Rate / Review the Last Film you've seen v.2

[lilyrose]

Gandhi, My Father - 9/10

Analyzes the Mahatma from a more 'human' angle focusing on Gandhi as a family-man and his troubled relationship with his son. The tag line gets it spot on - 'One family's tragedy was the price of a nation's freedom'. Aided by great performances, the film is an excellent watch

[magic_is_might]

Mask - 7/10 - I had never seen this movie before we watched in yesterday for a class. I enjoyed it, even though I was upset with the ending ... :/

[Lorena]

Originally Posted by DML1991

Drag Me to Hell - 9/10
Starts out solid, and keeps getting better throughout it's runtime, and delivers a punch of a fantastic last 30 minutes. It's more of a horror, but it has plenty of the camp of ED2 and AOD. Has some of the cliche's of the genre, but unlike The Evil Dead, Raimi uses them to the film's advantage. Just a plain overall great time. Can't wait to watch it again, which I may do with some friends tonight, it seems like it would be fun with a crowd.

OMG!!! I gave it a 2 in the previous thread. I hated it. My little brother gave it to me and said it was a great movie.

Spoilers included:
It is obvious how it was going to end, no matter what she did.....it was very obvious there would be some sort of confusion with the envelopes when the seer put her cursed button in an envelope. It was not scary nor funny, actually IMO it is a pretty ridiculous movie. The only good part was when the goat got possessed, the goat's face was so funny!!!. The part with the woman in the car was so gross, when she bit her in the chin :S same for the parts at the funeral and the tomb: gross

I have no idea who the director is, I guess you have to be a lover of this specific type of movie, I really don't know which type it is, to like it; I have no idea if an average movie viewer will like it.

[lilyrose]

Mangal Pandey : The Rising - 6/10

Flimsy tale The only good thing about the film was Toby Stephens And A.R.Rahman's music of course

[NumberEight]

Early this morning, around 0230, I finished the French film [i]À l'intérieur[i]. It's about a pregnant woman being tormented in her home. It's pretty good but you instantly know who the tormentor is when introduced. This film is very, very violent. If you cannot stomach extreme violence in film, stay away. I give it a "B."

[Annielogic]

Watched A Tale of Two Sisters (Korean version - Janghwa, Hongryeon). It's a good psychological horror film, very creepy and a heartbreaking tale. 10/10

[not_a_human]

Originally Posted by Lorena

I have no idea who the director is, I guess you have to be a lover of this specific type of movie, I really don't know which type it is, to like it; I have no idea if an average movie viewer will like it.

The director is Sam Raimi, who directed, among other things, the first 3 Spider-Man movies and the Evil Dead movies.

[IenjoyAcidPops]

Game 6 - The movie as a whole is only okay (I think there are too many characters and too few with anything to do, and I felt the dialogue often resorted to empty platitudes), but Michael Keaton is very good, his best performance in years. C+

The Fisher King - I think the tone was a little inconsistent at times, but otherwise a solid, if predictable, film. B

[lcbaseball22]

Bram Stoker's Dracula- 85%

I guess I'm getting into the Halloween mood a week early...and taking a break from Hitchcock films momentarily

Well, we are reading Dracula by Bram Stoker in my college lit class right now and I thought I'd give the movie a watch too. It was a little weird with some artistic flair and the director took some creative liscense, but overall it was a pretty accurate representation of the novel and it made for an entertaining piece of cinema Keanu Reeves was definitely the lowpoint of this film. He is really not a good actor, IMO

On the other hand, Gary Oldman was fantastic! I never knew he was such a great actor. I mean, yeah he played Sirius reallly well and he was also good as Lt. Gordon in the new Batman films...but those were hardly challenging roles. He completely transformed and became Dracula. Of course, kinda necessary when you're playing an eccentric role like this I thought it was Oscar worthy, but he wasn't even nominated!

Oh, and luckily the film wasn't as scary as I expected (but perhaps those were the parts that were cut out...I watched it on Youtube )

A lot like Sleepy Hollow in that sense, the only other "horror" film I've seen. An overall creepiness, but only a few really disturbing scenes.

That's also about the same score I gave the aforementioned I believe...they were on par with each other. Both great, but didn't love 'em

[NumberEight]

I watched Let the Right One In last night. It is a very, very good film. It is a very powerful film. The romance between Oskar and Eli is very well done. I don't do this often, but I give the film an "A+."

[IenjoyAcidPops]

Rebecca - I would not put it among Hitchcock's best - I found the pace a bit too slow for its own good and found the relationship between Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine totally unconvincing - but once it gets going, it's very involving. I loved Judith Anderson as Mrs. Danvers: quietly sinister without seeming to do anything.

Spoiler: show

And you don't find many films where the most interesting and the titular character is entirely offscreen.)

B+

[Perlidia]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

On the other hand, Gary Oldman was fantastic! I never knew he was such a great actor. I mean, yeah he played Sirius reallly well and he was also good as Lt. Gordon in the new Batman films...but those were hardly challenging roles. He completely transformed and became Dracula. Of course, kinda necessary when you're playing an eccentric role like this I thought it was Oscar worthy, but he wasn't even nominated!

Gary Oldman is one of my favorite actors for exactly this reason - he is capable of transformation for every role he pursues. Check out Leon, Sid & Nancy, Prick Up Your Ears, Romeo Is Bleeding and Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead. He is an actor in the truest sense - completely unrecognizable when he is in character.

The answer he gives to the following interview question sums him up...
http://www.salon.com/july97/oldman2970709.html

Were you a good boxer?

No. I was terrible. But you would look at me in the gym and say, "The kid's a natural." I had all the moves down, hitting the punch bag, shadowboxing, skipping. I could play a boxer, but I wasn't a boxer.

Originally Posted by IenjoyAcidPops

found the relationship between Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine totally unconvincing

From reading the book, I think you are meant to find this relationship unconvincing - Its told from the wife's (Joan Fontaine's unnamed character) point of view and she is unsure and becomes deeply paranoid about her husbands feelings for her. I think they adapted this well in the film.
However I will add I haven't watched this in a while.

[Mad_Druid]

Gran Torino - Decent film. Clint Eastwood did what he always does, I didn't find the character development particularly convincing, nothing that happened surprised me, plot-wise. 6.5/10.

[MmeBergerac]

The Da Vinci Code, 5.5 / 10.

It has very good ingredients: an efficient director, a good cast (Ian McKellen and Audrey Tatou are fantastic) a nice soundtrack and an intelligent (and original) use of the special effects. However, they try to be trascendental, and there they fail. Honestly, how do they expect me to take seriously a story with so huge historical mistakes? I admit most of the fault isn't in the movie itself but in the book it's based on, but anyway it ruins the movie completely.

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by MmeBergerac

The Da Vinci Code, 5.5 / 10.

It has very good ingredients: an efficient director, a good cast (Ian McKellen and Audrey Tatou are fantastic) a nice soundtrack and an intelligent (and original) use of the special effects. However, they try to be trascendental, and there they fail. Honestly, how do they expect me to take seriously a story with so huge historical mistakes? I admit most of the fault isn't in the movie itself but in the book it's based on, but anyway it ruins the movie completely.

Well, although there could be some truth to it, it was written as more of a fictional story. Dan Brown wasn't the first to write of this sort of theory either. And really I don't see why some Christians are so upset by the book/movie. So what if Jesus had a child? I think it's possible. He was a man afterall...a divine man, but still a man. I'd expect him to have a sex drive and the desire to pro-create just like any other

I'm curious, what are the "huge historical mistakes" you're referring to? I haven't read the book yet, but personally I loved the movie.

[NumberEight]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

I'm curious, what are the "huge historical mistakes" you're referring to? I haven't read the book yet, but personally I loved the movie.

Here is an in-depth look at the inaccuracies. It's Wiki but some of it is sourced.

[magic_is_might]

The Journey to the Center of the Earth - 8/10 (the new one)

I have yet to see the original one, but I really did enjoy this one It was very fun to watch, especially in 3D.

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by IenjoyAcidPops

Rebecca - I would not put it among Hitchcock's best - I found the pace a bit too slow for its own good and found the relationship between Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine totally unconvincing - but once it gets going, it's very involving. I loved Judith Anderson as Mrs. Danvers: quietly sinister without seeming to do anything.

Spoiler: show

And you don't find many films where the most interesting and the titular character is entirely offscreen.)

B+

I am watching this right now and I'm about an hour in. So far it’s been quite un-eventful and I wouldn't consider it among his best eiher. I agree about the slownes and that the relationship is pretty un-convincing. However, the strange behavior of everyone has got me intrigued and I expect the 2nd half will be much better and explain the mysteriousness. And yes, the housekeeper seem very sinister. I don't like her.

BTW, if I have any typos I apologize. I’m typed this response with my eyes closed sinc the spoiler text is visible when you quote a post

[Perlidia]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

and that that relationship is un-convincing.

As I said - I think this is deliberate, it ties in with the tone of the book. I don't think Hitchcock was using a technique I think he was simply portraying the relationship as written (from the unnamed narrators point of view).

Spoiler: show

It makes sense in terms of the story - If their relationship had been closer and more communicative the mystery of Rebecca would have been cleared up much sooner.
I do think they are a lot closer at the end - having come through everything together. Prior to this however, I think Maxim does love his new wife, but has not had closure over the everything that came before and spends most of his time in his own head. She is young, unsure and very naive, and its her narration we have to rely on.

[lcbaseball22]

^ Well yes, I think we're supposed to feel like they don't belong together. Or maybe they do, but this guy clearly hasn't got over the loss of his wife yet to where he can love another woman. She seems infatuated with him, but he's not really reciprocating. It's just a bit dull.