I definitely agree that there was absolutely no need for the rape scene to go on for so long. I actually hate it when a director consciously "tests" me. Von Trier does the same thing, and I find it hopelessly condescending.

It is a valid point, about the rape scene.

Past 2 weeks

iron man 2
I really liked this one, Robert Downey jr is a great actor, didn't like Mickey Rourke as much, though. End fight scene could be a bit more "epic" then it was.

Green Zone
Excellent, Matt Damon (my fav actor of all time) does an excellent job, though not as good as the bourne series definitly worth to watch


Robin Hood
My least favourite of the ones I saw lately, although pretty worth the watch though. Russel Crowe does a fine job as always, and not to mention the absolutely perfect casted actor> Little John ! definitly worth to mention. The story itself dissapoints me.


prince of persia
A pretty great story, and pretty funny but don't expect TOO much of it, I guess Jake Gyllenhaal does a great job, the story is cool and the girl is hot, nothing more to say about this movie other than the fact it's worth the watch.

Disney's Oceans

We were out at lunch the other day, about to go hit golf balls, when it started raining like a tall cow pissin on a flat rock.

So we went to the megaplex to see what was happening, and...there wasn't much.

Being suckers for Planet Earth and the such, we went for Oceans.

It was worth the $7.00. I mean, what's not to like? There's a twenty minute section where birds are diving at fish, and sharks are snapping at the fish and the birds, and then some whales come and take over, and it's all shot from above and below the water and it's quite something to see.

Some of it was so impressive we thought it might be CGI, but an internet search reveals no such circumstance (with one exception, where they are trying to make the standard Mother Earth speech).

Anyway, bring the kids, but be aware of the fact that there are two scenes that might scare them a little.

I mean, aside from the fact that Pierce Brosnan narrates the entire film. That just scared me a little.

Agreed. But I give the soundtrack an A++.

Finished up Attenborough's "Blue Planet" series. Really good. I even watched some episodes twice.

Daybreakers

Ugh. I guess the upside of the film is that someone somewhere will devise a drinking game where someone has to drink every time a huge plot hole appears.

Just goofy bad. Barely entertaining.

Nicholas Cage in Con Air bad?

2 movies I have seen recently :

Robin Hood - wtf accent is Crowe trying to do? he is all over the place which distracted me from an otherwise ok movie

Nightmare on elm street - just awful. Please sto remaking great movies and please stop letting michael bay direct

Iron Man 2 - Bloated sequel syndrome on full display here. Too much going on, no connection with the characters. Pretty meh. 5/10

I thought Iron Man was the worst movie ever... which is too bad because the 2nd one looks decent but I'm not going to see it based on how terrible the first one was.

You know, Con Air was entertaining.

Daybreakers was not, and it has every opportunity to be.

We need an 80s actioner month imo - yknow, die hard, The Rock, Speed, Con Air, Face Off, Under Seige, Commando, I Come in Peace and to go super low-rent, the Brian Bosworth classic Stone Cold.

Oh and Lethal Weapon, Last Boy Scout, and The Hidden too.

Terminator, Road Warrior, Aliens...

Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man

What more could you want?

I'm sure it's mentioned somewhere earlier in this thread, but I just saw The Cove. Well done documentary and obviously the Oscar winner from 2010. However, in a way, the build up was so intense that I almost felt let down at the end. Nonetheless, I thought it was about a B+ or A-.

These are from the 90s

Is I Come in Peace even available anymore? I was looking for it on Amazon a couple months back and it was out of print (or however you say it for DVD's).

Long Good Friday

A terrific, bulldog performance from Bob Hoskins as Harry Shand, giving over his vision of London that has strangely now come to be true as the bombs go off around him. Helen Mirren is one of the sexiest women on screen without even trying, imo. Even a non-speaking role for Pierce Brosnan. My second-favourite gangster movie of all time.

And a terrific, left-field ending.

If you haven't seen it, try to.


"What I’m looking for is someone who can contribute to what England has given to the world. Culture, sophistication, genius. A little bit more than a hot dog. Know what I mean?” "

Rushmore,

I disagree with Ebert's take on the film, one I've seen many, many times now. The narrative voice reminds me of Holly's voice over in Badlands because they both have a distancing sort of effect. Both narrators, although involved in the events, have pretty naive views about the stories they are caught up in it seems. In fact, Manz's narration is often unscripted. Malick told her the story of the Apocalypse, and the next day Manz repeated her version of it. She also watched sections of the films and simply provided her own commentary at times. Or at least that's how the story goes. With Malick, I'm not sure what to believe. Whatever the truth, Manz's voice over is one of the reasons this has long been one of my favorite films.

However, I'm pretty sure the script was pared down so the film came close to resembling a silent movie with sound (not as strange as that seems). Much of the dialogue was stricken from the finished product. Coincidently, Days of Heaven is also a masterpiece of sound design.

The last time I watched this, I was fascinated once again, so I watched it again immediately. I'm still not too sure what to make of it. The star cameos seem like cameos because some of those roles were intended to be larger. I'm also not sure about what to make of that idyllic existence contrasted with the war. Is this some sort of noble savage stuff going on?

The shots of nature, though, seem pretty much in keeping with many of Malick's films. Once again, and perhaps more explicitly in this film, Malick explores what's it's like to be in the world in a Heideggerian sense.

I can't really see your point. The narrative is Linda's throughout, and it is her perspective that lends the necessary emphasis to the action.

Obviously, we are trained to look for the main actors in the principle plot, and those characters are not Linda, of course.

But if you see not what you are trained to see, but rather, what is there, it is a story told from the point of view of Linda. The final scene is indicative of the fact that Linda's story will go on. Everyone else's story is over, but we know that is not entirely true.

I honestly felt this really lent an exceptionally fragile and mercurial aspect to the film that could only be grasped by seeing it in this light.

In a very odd sense, you could equate it with the varying narratives (and narrators) in Slacker. Each previous story and its actors are left behind.

It just so happens that in Days of Heaven, there is only one central narrative, and the fact that it is perceived by an outsider, and that that outsider continues her own narrative after the action of that central narrative...well, it says something about objectivity (and, by inference, subjectivity).

I honestly thought this was the intangible aspect that really made the storyline worthwhile for me.

The rest is simple to appreciate.

I've always felt the shots of nature was intended to show how implacable nature is even in the force of this great war. Life goes on in and around it, not caring about who wins or dies.

Crazy Heart

Overall, very nice, with a very solid performance by Jeff Bridges.

People have called this the country equivalent of The Wrestler, which is not warranted.

This is a much more traditional story, shot even more traditionally than written. In spite of Bridge's performance, there is no actual depth plumbed. We never actually get a taste of his suffering, and this is the fault of the script and the direction.

Don't get me wrong--it's good, and it is definitely worth watching, but you won't be changed forever. There is a definite no-big-chances approach here, and it is most apparent in the final thirty minutes.

I would say that in the hands of a better bunch, Bridges could have brought us something a whole lot more poignant and memorable.

As it is, it's just a very good performance in an OK movie.

I think it is also about showing how simple it is to make a better choice than men tend to make. The availability of nature ought to be enough, yet...no. Witt's childlike demeanor about war, and his propensity to wander off into nature, regardless of the consequences, are things to which to aspire.

And yes, as you say, nature will be relatively unchanged by war, which we all hold in such massive esteem in the hierarchy of things we consider urgent.

When really, ultimately, war is almost incomprehensibly abject, given the scope of that which surrounds it.