Yeah I'd say so. I don't usually spend money on movies but $5 is cheap and it's good.

I really liked her. I don't know why. Maybe it was her artistic side. Why didn't you like her?

I finally saw The Hurt Locker, really impressed, def. a Jeremey Renner fan from now on. I am really glad it won the oscar now that I saw it.

http://www.impawards.com/2009/poster...s_are_ver3.jpg

***1/2

I don't know whose idea it was to market this as a family movie, because kids will surely hate it, and parents who are looking for idealized role models won't find them here because this film deals with surprisingly complex characters including a kid who is prone to acting like a f*cking psychopath, you know, like most kids in real life.

It's a very thoughtful and imaginative adaptation of the book. It's best enjoyed as an individual viewing experience rather than a collective one. The kid who played Max was really good, as was the voice cast of the monsters, Gandolfini especially. Each monster has a very distinctive, fleshed out personality. They are very human, very childlike and yet still very un-human and believable as monsters. Jonze really found the right balance in bringing these furry things to life.

The ending is pretty touching, some may find it to be too much of a downer for a kids film but that's what's cool about it, the whole theme of the movie is this kid basically trying to raise his own family and the struggles that come with that. This theme is handled perfectly without being made too obvious.

I really loved the effects too and think it was a mega ripoff for it not to even get an Oscar nomination (and it's a ripoff that this film didn't get any nominations at all), combining real puppets with CGI motion capture faces makes for some eerilly realistic living stuffed animals. The fort looks really cool too.

Found the soundtrack to be a little grating, Karen O isn't my thing.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...rland_ver7.jpg

I had mixed feelings about this movie, so much so that I'm gonna give it two distinct reviews and ratings.

As a Lewis Carroll adaptation

*

I will start off by saying that the special effects work is great and a lot of the imagery is quite loyal to the classic John Tenniel illustrations, but aside from the visuals, the title and a few subtle references here and there, it really doesn't feel that much like Alice in Wonderland.

Despite the superb visuals, it certainly doesn't feel like Alice in tone, a lot of the witty humor and silliness just isn't there, the modernized story is like something out of World of Warcraft and the climax is just one big action scene, if this was Alice in Wonderland THE VIDEO GAME that would be fine.

One thing that bothers me (and pedophiles from around the world) is that Alice isn't a little kid anymore, and the actress in this movie doesn't really manage to capture her famous personality of being a polite but cynical little girl. She does in the beginning and end of the movie, but once she's in wonderland it's like "well, I guess I need to fight the jabberwocky", her character just doesn't evolve naturally or in a believable way. It doesn't help that the actress is quite dull in the role.

You don't get the relationships with characters that the books are famous for either, in the book all the characters were freaking maniacs, they were not sidekicks, Alice never had a true sidekick in the story, the big theme was that she never knew who to trust or when somebody is gonna go complete apesh*t on her, even the Disney animated film was very loyal to that theme. And it was the lack of coherent communication with Wonderland's inhabititants that gave the books their unique brand of humor, again lost in Burton's adaptation.

In this film, Wonderland is much more friendly, the characters have an emotional attachment to Alice and are capable of reasoning, I'm sorry, that sh*t just doesn't fly in Wonderland. This movie just isn't silly enough. It tries to be a "heart warming" kids story, even though Carroll's Alice in Wonderland never was, and again even the Disney animated film avoided this cliche.

Instead of capturing the goofy social satire of the books, Burton's film tries to be a LOTR style fantasy epic, and had this just been it's own movie and had nothing to do with Alice in Wonderland, it wouldn't be much of a problem.

I will also say that it was rather interesting how this film actually gives Wonderland a backstory, and even gives a subtle explaination to The Mad Hatter's insanity, which is a result of prolonged mercury exposure as a hat maker. That's pretty cool, but once again it disregards one of the things that made the story so timeless, the mystery of it all. That's the great thing about fantasy, you don't have to explain sh*t.


But my biggest beef? Turning Alice into a feminist warrior type character is just f*cking retarded, is this Alice or f*ckng Joan of Arc? And the scene where she returns to the wedding ceremony and gives a little moral lession to everybody was very heavy handed. That got at least one face palm out of me.


A good defense of it having little to do with the original stories though is that this film isn't really a remake at all, it's like a long lost sequel, like how Hook was to Peter Pan, so it isn't entirely fair to compare it side by side with the Carroll books since it's not really based on them at all.

As a Tim Burton film

**1/2

Now, despite all those criticisms, is it really a bad thing that Burton wanted to do something different? Of course not. I always say that movies don't really need to be literal adaptations of their source material and in fact they would be f*cking boring and pointless if they were. And Tim Burton has always had a thing for taking classic stories and putting his own spin on them.

But here are two things I want to point out.

1. There are exceptions to the adaptation rule, some stories really could use a faithful screen adaptation and this is one of them. Granted there are already countless made for TV adaptations. And while the Disney animated film made a few changes and had it's own visual style, it was still very loyal to the tone and humor of the book.

2. Even as a Tim Burton film, well, it doesn't always succeed as that either. Not only does it not feel like an Alice film, sometimes it doesn't really feel very Burton either. I expected Burton to give a very different spin on the tale, that's actually what I wanted. But what he turned Alice into was a pretty standard kids fantasy film with hyper pacing.

C'mon Tim, you can do better than that. The film doesn't even look very Burton to me (save a few twisted trees thrown in for good measure). Why couldn't Burton give the film a more dark and gothic look? Sure it would piss off Carroll fans even more but it would have been a more interesting twist and more suitable for Burton. The film does have a few awesomely dark moments like the moat full of severed heads, but these moments are too few and far between.

I'm not saying Burton should never venture beyond the gothic visual style, he's done it before with Big Fish, but much more successfully. But like I said, it's ok that the movie isn't very loyal to the book. But it would have been more interesting if was given the full "Tim Burton" makeover, instead he seemed to compromise his own visual style for something more commercially appealing for the little tykes that made up this film's target audience.

Anyway. On to the cast, aside from Alice there is no weak link, the entire supporting cast is fantastic. What little bit of Carroll there is in the film is mostly in Johnny Depp's performance as the Mad Hatter, this guy is my favorite character actor ever and this is yet another really fun peformance from him.

Special mention should also go to Helena Bonham Carter who is f*cking AWESOME as The Queen of Hearts, all the best moments in the movie are courtesy of her. Crispin Glover is delightfully cool as The Knave of Hearts. Stephen Fry is great as The Cheshire Cat, who is also the most visually interesting character. Alan Rickman was pretty much the obvious choice for the caterpiller, I wish he actually had something to do though.

It's still a visually stunning film, and all the characters look cool, but more often than not it feels more like a video game or an amusement park than a movie. The 3D was pretty great, but it's nowhere near as immersive as Avatar was, it was a little more gimmicky, with stuff flying at the screen for the sole purpose of using the 3D effect.

Overall, I was entertained. But as a fan of both the story and Tim Burton I was rather disappointed. Terry Gilliam would have been a much better choice for an Alice movie IMO.

If you want a faithful adaptation of Carroll's work, avoid. If you want a fun Hollywood roller coaster ride of special effects wizardry, go for it, just don't expect it to compare with Avatar.

Another reason to see it? The futterwacken dance, it's a big WTF moment and I wish this movie had more WTF moments. Sh*t needs to be seen to be believed.

Actually a colleague of mine watched it with her 10 year old and he loved it. That's the beauty of this film, it's complex yet playful enough to appeal to kids and adults alike. Agree with everything else but the soundtrack comment, I thought it was perfect actually, but I've got a major boner for anything Karen O does.

Incidentally, after several decades of posting on internet forums, you should be aware that impawards doesn't allow hotlinking.

Internet forums have been around for "several decades"????

hey boo boo, what's your star rating system based on? is it like up to four stars or five?

Four.

I almost never give a **1/2 to anything, usally it's either a ** or *** but I had to make an exception here, a very polarizing film indeed.

**1/2 = decent/average

Certainly more than two decades - I guess you would have had to at least been born back then to know, though. Ask your parents.


The last film I saw was LEMMY at sxsw a couple days ago. It's generally a great documentary (I have some complaints but I won't get into it now). It was a really insightful look into the guy's life. Many musicians are interviewed (Hawkwind and a whole bunch of metal and punk band members) throughout and the film reveals that Lemmy really is an even more interesting character than he seems.
Here's the best part: Lemmy was THERE. He did a Q&A at the end and I got a crappy video recording of it on my phone.

Here's a taste of the film..

What's your rating system?

* = bad?
** = alright?
*** = good?
**** = amazing?

I usually give films something out of 10. 5 being average, 7 being above average. 8 being good. 9 being brilliant. 10 being the most entertaining and thought provoking film I've seen.

* = Bad
*1/2 = Poor
** = Ok
**1/2 = Slightly above average
*** = Good
***1/2 = Great
**** = Masterpiece

Though I almost never use *1/2 or **1/2, dunno, I just like to keep the variety of ratings to a minimal to avoid confusion and so I don't have to waste time deciding what rating to give.

I don't like the 10 point system at all, primary reason is because the middle ratings are such a grey area. It seems like nobody can make up their mind over what a f*cking 6 is, I've seen it being given to movies that are "very bad" and to movies that are "very good".

Shouldn't 6 be average or decent? Why then do people give something a 6 and call it a piece of crap? WTF MAN? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having 5 lower ratings?

http://www.lovefilm.com/lovefilm/ima...1842-large.jpg

Totally engrossed and although it seems it has taken liberties with facts, this Dutch based WWII drama had enough intelligence and style to warrant a second viewing. Carice Van Houten is astonishing in the lead role and is beguiling to watch. Very impressed.

Well.. I'm gonna re think it.

1 is diabolical, it actually offends me to watch it.
2 is awful but i can get to the end just about.
3 is bad.
4 is under average
5 is average
6 is slightly above average
7 is good
8 is great
9 is outstanding
10 thought provoking masterpiece

Recently I watched two Scorsese films, Shutter Island got a 7 at first, then I decided it was an 8. (I really liked it :D) Aviator got a 7.


I've never seen anyone employ a 4 * system before, how come it's 4 star and not 5?

Finally got around to watching the hurt locker the other day, really good, highly recommend it.

Now I just need to watch where the wild things are, which I will this weekend at some point most likely.

boo boo has been around for several decades?

I just saw a movie called "The Beatnicks" starring Norman Reedus (Boondock Saints), Eric Roberts (The Dark Knight), Elodie Bouchez (Alias) and Mark Boone Jr. (Sons of Anarchy).

It's a really cool, laid-back movie about two musicians who work towards getting the gig of a lifetime. In the process, they encounter some great beats, a funny little monkey, and even a little bit of love. It has a really great soundtrack and some awesome poetry. I'd definitely recommend this movie!

I realized that today actually, I was like "wait a second....."

My weeks in movies:

Basically, my dad was all over documentaries suddenly so we watched Food Inc and the Cove, which were both pretty entertaining and enlightening to an extent. I enjoyed them. But, breaking from the documentary trend we watched this:

http://babbleon5.files.wordpress.com...nenbaums-2.jpg

which was absolutely brilliant. It was perfectly written and directed, and one of those feel-good comedies that also manages to be sad and not get corny. I really loved it, there wasn't really a bad element.... even the soundtrack was fantastic.

I love this film. I thoroughly enjoyed every moment.

^I also quite like Wes Anderson's films, though my favourites are probably Rushmore and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. The recent Fantastic Mr. Fox was also good!

You should check these titles out if you haven't, storymilo. :)

how about rating the film as a work in its own right, instead of compared to some nebulous ideals?

i think it's clear from the beginning that it's not an adaptation of any kind, and you sort of admit this in the end. the film was most certainly inspired by Carroll's work, but aside from drawing broad character profiles and certain story elements, the film is really a beast of its own.

as for comparing it to Burton's other works - well, i suppose artists are allowed to change their style, right?

just like Burton's revisit of Willy Wonka, or even the new Batman films, this movie took a look at an old story and put it into a modern framework.

the whole film walked a very thin line between being utterly goofy and absolutely diabolical. the tension was present in the sets, the characters, and the plot. it was a very tense and disturbing film, and personally, i really enjoyed it.

Why was it a very diabolical tense and disturbing film?

You make a lot of points that I have already addressed. I guess by judging it as a stand alone film without giving much thought to the pedegree of either Carroll or Burton I would give it a ***.

A good film, but my expectations were too high, though that's because I'm a huge fan of both Tim Burton and the Wonderland mythos, a pairing like that is something I treated like a once in a lifetime event, I just feel like there was a lot of potential that wasn't lived up to. Burton seemed like the obvious choice for an Alice in Wonderland. But I think that's the problem, he was the obvious choice, not the best choice.

I think Terry Gilliam would have made something just as impressive in the visual department but while staying more true to Carroll's literary style since the stuff he did with Monty Python was already very Carroll inspired.

Michael Gondry would have also been a great choice for an Alice movie but no way would Disney bank a lot of money on that guy.

i really enjoyed Fantastic Mr Fox also. one of the funniest children's movies i have seen.

http://www.impawards.com/intl/spain/...rec_2_ver2.jpg

So... yeah... [Rec] is a tough movie to follow up and I can proudly proclaim that [Rec 2] does not do the original justice. In fact the only scene that made me jump was the infected little kid running along the ceiling, but even at that point all restraint had been tossed out a window. There's going to be some major spoilers going on so if you're at all interested in this series (which you should definitely try if you're into horror) then avert your gaze.

SPOILERS

So yeah... possession, kind of a creepy way to end the first one, but it worked. The second one starts up with a SWAT team going into the building with a Priest, hardly as defenseless as two firemen, a hot news anchor, and cameraman, so already the scare factor is downplayed. Then it just gets absurdly unbelievable as this priest is interrogating demons, who can now speak all of a sudden (couldn't in the last film) and pretty much everything about the last movie is explained within the first thirty minutes. The writer seemed to realize flaw as well and decided to cram in some stupid subplot about three dumbass teenagers who infiltrate the quarantined apartment building and add absolutely fuck all to the main plot.

Hot TV anchor from the first film comes back and then through a series of really weird events it's reveled that she's now possessed by the main demon thing (which kind of resembles a giant worm). She can mimic voices and uses that ability to let her get out of the apartment complex(something only the Priest was authorized to do) which means there's going to be a 3rd movie to throw the matchbook on the already salted corpse that is this franchise.

It's funny, but this movie really reminded me of the game Condemned: Blood Shot, in that the first installment is incredibly atmospheric and genuinely frightening and ends leaving many unanswered questions, which only exacerbates the creepiness. For people not knowledgeable with this reference, here's a quick summary: Homeless/drug addicts go crazy and start attacking everything, serial killer, some kind of paranormal involvement. The first game never delves into why the lower class all went kill crazy but then the sequel comes out and a lot of the main questions get answered on the first god damn level! Everything that was creepy about the first one gets predictable and boring and ends leaving way for a third installment.

I mean it's a little perplexing thinking about the similarities between the two series, here's a few examples:

First Installments

1a) [REC] ends with little to no explanation at what happened other than it was some kind of virus that had something to do with the church and maybe possession.
1b) Condemned: Criminal Orgins ends with absolutely no explanation as to what caused the derangement amongst the transients with only a few scattered clues and some weird paranormal thing.

2a) [REC] starred a news reporter, camera man, and fireman who's best weapon was an axe. For the most part it involved a lot of running away, and occasionally using on of the secondary characters as cannon fodder. It wasn't something where the characters were prepared to go into, and because of that it makes it so much scarier because once you start projecting yourself into that world you realize how useless you'd be in that situation as well.

2b) Condemned: Criminal Orgins had practically no guns in the game, and when you did get one you only had a very limited amount of ammunition and when you ran out, you were out. This meant you had to get up close and personal with the psychotic bums and smash their heads in ye olde Glasgow style. Again, the displacement of characters and their training made it a particularly scary experience because while you were playing an SCU agent, you weren't exactly the kind of person to be exploring condemned buildings and fighting off the lower class with a lead pipe. You felt very out of place, and that anxiety really helped add to the creepiness factor.

Second Installment

1a) [REC 2] pretty much explains that the antagonists are possessed and their job is to retrieve a blood sample from the main possessed girl in the first film.

1b) Condemned 2 tells you that someone installed these weird sound wave devices that somehow triggered the violent tendencies of people below a certain demographic.

2a) [REC 2]'s protagonist consists of a specialized SWAT style team and a Priest. They are all armed and have plenty of light, guns, and fancy equipment to help them fight off the like 12 infected inhabitants.

2b) Guns become far more prominent in Condemned 2 with shootouts occurring frequently during the last few levels. Not only that, but your character, Ethan Thomas, doesn't feel out of place in his environment because he IS a bum now. Creepiness factor pretty much dies straight away when the game turns into a bum fights video.

I suppose the point I'm laboriously trying to make is that sequels usually suck. The first film was so perfect and ended on a note that left you scared and contemplating what it all meant and that desire to go back and see if you missed any clues. The sequel just holds your hand in the most patronizing of ways and turned what was an interesting concept into a cash cow who's utters are going to be squeezed till their black.

Thanks, I will:) I've seen Fantastic Mr. Fox, and I've been wanting to watch Life Aquatic for a while now.

Another movie I really enjoyed by him was The Darjeeling Limited... and Bottle Rocket was pretty good too. The Royal Tenenbaums takes the cake though.

I saw 'Up in the Air' last night.

I wish I hadn't.

Thanks for the write-up, Pete!

I saw [Rec] and liked it. I actually don't like hand held camera movies like The Blair Witch Project, Noroi the Curse or Paranormal Activity. The style scares me less which I assume may be because the style puts some constraints on what you can do as a storyteller. Rec, although not particularly spooky, is the one I've liked the most of the ones previously mentioned. The sequel sounds a bit silly and you do a very good job of pointing out it's flaws, but how would you rate it based on pure entertainment value? Is it a boring movie?

I watched The Edukators (Die fetten jahre sind vorbei) Saturday night, it was pretty good.

http://thecia.com.au/reviews/e/image...s-poster-0.jpg

Oh it's got entertainment value to it, I mean without spoiling too much, firework + possessed person's mouth, you do the math. I'd give it a 7/10 for entertainment.

Excellent film.

Watched a Syrian movie today. Weirdly, this movie isn't even stated on IMDB, neither is the actor/director Doureid Laham (which is one of the most prominent names in the Arabic movie scene).
Anyway, The film was made in 1984, when the war in the middle-east was at its peak, and all the Arabic nations were facing internal segregations, after the failure of the "United Arab Republic" in 1971 and the first occupation of Israel to an Arabic capital (Beirut) in 1982. However, Arabs in these days were still under the slogan of "One History, One Identity, One Nation", even though borders were created daily to separate this so called unified "nation".




Comes this movie, The Border (1983) by Doureid Laham, a Syrian politically engaged comedian, that has always showed the serious contradictions ruling this part of the world. In this film, Laham plays the role of Abdel Wadoud, a citizen that believes in the unison of his nation, and has went in a trip to discover the lands of his country. During his trip, and the many borders, he loses his passport and gets stuck between two border checks. A bit like in The Terminal, the protagonist will try to make a life out of his absurd situation, while still in the hope of returning to his true Home.




I really liked it, it has some very good moments. The dark humour is very subtle and stringent at the same time. It also has a hint of Monty Python comedy. Plus, the music written by Samir Helmi is very nice.
The best quality about it is though, the movie never falls in the melodramatic moments, while telling the tragic story of the stranger in his own country.

http://z.about.com/d/horror/1/0/b/g/...Deadposter.jpg

Oh dear. Survival of the dead is barely a zombie movie and instead is a kind of pseudo western. It's not inherently awful but it's not all that great either. Suspense, shocks and his legendary social criticism is virtually non existent. Had to get it though to keep my 'Of The Dead' DVD library up to date.

His social criticism seemed pretty obvious to me, but yeah - what an utter bore. No likeable characters, horrible computer graphics instead of old school gore, story riddled with an almost painful lack of common logic ..

Thanks for the major influence on popular culture, Mr. Romero, but your genius is highly overrated.

Have you checked out Dead Snow yet Tore from your homeland? Now that's what I call a great zombie movie.

Of course :) I don't think it was completely brilliant, but at least it was entertaining! That's more than you can say for Survival.

My girlfriend thought survival of the dead was an okay zombie film, basically because it didn't scare her. :rolleyes:

Yeah but they are not meant to scare you really!

I've just watched The White Stripes Under Great White Northern Lights.

Thought it was really good, nicely put together.

I was recommended some movie called Bronco Gentlemen or something like that. Anyone seen it? I don't know, the guy described it as pretty kooky- but he did NOT like Black Dynamite, and I'm not sure if I'm okay with that...

i saw the trailer and it looked terrible.