films done in a documentarian style. This works wonderfully in coming of age films.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 17 Oct 2007, 07:26

Nosferatu (1922) - 3.5/5

Felt very odd to watch at times but certainly very interesting and worth seeing. It felt strange because there was no dialogue, mouths were moving but no sound was coming out and I kept wanting characters to say something. Anything. Because of this the acting sometimes felt exaggerated to me. I suppose silent actors had to do that to a degree, certainly comedians, because there was no way of doing a one liner.
That said this is a hugely important film, it is a virtual retelling of "Dracula" but Murnau conjures a really spooky atmosphere at times, and Max Schrek is only on screen for a very short time, with some standout scenes like when he arises from his coffin surrounded by rats. Interestingly the motif of the "plague" makes it into the film, this was only 1922 and the influenza outbreak after World War I (whoch some thought was the Plague) would have been fresh in many minds.
The action is broken up with a healthy amount of newly done (at the time in 1997) English intertitles and a montage of documents which explain the action. The flowery, spidery script is a bugger to read though.

James Bernard's score is excellent and really suited the film.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 17 Oct 2007, 08:39

EvaUnit02 wrote:
bradavon wrote: What do you mean here? IMO there are few new school director's that come close to old school director. A lot of that has to do with the complete freedom no longer allowed.
I think he means that really honest raw quality that you get with the performances of first actors; like in an independent Gus Van Sant film or fictional films done in a documentarian style. This works wonderfully in coming of age films.

That's pretty much what I mean.

grim_tales wrote:
bradavon wrote:
grim_tales wrote:Why?
Why would Mark pick Eva over Franka? Because she's much hotter.
No no, why does Hung think he knows better than any reviewer when it comes to movies?

Because what are movies about? Personal opinions. And who would know my preferences better than I?

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 17 Oct 2007, 08:42

Fair enough

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 17 Oct 2007, 11:46

I've always felt Franka was pretty Fugly.

Eva isnt great either, but she does have charisma that crosses over on-screen.

Both not really great though.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 17 Oct 2007, 14:21

Yi-Long wrote:I've always felt Franka was pretty Fugly.

Eva isnt great either, but she does have charisma that crosses over on-screen.

Both not really great though.

Yeah, we know.

A blonde-haired, blue-eyed shining example of the Aryan master race like yourself wouldn't settle for anything less than his own kind.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 17 Oct 2007, 14:51

What a strange comment Eva. What does Nazism have to do with anything?

grim_tales wrote:Nosferatu (1922) - 3.5/5

Glad you liked it. You watched it quickly.

Did you understand the reason behind the man eating flower segment? That lost me a bit.

grim_tales wrote:The flowery, spidery script is a bugger to read though.

They are a bit. You get used to them though.

EvaUnit02 wrote:I think he means that really honest raw quality that you get with the performances of first time actors; like in an independent Gus Van Sant film or fictional films done in a documentarian style. This works wonderfully in coming of age films.

Thanks. I don't understand what that has to do with Digital Video then?

HungFist wrote:Because what are movies about? Personal opinions. And who would know my preferences better than I?

That doesn't make much sense when you consider you either read a review before the film and it may contain spoilers (your point) but as you haven't seen the film yet how can you have an opinion? Or you read a review after seeing the film and can then see if you agree with the reviewers opinion. I like doing the latter.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 17 Oct 2007, 15:03

bradavon wrote:What a strange comment Eva. What does Nazism have to do with anything?

Ever heard of a joke?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 17 Oct 2007, 15:21

A joke has to be funny to be a joke, yours rarely are.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 17 Oct 2007, 16:06

bradavon wrote:
EvaUnit02 wrote:I think he means that really honest raw quality that you get with the performances of first time actors; like in an independent Gus Van Sant film or fictional films done in a documentarian style. This works wonderfully in coming of age films.
Thanks. I don't understand what that has to do with Digital Video then?

Traditional film adds a cinematic visual look that is in contradiction with how the real world, and people, look like. And the other way round: you'd have to work real hard to make Lawrence of Arabia work on digital video.

bradavon wrote:
HungFist wrote:Because what are movies about? Personal opinions. And who would know my preferences better than I?
That doesn't make much sense when you consider you either read a review before the film and it may contain spoilers (your point) but as you haven't seen the film yet how can you have an opinion? Or you read a review after seeing the film and can then see if you agree with the reviewers opinion. I like doing the latter.

Screencaps, posters, people's comments, the director's history, technical specs, awards ect. All that together and I usually know if the film is gonna be good or not.

Right now at this moment I'm testing if it truly works. Yesterday after Shing's provoking I went to rent 7 movies that are generally considered great, but look bad to me. Just to see if my "hunch" really is as reliable as I believe it is. I have not read reviews of any of them, nor have I seen trailers. Spiderman 1&2 (2,5/5 & 2/5) and The Dreamers (2,5/5) I watched yesterday, and now I just finished the fourth:

Sideways - 1,5/5
Great acting, and good last 30 minutes. That's it. The director is only able to offer an outsider view, which combined with uninteresting characters kills the movie.

Edit: the next film, Million Dollar Baby, is gonna be interesting. Judging from the Oscar success and the cover art I'd say it a sentimential story of a female boxer who is bullied and who no one believes in, until comes an old and experinced trainer (who's had problems in his own life, but has come past those and turned into the silent type) who decides to help the poor girl. This sounds like a Morgan Freeman role (the trainer) because he always plays the same character in every movie, this is right up his alley. Ok, the girl trains hard, probably frustrates a few times, maybe turns a bit selfish at some point but learns about life and becomes the american hero(ine) in the end.

That's my negative prediction, based on my hunch. I haven't seen reviews or trailers, don't know anything about the storyline. I don't even know if there's a trainer in the movie. I think Freeman is in it but I'm not sure.

On the positive side Eastwood has directed many decent films before. Unforgiven was even excellent, athough it fell appart at the end. So, I'm hopeful. I have my doubts but I'd much prefer being proven wrong rather than suffer 2 hours.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 17 Oct 2007, 16:57

HungFist wrote:Traditional film adds a cinematic visual look that is in contradiction with how the real world, and people, look like. And the other way round: you'd have to work real hard to make Lawrence of Arabia work on digital video.

I'd say it's the complete opposite. Old school films often look and feel far more realistic. Then CGI and whizzy effects came along and made everything look really fake.

HungFist wrote:Screencaps, posters, people's comments, the director's history, technical specs, awards ect. All that together and I usually know if the film is gonna be good or not.

Me too.

HungFist wrote:Sideways - 1,5/5
Great acting, and good last 30 minutes. That's it. The director is only able to offer an outsider view, which combined with uninteresting characters kills the movie.

Great acting and 30 minutes of good entertainment yet you only give it 1.5 out of 5???

HungFist wrote:Edit: the next film, Million Dollar Baby, is gonna be interesting. Judging from the Oscar success and the cover art I'd say it a sentimential story of a female boxer who is bullied and who no one believes in, until comes an old and experinced trainer (who's had problems in his own life, but has come past those and turned into the silent type) who decides to help the poor girl. This sounds like a Morgan Freeman role (the trainer) because he always plays the same character in every movie, this is right up his alley. Ok, the girl trains hard, probably frustrates a few times, maybe turns a bit selfish at some point but learns about life and becomes the american hero(ine) in the end.

If this was a Sly Stallone film you'd be so right but as it's a Clint Eastwood film you're so wrong. I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts as you're in for a big, big shock. Although parts of your comments are correct but on the whole you've got Eastwood's direction so, so wrong.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 17 Oct 2007, 18:32

I watched Sideways again last night, about my fourth time now, still love it.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 17 Oct 2007, 18:33

On paper the plot of MDB sounds a bit like Rocky to me as well..

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 17 Oct 2007, 18:36

Brad: re - venus fly trap scene. dunno? Is it comparing that plant to a vampire?

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 17 Oct 2007, 18:44

bradavon wrote:
HungFist wrote:Traditional film adds a cinematic visual look that is in contradiction with how the real world, and people, look like. And the other way round: you'd have to work real hard to make Lawrence of Arabia work on digital video.
I'd say it's the complete opposite. Old school films often look and feel far more realistic. Then CGI and whizzy effects came along and made everything look really fake.

What's GCI and whizzy effects got to do with realistic movies shot digital video? (or maybe you didn't mean exactly that)

But yeah, some of the american 70's cop films had nice realism in them. But even those films, unrightly judged by my limited experience, never "got to the skin".

I should check The French Connection again some day, though.

bradavon wrote:
HungFist wrote:Sideways - 1,5/5
Great acting, and good last 30 minutes. That's it. The director is only able to offer an outsider view, which combined with uninteresting characters kills the movie.
Great acting and 30 minutes of good entertainment yet you only give it 1.5 out of 5???

30 minutes of good intertainment in a 122 minute movie. That's about 1,5/5, I think.