Bullets 'n' Babes

GRAN TORINO

Clint Eastwood is making the best films of his career at a time when most filmmakers have long since retired. Much more than the advertised Dirty Harry in Retirement. An insightful, funny, honest drama that proves Hollywood still can produce great films when it wants to. Unlike a formula vehicle this isn't one you're likely to revist much though - it requires patience and the ending may disappoint fans mislead by the marketing campaign - so maybe something to rent rather than buy.

FUNNY GAMES U.S.

Well-acted, well-directed, but ultimately pointless suspense thriller. Plotted in exactly the same manner as a torture porn - innocents are victimised, humiliated, and brutalised for the duration - but bucks the trend by cutting away from the violence. For that the director deserves credit. Undone by needless pretentions (the viewer is complicit in what exactly?) and cheap devices (the 'rewind' scene is a cheat that takes you right out of the movie - and for what?) If the director had something interesting to say it doesn't come across here. I haven't seen the Austrian original.

gasteropod wrote:People say glasses make your eyesight worse over time anyway.

Who says that? Compared to needing glasses and not getting them, I doubt it.

Watched Die Hard 2 tonight. It's still enjoyable, but in my memories it was much better. They just layed it all on a bit too thick, and there were plotholes and other crap that just seemed wayyy too 'Hollywood'.

Watched Die Hard 1 last week, and that stayed away from that over the top Hollywood-drama and convenience-crap... so it's a shame they went a bit OTT with Die Hard 2.

Next week they'll broadcast Die Hard 4 btw. Is it worth watching or worse than the first 3!?

Worse, but give it a watch.

I thought DIE HARD 4 was loads of fun. The kind of action-packed entertainment that reminds me why I like watching movies. DH2 is good, but probably the least of the series.

Die Hard - 4,5/5 (one of the best US action films of all time. Atmosphere, action and relative realism make it great)
Die Hard 2 - 4/5 (you can watch this once every two years and never get tired of it... a classic representative of Hollywood action from the era when they were still making cool and violent action movies. Some years later cgi and pg-13 rating destroyed the genre).
Die Hard 3 - 3,5/5
Die Hard 4 - 2,5/5 (cgi and pg-13 crap... well, not too bad actually, but mediocre. Willis makes it watchable. But it's severely over-packed*, which is a common problem in new action films. There's helicopters, car chases, computers, kung fu, guns, air planes... I think... maybe... you know, a few days after the film you won't even remember what it was about. But Die Hard 1 you will always remember it was the sky craper film... and Die Hard 2 was the airport film... these movies had a focus that was well exploited throughout the film. You will remembet the film's theme. Die Hard 4 had a new focus every 3 minutes. You won't remember anything of it).

Of course Die Hard 2 is dear to me also because it's a film from the era when Renny Harlin was still making good movies. Born American (his best), Cliffhanger, and Die Hard 2 are something he can be proud of.

When I heard about the PG-13 rating for DH4 was as pissed as anyone... yet I saw it at the cinema and thoroughly enjoyed it. More even than I thought I would. Have you seen the R-rated version? Not as bloody as the previous films, but still pretty damn tough at times. Should be seen once regardless.

Out of ****

DH ****
DH2 ***
DHWAV ***.5
DH4.0 ***.5

Only saw the theatrical version

Die Hard - A bonafide action classic. In the top 5 of action films of all time.
Die Hard 2 - A basic remake but without Rickman. Pretty good but nothing special
Die Hard 3 - Boring, pass.
Die Hard 4 - My third favourite but as Hung said, a PG-13 rating and CGI ruined it. Man I hate it when director's masturbate over CGI. Reign it fucking in!

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (5/5)

This is a wonderful piece of cinema and I can't recommend it enough.

Iron Man (USA, 2008) – 3/5
Slightly interesting superhero screenplay (featuring some timely themes and USA criticism) truly saved by everybody’s new favorite actor Robert Downey Jr’s enjoyable and self-ironic performance. 2 hours flies by, but the final 15 minutes is filled with disappointing generic cgi mayhem.

Inglorious Basterds (USA, 2009) – 3,5/5
Tarantino’s biggest film to date is also his worst. But that’s not to say “Kill Adof” is a bad movie at all. The opening chapter is perfect cinema; Tarantino’s dialogue meets Leone’s directing in nazi occupied France. The following three chapters, each introducing new characters, are not quite on par. Sometimes the film tries to be too clever and funny – even modern and fashionable - without succeeding in it. The last chapter is quite excellent, though. Like Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds is set in a movie universe - Tarantino re-writes the history. Inglorious Basterds, however, is not connected to the Enzo G. Castellari film Inglorious Bastards, which only served as inspiration for the title. The film’s soundtrack is not quite as good as one might expect from Tarantino, but there’s still a good mix of Morricone, David Bowie, and even a brief piece from Eastern Condors. Worth pointing out is that English is not the film’s primary language, or necessarily even the secondary. Most of the dialogue is in French, followed by somewhat equal amount of German and English. This is no problem for the “Jew Hunter” Christoph Waltz who fluently reads his lines in four different languages. Waltz is easily the best actor in the film, and his character is possibly the best Tarantino has ever created.

HungFist wrote:Iron Man (USA, 2008) – 3/5
2 hours flies by, but the final 15 minutes is filled with disappointing generic cgi mayhem.

That was the best bit IMO. It took way too long to get to the "good stuff". The film overall was a disappointment for me. Well made but not especially exciting and it's a SUPER HERO film. They must always be exciting.

luckystars wrote:The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (5/5)

This is a wonderful piece of cinema and I can't recommend it enough.

I'll be seeing this soon. All my friends wanted to see Triangle instead. WTF!

At least it has to be better than the dreadful The Brothers Grimm.

Didn't that have lots of studio meddling?

I've just checked and I'm shocked to say, I've not seen any of Gilliam's films. Even though I have Brazil (UK DVD Euro Cut), 12 Monkeys (HD-DVD) and Monty Python and the Holy Grail (UK DVD).

I liked 12 Monkeys, but Gilliam's films are a bit too 'out there' for me. Not really a fantasy buff. I'll probably give Dr. P a miss. I'd rather see 'Triangle' lol. 'Holy Grail' is very funny though...

Holy Grail is over-rated. Brian is funnier.

Brazil is ok. 12 Monkeys is one of the best scifi-movies out there.

They're both hilarious, I find Holy Grail funnier for some reason but Brian has better satire.

HungFist wrote:Holy Grail is over-rated. Brian is funnier.

Obviously you're wrong.

What about me?

bradavon wrote:I'll be seeing this soon. All my friends wanted to see Triangle instead. WTF!

That is because Triangle is 10 times the film that Gilliam wank fest is. Gilliam stopped making good films a very long time ago.

I imagine I'd think Triangle is utter rubbish. I certainly won't be paying to see it. I've no idea if I'll like Dr. P, as I've nothing to compare it against.

bradavon wrote:I imagine I'd think Triangle is utter rubbish. I certainly won't be paying to see it. I've no idea if I'll like Dr. P, as I've nothing to compare it against.

Yeah like you have anything to compare Triangle against, you moron

It's a genre horror flick .

bradavon wrote:It's a genre horror flick .

How would you know that you have not seen it.