DVD Rental Day (2004 - 2010)

[RobertR]

Been too long.

 

The Simpsons Movie

Pretty much as good of a movie that could be hoped for at this point. If it's not the absolute brilliance of the earlier years, it at least hits enough notes and is epic enough for a movie.

 

A History of Violence

It's been much too long before I got to this. Well acted, well shot, and avoiding really pat answers about our relationship with violence. William Hurt is also a lot of fun in a brief role. The third act is a little over the top, but it leads into a solid ending.

 

Grizzly Man

 

A fascinating documentary. Timothy Treadwell obviously was under some illusions about his relationship with bears, but perhaps we shouldn't take Werner Herzog's narration too much to heart. Herzog is notoriously pessimistic at times. I think the movie is also about the allure of being a minor celebrity and motion picture maker and that's brought out without beating us over the head with it. And there's some remarkable nature footage here.

 

M

Revisited an old favorite. It's remarkable how relevant this 1931 film still is. It puts forth the argument that a pedophile child murderer is entitled to be treated as a human being, however sick, with rights to due process. All the while commenting on the rise of the Nazis, experimenting with sound, being amazingly atmospheric, being a seminal influence on the serial killer genre, getting an amazing performance from Peter Lorre, and just being a thrilling entertainment.

 

I, Claudius

I spent several weeks revisiting this miniseries from beginning to end. Remarkable for its time and still remarkable.

 

It picks up where Rome left off and although it can't compete at all with the production values of the HBO series, it has much to recommend it and is definitely better written. It follows the reigns of Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius and is filled with lust, betrayal, intrigue, plotting, and murder. It starts off somewhat arch in tone, and never quite sheds it, but it helps contrast and soften the events which often verge on horror as so many innocent people fall victim along the way. Brian Blessed, as Augustus, has a remarkable death scene which is as well done as any I can remember. Patrick Stewart, as Sejanus, is a terrific villain. John Hurt is a truly creepy Caligula. And Derek Jacoby is the glue that holds the whole thing together. Also included in the box set is a documentary on the failed 1930s production with Charles Laughton which shows Laughton as Claudius in what looked like a remarkable performance.

 

Robert

[Katuluu]

I actually wish they just end it there rather than coming up with a third film.

Looks like you might be getting your wish, as Twilight Watch has been killed.

 

[gypcasino]

So I signed up for Netflix and I'm watching movies again-

 

"Metal: A Headbanger's Journey"- A documentary from '05. Really entertaining. The narrator really knows his stuff and he interviews such heavy hitters as Dio, Iommi, and Dickinson. My only complaint was that there wasn't more concert footage so we get a better idea of why people love the music so much. He also goes to Norway to explore the Norwegian black metal scene which was pretty fascinating. I believe disc two has an extended feature on the Norwegian scene but they mistakenly sent me another disc one in the disc two envelope so I didn't get to see it. And there's an interview with Mayhem at a festival in Germany which was comical but for the depraved subject that they're talking about.

 

"Juno"- I really liked the dialogue and the acting. I didn't care for Cera's character though. Otherwise, I thought the casting was top notch.

 

I've got a bunch of documentaries on top of my queue so I'll provide reviews for those who like that kind of thing.

[Gobias Industries]

I got around to watching Gone Baby Gone a few days ago. This movie, along with NCFOM and TWBB were my 3 favorite movies of the year.

 

Really powerful movie that is the darkest, most depressing movie I can recall watching in quite some time. It's been described as a film you wouldn't recommend to a casual movie goer and I agree 100%. Ben Affleck really did a good job and proves he is better behind the camera than in front of it. I'm not afraid to admit that I've liked Ben Affleck since Good Will Hunting and I don't get the hate for him. He's a talented dude.

 

Casey Affleck was really good in the movie (some people complain about his voice being inaudible at times, and I somewhat agree.) Amy Ryan of course was phenomenal. For me it's the most memorable performance by an actress all-time even if it isn't a lead. Ed Harris is intense as always. Not a fan of Morgan Freeman as he plays the beaten down, weathered old man in seemingly every movie. But for this movie it works fine.

 

This movie punched me in the gut and was one that I was thinking about days after viewing. Definitely a must see.

[Team Canada]

I think you mean Amy Ryan.

 

 

Saw Lars and the Real Girl a few days ago. Offbeat, sweet/quirky small town at its best. Ryan Gosling's certainly branched out in the last few years.

[EdgarDiazRocks]

All right, with the new house I bought a big tv and got with the digital cable. Well since I want my money's worth I have been watching a lot of stuff on the free "on demand" and there's one that just confuses me to no end.

 

Evil Dead II:

Okay so I had seen the first film, and Army of Darkness and really didn't think much of them. The horror-comedy genre isn't really my style just as the torture-porn that has further developed out of it. But this film has garnered so much respect that folks now talk of it's near legendary status and before last week I was actually embarassed that I hadn't seen it. On IMDB, it scores the same ranking as Ikiru and The Searchers. Now if you know me you know that I'm all for different angles and don't ever think that any opinion, well stated is wrong. But here's a phenomenon that I just don't get.

 

Let me relate this review from IMDB . . .

 

How good is it? This movie means everything to me. It's the most perfect horror viewing experience you'll ever have. The whole trilogy is great, but I have to admit this one's my favorite. Part one is a pure creepy and extremely violent exploitation horror film. Army of Darkness (the weakest of the trilogy but still pretty good) is an awesome horror/adventure movie, with more laughs and less scares. Evil Dead 2 Dead by Dawn stands right in the middle, just where it belongs. A perfect mix of comedy and horror! I remember the day I first watched it. I was with two friends. We rented it at our local video store in the early afternoon. I laughed, I got scared, I enjoyed every little second passing by the screen. We watched it four times. Since then, I never stopped watching it. It never gets old. I never get bored. The performance by Bruce Campbell (Ash) is still the best I've ever seen in a horror movie. No wonder Sam Raimi is now directing the Spiderman series. This guy's a genius! The music is excellent, and the atmosphere... what can I say? An awesome movie is an awesome movie. If you never ever watched this film, I order you to turn off your computer right now. Life's too short not to see Evil Dead 2!!

Now this is average for reviews of this movie, people saying it's "awesome!" and shooting out "Grooooooovy!"

 

Roger Ebert tries better in his Three Star review . . .

 

[it] is a comedy disguised as a blood-soaked shock-a-rama. It looks superficially like a routine horror movie, a vomitorium designed to separate callow teenagers from their lunch. But look a little closer and you'll realize that the movie is a fairly sophisticated satire. Level One viewers will say it's in bad taste. Level Two folks like myself will perceive that it is about bad taste.

 

I'm not suggesting that "Evil Dead 2" is fun merely because you can spot the references to other movies. It is because (a) the violence and gore are carried to such an extreme that they stop being disgusting and become surrealistic; (b) the movie's timing aims for comedy, not shocks, and © the grubby, low-budget intensity of the film gives it a lovable quality that high-tech movies wouldn't have.

Now maybe since I haven't come into this fresh, and I have seen the reprecussions of this have really come to no good (Eli Roth, I'm looking at you), but I guess I'm missing the asthetic of the subtext. Often when I see this mentioned Peter Jackson's crapfest Dead Alive is mentioned as the superior version of the same thing. I saw that early on and still wonder why anybody would watch that thing a second time for. But again, different tastes, that I get.

 

What I don't get is how these films are currently being held up as THE superior product and movie savy folk are better watching them than say John Ford or Kurosawa. Nobody rips your movie cred if you haven't seen Stagecoach or High & Low. How is it that this little nothing of a film is the cannon upon which most of current cinema is built on?

 

In the same vein, I also watched They Live and Big Trouble In Little China (I hadn't seen the former before) and laughed my ass off without having the airs of finally seeing something which I could finally converse through the lexicon of film with my peers. That's the best part of John Carpenter, subtext without pretension (allthou the love for The Thing is starting to approach it). He wraps his arms around his B-Movie status and stays there happily Not that I hink Raimi makes Evil Dead II a standard bearer for lowbrow might, its legion of followers screaming out lines and drowning all discussion on the intrawebs do. I guess I just don't understand *at all* what makes it a good movie in the first place.

 

Please discuss . . . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh yeah I also watched Fantastic Four 2, which BLEEEEWWWW!!!!

 

"Does it have a Hemmie?"

 

"Of Course!"

 

Why do people pay actual money for this crap?

[Katuluu]

So you are wondering why Evil Dead 2 has such mainstream appeal while High and Low doesn't?

 

Ransom cleared $300 mil, how much more Kurosawa love do you want from the masses?

[EdgarDiazRocks]

No, I wonder why Evil Dead 2 is currently being held up as superior film making.

 

Like say this hack reviewer does . . .

 

Let there be no mistake that Death Bed: The Bed That Eats is pure trash of the highest order. Like its inevitable successor Evil Dead II, Death Bed: The Bed That Eats continually finds a way to turn seemingly low-brow film into an unmitigated romp that transcends any initial expectations one might have, no matter how high or low they may be

And you call that discussion?

 

GET OFFA MY PLANE!!

 

no wait . . .i mean . . .

 

GIVE ME BACK MY SON!!!

[Katuluu]

No, I wonder why Evil Dead 2 is currently being held up as superior film making.

 

By who? I mean seriously. I'd even argue that the majority of people who watch Evil Dead II don't even like it. It's just kind of an "in" thing to like nowadays because Raimi is now so well known. And even Raimi's avid fans can be discounted simply because they are biased, kind of like how your top 10 films of all-time is entirely comprised of Kurosawa films.

 

Though I must admit Ikiru would be much improved if it only had a disembodied hand running around throughout the course of it.

[homer]

They Live is a guilty pleasure of mine - I'll watch that every time it's on TV. Obviously it's not without fault (there's a fight scene where Roddy Piper is trying to get another guy to try on a pair of glasses and it goes on for an eternity. Just try on the damn glasses already!) but on the whole it's entertaining.

[EdgarDiazRocks]

kind of like how your top 10 films of all-time is entirely comprised of Kurosawa films.

I'll have you know Billy Wilder, Welles and Koreeda sneak on there . . . somewhere near the end.

 

 

 

And I like Spiderman 2 just as much as the next guy.

 

[RobertR]

I enjoy Evil Dead II as well, although I think as a film itself it's overpraised and can definitely understand it not being to everyone's taste. It is more of a D.I.Y. Independent film than much that has come after it. Especially the films that are showing up at Sundance now that get about $5 million from a studio arthouse division, star a couple of tv actors, and pimp the latest hits on the soundtrack. Yeah, I'm calling you out Garden State. As a true independent film and an influential one at that, I can understand Evil Dead II's reputation, but the cult of Raimi and Campbell is wearing off a bit for me with the years.

 

Conversely, I do wish that more people would realize that just because a film is championed by critics, doesn't mean that it's a snoozefest. It may come as a surprise to some folks, but Citizen Kane has jokes in it. I can't see why anyone that likes police thrillers/procedurals or watches CSI regularly wouldn't get something out of M, Stray Dog, High and Low, or Touch of Evil. I don't know why any Star Wars fan wouldn't appreciate The Hidden Fortress. Or why Jackie Chan fans wouldn't appreciate the physical comedy of Buster Keaton. I can understand not wanting to deal with 8 1/2, Persona, Contempt, Rome Open City, Tokyo Story, Barry Lyndon, Umberto D, etc. on any given night, but there are plenty of acclaimed classics that function on the level of pure entertainment.

 

Also a couple I've caught lately.

 

The Bourne Ultimatum - A pretty exciting third installment of the series. Actually brings closure to some issues, while still delivering exciting thrills and hairs breath escapes. If you enjoyed the first two movies, I don't know why you wouldn't enjoy the third.

 

Cloverfield - I think it works on a purely visceral level. And I'm old enough to remember when the camera never, or barely, moved during a special effects sequence and I was impressed with what was put on screen. Michael Bay may be the standard bearer for "military porn" but I think this ranks right up there.

 

OTOH, I definitely could see why people might be put off by the moving camera though. it didn't bother me, particularly on the small screen. There's nothing to analyze in terms of dialogue, not unless your idea of great dialogue is someone yelling "Rob!" every other sentence. Apparently, giant monsters and the military are really sneaky, as they come up behind these character unnoticed quite often. And the characters really are poorly fleshed out beyond the cliche' level. I think it's worth seeing once, but can't see there being much replay value.

 

Robert

[EdgarDiazRocks]

http://www.avclub.com/content/files/images/battle.jpg

 

The AV Club has a Cult Cannon review of the movie I started this thread with back in the late 50's . . .

 

Battle Royale

 

In the comments section I find that the superior version of the same concept, Series 7 has gone out of print.

 

I also had no idea that BR was so hard to get a hold of. My little local rental place had it. Koreeda's Distance on the other hand . . . the great white whale.

 

EDIT: After re-reading that original post I take back every bad thing I had to say about BR, it is endlessly better than the gore/humor I had compared it too originally. I am a little more versed now and BR does have a lot of sub-text that is missing from the other stuff.

 

BR II still sucks 'tho.

[Katuluu]

Watched Stuart Gordon's new film Stuck yesterday. It's a bit different then many of his films, but still heavy in gore and humor. Evidently I was the only person at the screening who had seen any of his movies. Though a couple remembered Re-Animator. General consensus was that people liked it, though they didn't really know what kind of a film they were watching. For me it felt more like Gordon was trying to challenge his own fan base rather then draw in any new ones, which I found both interesting and a bit risky.

 

On the EDR scale of hate it will probably warrant a 6. Certainly irksome, but not enough so to warrant starting an entire thread about it.

[EdgarDiazRocks]

I thought Robot Jox was GREAT!

 

Well . . no I didn't. But it wasn't the worst thing ever.

 

I save Level 6 hate for the aforementioned Eli Roth and anything involving the word "saw".

 

It's my Nickelback.

[Menotti80]

I highly recommend seeing "The Savages". Sad story, great acting, and it's got Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Great movie...

[Katuluu]

I was going out of 10. So somewhere between orange and red, but not at the white hot rage that comes with Roth and his followers.

[danzig6767]

I'm really looking forward to the new Coen brothers movie. It's getting terrific reviews.

Were you talking about Into the Wild?

If so, i watched it yesterday and would highly recommend it, very very good movie. No need for me to write a review, just rent it if you haven't yet seen it, i can't see how anyone wouldn't like this movie.

 

 

 

[TooLiveBrew]

Just watched Oliver Parker's Othello. Superb casting, acting, & direction. I'm sure Shakespeare himself would have been satisfied with this production. Laurence Fishburne masterful in the title role, Kenneth Branagh delightfully evil as Iago (a dream Shakespeare role if ever there were one), Irene Jacob near-perfection as Desdemona.

I'll admit I am biased a bit, as Othello is probably my favorite work by Shakespeare. Nonetheless, this interpretation is beautiful & powerful. Really the only aspect I didn't love looked to be an element of the direction: Fishburne's thrashing around as though he were being physically poisoned in a handful of scenes. Now, the imagery & concept is that Iago is able to poison Othello's mind, but it was a bit overdone & probably unnecessary in the way Fishburne portrayed it. I'd have preferred to see Othello just consumed with anger/rage than seeing him wiggle around like he was having a seizure, but that is quite literally the only [tarnish] imho.

The symbolism & cinematography are delightful, and the acting -- as I mentioned -- is worthy of commendation. If you don't know the story, watch this version. If you do know the story, watch this version. If you've already seen this one, watch it again. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

EDIT: just an fyi, the cuss filter took a different meaning than my intended "c-hink in the armor". Had to stop & think about what was offensive there... http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/embarassed.gif

[homer]

I'm really looking forward to the new Coen brothers movie. It's getting terrific reviews.

Were you talking about Into the Wild?

If so, i watched it yesterday and would highly recommend it, very very good movie. No need for me to write a review, just rent it if you haven't yet seen it, i can't see how anyone wouldn't like this movie.

 

 

 

 

No, I think at the time I was talking about No Country for Old Men.

[GAME05]

Into the Wild was Sean Penn, not the Coen Brothers. but a great film. stays pretty close to the book, which i guess it had to, because the parents were pretty hesitant about allowing a movie to be made. i really enjoy that both the book and the movie leave people saying that he was either crazy for doing something like that or dreaming to do the same thing, but there's noting really left open to the in-between.

 

Anybody have any particular knowledge of the "A Walk in the Woods" movie? it's talked about a ton in the Appalachian Trail circiles that i go on for obvious reasons. last i heard it was prett well dead, with Redford hesitating on it and just starting to get too old to do it. although even if he doesn't do it, someone will eventually. the talk among hikers, though, is how horribly that is probably going to impact the Trail itself with all the people suddenly trying to hike it.

[gypcasino]

I just watched a documentary called The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters. It was pretty amazing, a unique tale of good and evil. Check it out.

[Glennron]

Just watched Oliver Parker's Othello.

Hah my high school English class watched that a few years ago. Although we were about 17 so when it came on everyone was like "Morpheous?!"

[RobertR]

Giving this a bump up.

 

Stardust

 

A decent fantasy film that wants to be the next Princess Bride but falls short. I think primarily because the lead actor is pretty dull. And for a cast "full of quirky characters" it's remarkably short on actual quirk, with the exception of Robert DeNiro's crossdressing air pirate.

 

It's nice to see Michelle Pfeiffer looking as attractive as ever and there's a nice visual look to the film. And the ghostly brothers idea is often fun. But it really never lets out all the stops. I'm a fan of Neil Gaiman and while I thought that his major themes translated, his wordplay pretty much completely vanished in translation.

 

Enchanted

 

I'll put forth the argument that this is almost as successful in it's spoofing/tribute to the animated Disney princess movie as Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead are to their respective genres. Of course, I don't have the same affection for Disney animation, as I do for 80s action films and zombie films.

 

I think you can squarely point to Amy Adams as the central reason that the movie works. It's a terrific performance that could easily have become grating. She can sing too and the Central Park musical number is a very well done sequence. Some nice old school Disney animation as an opening, Tim Spall as a comic henchman, and Rick Baker's hag makeup really add to the film as well.

 

OTOH, Patrick Dempsey and Susan Sarandon are just there. And the final confrontation is only half successful.

 

Falstaff (Chimes at Midnight)

O.k. I'm cheating here since you can't rent this in the United States due to rights issues. I had to order a Brazilian import version through Amazon. I'm glad I did though as this is a true lost classic and one of the jewels of my collection.

 

This is one of the greatest Shakespeare films ever, being the third of Welles's attempts. There are many facets to comment on, but it's one of the great adaptations taking two full Shakespeare plays, and bits from several others, and whittling it down to a focussed story in under 2 hours which illuminates the text and is a great showcase for visuals, editing, and acting. The Battle of Shrewsbury sequence is justly acclaimed and was an obvious influence on Braveheart with it's quick cutting inside a bloody melee battle, but arguably exceeds the latter film as Welles manages the intercut comedic images of Falstaff avoiding the battle, the dramatic confrontation between Prince Hal and Hotspur, and gives an arc to the battle which starts off grand and literally descends into desperate fighting in mud. It's a brilliantly edited sequence. Perhaps due to budget, there's really no fat, other than Falstaff, in the whole film.

 

It was a real coup to cast John Gielgud as Henry IV in that stage of his career. I can't imagine anyone more perfect for that role. Getting Ralph Richardson to read from Holinshed's Chronicles is a bonus.

 

But, as good as they are, Welles as Falstaff is simply transcendant. It really was a part he was born to play. Even Welles's bitterest critics would admit he was "good company", as Simon Callow notes in the second volume of his Welles biography which I'm currently reading, and that certainly describes Falstaff no matter his crimes and abuses. But the whole banishment of Falstaff from Henry V's presence echoes Welles's banishment from Hollywood. It's not hard to see the metaphor there and it underlines the meaning of the whole story.

 

The only negative I can point to is the audio quality is often very shaky due to limited funds. For a Shakespeare movie that hurts and it's in real need to the rights to be sorted out and a restoration similar to Welles's MacBeth and Othello to clean up the technical problems as best as modern technology will allow.

 

The Darjeeling Limited

 

"Look at those ______" <--- Insert profane synonym for "jerks"

 

That's the line that pretty much sums up Wes Anderson's newest film about three brothers with practically nothing in common taking a "spiritual journey" through India. In many ways it really shouldn't work at all. The brothers aren't likable. It's more quirky than funny. And the symbolism is very obvious; Owen Wilson's physical scars reflect his emotional and mental state. They're literally and figuratively carrying a lot of family baggage. The brothers who apparently have nothing in common are portrayed by actors who look nothing like brothers.

 

And yet, I found myself liking the film a great deal. Part of that is due to the fact that the film is consistently interesting on a visual basis. Part of that is due to the fact that the film is well acted and while the characters may be jerks, they're different and interesting jerks with problems that can be related too. And the dialogue always has just the right inflection and is contrasted with just the right amount of silence.

 

I think I also responded to the idea that you can't plan a "spiritual journey" with itineraries. You have to actually experience life to its fullest. Kind of like you can't really appreciate a fancy French hotel if you just want to order a grilled cheese sandwich from room service. It's when you throw away your plans and open yourself up to experience that any possibility of growth exists.

 

Robert

[Katuluu]

I really need to watch Darjeeling again. I enjoyed it when I saw it in the theater and Anderson's films typically grow on me with each subsequent viewing.

 

BTW Robert, let me thank you yet again for letting me watch Chimes at Midnight. It was better then I ever expected.