Film Reviews Thread
Scroll to see replies
aluakz
i don't believe in 10 out of 10 rating. a movie cannot be perfect. it can be extremely good but there is always something that can be added or changed... which could make the movie better in the eyes of some people
though i agree, crash is an amazing piece
though i agree, crash is an amazing piece
Kinda contradict yourself there...to quote a cliche, 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.
But I do see what you're getting at; indeed, no film is perfect.Still, I do believe in the 10/10 rating, because there are some movies where their good bits VASTLY outweigh what few problems that the movie might have, and that's when you slap a 10/10 on it
All that said, though, I've only ever given two movies a straight ten: The Empire Strikes Back, and Pulp Fiction.
jayk_bakner
Kinda contradict yourself there...to quote a cliche, 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. But I do see what you're getting at; indeed, no film is perfect.
Still, I do believe in the 10/10 rating, because there are some movies where their good bits VASTLY outweigh what few problems that the movie might have, and that's when you slap a 10/10 on it
All that said, though, I've only ever given two movies a straight ten: The Empire Strikes Back, and Pulp Fiction.
But I do see what you're getting at; indeed, no film is perfect.Still, I do believe in the 10/10 rating, because there are some movies where their good bits VASTLY outweigh what few problems that the movie might have, and that's when you slap a 10/10 on it
All that said, though, I've only ever given two movies a straight ten: The Empire Strikes Back, and Pulp Fiction.
pulp fiction was great! as was the Usual suspects- ehich i gave 10 out of 10!
Crash is the only film I've ever seen that I'd rate as 10/10! And I did in my review! 
I'll post a quick review of Derailed later 
Name of the Film: Cars (2006, John Lasseter and Joe Ranft)
Okay, so we all know Pixar make great movies. Fabulous movies. When someone says '3D Animation' people instantly think of their creations - Toy Story, The Incredibles, Finding Nemo. Well ... add one to the top of that list.
The story is simple enough; racecar living life in the fast lane pulls over momentarily, and realises what he's been missing. Sounds cliched, and it is - but it's given the Pixar special treatment, and that's what makes it so special. It's more or less bristling with brilliance.
Probably the first thing you'll notice after Luxo Jr. has vanished is the astoninishing visuals. Literally every scene is packed with detail. From the opening action sequence, to the lush, picturesque landscapes of Route 66 to the interior of Lightning McQueen's trailer, so much detail has been thrown into the mix that it's hard to take all in. And it's all animated in such a way that it's believable, whilst at the same time being completely surreal. Simply put, this is Pixar's finest visual achievement, and putting all it's predecessors to shame, and then some.
Wait ... I can read your mind ... 'Yeah, it may look good, but is it funny?' The answer is yes. Very yes. The comedy is little short of genius, once again pulling off the perfect mix of silly, childish humour - which you'll still probably laugh out loud at, whether you're 8 or 80 - with knowing nods to the adult audience - 'I'm going to the Piston Cup!' 'You did WHAT?!?'. The movie is also capped off by a fantastic set of 'during credits' reels that pay tribute to 25 years of Pixar; and also a brilliantly amusing poke at John Ratzenberger. Make sure that you do stay until these have finished, you won't regret it.
Talking of John Ratzenberger; the voice cast are all fantastic. Even without them, the movie would have been funny, but they push it over into outright hilarious. From Larry the Cable Guy's Mater - a rusted old hillbilly tow-truck - to George Carlin's Filmore - a hippy VW van who sells 'organic fuel' - every single actor puts their hearts into their roles, and it pays off; it amplifies the comedy, and it's part of the reason why the visuals are so believable.
There are, however, a few problems. Owen Wilson perhaps isn't quite up to scratch with the rest of the cast, and his Lightning McQueen doesn't feel nearly as cool or original as, say, Toy Story's Woody, or even Shrek. Also, being a kids movie, it's expected to deliver a message, and the main message of Cars - being that life is about the journey, not the destination - is perhaps slightly too subtle for the younger or stupider amongst us. Still, no movie is perfect, and Cars' pros certainly outweight its cons.
On the whole, I honestly can't see why anyone would miss Cars. If you enjoyed Pixar's previous work, you will love this. And even if you didn't, there's something for every movie goer in this film - staggering visuals, a touching story, and even some things for boy/girl-racers to pick up on. This is Pixar firing on all cylinders.
Rating out of 10: 8
Okay, so we all know Pixar make great movies. Fabulous movies. When someone says '3D Animation' people instantly think of their creations - Toy Story, The Incredibles, Finding Nemo. Well ... add one to the top of that list.
The story is simple enough; racecar living life in the fast lane pulls over momentarily, and realises what he's been missing. Sounds cliched, and it is - but it's given the Pixar special treatment, and that's what makes it so special. It's more or less bristling with brilliance.
Probably the first thing you'll notice after Luxo Jr. has vanished is the astoninishing visuals. Literally every scene is packed with detail. From the opening action sequence, to the lush, picturesque landscapes of Route 66 to the interior of Lightning McQueen's trailer, so much detail has been thrown into the mix that it's hard to take all in. And it's all animated in such a way that it's believable, whilst at the same time being completely surreal. Simply put, this is Pixar's finest visual achievement, and putting all it's predecessors to shame, and then some.
Wait ... I can read your mind ... 'Yeah, it may look good, but is it funny?' The answer is yes. Very yes. The comedy is little short of genius, once again pulling off the perfect mix of silly, childish humour - which you'll still probably laugh out loud at, whether you're 8 or 80 - with knowing nods to the adult audience - 'I'm going to the Piston Cup!' 'You did WHAT?!?'. The movie is also capped off by a fantastic set of 'during credits' reels that pay tribute to 25 years of Pixar; and also a brilliantly amusing poke at John Ratzenberger. Make sure that you do stay until these have finished, you won't regret it.
Talking of John Ratzenberger; the voice cast are all fantastic. Even without them, the movie would have been funny, but they push it over into outright hilarious. From Larry the Cable Guy's Mater - a rusted old hillbilly tow-truck - to George Carlin's Filmore - a hippy VW van who sells 'organic fuel' - every single actor puts their hearts into their roles, and it pays off; it amplifies the comedy, and it's part of the reason why the visuals are so believable.
There are, however, a few problems. Owen Wilson perhaps isn't quite up to scratch with the rest of the cast, and his Lightning McQueen doesn't feel nearly as cool or original as, say, Toy Story's Woody, or even Shrek. Also, being a kids movie, it's expected to deliver a message, and the main message of Cars - being that life is about the journey, not the destination - is perhaps slightly too subtle for the younger or stupider amongst us. Still, no movie is perfect, and Cars' pros certainly outweight its cons.
On the whole, I honestly can't see why anyone would miss Cars. If you enjoyed Pixar's previous work, you will love this. And even if you didn't, there's something for every movie goer in this film - staggering visuals, a touching story, and even some things for boy/girl-racers to pick up on. This is Pixar firing on all cylinders.
Rating out of 10: 8
I like the film The Edukators:
Like: It's political sting. It's excellent direction. It great acting.
Dislike: Nothing really, it's thoroughly good.
Rating: 8/9 out of 10
That's it. See ya
---
Like: It's political sting. It's excellent direction. It great acting.
Dislike: Nothing really, it's thoroughly good.
Rating: 8/9 out of 10
That's it. See ya
---
i saw superman returns yesturday so...
Name of the Film: Superman returns
What you liked about the film: it had some good scenes, not bad action, interesting story, funnyness around luthor, that bit with the sinking boat, his fight on that crystal island
What you disliked about the film:It was a bit dull and boring in the middle, all that family stuff and relationships were boring, not that much action as before, the actorman had big eyebrows
Rating out of 10: 7
Name of the Film: Superman returns
What you liked about the film: it had some good scenes, not bad action, interesting story, funnyness around luthor, that bit with the sinking boat, his fight on that crystal island
What you disliked about the film:It was a bit dull and boring in the middle, all that family stuff and relationships were boring, not that much action as before, the actorman had big eyebrows
Rating out of 10: 7
Name of the Film: The Notebook
What you liked about the film: I liked the characters and the actors, they were not annoying, and the storyline was quite good. V. enjoyable, and comical in some places.
What you disliked about the film:Very predictable, it was following the love story theme- happy ever after sort of thing. Plus it not did not seem clear whether it was first or second world war. Im sure it said 1917 at the start, yet they lived all the way through to now, and looked about 60 odd.
Rating out of 10: 7- not bad not excellent either... didnt deserve all the awards imo, but it was good and worth watching.
gemx
What you liked about the film: I liked the characters and the actors, they were not annoying, and the storyline was quite good. V. enjoyable, and comical in some places.
What you disliked about the film:Very predictable, it was following the love story theme- happy ever after sort of thing. Plus it not did not seem clear whether it was first or second world war. Im sure it said 1917 at the start, yet they lived all the way through to now, and looked about 60 odd.
Rating out of 10: 7- not bad not excellent either... didnt deserve all the awards imo, but it was good and worth watching.
gemx
I just watched Pi (again) gotta rate it:
Name: Pi
Likes: Originality. Excellently shot with superb sets. Acting is excellent, the themes and characters ensure you keep watching. The fact Darren Aronofsky (for a laugh) insists on screwing up Sean Gullette's (acting lead) hair, on purpose, it's dead funny...
Dislikes: Lack of flow in some places. Bit creepy sometimes. Not free on NHS...
Rating: 9
Excellent film
Tra
Name: Pi
Likes: Originality. Excellently shot with superb sets. Acting is excellent, the themes and characters ensure you keep watching. The fact Darren Aronofsky (for a laugh) insists on screwing up Sean Gullette's (acting lead) hair, on purpose, it's dead funny...
Dislikes: Lack of flow in some places. Bit creepy sometimes. Not free on NHS...
Rating: 9
Excellent film
Tra
I watched Leon
so..
Name of the Film:Leon
What you liked about the film:
the opening scene, natalie portmans character,
shes so young, the part in the police station, the ending, (edit) oh and the man in the cream suite, he was evil and was played well
What you disliked about the film:
a 12 yr old smoking
, towards the end it does get a bit wierd
Rating out of 10:8
so..Name of the Film:Leon
What you liked about the film:
the opening scene
, natalie portmans character, shes so young, the part in the police station, the ending, (edit) oh and the man in the cream suite, he was evil and was played wellWhat you disliked about the film:
a 12 yr old smoking
, towards the end it does get a bit wierdRating out of 10:8
Saw Miami Vice over the weekend! So...
Name of Film: Miami Vice (2006, Michael Mann)
If we were to compare Michael Mann to, say, Tony Scott (Why? Why?!?! I don't have to explain myself to you!!) then if Collateral was his Man on Fire, Miami Vice is most certainly Mann's Domino. The general quality of movie has inexplicably lowered - despite a decent premise - and yet the visual style has been amplified tenfold.
To explain! What Mann has done is taken the style that he semi-founded with Collateral - digital photography, unconventional angles on scenes, strange infatuation with the colour blue - and taken it to the next level. However, unlike Domino - where Tony Scott's vibrant, psychadelic style he used with Man on Fire went to such extremes as to become headache inducing - Miami Vice's style is cool and seemingly effortlessly achieved, giving the movie a fantastically gritty texture.
However, it could be argued that this is hardly a good thing - particularly from those who aren't fans of stylised cinematography, and those people will basically be saying 'So what?'. And there are some things to cater for those people.
Most of the cast are excellent; of note are the two central performances from Colin Farrell - playing the hot-headed, loaded-gun-itchy-trigger-finger Sonny Crocket - and Jamie Foxx - as Rico Tubbs, the cool, calm and controlled half of the duo. Their downplayed relationship - both in terms of scripting and acting - making it totally believable that these are two cops who have worked together for years, and know each other inside and out. There is one exception to the this though, and that is Gong Li. Once again - as in Memoirs of a Geisha - she seems to struggle temendously with her English. The physical side of her performance is fantastic - body language, facial expression and a sensationally sexy salsa dance sequence with Mr Farrell - but it's tugged down overall by the verbal side; and it becomes almost cringeworthy.
This is perhaps where the good things end. Story-wise, we encounter Vice's first problem. Boiled down to basics, Crocket and Tubbs discover that there's a leak in the system, and when it leads to the death of a friend, they decide to track down those responsible. It's weak, convoluted and likely simply an excuse to cater to Mann's enfatuation with nighttime cityscapes. Pacing-wise, it starts off pretty quick - throwing us directly into the world of Miami Vice before we realise what's going on - and then for no apparent reason slows down to a snail's pace after about 45 minutes, and doesn't pick up again for a good hour. If you like your blockbusters slow; this'll be just your thing.
And for those of you expecting an action epic in the vein of Mann's previous movies, you'll most likely be dissappointed, with the movie only boasting three action sequences, and one barely qualifies for that title. The other two are well shot and exciting - with the final sequence sporting an intense, gritty rawness that almost makes it worth the wait through the sagging middle section.
Basically, this is pure Mann. If you like his movies - Heat, Collateral, Manhunter - you'll find a lot to like in this movie. If not, you may find it difficult to enjoy it, due to the overly slow pacing and the lack of anything really happening. But give it a shot, as this is perhaps the most mature summer blockbuster to come out for a long time.
Rating out of 10: 8
Name of Film: Miami Vice (2006, Michael Mann)
If we were to compare Michael Mann to, say, Tony Scott (Why? Why?!?! I don't have to explain myself to you!!) then if Collateral was his Man on Fire, Miami Vice is most certainly Mann's Domino. The general quality of movie has inexplicably lowered - despite a decent premise - and yet the visual style has been amplified tenfold.
To explain! What Mann has done is taken the style that he semi-founded with Collateral - digital photography, unconventional angles on scenes, strange infatuation with the colour blue - and taken it to the next level. However, unlike Domino - where Tony Scott's vibrant, psychadelic style he used with Man on Fire went to such extremes as to become headache inducing - Miami Vice's style is cool and seemingly effortlessly achieved, giving the movie a fantastically gritty texture.
However, it could be argued that this is hardly a good thing - particularly from those who aren't fans of stylised cinematography, and those people will basically be saying 'So what?'. And there are some things to cater for those people.
Most of the cast are excellent; of note are the two central performances from Colin Farrell - playing the hot-headed, loaded-gun-itchy-trigger-finger Sonny Crocket - and Jamie Foxx - as Rico Tubbs, the cool, calm and controlled half of the duo. Their downplayed relationship - both in terms of scripting and acting - making it totally believable that these are two cops who have worked together for years, and know each other inside and out. There is one exception to the this though, and that is Gong Li. Once again - as in Memoirs of a Geisha - she seems to struggle temendously with her English. The physical side of her performance is fantastic - body language, facial expression and a sensationally sexy salsa dance sequence with Mr Farrell - but it's tugged down overall by the verbal side; and it becomes almost cringeworthy.
This is perhaps where the good things end. Story-wise, we encounter Vice's first problem. Boiled down to basics, Crocket and Tubbs discover that there's a leak in the system, and when it leads to the death of a friend, they decide to track down those responsible. It's weak, convoluted and likely simply an excuse to cater to Mann's enfatuation with nighttime cityscapes. Pacing-wise, it starts off pretty quick - throwing us directly into the world of Miami Vice before we realise what's going on - and then for no apparent reason slows down to a snail's pace after about 45 minutes, and doesn't pick up again for a good hour. If you like your blockbusters slow; this'll be just your thing.
And for those of you expecting an action epic in the vein of Mann's previous movies, you'll most likely be dissappointed, with the movie only boasting three action sequences, and one barely qualifies for that title. The other two are well shot and exciting - with the final sequence sporting an intense, gritty rawness that almost makes it worth the wait through the sagging middle section.
Basically, this is pure Mann. If you like his movies - Heat, Collateral, Manhunter - you'll find a lot to like in this movie. If not, you may find it difficult to enjoy it, due to the overly slow pacing and the lack of anything really happening. But give it a shot, as this is perhaps the most mature summer blockbuster to come out for a long time.
Rating out of 10: 8
saw Princess Mononoke yesturday and it really good, a bit more brutal than i imagined though so...
Name of the Film:Princess Mononoke
What you liked about the film:
The music, it just went with the film so well, the animation, even though it was made in 1997 it still looked great, and the scenery was quite beautiful, the characters were good, even though they wernt exactly doing the right thing you still kinda hoped they'd be ok. Oh and the story, nature vs humans, really good and thought provoking, makes you consider our own impact on our world, whethere we're doing whats best or not.
What you disliked about the film:
Well not much, but maybe it would have been nice to have a bit more detail of whats going on between the humans, and also between the animals, oh and the face of the deer god was a bit wierd.
Rating out of 10:9.5
Name of the Film:Princess Mononoke
What you liked about the film:
The music, it just went with the film so well, the animation, even though it was made in 1997 it still looked great, and the scenery was quite beautiful, the characters were good, even though they wernt exactly doing the right thing you still kinda hoped they'd be ok. Oh and the story, nature vs humans, really good and thought provoking, makes you consider our own impact on our world, whethere we're doing whats best or not.
What you disliked about the film:
Well not much, but maybe it would have been nice to have a bit more detail of whats going on between the humans, and also between the animals, oh and the face of the deer god was a bit wierd.
Rating out of 10:9.5
Name of the Film: Lady in the Water (2005, M. Night Shyamalan)
This latest offering from M. Night Shyamalan is a tale concerning a regular joe named Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti), who discovers a young woman (Bryce Dallas Howard) in the pool of the building of which he is caretaker. It turns out that she's more than she seems, and Cleveland is unwittingly forced to protect her from a sinister creature that roams the night.
Sounds fantastical, and it is. It is very much the bed-time story that the trailer promises, and the narrative reflects that; making it seem like Shyamalan is pretty much making it up as he goes along. You can almost feel him sitting at your mind's bedside with the lights dimmed. It's a nice way of story-telling and it does just about work. You can keep up with the story, and for once there're no tricks up his sleeve - discounting the natural twist and turns of the plot; this is perhaps the most straightforward story he's ever told.
And this raises a problem. Shyamalan's style seems utterly out of place in such a linear, kid-friendly story. It's almost like it's straining to be more adult and ends up being totally confused about who it's aiming at. There are some genuine scares, and some truly tense moments, but they all feel misplaced, like Shyamalan stuck them in because people expected him to. The lack of twist also feels forced, like he's trying to avoid it at all costs, and this just brings the film down. It's a story that needs to have the right director to truly get the most out of it, and unfortunately whilst he does a great job with the premise and script, Shyamalan just isn't right for the director's chair.
Not that Lady in the Water isn't without it's good aspects. Giamatti is spot on as the damaged Heep, and Howard is truly memorable in her titular role. The supporting cast are all great too, with Shyamalan himself providing a great turn as a author with writer's block. They're all likeably and forgettable in equal amounts, and it all contributes to giving the film a genuine true to life feel. And the story itself is very well conceived; being simple enough for kids to follow, and interesting enough to not make the adults switch off, despite the misplaced style.
Basically, this is a pretty good film, but by no means cinematic gold. If you're looking for your latest 'come on, confuse me' fix, you'll walk out disappointed. But if you're looking for a mildly entertaining, well acted modern fantasy that can fill an afternoon, this is just your bag. Not M. Night's finest, but still good enough to keep his reputation of 'master story-teller' barely intact.
Rating out of 10: 6
This latest offering from M. Night Shyamalan is a tale concerning a regular joe named Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti), who discovers a young woman (Bryce Dallas Howard) in the pool of the building of which he is caretaker. It turns out that she's more than she seems, and Cleveland is unwittingly forced to protect her from a sinister creature that roams the night.
Sounds fantastical, and it is. It is very much the bed-time story that the trailer promises, and the narrative reflects that; making it seem like Shyamalan is pretty much making it up as he goes along. You can almost feel him sitting at your mind's bedside with the lights dimmed. It's a nice way of story-telling and it does just about work. You can keep up with the story, and for once there're no tricks up his sleeve - discounting the natural twist and turns of the plot; this is perhaps the most straightforward story he's ever told.
And this raises a problem. Shyamalan's style seems utterly out of place in such a linear, kid-friendly story. It's almost like it's straining to be more adult and ends up being totally confused about who it's aiming at. There are some genuine scares, and some truly tense moments, but they all feel misplaced, like Shyamalan stuck them in because people expected him to. The lack of twist also feels forced, like he's trying to avoid it at all costs, and this just brings the film down. It's a story that needs to have the right director to truly get the most out of it, and unfortunately whilst he does a great job with the premise and script, Shyamalan just isn't right for the director's chair.
Not that Lady in the Water isn't without it's good aspects. Giamatti is spot on as the damaged Heep, and Howard is truly memorable in her titular role. The supporting cast are all great too, with Shyamalan himself providing a great turn as a author with writer's block. They're all likeably and forgettable in equal amounts, and it all contributes to giving the film a genuine true to life feel. And the story itself is very well conceived; being simple enough for kids to follow, and interesting enough to not make the adults switch off, despite the misplaced style.
Basically, this is a pretty good film, but by no means cinematic gold. If you're looking for your latest 'come on, confuse me' fix, you'll walk out disappointed. But if you're looking for a mildly entertaining, well acted modern fantasy that can fill an afternoon, this is just your bag. Not M. Night's finest, but still good enough to keep his reputation of 'master story-teller' barely intact.
Rating out of 10: 6
Name of the Film: Failure To Launch
What you liked about the film: It was funny, a bit of a twist to the normal romantic comedy. *SPOILER*
What you disliked about the film: It's a romantic comedy like the rest but it was nice so no problems with the movie I guess.
Rating out of 10: I'd say about a 7-7.5/10. It was a funny happy movie.
What you liked about the film: It was funny, a bit of a twist to the normal romantic comedy. *SPOILER*
Spoiler
What you disliked about the film: It's a romantic comedy like the rest but it was nice so no problems with the movie I guess.
Rating out of 10: I'd say about a 7-7.5/10. It was a funny happy movie.
Name of the Film: In Her Shoes
What you liked about the film: It was ok, nothing really special. *spoiler* A nice movie all in all.
What you disliked about the film: I guess I didn't like Maggie's attitude and how even though she was hundreds of miles away,she was still destroying Rose's relationship.
Rating out of 10: 6.5/10
What you liked about the film: It was ok, nothing really special. *spoiler*
Spoiler
What you disliked about the film: I guess I didn't like Maggie's attitude and how even though she was hundreds of miles away,she was still destroying Rose's relationship.
Rating out of 10: 6.5/10
Name of the Film: Mission Impossible III
What you liked about the film: The long awaited movie starring Tom Cruise continues from where it left off. Sorry i can't remember much of it.
What you disliked about the film: It starred Tom Cruise...i'm no longer a fan.
Rating out of 10: 7.5/10
What you liked about the film: The long awaited movie starring Tom Cruise continues from where it left off.
Spoiler
What you disliked about the film: It starred Tom Cruise...i'm no longer a fan.
Rating out of 10: 7.5/10
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Ask an AUB graduate anything
- Best movies
- Personal Statement help for English at University
- Official Arts University Bournemouth 2023 Applicant Thread
- Higher English - The Cheviot, the Stag, and the Black, Black Oil
- Upcoming Films Trailer thread
- What are your hobbies?
- Hunger Games: Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes film review thread
- Film studies ( hopefully specialising in Screenwriting) degree?
- Should I hide my true taste in film in order to not raise alarms or anything?
- Applying to study Film Production
- Is UEL as bad as everyone says?
- What is your least favourite film?
- TSR Big Fat Quiz of the Year 2023!
- Bournemouth University or MetFilm School (Leeds) for MA Cinematography
- Most accredited Uni for Creative Writing (Film) in Bristol?
- WJEC GCSE English Language 3rd June 2014 Official Thread
- People who study film/tv, what are your plans?
- Looking for a Film Production course?
- Help! MA in Documentary by practice
