The old movie thread: ratings and discussion' or some shiz

CITY OF EMBER While not the most appealing topic for a summer film nor the most bright choice of characters and plot development, I still found this to be a nice little science fiction film which works pretty well in making you think 'what if the survivors of a thermonuclear war have to built and underground city for 200 years until the danger of surface radiation is gone, but they lost the instructions on how to make their way back and lost track of how long their energy and resources will last'. It was interesting that the characters wear worn out old, recycled clothing and their city looks old, rusty, dusty and just falling apart. I imagine if a Spielberg or Lucas would had done this film the characters would had dress in clean white jumpsuits and their city would be so technologically advanced and pretty that you would had question 'why bother going upstairs?' Still this is a kids film and it shows, but it is a damn decent one. 8/10

 

SERGEANT YORK (1941) I had never watched this film before, even though I had read a little about it from Gary Cooper's filmography. I finally rented it and watched it last night. It totally blew me away. This is a great movie. A real classic. One of the most entertaining films I have ever watched. Ever! Howard Hawks once again demostrated why he was such a great storyteller. The characters are so engagingly human that even after one hour and thirty minutes into the plot and no war scene in the near distance did not bothered me a bit since the story of Alvin C. York is so interesting and Gary Cooper gave such a masterful performance that when his character gets drafted and goes to war you really wish (like his character) that it never happened. If you don't know about this film all that I will tell is this: RENT IT!! And don't let the stupid argument "it is a black & white movie" stop you from a wonderful treat. It is based on a true story about World War I american hero Alvin C. York...and one the best movies you'll ever watch! 10/10

 

Gotta agree with you, Burn After Reading was a dull encounter I regret sitting through. It kind of reminded me of The Royal Tenenbaums in the way I just didn't get it.

What's really bad about it is it wasn't really a drama so the story wasn't good, and it wasn't really a comedy because it hardly had anything funny in it. It kind of floated somewhere in between the two, just enough to make it an unbalanced bad movie IMO.

 

no; it would be impossible to become aroused. i wouldn't even shoot her, because of the thought of my hand touching the gun that touches the bullet that touches her. i would however press a button that dropped an atom bomb on her.

 

I'll pull a Gene Siskel right now: I totally disagree with you. The movie has some solid performances by Mortessen, Harris, Hericksen and Irons. Renee Zelweger did a mere so-so performance, but her role didn't demanded much (blame director Harris for that), but yeah, she smirked a lot. Anyway I found this to be a very well done western and enjoyed it up until the last part of the film where it seems the director didn't knew how to finish it and took a disappointing turn of events. Had the finale being more satisfying this could had been a great film. As it stand it was very good. 8/10

 

I thought the finale and the shoot out with those brothers were the best parts of that movie. I like how the shooting scenes were not over done and gloryfied, they were very quick.

 

Appaloosa was a big let down IMO. It bored the shit outta me! 5/10

 

The hell you fish heads lookin at?::

 

::

 

Meet The Spartans - Yeah, I wasted my time on this piece of shit. Once upon a time I used to like these parody movies but they don't even try anymore. I can't believe they even had the balls to release this in actual movie theatres. 0/10

 

people still watch these movies, it's unbelievable.

 

The real funny part is that Carmen Electra stars in all of them.

 

Alright, I am pulling again a Gene Siskel on this one: I totally disagree. This film is merely watchable, but nothing special. It is being sold as high drama, but it is merely a big, huge melodrama. Not unlike any tv soap opera. Some of the circumstances in the film are really hard to believe (not the poverty, nor the crime angles, nor even the 'Who wants To Be a Millionaire' sequences, but how they were executed). To me the most dumb thing was the last final question about the three Musketeers: no one would had put such an EASY question on someone that is about to grab so much money and the supposed 'tension' on if Jamal picked the right or wrong answer is totally non-existing since even six years old in Bombay knows the answer to that. This was a typical Bollywood film sans the dance numbers. I am still baffled why it was nominated for the Academy Awards. Wait for the dvd rental. Save your money. 7/10

 

AgREED. A big pile of :shit: and a total waste of time.

 

...

why is the musketeers question easy for you? because of that musketeers cartoon, or the crappy movie a few years ago? are you sure it's easy for people born and living in india. (no, hanzy doesn't count.)

i agree that it is melodrama. the real value of this movie is the no-punches-pulled portrayal of india: portraying the developing world in a way that's realistic, and when the people themselves are the stars, that just doesn't get done in slick english-langauge movies. i say bravo for that, and let's see more of the developing world in the multiplex.

 

would you watch a movie about Serbian organized crime, rooster:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ddrxEG3O-I

 

I don't know about where you live, but in my area there is always one screen at the multiplexes showing a Bollywood film. So there is always a developing world movie showing somewhere for people who like these films. As for the three musketeers, well, this is one of the most well known stories around the world and there have been more than a dozen movie versions (the last great one was the 1974 version with Michael York & Rachel Welch). The fact that in the movie even the orphan children knew who the three musketeers were it tells that their target audience knew who they were talking about instead of mentioning 'Mario & Luigi' which has lesser recognition factor.

 

panchy it just isn't one of the most well-known stories around the world. the guy i watched it with had no idea what the musketeers were called. i can ask the people i know in china and they have never heard of three musketeers.

like i said, realistic, english-language movies about the developing world do not usually get mainstream success. either they're an arthouse movie in a foreign language and with limited mainstream appeal, or they star white people ('the constant gardener', even though it's a good movie), or the movie is just a western-perspective lamentation of "oh, how terrible the developing world is!", like 'hotel rwanda' or 'city of god'.

bollywood movies are not in english, and are generally not so confrontational about the horrors of the developing world (a kid covered in shit, the banality of call-centres, ...).

i live in wolverhampton, which has one of the world's largest sikh populations outside india. this was the first movie where the bollywood audience (south asians over 40) and the mainstream cinemagoers were in the same theatre, laughing at and enjoying the same thing.

 

:doh::doh::doh:

 

I was generous. I really didn't like the film. I should have rated it lower like 6/10 or 5/10.

 

Alexander Dumas book is one of the most well known stories around the world. That there are a few iliterate people that don't know about it, is understandable: even many american people don't know that New Mexico is a state; they think is the capital of Mexico!:doh:

 

:boohoo:

 

The Wrestler : Rourke's best performance since Sin City and IMO his career best. I just enjoyed the whole film, and the acting was very real. I loved the documentary style of the film. Rourke's performance is on the level of Ledger's on Batman. He lived the character.

 

It was a good performance and I loved the movie, but I don't think that the character was very deep at all.

 

italian-american actors typecast: just noticed that both paulie and pussy from sopranos have bit-parts in goodfellas. pussy is the restaurant worker moving the rail of coats, and paulie's one of the gang in the background in a few scenes, like the one when kid henry comes back from his first arrest, "you broke your cherry!"

 

SCARS OF DRACULA (1970) I have always been a sucker for Hammer Horror Films particularly the Dracula series with Christopher Lee. This one I watched so long ago I barely remembered it. So I treated myself and rented it out of nostalgia. SCARS OF DRACULA starts where my favorite Hammer film, TASTE THE BLOOD OF DRACULA ended: with the count's red dust remains, this time brought to life by a strange vampire bat who spills blood from its mouth and resurrects the count (the movie never explains anything about this strange servant bat even though it shows up a couple of more times later attacking people). The count is back and he is very pissed. So is the town's people. They try, and fail, to burn down the castle and kill Dracula, but end up with Dracula killing all their families that were seeking refuge at a church. This is the most violent Dracula ever. He kills not only for blood, but out of plain rage. He is very sadistic in this film. And the heroine, Jenny Hanley, is without doubt the most gorgeous, sexy babe to ever act in a Hammer film. And the filmmakers wasted no time in having close-ups of her barely there low cut negligee covered bosom. Of course the excuse was to showcase her crucifix, thank you very much. The film has plot holes as big as the canyon next to the vampire castle, but this film is so umpretentiously fun that you can overlook those mistakes. Best of all: the cinematography is in rich vivid colors unlike today's vampire films were everything is engulfed in dark blue, including people's skins, and the victorian elegance of the costumes and sets are always a treat. Not a great film, but very entertaining. 8/10