Originally posted by TheLastOlympian07@Oct 14 2016, 09:30 PM
<a href='index.php?showuser=3' rel='nofollow' alt='profile link' class='user-tagged mgroup-50'>Spangle</a>

what do you use when you critic movies, just curious to what your through process is

I would assume it is a lot of the same things people do when they review other mediums.


Acting, plot, script, art direction and of course personal taste.

Ok, I'm done.

First, probably my favorite Isaac and Chastain performances. Excellent work. Second, everything was fine, lot of great sequences, the pacing is good. It's a fine movie, but I don't feel substantially better about it than I did 2 hours ago. I would still say Oscar Isaac has yet to lead in an excellent film. It was good.

Fuck you guys hating on Chris Pratt. Chris Pratt is a saint

Thank you to My boys @Merica and @Ragnar for the lovely sigs!

Originally posted by TheLastOlympian07@Oct 15 2016, 01:30 AM
<a href='index.php?showuser=3' rel='nofollow' alt='profile link' class='user-tagged mgroup-50'>Spangle</a>

what do you use when you critic movies, just curious to what your through process is

Pretty much what JT mentioned.

Script (characters, character development, dialogue, and plot)
Visuals (special effects, cinematography, production design, costume design, make-up, camera movements/visual style)
Directing
Acting
Personal enjoyment

6/10 - For a film that Margot Kidder called "shit", The Amityville Horror is actually not that bad. Resoundingly rejected by critics upon its release, the film can get quite kooky with some bad special effects, as well as being incredibly cliche. That said, the kooky off-the-wall elements do prove quite scary and the film itself is an entertaining and thrilling experience, if a bit messy and dated.

Preceded by far better horror films, The Amityville Horror is a victim of not being overly original (even for the time), but it is a fun film about a house with a dark past. That past, clichely enough, is that of an Indian burial ground and the home of an ex-Salem witch. Really double dipping on that one. That said, what it does with this premise is incredibly impressive as it is a truly scary film at times. While decidedly a slow burn horror film, it really ramps up the tension before the ending and leaves you on the edge of your seat waiting to see what happens to the Lutz family. The writing is competent in this regard and really develops the lore and history of the home quite well. By the end, you are convinced that there is nobody but Satan who could reside in this home, which makes the scares and chills all the more effective.

Many have called The Amityville Horror boring. I personally did not see it, but I do often appreciate slower horror films. It allows the tension to really build and build without pushing it too far, too quick. It allows you to become immersed in the world of the film and really be left with chills when the film is slower and does not rush to show you what went bump in the night. The Amityville Horror executes this very well by building this classic 1970s family living in a home with a dark secret, but this secret does not reveal itself immediately. Rather, it festers and slowly infiltrates the family and those around them before reaching its final, deadly form.

The biggest accomplishment in The Amityville Horror is the score from Lalo Schifrin. Terrifically terrifying on its own, the score is loud and audacious as it beautifully matches the horror on screen with equally hypnotically dangerous chords. The score is really what defines this film as not being bad. The rest could still be a bad film. However, this score elevates any of its problems and makes its good moments that much better.

There are many problems with director Stuart Rosenberg's film, however. Firstly, the acting is okay, but there are moments where it really bubbles to being over-the-top. In particular, there is a sequence with Father Delaney (Rod Steiger) that is a complete eyeroller. These one of many sequences in the film that really features some serious overacting with really undermined the end product. As mentioned before, the more cliche elements do hurt a bit, namely the religious element that has been done before, as well as the lore. Though executed well in terms of the house-specific lore, the historical background explaining why everything was happening just feels so been there done that.

Though the pace of the film is fine in my book, the pay-off is not. Risk-averse and incredibly over-the-top, the film decides to head down a surrealist, head splittingly silly path at the very end. The entire film is very realistic, but the end just goes down a whole other path that just did not work. Plus, the special effects in the basement really let it down. That said, the dog - Harry - is the coolest dog ever.

Critically maligned upon its release, the original Amityville Horror proves to actually be a scary and thrilling film. With solid lead performances from James Brolin and Margot Kidder, the film is entertaining and thoroughly suspenseful from beginning to end, even if incredibly cliche with a bad ending.



2/10 - Oh wow. After watching the original right before this being left thinking it was an alright film, this 2005 remake made the original look like the best film of all-time. Obviously as a remake, it is unoriginal. Yet, it decided to take everything that worked in the original: the pacing, the menacing scares, and the mystery, and just remove it. Everything good in the original is gone. In its place is a formulaic modern day horror movie with Ryan Reynolds' abs, Melissa George's side boob, and Rachel Nichols as the sluttiest babysitter of all-time. Clearly, far more attention was paid to attracting teenagers (both girls and boys), rather than making this film at all scary.

With jump scares coming fast and furious, The Amityville Horror refuses to try and be original, though its major strength is expanding on the history of the house. The original had good elements, but I did like that this one took it further. It also had other nice touches like the doll, which was certainly scary. That said, every other addition was poor at best. The additions largely are just gore effects, the aforementioned jump scares, and showing you what the original kept hidden. The best trick a horror film can pull is to try and convince the viewer that the scary elements are not there. That it is just a noise. Once it does this, it can truly shock you and leave you shaking. This film, however, is convinced you must see dead bodies with weirdo jump cuts in order to get the point. Director Andrew Douglas clearly does not understand what works about horror movies. There was a lot to improve upon from the original, but yet, Douglas found a way to infuse it with modern horror elements that leave you scratching your head and trying to watch the original instead.

The Amityville Horror is a film that takes no time at all to jump right into the "scary elements". Rather, it decides from the very beginning that it is best to try and make the audience jump. Yet, horror films must earn their scares through atmosphere. Douglas apparently feels the need to try and shorthand this atmosphere by just showing you creepy looking dead girls and a scene with a Ryan Reynolds lookalike (i.e. Ryan Reynolds) killing his whole family. These moments, though jarringly dumb, do not scare. Even worse, they do not create an atmosphere. As if realizing this, Douglas thinks adding some more CGI demons and scenes of child abuse will assist the film in becoming creepy. Strike two. Next up, Douglas decided the ending of the original was fine, but just needed some alterations. Here, we could definitely add a weirdly placed dream sequence with Reynolds slinging an axe into Melissa George's abdomen only to instead have her almost kill him. But yay, she cannot pull the trigger and Reynolds is saved from the house! Woohoo! If only Melissa George could have pointed the gun at my head and pulled the trigger. It would have been far more rewarding.

The Amityville Horror is schlock horror at its very finest. It is devoid of scares or atmosphere. If you want to watch Ryan Reynolds's abs act in a supporting role (he is actually shirtless for maybe, like, 50 minutes of this movie), then this is the movie for you. If you want to be entertained and scared, then maybe try a different horror movie.



5/10 - Yeah, honestly, i have no idea what I just watched. A zombie splatter film about a group of Norwegian medical students who decide to head up to a cabin in the wilderness only to come across Nazi zombies, Dead Snow is really odd. Though a highly derivative and predictable zombie film, it most certainly makes the most of its unique premise by providing a thoroughly entertaining film, even if it is light on scares.

The film's setup is pretty typical. A bunch of college kids go away for the weekend only to have sex, think about sex, and play Twister. Oh and a pair of them have sex on the toilet after the guy just took a dump. That part may be pretty unique. Of all the sex scenes I have seen in a film, two people having sex over fresh poop is most certainly a cinematic first. That is a quick way to getting a yeast infection too, fyi. Fortunately for Chris (Jenny Skavlan), she likely does not need to worry about yeast infections given the Nazi zombie infestation that soon takes hold. Fortunately, the film's build-up does not take too long, but in this opening stretch, the film reveals its major problem: its characters. Though the film did have occasionally effective scares, they were too far and in between. Thus, it could have bolstered itself with non-cookie cutter characters. Instead, these young adults are ones you have seen before and Dead Snow does nothing to add onto its wholly vanilla characters.

Next up, the film's scary factor. As a splatter film, there will most certainly be gore. Dead Snow provides a ton of the gooey stuff and seems to have particular fun pulling intestines out of its characters bodies. After watching this, my intestines are actually in pain. Never have I seen so much intestinal carnage. Most of the kills are pretty gruesome. As such, Dead Snow is not for the weak stomached population. Ironically, one of the characters, Martin (Vegar Hoel) practically faints at the sight of blood at the beginning of the film. I can only imagine he became desensitized by the very end. Unfortunately, it gets so caught up showing so much gore, there is barely any time left to scare the audience. Instead, the film relies on dumb characters who walk straight into the face of danger to try and provide scares. This move proves ineffectual as the film eventually just devolves into an action flick with a full-on battle sequence. It is almost as if it realized it was not scary enough, so it changed genres halfway through.

Maybe unintentionally, Dead Snow is quite hilarious at times. Admittedly tongue-in-cheek, Dead Snow goes purposely over-the-top at times with the killing of the zombies to great comedic effect. Given that the sequel is called a comedy by Wikipedia, I have to assume the same applies to the original given the quantity of comedic moments here. Though you have to be a little sick to find this one funny, I most certainly did find much of the final third of the film incredibly hilarious with its tongue placed firmly against its cheek.

Additionally, the film does a great job building its world. The most tension in the film is felt as you wait for the zombies to appear. You know they are coming, but the lore and the anticipation are really well executed by director Tommy Wirkola. Though I did not love how not scary the film turned out to be, the build-up is incredibly effective here. Plus, though it does go comedic at times, the film plays its absurd premise quite straight for much of the film. The end result is a film that may have fun with its original idea, but still tries to provide a straight horror film. In this way, the film does blend its horror and comedy quite well, even if it was not scary enough for my tastes.

Overall, Dead Snow makes me want to curl up in a ball and clutch my intestines tightly. Though incredibly fun, Dead Snow does little to scare or to spruce up its genre besides introducing Nazis to the equation.



6/10 - Despite being largely quite cliche, The Siege of Jadotville is a thoroughly riveting war thriller that should provide action junkies and thrill seekers more than enough to chew on. However, beyond this, The Siege of Jadotville suffers from poor character development, iffy writing, and moments of sub-par acting. That said, there are many positives to the film, namely in the technical department with good cinematography, good costume design, production design, and just thoroughly thrilling battle sequences. It is what happens when the guns are placed down where the film suffers.

In The Siege of Jadotville, Jamie Dornan stars as Commandant Pat Quinlan. The leader of a company of Irish soldiers sent as UN Peacekeepers to the Congo in 1961, film depicts his company's brave stance in Jadotville, despite being under constant siege from Congolese soldiers and mercenaries. The film most certainly does its real life heroes justice, showcasing both their bravery and courage in the face of insurmountable odds. Throughout the film, the battle sequences are covered with brilliantly executed explosions that, somehow, manage to look incredibly beautiful. Against the drab brown and green uniforms and buildings, the repeated bursts of orange and yellow flames bring a certain perverse beauty to the film. Having seen many a war film, there are not many better looking explosions during a battle out there than can be found in The Siege of Jadotville.

The beauty of these explosions are most certainly encapsulated in the cinematography from Nikolaus Summerer. Though at times pretty typical for war film fare, there are a few moments of brilliance that really just soak in the odd beauty of war, as well as the sheer beauty of Jadotville and the Congolese landscape. In particular, there is a shot of Dornan walking to speak to the mercenary leader and there is a window briefly behind him that has the window pouring through it. This shot in particular shows a keen eye on the part of Summerer for what is truly beautiful, in spite of the carnage and destruction surrounding this beauty. In many ways, it is a nice touch of juxtaposition to put so much brutality against such natural beauty.

The film's battle sequences are not its only strengths, as Jamie Dornan does turn in a very good performance as Pat Quinlan. Though, this is also where the weaknesses of the film come in, namely in the story and characterization. The real life story is riveting. The film does encapsulate some of this, but fails in regards to actually do anything unique with the story. A tale of men being left to die at insurmountable odds has been told again and again. While obviously a real story, it does feel as if the film was limited by its real life basis as it left it nowhere to go to find any originality in the narrative. Instead, it doubles down on this with cliche interactions between Quinlan and his commanding officers.

Additionally, the film fails to develop anybody, even Quinlan. Before writing this review, I only knew that Jamie Dornan played the lead. Still had no idea as to his name. This is a problem. I caught other names along the way, but their characters were either slotted fully into supporting roles or cliched antagonist roles where their motives are unclear and no efforts are made to explain their decisions. This latter element comes into play with Conor Cruise O'Brien (Mark Strong), the head of UN operations in the Congo and an Irishman himself. His character's motivations are unclear throughout and the film cannot be bothered to explain them. That said, it is almost a reprieve as Strong did not bring his A-game to this film. There is one scene in particular that he completely bombs and it comes off as hysterical, rather than powerful.

Overall, The Siege of Jadotville is a solid thriller that tells a riveting real life story, but feels consumed by it and fails to develop any of its characters to a satisfactory level. That said, it is well shot and thoroughly entertaining, thus it is most certainly worth a watch. Even if the rest of the film may not be to your tastes, there is one kill accompanied by a hilariously out-of-place Wilhelm scream, which should really justify watching this for any skeptics out there.



7/10 - Notting Hill is a cute and charming late 1990s romantic comedy about a man, William Thacker (Hugh Grant), who meets a girl, movie star Anna Scott (Julia Roberts). Painfully adorable at times, the film has some oddly audacious camera movement from a film of its type, while also being a terrific comedic romp. However, its romantic elements are spotty and wind up being the main weakness of this film from director Roger Michell.

Comedically, the writing is quintessential Richard Curtis. Sharp and witty, the comedy is not often overt, yet is almost always a winner. The comedy and the delivery from Hugh Grant had me in stitches many a time. This is the type of role where Grant truly shines as an actor, with Notting Hill being a sterling example of his main skillset: charmer with a quick British wit. The comedy here is intensely British from beginning to end, yet it manages to transcend cultural borders with nary a hitch.

The writing does slack in one area, however: the romance. Shockingly enough for a romantic film, the relationship and romance just did not work as well as expected. Though solid, it was far from expectations. Whilst together, the chemistry between Grant and Roberts is undeniable. The writing reflects this with truly magical sequences of them together that will charm the socks right off your feet with its cuteness. Blended with the aforementioned comedy, Notting Hill was on a good path with these scenes. Yet, its haste it smashing its two lovers together, lack of development of Anna Scott's character, and its resolution all leave a sour taste in your mouth. The end result is that the only conclusion about Anna the viewer can come to is that she is a bitch. Though Will is head-over-heels with her, we can never understand why. Yes, there is incredible chemistry and passion whilst together. Yet, she keeps dropping the ball and gives very little reason as to why he should try to make it work at all with her. This issue could have been avoided by showcasing her side of things more often and not rushing the romance. Instead, the film slams them together and expects it to work. Whilst it works when they are together, separate the two and things fall apart. The romance lacked justification and its emotion was spotty. By the end, you are convinced they should not be together, in spite of what the film should tell you: that they were meant for each other or some other cheesy reason. I am watching a romantic comedy. Give me cheese. Make me smile because something is so cute. This romance lacks that overall cuteness factor.

In spite of this, what won me over here is the camera work. Honestly, with the amount of tracking shots, one must wonder if Brian De Palma snuck on set and filmed some scenes in place of Roger Michell. This film loves its tracking shots, especially of Hugh Grant walking through Notting Hill. Another favorite of mine was him and Anna walking at night. This sequence in particular is the most romantic of the entire film and highlights the film's successes both with camera work (not just because of the tracking shot, the shot itself is quite good) and in crafting a romance. The best part of the scene with the duo walking, however, comes in the park. All of a sudden, a medium shot of them reading a park bench dedicated to a couple turns into a truly unique shot that I cannot say I have seen many times before. It is almost as if the camera is strapped to a balloon that was then allowed to float into the air. The end result is a truly striking aerial shot that really takes your breathe away. A final favorite comes with Hugh Grant walking through Notting Hill. Set solely to music, the camera tracks alongside Grant as seasons and time passes seamlessly. I typically hate when a film jumps ahead in time, but Notting Hill executes it so beautifully with a wide array of colors denoting the different seasons, that I have to mark this up sequence as a stroke of genius. Any film that wants to jump ahead in time should be taking notes from this sequence.

While the film is not as romantic as it could be, tremendous comedic efforts work to overcome the inadequacies of the romance. Plus, a film with this many lovely shots and interesting camera movements cannot be written off too quickly.



9/10 - Since this one is spoiler-filled, if you want to read the full review, I'll just provide a link to the Letterboxd review of it, HERE.



9/10 - A truly sad and depressing film, Wong Kar-wai's Chungking Express is an exploration of loneliness, focused in on two men looking for love in the past in Hong Kong. Showing how one can be distressed and left hurt by looking to the past and waiting for it to change, Chungking Express features characters that are so incredibly real, the emotion they communicate cannot be ignored.

With incredibly written dialogue, Chungking Express brings its two lonely men to life with lines that absolutely touch your soul. For example, one describes how a girl who wished him a happy birthday will live on in his memories forever, only to then wonder when a memory expires. Lines such as these will overcome inadequacies in the film as a whole, as they transcend the medium. Instead, it makes the experience feel incredibly real and authentic. Wong Kar-wai's film may feel as though it is occurring at a distance from the audience, but lines such as these make the film realize that there is no distance at all. This is not a romance film, rather it is one about lost love and the pain it can cause. As such, it is an incredibly cold film, but not emotionless.

Stylistically, the film uses a ton of hand-held camera, if not solely hand-held. The end result is a kinetic and chaotic experience that highlights the loneliness of its protagonists. As the city and even their lives (as cops) run around hectically, their love life and home life remain empty and filled with solitude. It is always lovely when a director's style matches some element of the film and offers its own thematic elements. This is very much the case with Chungking Express. Additionally, the film is just simply very well shot. Hand-held cameras can be quite nauseating and annoying when noticeable, yet Chungking Express deftly avoids these trappings and instead utilizes the style effectively. Essentially, it is supposed to put you into the scene. The camera does this here, but certainly not always.

A thoroughly melancholy and moving experience, Chungking Express will make you feel its characters loneliness in a very human way that will more than likely break your heart. Both this and In the Mood for Love (the other Wong Kar-Wai film I have seen), both have this quality that make you think they will be a romance film and certainly play out like a romance film should, but they are anything but romance films. Rather, they are explorations of love and what it does to a person once they feel it and how they feel when it is ripped out of their clutches.



4/10 - The Magnificently Boring Seven is, well, boring. Predictable to its core, director Antoine Fuqua tries to valiantly cram every action cliche into a single film and the end result is a cliche film. Job well done, good sir. I never really ever rated Fuqua as a director. Training Day is a one off hit. Otherwise, he just directs safe, Hollywood, and bland action movies. This film is no exception with its problems only exacerbated by an iffy cast. Before I speak further on the film, I should first confess a major sin. As God is a major part of this film, I feel as though it is still pertinent. I...I...I have never seen Seven Samurai or the original The Magnificent Seven. I know. I would not like me either. Anyways, pressing on...

The film's predictability comes from the very first shot. Throughout, the film is not just predictable because it is a remake (recall how I have never seen the originals), but also because you can sit there and just guess where each scene is going. What is worse is that the lazy writing carries onto the characters with skin deep character development at best. This development does not help to actually differentiate characters in the least. I honestly kept forgetting their names and mixing up who they are throughout the film. I knew that Red Harvest was the Native American, but I mean, that is because his name is Red Harvest. Hard to think that Denzel would be Red Harvest (I guess I should not say that, since Johnny Depp was Tonto...). Even worse from a character development standpoint is Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett). Okay, low-rent Jennifer Lawrence cannot act. She is not horrible, but I have yet to see any reason to cast her other than her resemblance to Lawrence. Here, however, she plays a character that could have been a strong female character. Instead, her role disintegrates into being nothing more than a sexual object for us to ogle at thanks to frequent low-cut costumes and constant jokes about having sex with her and how she is pretty. The film can barely go 10 minutes without reminding us Emma's real role in the film: to be sexualized and objectified. How could I ever dream of forgetting such a key element of the film? Emma's role, in spite of the conclusion, continues to marginalized as she can never do anything for herself. Instead, she finds herself in the midst of gunfights and failing to defend herself. Rather, a man must come to her aid at every turn. What a missed opportunity here.

Yet, as mentioned, Bennett is nothing to write home about in the acting department. Not horrible, but entirely vanilla. The rest of the cast is equally mediocre. Denzel and Ethan Hawke are fine. Not career-best work by either, but they are okay. Chris Pratt has nothing charisma and abs going in his favor. As an actor, he is the definition of safe and bleh. That said, Byung-hun Lee and Martin Sensmeier were the real standouts. If the film was just Billy Rocks (Lee) stabbing people and throwing knives at them with Red Harvest (Sensmeier) sniping them with arrows, I would be a satisfied customer. Instead, they are bit players at best. Manuel Garcia-Rulfo is fine, though the butt of numerous offensive Mexican jokes, which further highlights the lazy writing. Vincent D'Onofrio was abysmal. It is like he had a frog caught in his throat and had to fight against said frog with all his might to utter a single line. Please spare me. Finally, as the villain, Peter Sarsgaard is solid. He has some seriously killer lines here that are the main highlight of the script, such as, "If God didn't want them sheared, he wouldn't have made them sheep."

As for the action, it is well done. The most entertaining part for sure. Yet, the in-between moments are so non-descript, slow, and shallow, it is hard to be entertained by the action. Instead, you are more-or-less relieved that film decided to try and do something again. I am a big fan of westerns (though I need to see more) and would love for a revival to happen. This film is not that revival. Instead, it just tediously moves along until Fuqua decides to let us get back to the good bits again with Denzel capping dudes left and right with his team by his side. In saying this, however, the action sequences are far too long and equally predictable, pulling out every cliche in the book (especially Pratt at the end, as well as the ending with Bennett). During these in-between moments, the film also takes many stabs at being humorous. The end result is about 50-50. Some jokes ("so far so good") really land. Others just make you look away in anguish.

The major positive that elevates this film to being just mediocre is the cinematography and scenery. I love gawdy shots of the country side with the sun setting. The Magnificent Seven has them in spades. Yet, the film does not stop there with beautiful long shots of cowboys riding in the distance and silhouetted cowboys against the sun in the background. The end result is truly gorgeous imagery. The peak of this imagery comes at the end of the film, however, particularly a shot of Denzel silhouetted against the bright sun to his left (in the image) as he walks out of a building. Another highlight coming shortly after that with Denzel and Bennett in the church with the light pouring in through the windows. Big pluses, really.

As a whole, The Magnificent Seven is just really, really boring. Like, I am not a huge action guy, but damn. Nobody seems to have fun.



7/10 - Far from your typical musical biopic, Born to Be Blue tells the tragic tale of jazz legend Chet Baker. Plagued with heroin addiction, but blessed with a musical gift, Baker is a truly tragic figure brought to life by Ethan Hawke. With a knack for telling a quality story that adequately blends Baker's earlier days with the beginning of his resurgence, Born to Be Blue manages to feel wholly unique in its biographical approach to a story that is largely pretty typical in the musical biopic subgenre.

In all of these films, a talented musician cheats on his women and does drugs to the point of being a hopeless addict. Scenes of adultery and drug use are juxtaposed with that musician turning in tremendous performance after tremendous performance. The end result is a heart wrenching look at the marriage of abuse and talent. Born to Be Blue touches on a lot of these same notes, but is largely quite unique. With flashbacks taken from a film about his own life done by Baker (Hawke) put shoulder-to-shoulder with scenes from the "modern" day of Baker making his comeback, the film's narrative never feels stale. Instead, its focus on his drug abuse feels largely in-reflection as he tries to move past it. Yet, at the same time, it shows the siren call of the drugs and the feeling of inadequacy that haunts musicians who have convinced themselves they need the drugs to perform. While he most certainly still battles drug use in the "modern" day, the musings and explanation as to why it is addictive (beyond it being just naturally addictive) to talented musicians elevates Born to Be Blue above classic musician biopics. It does not just show him using drugs, which would be deeply affecting on its own. Instead, it takes it a step further and shows him doing drugs, while explaining why he uses them, which practically rips your heart out.

In the lead role, Ethan Hawke is tremendous. I do not know if it was his real singing voice (I assume the trumpet was not him, maybe I am wrong), but he was terrific. Even if none of the music was him, his performance was still terrific. He really brings Baker to you and makes you feel empathy for him as you watch his downfall, rise, and self-medication. From his portrayal, Hawke makes the viewer root for Baker, even if you know he will trip and fall over-and-over again.

Visually, the film is very good. With lush blue hues touching many of the shots, Born to Be Blue imbues the film with the sadness and heartache felt by Baker. As he performs, the film is most prominently covered with blue, showcasing how something that should bring him so much instead brings so much agony given the self-doubt and addiction that haunts him as a result. The jazz music score itself even proves quite haunting at times with solemn notes accompanying many scenes.

As a whole, Born to Be Blue is a pretty good film with a killer lead performance from Ethan Hawke, as well as terrific use of color and a unique approach to a well-trodden tale of drug abuse by musicians.



7/10 - A film told impassionately and emotionally, Denial from director Mick Jackson is an important film exposing "historian" David Irving for the liar, anti-semite, xenophobe, and sexist, that he truly is and expresses in his writing. Though the ending may be obvious, the final verdict of the film is not without tension and power, as the film still manages to create the proper impact of the moment. Yet, Denial is held back from being better for being very much typical in regards to both Holocaust and courtroom films. Operating within the confines of its true story, Denial is relegated to filling in the gaps between its courtroom scenes with prototypical courtroom drama interactions, as well as classic moments from better Holocaust movies. My tears and emotion over the Holocaust were present for sure, but the film never really built on anything that past films have not already dissected.

Yet, in spite of its typical nature, Denial still feels powerful. A court case about proving the Holocaust and honoring the deceased and the survivors, it is a film with inherent emotional prowess. Mick Jackson brings this element to life in the film and really showcases just how impactful this case is, regardless of which way the verdict goes. Should the judge rule in favor of Irving (Timothy Spall) or in favor of Deborah Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz), the ramifications of the case will be far reaching and could, honestly, change the past. It is through the importance and significance that the film finds its success. Riding on its impassioned telling of the story, Denial rises above its cliches and becomes a thoroughly riveting and moving experience.

This element is most certainly bolstered by the acting. Rachel Weisz is limited in her lead role, yet still brings the good with an emotional performance. Her overt passion shines through and ignites the same passion within the viewer. Her lawyer, Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson), has the same passion, yet far more subtle. It is only later in the film that we realize how deeply this case has impacted him to a similar degree as Lipstadt. Wilkinson does a brilliant job bringing this element to life with a typically great performance. As Irving, Timothy Spall is tremendous. He brings Irving and everything about him to the viewer with the end result that you despise him. Spall, though in a vile role, is brilliant. From his non-verbals to the nonchalant delivery of incendiary commentary.

While its cliches stand as its biggest faults, Denial also does feature a decent amount of filler at times, as well as oddly chosen courtroom scenes. Though powerful, there is very little actual proving of the Holocaust and far name calling of Irving. He may be wrong, but it takes a few court scenes for the film to actually showcase his falsehoods. That said, the courtroom scenes are still powerful, but a little left of center initially before focusing in on the important moments.

Overall, Denial is passionate and filled with rage towards deniers. It is this powerful approach that elevates it above its cliches and filler to deliver a solid and thoroughly entertaining, yet poignant film with absolutely stellar performances.



7/10 - Okay so I actually dug this one. Is it wickedly cliche? Yes. Does Emilia Clarke have weird eyebrows and a smile that literally consumes her face? Yes. Yet, like a mozzarella stick with stringy cheese or a cake with a thick layer of frosting on top, Me Before You is so cheesy and sweet, it is irresistible. From beginning to end, it was the film equivalent of taking said mozzarella stick and seeing how far you could pull the cheese before it breaks.

Starring Emilia Clarke as Louisa Clark, a lower class girl from England, Me Before You is a film billed as a romance, but for me, it almost came across as decidedly anti-love (or, at the very least, denying the power of love to a degree). The unsuspecting Louisa is hired to work as the hired to be the caretaker of Will Traynor (Sam Claflin), a now quadriplegic man who was once an active and vibrant young man. While he still may be that man, Will most certainly does not recognize this. For this element, Me Before You could often double as a harrowing look at how depression can consume you. From beginning to end, the audience is shown the life within Will. Louisa most certainly brings that life out of a him like a flowing river, in large part due to their delicious chemistry, but Will does not see this. Instead, he looks forlornly at his life before his accident and is often confronted with this element, whether it be through his ex-girlfriend, his constant bouts with pneumonia, or old photographs. Around every turn, he is reminded of who he was. It is this element that courted controversy as people deemed Me Before You to be stating that death is the only acceptable path for disabled people. This, to me, is misguided. Rather, the film is an exploration of the depression that took a hold of Will after his accident. We know he is still Will. Louisa knows it. His parents know it. Yet, Will cannot come to grips with this drastic life change. The end result is a film that showcases how love cannot overcome all. It is not the prescription drug that will fix every situation. Instead, one must love themselves when they look in the mirror. They must be okay with who they are, for all of their unique elements. Without this, nothing will break the hold of one's own mind.

While Me Before You's romance may be quite cliche and its soundtrack lifted from every teenage girl's iTunes account (two Ed Sheeran songs, including new romance film staple, "Thinking Out Loud"), but its thematic elements regarding depression and self-acceptance are so deeply moving, I can easily look past its faults. It is an imperfect film with a spotty performance from Clarke in the lead role, as well as a pretty nondescript one from Chaflin who is good, but nothing incredible. The scenery is impeccable and most certainly capitalized upon with some stellar shots of the views. Additionally, Louisa's relationship with ex?-boyfriend Patrick (Matthew Lewis) does nothing to make the audience like her. Rather, she is cheating on him with Will. This poor characterization is a blight on the writing and only exacerbated by Clarke.

Between cheating and incessant eyebrow movements, the film can easily become grating if it were not as tearjerkingly melodramatic as it is, which is fine since i love a good melodrama. Clarke and Chaflin have great chemistry, but the real quality of this film is in its exploration of this depressed man's last days and the realization that love cannot heal all wounds. It is like painting a wall to cover a hole in the wall. It may brighten things up or change things up a bit, but the hole is still there and must be addressed in some other way. For Me Before You, its guts in sticking to this life truth is impressive, but also thoroughly heartwrenching to watch unfold. Get the tissues ready.

Originally posted by BANNING@Oct 15 2016, 03:05 AM
Ok, I'm done.

First, probably my favorite Isaac and Chastain performances. Excellent work. Second, everything was fine, lot of great sequences, the pacing is good. It's a fine movie, but I don't feel substantially better about it than I did 2 hours ago. I would still say Oscar Isaac has yet to lead in an excellent film. It was good.

I guess it just really worked for me on my watch. The cinematography in particular slayed me.

Originally posted by JPL@Oct 15 2016, 01:37 AM
Speaking of Chris Pratt did anyone else think Jurassic World was awful?

I actually did not hate it. I mean, it's stupid fun, but it was fun. Plus, Bryce Dallas Howard is a beaut. That said, Vincent D'Onofrio's villain was painful to watch.

Originally posted by JayTee@Oct 15 2016, 12:02 AM
Also, watching movies in the VIP section is the way to go

How'd I miss this? VIP section? Is this some Canadian thing?

Originally posted by Spangle@Oct 17 2016, 07:58 AM


How'd I miss this? VIP section? Is this some Canadian thing?

Maybe.


Basically you sit in an eazy boy recliner. So much room. You can order food and drinks directly from your seat. If you show up early you can chill in the lounge and watch sports and shit.


It was great. I had alcohol, chicken tenders and churros.

Originally posted by JayTee@Oct 17 2016, 11:25 AM


Maybe.


Basically you sit in an eazy boy recliner. So much room. You can order food and drinks directly from your seat. If you show up early you can chill in the lounge and watch sports and shit.


It was great. I had alcohol, chicken tenders and churros.

That's not a thing here most places. Specialty ones only. When I saw Lazer Team in theaters it was pretty cool. Beer, liquor, and a full menu where you order before the movie. They have a button you press to get service during if you want.

As well I don't care what Emilia Clarke is doing, I will watch happily as she does it.

Thank you to My boys @Merica and @Ragnar for the lovely sigs!

Originally posted by JayTee@Oct 17 2016, 12:25 PM


Maybe.


Basically you sit in an eazy boy recliner. So much room. You can order food and drinks directly from your seat. If you show up early you can chill in the lounge and watch sports and shit.


It was great. I had alcohol, chicken tenders and churros.

This sounds incredible. I've heard of some smaller places doing this, but none of them are near me.

Originally posted by JayTee@Oct 17 2016, 09:25 AM


Maybe.


Basically you sit in an eazy boy recliner. So much room. You can order food and drinks directly from your seat. If you show up early you can chill in the lounge and watch sports and shit.


It was great. I had alcohol, chicken tenders and churros.

its worth the extra 7 or 8 buck or wtv. I usually only go VIP for gud movies doe.

Originally posted by McJesus@Oct 17 2016, 10:29 AM


its worth the extra 7 or 8 buck or wtv. I usually only go VIP for gud movies doe.

I go for none big budget thrillers just because I prefer to watch those in imax.

Originally posted by Spangle@Oct 17 2016, 01:27 PM


This sounds incredible. I've heard of some smaller places doing this, but none of them are near me.

Not sure where you are but might want to look for an AMC Fork and Screen. I'm sure there's one somewhat close to you and it's basically the same thing.

Thank you to My boys @Merica and @Ragnar for the lovely sigs!

Originally posted by Maxy@Oct 17 2016, 03:08 PM

Not sure where you are but might want to look for an AMC Fork and Screen. I'm sure there's one somewhat close to you and it's basically the same thing.

Looks like the closest to me is 1 hour and 41 minutes away. Live in Connecticut.

https://www.amctheatres.com/food-and-drink/...fork-and-screen

Seems like it's not really a thing up north too much.