Movie mini reviews

bomberesque · Post by **bomberesque** » November 29th, 2009, 15:57

Roman Totale wrote: The whole film relies on 'shock' faaabulous gags - there is no subtlety to it whatsoever.

aside from the faaabulous angle, that's pretty much what I thought of Borat. Ho hum, will avoid.

Post by **HereComesPete** » November 29th, 2009, 16:06

MORDETH LESTOK wrote: A day in the life of Pete...

I wish! My life is painfully mundane compared to that. I would pay good money for a day in my life to contain that much awesome.

MORDETH LESTOK · Post by **MORDETH LESTOK** » December 15th, 2009, 0:16

Diary of a Madman (1963)
A Vincent Price movie that was based on a short story from Guy de Maupassant, "The Horla".

Simon Cordier, a ruthless magistrate in 19th-century Paris who becomes possessed by the malevolent spirit (or "horla") of a condemned murderer.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fL8FCiAeT4[/media]
It's a Vincent Price movie...need I say more?

Post by **Roman Totale** » December 15th, 2009, 1:16

I got excited because I thought it was film based on the Nikolai Gogol book then

mrbobbins · Post by **mrbobbins** » December 17th, 2009, 9:11

Avatar
Great entertainment in 3D, some fantastic scenery and action sequences, shame the plot is rather naff and predictable and the acting is a bit crap. Actually the best actor is the main female alien, the facial expressions are very good.
Summary: Fern Gully 3D (with robots)

In 3D I'd give it

I can't imagine enjoying it that much at home though so for non-3D

spoodie · Post by **spoodie** » December 17th, 2009, 14:21

Well I thought it was awesome, for a blockbuster.

MORDETH LESTOK · Post by **MORDETH LESTOK** » December 17th, 2009, 15:30

mrbobbins wrote:Actually the best actor is the main female alien, <strike>the facial expressions are very good</strike> shes hawt!

Post by **deject** » December 17th, 2009, 15:30

She's the one who played the new Uhura.

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » December 26th, 2009, 22:18

Rob Zombie's Halloween II

Just watched this, sequel to the oddly good Rob Zombie's Halloween, only unfortunately this one lacks a great deal of the loomis type stuff, and falls back almost entirely on classic horror and extreme violence.

Not exactly bad, but not what I was hoping for.

Does have Brea Grant in for perving over though.

Post by **deject** » December 30th, 2009, 22:16

Sherlock Holmes

Very well done, Downey, Jr. and Jude Law play their parts well, and a rather well done representation of 19th century London. Very Guy Ritchie-esque movie, with the varying film speed and such. Nothing too serious, and pretty funny.

8/10

Post by **Roman Totale** » December 30th, 2009, 22:20

deject wrote:Sherlock Holmes

Very well done, Downey, Jr. and Jude Law play their parts well, and a rather well done representation of 19th century London. Very Guy Ritchie-esque movie, with the varying film speed and such. Nothing too serious, and pretty funny.

8/10

I too really enjoyed it. Didn't actually realise it was a Guy Rich Tea film until the credits rolled.

Post by **deject** » December 30th, 2009, 23:52

I didn't see it while watching it in the theater, it was after I had left and started thinking about Snatch, etc. If it weren't for the massive change in scenery, it would be easy to spot I think.

MORDETH LESTOK · Post by **MORDETH LESTOK** » December 31st, 2009, 0:46

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOj-Is2ylA0[/media]

Post by **Dog Pants** » December 31st, 2009, 10:26

spoodie · Post by **spoodie** » January 9th, 2010, 12:17

The Road (2009)

You've never seen a more bleak and desperate post-apocalyptic film. It's not one for a Saturday night, but if you like the genre it's a must see. There's not as much action as the trailer suggests, it's more subdued, as it should be. Each of the few people seen give excellent performances, but you might not recognise them through the filth that covers everything.

It's difficult for me to be objective about this as the film is very faithful to the book, which I love. But if you're a fan of the book or the genre then see it.

Post by **Dog Pants** » January 9th, 2010, 14:38

I loved the book but hated McCormac's writing style, so I reckon this should be a good one for me.

spoodie · Post by **spoodie** » January 9th, 2010, 15:10

Dog Pants wrote:I loved the book but hated McCormac's writing style, so I reckon this should be a good one for me.

I'm not really sure how that works but yes, you should enjoy it.

There's a good quality version floating around the tubes, but unfortunately it's missing 25 minutes. Shame because I fancy watching it again. Especially as the cinema gimps messed up the first 30 minutes with various problems.

Post by **Dog Pants** » January 9th, 2010, 15:57

spoodie wrote: I'm not really sure how that works but yes, you should enjoy it.

I loved the story, but Cormac McCarthy (I got the name wrong last time) either deliberately shuns any form of grammar or has only a basic grasp of it. Either way, reading his writing gives me the rage.

Post by **HereComesPete** » January 9th, 2010, 18:28

Apparently it's on purpose because he doesn't like punctuation. Bit silly really as I'm sure it drives of those who flick through his books to discover that they're actually a bit confusing to read.

spoodie · Post by **spoodie** » January 9th, 2010, 20:38

I was confused by the claims of a lack of punctuation, as I don't remember that, so I checked Amazon. He does use punctuation, but doesn't handle speech in the tradition manner. I don't see anything else wrong with it. Am I missing something?