Jump to content
  TPR Home | Parks | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 

Movies, Movies, Movies.....


robbalvey
 Share

Recommended Posts

Last night I watched following...

 

Mutiny on the Bounty - Yeah it's an old b&w, but that doesn't mean it's going to suck. I've seen a lot of color movies that sucked. lol

 

By far this is one of my favorite Clark Gable movies. (My favorite is probably "It happened one night" then Gone with the wind after that.)

 

Considering this movie was made in 1935, they had some decent "at sea" scenes and such. Kind of made me think of Russell Crowe's movie Master and Commander - The far side... (which is in my DVD collection).

 

A good movie, if you can stand watching B&W's. Grade - B

 

***

 

Dreamscape - I either had never heard of this movie or had forgotten about it.

 

It's a scifi/thriller from what looks like 82 or 83. My favorite line was "Who does your decorating, Darth Vader???".

 

It's about Dennis Quaids charecter who is a psychic (if he was one, then he would know not to do that horrid movie Cold Creek Manor) lol

 

Anyway...he's recruited to help people with their nightmares by entering their dreams to help them (think The Cell without all the nice sfx).

 

That's about all you need to know, it's a thriller/sci-fi movie using the genre pretty well. Christopher Plummer (Sound of Music) was excellent as the villain. I don't think I've ever seen him as a bad guy.

 

Considering the age of the film, the sfx were pretty good. It's got one of the first uses of "morphing" I can remember seeing. Although you can tell what they did to morph the guy.

 

Overall considering the age of the film B+ - For some reason they didn't have a rating on it, it'd easily get an R rating for about 3 uses of the F word. Other than that it doesn't have much except a little violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw War of the Worlds a few nights ago and it blew me away. Dakota is fantastic in it, the aliens are cool, the special effects are immense and it was very chilling and thrilling all the way through. The best bit is the boat scene for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw 2 movies in the past 3 days

 

On Monday I went to see fantastic 4

Overall its a good movie I liked it alot abit farfartched I thinkk it was worth the $8 i paid to get in

so ill give it a 9/10

 

Today (Tuseday) I went to see War of the Worlds

Once a geing i like the movie apart the really bad butt cramp I got I wouldnt pay $8 to get in any way it wat cheep day so thats $2 off and i had a voucher for a free movie

 

ill give it 7/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got back from seeing the WORSE movie ever. Dark Water. Do not waste your hard earned money on it. Use it on something better.

 

On a happier note though, SAW 2 comes out October 28th, I'm so excited! I LOVE SAW!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"

 

Warning: This review contains no explicit spoilers, but if you've somehow managed to avoid reading the novel, seeing the 1971 movie, or the endless parodies done over the years, do not read on, as important plot details are revealed.

 

 

Regardless of the strong attempts to separate 2005's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" from the 1971 "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", the comparisons will undoubtedly be made. The classic film, with its memorable performance by Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka, still holds up just as well as it did nearly thirty five years ago, and it is likely that a large portion of the "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" audience will have seen the first version. Thankfully, the new adaptation of Roald Dahl's beloved novel, directed by Tim Burton ("Edward Scissorhands", "Big Fish"), distances itself quite well from the 1971 movie, and offers a new perspective to the story.

 

Many have billed the new film as an adaptation more true to Dahl's novel than the Gene Wilder version, as Roald Dahl reportedly hated the 1971 movie. Dahl's widow Felicity is onboard this time as executive producer, and she has expressed her belief that Dahl would have loved Burton's take on his novel. Screenwriter John August never even watched the 1971 film until after he had drafted the screenplay, and the result is a script that does not get tied up with trying to avoid and outdo its predecessor. I honestly hate to compare and contrast the two versions of the story, as I am sure we will all be reading plenty of that over the next few weeks, but it is practically unavoidable, so I suppose I will just run with it.

 

The major flaw with the Gene Wilder Wonka was that the film lacked much character depth, and never truly developed the relationship between Charlie and Wonka. The point at which Wonka selects Charlie as his successor arrives abruptly, and comes across more as process of elimination than a true connection between the characters. This is not an issue in Burton's version, as we see Wonka's appreciation of Charlie grow throughout the journey inside the factory, and his disgust with the naughty children is immediately evident. Furthermore, with Tim Burton's Wonka, played by Johnny Depp ("Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas", "Finding Neverland"), we see the humanity of the eccentric chocolate maker. Burton has always made movies involving turmoil between a father and son, so I suppose it should not be a surprise that he has brought this new element to the story of Willy Wonka. Through Wonka's constant nightmarish flashbacks, we learn the origins of his love for candy, involving his strict candy-hating dentist father, played by Christopher Lee ("Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith", "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers"). Wonka's emotions are more apparent as well, as he expresses a genuine child-like joy at times when proudly displaying his factory, and becomes furious when Mike Teavee (Jordon Fry) insults candy. He displays an innocent inability to deal with people, and a complete lack of courtesy.

 

Johnny Depp has always displayed himself as a very versatile actor. As far as I'm concerned, his bizarre depiction of Hunter S. Thompson in "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" is one of the best performances of the 1990's, and his recent portrayal of author J.M. Barrie in "Finding Neverland" may have been the best performance of 2004. In "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", he once again disappears into character, and his depiction of Willy Wonka borders on downright disturbing, while also being completely hilarious. The Michael Jackson comparisons everyone seems to be making are, quite frankly, dead on. His fellow "Finding Neverland" star Freddie Highmore is outstanding as Charlie Bucket, and further proves that he may be the most promising child actor in Hollywood today. The other children do a great job as well, as do the actors playing Charlie's family members. The grandparents provide a substantial amount of humor. And then, there is Deep Roy. Roy plays every Oompa Loompa in the film, wonderfully showing off endless personalities and providing a lot of humor.

 

While Roy's performance is outstanding, the Oompa Loompas were a bit of an issue for me. Visually, the depiction was excellent, and quite true to the novel, but the musical numbers left something to be desired. For the most part they were hilarious and fun, but also sometimes hard to understand, and the pop music was an unnecessary addition in my opinion. The 1971 Oompa Loompas and their songs, while not as true to the book lyrically, had a much more timeless feel to them. That is the biggest issue for me with the 2005 film; I'm just not sure it will hold up over time in the same way that the Gene Wilder version did. It is a wonderful film, but a classic? I'm just not so sure of that, and only time will tell.

 

"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" is pure Tim Burton, with each frame bursting with color and imagination, and the pacing is nearly flawless. Overall it is a very warm film, and Burton's direction keeps the movie extremely bizarre without becoming completely surreal (not that I would have minded that at all). The orchestral score by Danny Elfman is perfect, and sets the mood of the film immediately while accompanying Burton's sweeping camera movements in the opening sequence. Tim Burton fans will recognize quite a few familiar faces, and may notice a number of subtle references to past films. I really cannot choose between the two adaptations, but they compliment each other very well, and "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" is an outstanding effort. I would definitely recommend it.

 

3.5 stars (out of 4)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall considering the age of the film B+ - For some reason they didn't have a rating on it, it'd easily get an R rating for about 3 uses of the F word. Other than that it doesn't have much except a little violence.

 

I want to say Dreamscape was the first PG13, but I can't swear to it. You can get away with three f words, but only if they aren't used in a sexual manner (ah, the consistency of our morality overlords).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Actually it was Red Dawn.

 

But, what movie caused them to think of having a PG-13 rating? Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

 

The feeling at the time is it wasn't intense enough for an "R" rating, but too intesne for a "PG" rating. It did end up only getting a "PG" at the time though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Actually it was Red Dawn.

 

But, what movie caused them to think of having a PG-13 rating? Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

 

The feeling at the time is it wasn't intense enough for an "R" rating, but too intesne for a "PG" rating. It did end up only getting a "PG" at the time though.

 

Yup. Red Dawn beat it out by five days (was there a competition to see who could come out first?). "Gremlins" was also part of the conversations when they were discussing the PG13 rating (though what did it matter? Back then, nobody carded)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The horror… the horror…"

 

I've never seen the original "Apocalypse Now", but I recently watched the extended "Redux" edition, which was stunning. It is one of the more unrealistic war movies, but at the same time one of the best films ever made. The psychological epic will certainly leave most viewers pondering many issues long after the credits roll. Francis Ford Coppola is one of the finest directors ever, and he is helped here by a stellar cast, including Martin Sheen, Marlon Brando, Robert Duvall, Dennis Hopper, Laurence Fishburne, and a brief appearance by Harrison Ford.

 

4 stars (out of 4)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wedding Crashers

 

Better than I expected, actually. Beneath the surface of what is essentially a straightforward "Frat Pack" comedy, there is actually a small amount of substance. Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn have great onscreen chemistry, and Rachel McAdams shines, and hopefully has a bigger future ahead of her. Vaughn is a source of endless laughs, and there is plenty of crude humor, but at the same time a little more heart than your typical generic comedy. It never strays from the boundaries that these films usually have, and drags a little with a running time of two hours, but overall is a pretty good movie. More than likely, it is this year's movie that annoys the *** out of you because people talk about it endlessly and herald it as one of the greatest comedies of all time. I guess that is no fault of the film, though.

 

3 stars (out of 4)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Million Dollar Baby

 

Didn't hold out high potential for this movie, but it was actually good. Not sure if it was the "Best" movie of the year, but I can say that Hilary Swank deserved the Best Actress award.

 

It was quite entertaining, wasn't as sad as I thought it would be, just majorly messed up how it happened.

 

If you like good drama's it's definitely worth the rental.

 

4 1/2 out of 5 stars

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Island

 

Ewan McGregor has worked with the likes of Tim Burton and Ridley Scott. Scarlett Johansson has been directed by the daughter of one of the greatest directors of all time in an Oscar-nominated movie. Steve Buscemi has frequently been on the set with perhaps the godfathers of independent filmmaking, and Sean Bean has experience with just about everyone in Hollywood. So I have to wonder what went through the minds of these performers as they headed from their trailer to the set each day to find out the latest use Michael Bay had for his $100 million budget. "I should have read this script a little closer"? "My agent is so fired for this"? "At least I'm making a ton of money"? "I wonder what we get to blow up today"?

 

For that matter, I would be curious to witness what Michael Bay is like on the set. Surprisingly, "The Island" does not open to explosions and carnage, but actually begins with drama. In fact, Bay makes it through the first act before going buck wild. You can feel the tension mounting as the film progresses. You can picture Bay offscreen, gripping the arms of his chair, repeatedly glancing at his wristwatch. And then, he can wait no longer, and he leaps to his feet, flailing his arms wildly and screaming "ENOUGH OF THIS NONSENSE LET'S BLOW SOME **** UP!" And with that, all logic is abandoned. Things explode. Automobiles spiral wildly through the air. People scream. Guns blaze. And boy does this excite the filmmakers. The editor is having the time of his life, making a cut once every tenth of a second, and the cameraman is jerking the camera around as if he has completely lost his mind. Whoever is composing the score is sitting back and drinking coffee, having already taken the five minutes necessary to copy and paste an annoying jungle techno loop to run for two hours. Around the time railroad axles began falling off of the back of a truck demolishing cars (having just learned that in this futuristic world trains do not even use wheels, but levitate above the ground), I started laughing. I laughed without stopping until the credits rolled, and then I laughed my way out of the theater. In fact, "The Island" was unintentionally one of the funniest movies I have seen in years. The incredibly over the top action and the abrubt transitions between story and mindless chaos are so ubsurd that you cannot help but smile at how delightfully terrible this movie is.

 

"The Island" does in fact have a plot, and at first it actually is a decent one. Sure, quite a few of the scenes seem to be ripped straight out of "Logan's Run" (Logan 5=Lincoln 6?), but heck, maybe it was just an admiring nod to the 70's cult classic. Before it degenerated into madness, I was quite optimistic about where the film was heading. The dialogue, as you would expect, is incredibly cliche at times, and a somewhat experienced movie-goer should be able to finish a lot of the actors' lines for them. One particular line near the end of the film certainly falls into my list of the cheesiest lines ever.

 

"The Island" is mindless and has things exploding, which means it should attract the masses. It also makes summer blockbusters like "I, Robot" (which I did enjoy) look like a best picture nominee. There are a few things this movie will teach you, though: Cadillac, MSN, X-Box, Aquafina, Johnny Rockets, and Puma shoes are all excellent products, and stem cell research and cloning are evil Nazi practices.

 

May the box office slump continue...

 

1 star (out of 4)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shaolin Soccer

Amazon.com - $13.34 and reviews

 

If you are a Kung Fu movie fan you will like this movie and if you enjoy random humor, you will like this movie. Coming out of Hong Kong it has a low budget but still manages to look cool. The Cg effects are very obvious but since it is a Kung Fu comedy it works very well. This movie isn't your Jackie Chan or Jet li action film, it is a comedy with Kung Fu in it. There are two audio versions English and Chinese to choose from, so if you like to watch foriegn movies in sub-titles or dubed voices you can. I love this movie, it isn't one to be called the best or worst, it is a rare movie because it is just good, no more no less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got back from Wedding Crashers also!

 

The beginning was horable(after the devorce part), I thought they would give much more of an intro. It just seemed slow and weird.

 

I thought the movie was okay. Some spots were funny, but it really didnt meet my expectations. Its one of those movies that your glad you saw, but wouldnt go see again. Unlike Michael Jackson: The Movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Constantine

 

Any movie that you have to watch over 3 nights because you keep falling asleep is not good. So, this was not good. I LOVE Supernatural thrilles (Good vs. Evil) etc. This one didn't do it for me. I am usually one that can tolerate Keanu Reeves, but usually he surrounds himself with good actors (Al Pacino, Lawrence Fishburn, etc) but this time he didn't.

 

5/10

 

Prozac Nation

 

A movie that never even made it to theatres. Why? It was actually pretty good. And if nothing else you get to see Cristina Ricci's boobies.

 

8/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw Wedding Crashers yesturday.

It was a funny movie. Some parts seemed a bit predictable though. It had a lot of funny lines in it and yes. We get to see about 12 boobs in a matter of 10 seconds!Anyway, Vince and Owen are great to watch in this movie.

 

Michael"Too bad Will Ferrel over does his scenes..as always"Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use https://themeparkreview.com/forum/topic/116-terms-of-service-please-read/