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

brooce-leroy · Post by **brooce-leroy** » 24 Dec 2007, 21:48

Coming To America 5/5

Absolute classic. Must be about the 100th time I have watched it, but it is always a pleasure. I love it.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 24 Dec 2007, 21:54

The Snowman: 5/5

Magical, a classic

The ending is so sad

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 24 Dec 2007, 22:32

I much prefer the Irn Bru version.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 24 Dec 2007, 23:10

That's great, but you can't beat the original.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 25 Dec 2007, 02:47

bradavon wrote:This rarely happens. As I understand it as the story was changed the Chinese writers are no longer "considered" the original writers so get no credit.

They changed some of the details, but the story structure (and even specific events- such as the cop being thrown off the roof, the chat about spotting cops, the writing on the envelope, etc, are all carbon copies) is very much the same (though they amalgamated two female characters). The writer was very lucky to have won an Oscar I'll say that much.

I was surprised by that too. It's very pedestrian for Scorsese, more's the pity.

He only won the Oscar out of guilt and they were afraid he'd die before they could give him one.

Can you imagine what would've happened if a two bit director was brought on board.

With that script? DTV, I presume.

For the most part I agree but as good as Leonardo Decaprio is he's no Tony Leung and Matt Damon isn't remotely as good an actor as Any Lau. The two Chinese actors age gave them much more screen gravitas.

Actually, I agree with that, though I did think DeCaprio was better than I expected. Damon had the misfortune of all the depth being erased from his character, so he's basically a prick from beginning to end, unlike Lau who's conflicted. A lot of people diss Lau but I think his work in IA was subtle and effective, and in IA3 he out-acted Tony Leung.

I presumed a copy told him.

You'd think in a film running over 2.5 hrs they could've found time to clarify that. It's the ONE element the new writer came up with an it's the worst scene in the film.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 25 Dec 2007, 02:52

Phantom of the Opera 2/5

Not my cup of tea.

A handful of classy songs, but waaaaay too much singing, not enough dialogue or proper drama. Sumptuously produced, but OTT and bludgeoning in its overkill. Where was the depth? By producing a carbon copy of a stage musical they got something that was an artificial retelling of a classic story. Many times I was counting the minutes until it would end... and I was only a third of the way through! My parents loved it though... so it's horses for courses as they say. The girl who played 'Christine' was very pretty.

brooce-leroy · Post by **brooce-leroy** » 25 Dec 2007, 10:53

I assume it was the Joel Schumacher version? I thought it was good, although the first time I had heard any of the Phantom of the Opera songs. Yes Emmy Rossum is lovely.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 25 Dec 2007, 11:29

You're quoting yourself?

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 25 Dec 2007, 15:01

Knocked Up - 4/5
Awesome!

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 25 Dec 2007, 15:35

Surprised you hadnt heard them before Bruce

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 25 Dec 2007, 21:34

The writer was very lucky to have won an Oscar I'll say that much.

The Oscars is first and foremost about politics and what's "it" at the time.

He only won the Oscar out of guilt and they were afraid he'd die before they could give him one.

True. He's should own stacks of Oscars but not for the Departed.

though I did think DeCaprio was better than I expected.

Agreed. He looked so much better beefed up too.

and in IA3 he out-acted Tony Leung.

Agreed, that's no easy feet!

You'd think in a film running over 2.5 hrs they could've found time to clarify that. It's the ONE element the new writer came up with an it's the worst scene in the film.

You'll get no complaints from me there.

Markgway wrote:Phantom of the Opera 2/5

A handful of classy songs, but waaaaay too much singing, not enough dialogue or proper drama.

Isn't it a musical? If so the dialogue is in the singing. It's supposed to have lots of singing.

That's point. Moulin Rouge has lots of singing but that's how the story is progressed.

DangerousLeeHandsome · Post by **DangerousLeeHandsome** » 26 Dec 2007, 00:37

The Bourne Ultimatum - 4.5/5
Superb! I think this is easily the best action movie of 2007. Certainly the best of the Jason Bourne franchise.

Live Free or Die Hard - 3.5/5
Not the best of the series but definitely the funnest. While the first 3 felt like thrillers, this one felt more like a roller coaster ride. Action, explosions and bodies flying everywhere; just the way I like it!

Rush Hour 3 - 2/5
Watched it again this time on DVD. 1 star for Jackie and another for the guy flying through the windshield. That's all. This movie sucks ass.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 26 Dec 2007, 00:53

bradavon wrote:Isn't it a musical?

Lloyd Webber seemed to be under that impression.

If so the dialogue is in the singing.

Not all the fucking time!!

Songs should be put out at key intervals... but here they were speak-singing (I don't know what the proper term is) in between the major songs. I just wanted them to talk like normal people: at least half of the time. Not all musicals are like this. In fact most aren't. The Sound of Music, for example, has an actual screenplay.

Moulin Rouge has lots of singing but that's how the story is progressed.

No interest in that film. I know I'd hate it.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 26 Dec 2007, 02:15

Did Lloyd Webber have anything to do with the Hollywood movie? Which I thought we were talking about?

I just wanted them to talk like normal people: at least half of the time. Not all musicals are like this. In fact most aren't. The Sound of Music, for example, has an actual screenplay.

Most aren't, some are, it's a musical that's the point. The singing progresses the story. If you didn't get that I suggest you don't bother with musicals any more.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 26 Dec 2007, 10:18

30 Days of Night (USA, 2007) – 3,5/5
I still haven’t seen David Slade’s debut film, Hard Candy, but his second film, vampire comics adaptation 30 Days of Night, is a very solid horror film. There’s some weaknesses but the the film has some originality and good technical execution. Setting the film in Alaska alone gives it a nice snowy outlook, which hasn’t been ruined in the digital after process (compare Dawn of the Dead remake). Josh Hartnett gives a surprisingly good performance as a small town’s young and a slightly uncertain sheriff, and Danny Huston is simply brilliant as the vampire leader. Some supporting characters are walking cliches (Hartnett’s brother) and the early suspense scenes are old stuff, but the rest works very nicely.

Full Metal Jacket (UK / USA, 1987) – 4/5
Kubrick’s film suffers from the shooting location (I don’t know how Vietnam really looks like, but I doubt it looks this similiar to England) but deserves its place amoung the 10 best war films ever made. Both halves are excellent (I especially like no-bullshit transition) and Kubrick effectively demonstrates the madness of war, without ever forgetting the dark humour which is constantly present.

Lethal Weapon (USA, 1987) – 3,5/5
Christmas movie. Not quite as excellent as I remembered. Gibson and Glover are terrific and some action scenes are well done, but some parts are sticky (the opening scene, the ”final fight” etc.)

Mad Max (AU, 1979) - 3,5/5
This film has such a great first 10 minutes that the rest can’t quite live up to it. Nevertheless, the original Mad Max is a very good highway action thriller. The middle part is a bit slow, but the ending is very satisfying. Gibson is at his best. The ”Australian” dialogue is not too hard to understand, like some people have suggested.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 26 Dec 2007, 10:30

Markgway wrote:Phantom of the Opera 2/5

waaaaay too much singing,

That's like me saying

Schindler's Fist 2/5

waaaaay too much porn.

Granted you perhaps don't like musicals but a musical can never have too much singing. The stage versions of every Schönberg/Boublil musical (Les Mis, Saigon and Martin Guerre - most likely their upcoming one too) have near enough 100% singing. And these are heralded by many as some of the finest musicals out there.

A lot of Lloyd Webber musicals are also predominantly sung: Joseph and his Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, Cats.

Has anyone seen Evita? I'm not sure that's another one that might be dialogue free.

Markgway wrote: Not all musicals are like this. In fact most aren't.

Wrong btw. Maybe most musical films aren't but with proper musicals, it's all about how to convey the story through song and dance.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 26 Dec 2007, 10:34

I have to say I agree with Bisc. Have you seen the original stage version of Sound of Music, Mark?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 26 Dec 2007, 10:59

bradavon wrote:Did Lloyd Webber have anything to do with the Hollywood movie? Which I thought we were talking about?

Yes. He produced it and wrote the screenplay (such as it is).

The singing progresses the story. If you didn't get that I suggest you don't bother with musicals any more.

Don't be so fucking condescending it doesn't suit you.

I've seen enough muscials in my life to know what the fuck I'm talking about, thanks!

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 26 Dec 2007, 11:09

BiscLimpkit wrote:

That's like me saying

Schindler's Fist 2/5

waaaaay too much porn.

You're compairing a musical to porn?

You can have musicals that have occasional songs (like I said, most are like that); this one didn't and that's my complaint. Too much singing is an entirely valid comment. Imagine Singin' in the Rain with 80 mins of dancing? It would be like a ballet. And that's fine if you like fucking ballet.

Granted you perhaps don't like musicals

Occasionally I do.

but a musical can never have too much singing.

It can for me. Sometimes less is more. That's like saying a Kung Fu movie can't have too much fighting. Of course it can.

The stage versions of every Schönberg/Boublil musical (Les Mis, Saigon and Martin Guerre - most likely their upcoming one too) have near enough 100% singing. And these are heralded by many as some of the finest musicals out there.

I'm talking about film musicals I've seen. I don't go to see them on stage. Clearly you know more about these things than I do, but my opinions and POVs are valid.

A lot of Lloyd Webber musicals are also predominantly sung: Joseph and his Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, Cats.

Never seen any of those...

Has anyone seen Evita? I'm not sure that's another one that might be dialogue free.

Nor that one. For that very reason. It's like torture. What I'm saying is that it doesn't HAVE to be all singing all the time. They made a choice. That's fine. I didn't like it. I can't believe we're having such a stupid debate.

Wrong btw. Maybe most musical films aren't but with proper musicals, it's all about how to convey the story through song and dance.

I'm not wrong because I was obviously talking about film musicals. You're the one who brought the stage into conversation. Rather you than me, mate.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 26 Dec 2007, 11:53

Markgway wrote: You're compairing a musical to porn?

Of course not (I thought you would've been able to spot that). The genre is irrelavant. The point I'm making is that you can't criticise a genre for doing what it's supposed to do. Whether that be a musical, porno, action flick or whatever.

Markgway wrote: That's like saying a Kung Fu movie can't have too much fighting. Of course it can.

Not really a fair comparison. You can't tell a story through just fight scenes. Otherwise, as you say, it wouldn't work. It'd be boring. The same can't be said about musicals. As I said earlier, the very nature of a musical is to rely on songs to tell a tale.

Markgway wrote: It can for me.

Exactly. So it's a personal thing for you, I get it. But you'll find that people who really appreciate musicals both on and off the screen aren't bothered by the number of songs.

Markgway wrote: Nor that one. For that very reason. It's like torture. What I'm saying is that it doesn't HAVE to be all singing all the time. They made a choice. That's fine. I didn't like it. I can't believe we're having such a stupid debate.

Markgway wrote: I'm not wrong because I was obviously talking about film musicals. You're the one who brought the stage into conversation. Rather you than me, mate.

Ok Mark I don't want you get upset over this again. We're not out to wind you up (well I'm not). But I do understand your point.

You think that film musicals should be different to their stage counterparts. They should substitute some of the minor songs for just regular dialogue. After all, film is a completely different medium to stage. Just as both are completely different to a novel.

I personally think differently and have no issues with if a filmmaker decides to be as faithful as possible to the stage version. I will not criticise. But if they decide to make alterations for the sake of a movie (i.e. Chicago) then that's cool too.

There - not a stupid debate but just a difference of opinion.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 26 Dec 2007, 12:02

Raped By Angel: 2/5

Some of the film is entertaining in a trashy way, but its not as fun as Naked Killer and some of the film is really quite unpleasant and offensive

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 26 Dec 2007, 15:30

BiscLimpkit wrote:Of course not (I thought you would've been able to spot that). The genre is irrelavant.

Yes, I know. I was being facetious.

The point I'm making is that you can't criticise a genre for doing what it's supposed to do.

You can however criticize how it's done.

If I said: Oh, I hated Phantom of the Opera, it had singing in it. Then yes, that would be ridiculous. But to say that (for me) it had too much singing is entirely fair. I could say that Rambo 3 has too many explosions, that The Young Master has too many fights, etc... it's personal opinion. There's no right or wrong. Yet you and Brad are acting like I said something wrong when clearly I didn't.

You can't tell a story through just fight scenes.

You would be hard pushed....

Clearly songs have the advantage of words to communicate with... but emotions and plot can in part being communicated thru Kung Fu. But would I want to see any film that ONLY has Kung Fu? Not anymore than I would a film that has (virtually) only singing.

Otherwise, as you say, it wouldn't work. It'd be boring. The same can't be said about musicals.

That's your opinion. I'm sure many would disagree.

Exactly. So it's a personal thing for you, I get it. But you'll find that people who really appreciate musicals both on and off the screen aren't bothered by the number of songs.

I'm not a FAN of musicals, but that doesn't make my comments wrong or irrelevant. I'm sure there are musical fans who would agree with me. PHANTOM received a lot of negative criticism when it was released a couple of years back (though I can't recall what for...?) My dad loved the movie, but did admit he'd have preferred more dialogue and drama to the constant singing. Does that mean he's not a REAL musical fan? There are different types of muscials out there and I'm quite stunned I'm having such a tricky time relaying that fact.

Ok Mark I don't want you get upset over this again. We're not out to wind you up (well I'm not). But I do understand your point.

Well, it does seem a bit of a bizarre thing to argue with me over. But I'll take your word for it...

You think that film musicals should be different to their stage counterparts. They should substitute some of the minor songs for just regular dialogue. After all, film is a completely different medium to stage. Just as both are completely different to a novel.

YES!!!!! Finally!!!!!!!!!

Now we can leave it there.

I personally think differently and have no issues with if a filmmaker decides to be as faithful as possible to the stage version.

And they're more than entitled to do so... just as I'm entitled not to like it for that reason.

Glad that's cleared up.

There - not a stupid debate but just a difference of opinion.

The difference of opinion is fine. I get that you like stage-style film musicals. I just couldn't understand why my opinions were being portrayed as laughable.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 26 Dec 2007, 16:07

Rush Hour 3 (blu-ray) 2.5/5

C'mon while this is in no way a good movie it's not as awful as it's made out to be. it's a very lazy movie, it's obvious everyone involved from the stars to the writers to the director had no interest in making a real effort,they were there for the paycheck only. the plot is virtually non existent on the plus side it's a brisk 86 minutes and doesn't outstay it's welcome. in a year of numerous 3rd movies in trilogies it's no worse than spidey 3,pirates 3 or shrek 3. it's no Bourne 3 though

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 26 Dec 2007, 22:52

Planet Terror - 4/5
Poor Tarantino. Because he made his film a Grindhouse feature with "Planet Terror", "Death Proof" will always be standing in its shadow and people will keep saying, "Planet Terror? Yeah, great film... and better than 'Death Proof', mate!"

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 26 Dec 2007, 22:53

The Sun Also Rises (China - 2007 - by Jiang Wen with Jaycee Fong and Anthony Wong): 3,5 / 5

Not the masterpiece I was hoping for.
Still a good film, though.

This movie is divided into three parts. Act 1 follows a group of characters, act 2 follows another, and act 3 establishes the connection between the 2.

The first thread follows Jaycee Fong and his deranged mother (Zhou Yun) living in the chinese countryside in 1976. It's full of energy, very funny and makes good use of Joe Hisaishi's musical talent.
The second thread is set in Shanghai (same year). It involves Anthony Wong being wrongfully accused of acting like a pervert. Amazingly, despite the presence of both Anthony Wong, Jiang Wen and Joan Chen, this second part is a lot slower, less colourful and almost boring.
Act 3 explains how those characters are connected and how they are in fact part of the same story.

This is highly reminiscent of Wong Kar-Wai's Ashes of Time, but not as efficient. Not sure why, but I couldn't really bring myself to care about the ending. I felt like the plot had taken a wrong turn 15 minutes before the end and that the director got lost.

Still, you've got great actors, great music, great lighting, great camerawork and editing.
Sure it goes downhill after the first 45 minutes, but it's still perfectly watchable.