[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

Hannah and Her Sisters

[pinkgothic]

300. It was said before, but the best thing about this movie are, stunningly, the fighting scenes. Very inspiring on that level - not much of anything else to look at, but then, I didn't expect anything different. Visually stunning, though I found the start (visually) a bit dull - but that might've just been me trying to get used to it.

In other news - I'm quite excited about Sunshine and hope to see it soon.

[Trader]

I just got around to watching ELF..it was soooo cutie, Will Farrell has a great set of pegs..love the yellow tights.

[rlpw]

I just finished watching a movie that I have been promising myself to watch for years. Circle of Iron was written by Bruce Lee and his friends to basically put Bruce Lee's Jeet Kun Do philosophy into a graphical environment. It wasn't done until long after his death as basically a tribute to Bruce. If you can get past the terrible scenery, awful special effects(sort of 60's B movies stuff, I blame James Coburn) and have patience the movie explodes into understanding in the last 30 minutes.

[Bobske]

Last night I saw Eragon!

Personally, I found it mildly entertaining. The movie was not as bad as most critics wanted me to believe!

Ok, I haven't read the book(s) and I don't know what was omitted or changed but it was good Sunday night entertainment.

Love to see part II!

Spoiler:

Would love to see Galbatorix' dragon in action! That dragon looked pretty bad ass with its T-Rex like head

[jacog]

Ewwww... Eragon was the stinkiest movie ever.

It's Star Wars: A New Hope, rewritten plot point for plot point. Does that Paolini twerp have no shame?

[Bobske]

Originally Posted by jacog

Ewwww... Eragon was the stinkiest movie ever.

It's Star Wars: A New Hope, rewritten plot point for plot point. Does that Paolini twerp have no shame?

I've read a whole discussion on IMDB about this issue (plagriarism) but it was actually compared to LotR

PS: The stinkiest movie has to be Alone in the Dark or House of the Dead...

[jacog]

Ah yes, Uwe Boll... ok, you win.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

I just personally find real sex in movies to be distracting. Obviously, in porn it's the whole point, but I don't see the point of real sex in a non-pornographic film. I've seen plenty of movies that claim to be intelligent art films with real sex in them. Caligula (terrible), Romance (average at best), Shortbus (not my cup of tea), 9 Songs (bah). The only one that is pretty good is actually one of the earliest. Nagisa Oshima's In the Realm of the Senses. That one isn't bad. It's also not that great though.

I just don't see the point of the real sex in real films, when simulated would work just fine. Even the knowledge that two people are having sex in a movie is plenty for me...I mean we ALL know what that's like. Must we see it? And if we see it, must we see actual penetration? I mean, is it really necessary?

It could probably be simulated. I don't understand your objections to the graphic nature. What's the difference between sex and violence? Perhaps it is distracting, but not to everyone, it's a personal and cultural thing.

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

If done right, sex in films is an excellent tool to help tell a story. So can be violence. Obviously, both have been abused.

[SCRUGAtes13]

Originally Posted by Not A Speck Of Cereal

If done right, sex in films is an excellent tool to help tell a story. So can be violence. Obviously, both have been abused.

http://www.destricted.com/

[Dasilva]

Mr Bean's Holiday - Has its fun moments but overall the last Bean film was better.

[MikaelS]

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer.

Very good movie. And very weird in a good way.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Aj_

It could probably be simulated. I don't understand your objections to the graphic nature. What's the difference between sex and violence? Perhaps it is distracting, but not to everyone, it's a personal and cultural thing.

Well, I have no problem with simulated sex when it serves the story, I was just giving an example of how the vast majority of films could get by without it if they wished. Others could not. I'm no fan of the film Life is Beautiful, but there is a very interesting scene in it. A man and a woman walk into a room and put up a "Do Not Disturb" sign, then when the door opens the man and woman emerge in different outfits, years later, with little children in tow. The scene tells us everything we need to know, and in a much more creative fashion than seeing Roberto Benigni pounding away. Obviously a sequence like this wouldn't work in most cases, I'm just giving an example...

My issue is with real sex. Unsimulated, and in a "real" film, as opposed to a pornographic film. It's that I find distracting. I see no point in any culture to be watching, say, Fatal Attraction or something and we suddenly cut to a close-up shot of the active genitalia of Michael Douglas and Glenn Close. What the hell does that add to the STORYLINE? What would it even add to the effect of the simulated sex in that film, which already features plenty of nudity and thrusting? Is there some sort of mystery to the activity that can only be solved by seeing the penetration itself? Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely against censorship. I've seen plenty of porn in my lifetime. My only argument is that porn scenes in a real film, a film about characters and a storyline, is a gratuitous waste of time.

Originally Posted by Not A Speck Of Cereal

If done right, sex in films is an excellent tool to help tell a story. So can be violence. Obviously, both have been abused.

I agree. Sex can be an excellent tool to tell a story. I would never disagree with that. But getting involved in a story only requires one to believe, at least for the moment, what one is seeing or hearing. And a view of penetration is simply NOT required to sustain belief that two characters are having sex.

[After a brisk nap]

On the topic of real vs. simulated sex, I don't think it really matters. Movies are an illusion anyway, it doesn't really matter how the impression is created as long as the actors/body doubles are up for it. I do think that there's an argument for graphic images in order to convey a frank and truthful scene. There's something unbearably coy about the artful camera angles, pans to the fireplace, cross-dissolves and careful bedsheet arrangements that make sure we never see the actors' genitalia.

On the more general question of whether to include the sex scene at all, it all comes down to whether it benefits the movie, doesn't it? No, we don't always need to see it, even when we know it happens, but I wouldn't agree that it's always superfluous, either. I would name Don't Look Now as a film with a "necessary" sex scene. (As in, the film would be much poorer without it.)

Are the "vast majority" of sex scenes unnecessary? I can't say I've noticed.

[Panthera]

Hot Fuzz
I actually saw this on a preview about two weeks ago, but I noticed that it's arriving in cinemas in USA this Friday, and thought I should comment on it.

6/10

The movie is funny, and has many homages to Shaun of the Dead, the filming is interesting, and so are the characters. But the ending ruined the movie for me. There's a real murder mystery in this little town, and Nicholas Angel is the only one seeing it. everything builds up nicely, and we have many suspects, but the solution and the following action is just immensely stupid, and ruined it for me.

I still have a problem with humoristic gore, but it is somewhat lesser that Shaun of the Dead (even though that's not saying a lot), and that's one of the things that lessened my experience of this film and story.

The bottom line is that if you liked Shaun of the Dead, you'll probably like this, if you didn't like Shaun of the Dead, either for it's humour of for it's gore (or both) I would be careful with spending your money on this one..

Even so, I couldn't stand Shaun of the Dead, there was just something that I really reacted badly to. It made me feel really bad inside, and I completely broke down - I haven't a clue why. (I was understandably very sceptical towards seeing this one, but we had free tickets) But, I liked this movie up until the end, I'm glad I went, and laughed many times (also up until the end). Therefore, you might like this one even though you didn't like Shaun of the Dead, it would probably depend on what you didn't like about Shaun..


on a different note, I'm finally finished with viewing the top five on IMDB's list.

It took some time, mostly because I was gone for the easter, but also because my BF isn't especially fond of the LotR movies, and we decided to watch them chronologically.

5. Lord of the Rings - The Return of the King

9/10

Definitively my favourite of the three. We know the characters, we know the story, and now we see it unwield. it's the rise of a king, the fall of the weak (Saruman and Denethor) and in the end, everything is solved and the good win..

One thing that annoys me with the film, is that it keeps "ending" and then decides "no, a little bit more". It does that at least three times..

Fellowship of the Rings - 8
Two Towers - 7

Next five films are:
6. Casablanca
7. Pulp Fiction
8. Schindler's List
9. Star Wars ep. 5 (Ep. four first)
10. Seven Samurai

(I'm following the list that was about a month ago, not the one that's now. The current one has Pulp fiction on 5.)

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

A Bridge Too Far.

The next 5 films on the queue are mixed:

Kentucky Fried Movie -- have never seen it. Meant to.
Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil
Go
The Guns of Navarone -- what's with all these war films?
Jumanji -- have never seen it. Paying my due.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

On the topic of real vs. simulated sex, I don't think it really matters. Movies are an illusion anyway, it doesn't really matter how the impression is created as long as the actors/body doubles are up for it. I do think that there's an argument for graphic images in order to convey a frank and truthful scene. There's something unbearably coy about the artful camera angles, pans to the fireplace, cross-dissolves and careful bedsheet arrangements that make sure we never see the actors' genitalia.

There are certainly necessary sex scenes in movies, and maybe one day I'll see a masterpiece with REAL sex in it. When that day comes perhaps I'll sing a different tune.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

My issue is with real sex. Unsimulated, and in a "real" film, as opposed to a pornographic film. It's that I find distracting. I see no point in any culture to be watching, say, Fatal Attraction or something and we suddenly cut to a close-up shot of the active genitalia of Michael Douglas and Glenn Close. What the hell does that add to the STORYLINE? What would it even add to the effect of the simulated sex in that film, which already features plenty of nudity and thrusting? Is there some sort of mystery to the activity that can only be solved by seeing the penetration itself? Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely against censorship. I've seen plenty of porn in my lifetime. My only argument is that porn scenes in a real film, a film about characters and a storyline, is a gratuitous waste of time.

I don't have a problem with genitalia. I guess it's a realism thing, although I object to the notion that pornography is "real" sex. I can't stand the promotion of sex as something mystic, magical, or it being edited out and implied in self-censorship (although it could be edited out for practical, artistic reasons) in film. Although the counter to that is not pornography, that seems to have its own goals, and they're not realism.

[Kolzig]

I just saw À la folie... pas du tout for the second time after a long while.

Definitely one of the best Audrey Tautou movies.