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

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 17 Oct 2007, 19:30

UNFORGIVEN was great. Only thing I would've liked was a more exciting showdown. Hackman just sorta gives up which doesn't seem in his character.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 17 Oct 2007, 20:38

Million Dollar Baby – 2,5/5
Oscar winning boxing movie by Eastwood. Pretty much what you’d expect. Freeman (silent good guy with a past) and Eastwood (cynical old trainer) pull out the same roles they’ve been playing film after film. The storyline is half-sentimential ’hollywood trying to be serious’ stuff with some unbearable voice-over wisdoms by Freeman. The old guys make a good couple though, and Hilary Swank’s acting isn’t bad. The last third is more interesting than the just-about-watchable preceding two. The ending is excellent. Decent film overall, a typical Academy Award favourite.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 17 Oct 2007, 20:43

Million Dollar Baby was ok,nothing special,very formulaic. must have been a weak year for the oscars. nowUnforgiven,that is a masterpiece.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 17 Oct 2007, 21:08

I always thought that Unforgiven would've been better if they had used the Metallica song.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 17 Oct 2007, 23:02

HungFist wrote:Million Dollar Baby – 2,5/5
The ending is excellent. Decent film overall, a typical Academy Award favourite.

Did you see the ending coming? It knocked me for six. I didn't expect it at all. The hero always normally wins, not here.

I really don't get your rating system but anyway I've mentioned it before.

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

I think so, it lost me a bit.

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

On paper yes in reality no. It has boxing matches and they look a "bit" similar but that's a given it's features boxing. The story, how it progresses and how Eastwood's films it is very different.

Eastwood is on record saying his distaste for flash effects and camera trickery. Eastwood films are slow and let the film takes it's time. They're better for it.

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

What do you mean by digital video? I mean CGI but I'm starting to think you don't.

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

Me too. I hear they're awesome.

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

Fair enough.

saltysam wrote:Million Dollar Baby was ok,nothing special,very formulaic.

Granted part of it is but formulaic did you turn it off half way through?

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 18 Oct 2007, 09:51

bradavon wrote:
HungFist wrote:Million Dollar Baby – 2,5/5
The ending is excellent. Decent film overall, a typical Academy Award favourite.
Did you see the ending coming? It knocked me for six. I didn't expect it at all. The hero always normally wins, not here.

I didn't see the twist coming, but I didn't find it quite that surprising either. The very ending however was very surprising. Much respect for that.

bradavon wrote:Eastwood is on record saying his distaste for flash effects and camera trickery. Eastwood films are slow and let the film takes it's time. They're better for it.

Yet he had some cgi in the film. Very little though, perfectly forgivable. I wouldn't however call Eastwood's films slow at all. Maybe on Hollywood scale, but not on any other.

bradavon wrote:
HungFist wrote:What's GCI and whizzy effects got to do with realistic movies shot digital video? (or maybe you didn't mean exactly that)
What do you mean by digital video? I mean CGI but I'm starting to think you don't.

Digital video:
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y297/S ... oucap6.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y297/S ... oucap7.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y297/S ... ucap13.jpg

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 18 Oct 2007, 14:25

EvaUnit02 wrote:
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.

Actually... I prefer asian chicks or girls with dark hair over blondes. I've never really had a thing for blondes, although Winslet and Shakira (not a real blonde but she plays one on tv) sure are nice.

Overall, I have an asian fetish, yet I can like all kinds of women

Do they have any non-white sheep where you live, Eva? How are those working out for ya!?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 18 Oct 2007, 16:29

I hate Digital Video.

Partly ruined Collateral.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 18 Oct 2007, 16:44

HungFist wrote:Yet he had some cgi in the film. Very little though, perfectly forgivable. I wouldn't however call Eastwood's films slow at all. Maybe on Hollywood scale, but not on any other.

Compared to Hollywood films. When was CGI used in MDB?

HungFist wrote:Digital video

Ah I've finally got what you meant

, a bit slow I know.

I see what you meant but to me in many way Digital Video looks too good. It can make an image look like a computer image instead of real life. Agreed Film doesn't make it look like real life either but I do think it does more than Digital Video.

Partly ruined Collateral.

I can't say I noticed the DV in Collateral.

Yi-Long wrote:I've never really had a thing for blondes, although Winslet and Shakira (not a real blonde but she plays one on tv) sure are nice.

Blondes do nothing for me either but I don't have a particular Asian requirement like you

If I had to pick I'd say Latino or Mediterranean women are the most sexy. Asian women don't tend to be very curvy. Japanese women are probably the hottest women in the Far East though.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 18 Oct 2007, 17:16

Yeah, I say I have an asian fetish but TBH any hot dame with dark eyes and nice dark hair will probably do it for me

Plus yeah, curvy would always be nice.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 18 Oct 2007, 18:24

bradavon wrote:
HungFist wrote:Yet he had some cgi in the film. Very little though, perfectly forgivable. I wouldn't however call Eastwood's films slow at all. Maybe on Hollywood scale, but not on any other.
Compared to Hollywood films. When was CGI used in MDB?

There was a bit right in the beginning

bradavon wrote:
HungFist wrote:Digital video
Ah I've finally got what you meant , a bit slow I know.

I see what you meant but to me in many way Digital Video looks too good. It can make an image look like a computer image instead of real life. Agreed Film doesn't make it look like real life either but I do think it does more than Digital Video.

Either you still don't have a clue, or our eyes differ vastly (possible).

Markgway wrote: Partly ruined Collateral.

Heh. I though the cinematography was so good it saved the whole film from the horrible script. I think somebody even agreed with me. Eva?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 18 Oct 2007, 18:32

Either you still don't have a clue, or our eyes differ vastly (possible).

Many people think DV looks "too" good.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 18 Oct 2007, 19:12

bradavon wrote:
Either you still don't have a clue, or our eyes differ vastly (possible).
Many people think DV looks "too" good.

I find that a bit strange because in my opinion it looks more harsh and documentaristic than the clean traditional film.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 18 Oct 2007, 22:18

Superbad 4.5/5
Super funny.

Batman 4/5
I don't think Keaton makes a good Wayne/Batman but very good otherwise.

Distrubia 3.5/5
Fun little thriller.

Death Sentence 4/5
Saw director returns with another quality piece.

Atonement 4/5
I liked this.

3:10 to Yuma 4.5/5
I actually ended up watching this at 6:10.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 18 Oct 2007, 22:21

"Collateral" was not shot on DV. About 85% of the film were shot on HD and the rest on film. HD is a totally different format than DV, mind you.

Oh, and that twist in "Million Dollar Baby" was so predictable, especially because it won an Oscar for Best Film.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 18 Oct 2007, 22:24

thelostdragon wrote:Oh, and that twist in "Million Dollar Baby" was so predictable, especially because it won an Oscar for Best Film.

Totally.

After Crash, MDB was the biggest load of sentimental contrived bollocks out that year.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 18 Oct 2007, 22:39

Layer Cake – 3/5
This one had Guy Ritchie warning all over it, but surprisingly, and thankfully, avoids nearly all of that crap. Very stylish thriller that is cleaver, but not so overly cleaver it would stumble and fall onto its feet. Good movie.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 18 Oct 2007, 22:57

BiscLimpkit wrote:Batman 4/5
I don't think Keaton makes a good Wayne/Batman but very good otherwise.

Nicholson makes it for more.

thelostdragon wrote:Oh, and that twist in "Million Dollar Baby" was so predictable, especially because it won an Oscar for Best Film.

Well how can they win? They could've gone the other way and it would've been way, way more predictable. To say the film is predictable "especially because it won an Oscar" is just bizarre. Oscars are given "after" the film is made.

HungFist wrote:Layer Cake – 3/5
This one had Guy Ritchie warning all over it, but surprisingly, and thankfully, avoids nearly all of that crap.

Ritchie didn't direct it but the script writer who worked with Ritchie did, so it's not surprising.

EvaUnit02 wrote:After Crash, MDB was the biggest load of sentimental contrived bollocks out that year.

Agreed about Crash. The contrivance really hurt Crash, which is a shame when it had lots of potential. I did like it but it's no keeper. But I completely disagree in MDB. Did you even see the end? That wasn't slightly contrived. Sure it had some "stock moments" but then what film doesn't?

Besides they had to have the twist as otherwise the ending wouldn't have made any sense at all.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 18 Oct 2007, 22:59

Uhm, if it makes you feel better, "IT WAS PREDICTABLE TO ME BECAUSE I WATCHED IT AFTER THE OSCARS". ;-)

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 18 Oct 2007, 23:02

It sounds like you're judging MDB partly on the awards it won, is that a good idea?

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 18 Oct 2007, 23:07

bradavon wrote: Agreed about Crash. The contrivance really hurt Crash, which is a shame when it had lots of potential. I did like it but it's no keeper. But I completely disagree in MDB. Did you even see the end? That wasn't slightly contrived. Sure it had some "stock moments" but then what film doesn't?

Yes I did see it. The ending was totally contrived, preachy pro-euthanasia bollocks. Similar to how Crash was utterly heavy-handed with it's "THERE IS RACISM" message, it was the same case here.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 18 Oct 2007, 23:15

RE: Layer Cake. Vaughn went out of his way to make the film NOT be like the Guy Ritchie films. The original novel had a lot more cockney jokey bits but he had script writer (/original writer) eliminate most of the them. Sure, the Duke and his lot are still amusing, but it's not totally overdone like you'd see in Lock, Stock.

Vaughn made a realistic film about the drug trade, seen through the eyes of a complete professional, the nameless protagonist.

You gotta love the ending of that film too. Instead of driving into the sunset with girl, he gets shot by such a minor character that you wouldn't see it coming.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 18 Oct 2007, 23:29

EvaUnit02 wrote:Yes I did see it. The ending was totally contrived, preachy pro-euthanasia bollocks. Similar to how Crash was utterly heavy-handed with it's "THERE IS RACISM" message, it was the same case here.

Agreed in Crash. Would you have preferred a Rocky type ending? Because those aren't contrived.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 18 Oct 2007, 23:45

I'd rather the film have not have been made at all.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 18 Oct 2007, 23:50

thelostdragon wrote:"Collateral" was not shot on DV. About 85% of the film were shot on HD and the rest on film. HD is a totally different format than DV, mind you.

I admit I'm not technically minded so I'm sure you're correct.

It wasn't film though, right?

Anyway I thought it had an artificial look. It's hard to explain, but it didn't look like "a cinema film" to me. More like something made for video or TV. Does anyone here know what I mean and can put it better?