[kuze]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

For example, I smiled when

Spoiler:

Mikhalkov's Juror#1 says matter-of-factly "Yeah, and all of you also forgot that the woman was short-sighted." just before his big speech, because the witness' eyesight was a pretty big point that ultimately convinced one of the most stubborn jurors in the original. Almost as if the director was berating his actors for missing a scene.

I guess I'll have to go back and watch the original, because now I feel like I missed out on all those subtleties.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Incidentally, Nikita Mikhalkov's recent 12 is an unusually non-redundant remake. Inferior to be sure, over-the-top where the original was minimalistic, and I am certain a lot of minor things will be lost on non-Eastern-Europeans... but with equally strong acting across the board, and a few interesting spins on the story (particularly towards the end). I higly recommend it, but only to those already familiar with Lumet's film.

I watched 12 on your recommendation, and I didn't enjoy it. The flashbacks were so vague, I couldn't tell what they were meant to be saying (if anything). The characters all go on and on about personal anecdotes that have nothing to do with anything; that's not dramatic, it's tedious. Other than the racist and the foreman, nobody seems to have particularly strong feelings about anything, so it feels like a movie about twelve people sitting around wasting time. Even by the end of the movie, I felt like only knew anything about a handful of the twelve. I can't figure out what any of the artsy touches in the movie are meant to symbolize, like that "ripple" in the air. It just seems like Mikhalkov took a story which was excellent because it was so focused and simple, and complicated and muddied it to the point where it's hard to care.

[AFGNCAAP]

Damn, I seriously hate when my recommendations don't pan out for others. I am not expecting to change your mind, but allow me to reply to your criticisms nevertheless.

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

The flashbacks were so vague, I couldn't tell what they were meant to be saying (if anything).

Flashbacks, on the whole, seemed pretty pointless and were my least favourite aspect of the film, but I never had trouble following them (except for the rather off-the-wall dream sequence at the very beginning). And they paid off in the final music montage, which I loved.

Other than the racist and the foreman, nobody seems to have particularly strong feelings about anything, so it feels like a movie about twelve people sitting around wasting time.

While I concur there is more apathetic characters than in the first film (which I think is a clearly intentional point in this adaptation - compare the speech about the pipe), I think you are exaggerating. Apart from, obviously, Makovetsky's/Fonda's Guy Who Cares, can you honestly say the Jew, the "comedian", the undertaker don't get strongly emotional at one point or another? Not about things related directly to the trial, you may say, but it does influence their verdicts, which is kinda the point. And there was that simpleton who might have been primarily a comic relief but you could see how he wanted to be a useful member of the jury, just lacked brainpower and attention span for that.

Even by the end of the movie, I felt like only knew anything about a handful of the twelve.

Yet you didn't like the digressions about their personal histories?

I can't figure out what any of the artsy touches in the movie are meant to symbolize, like that "ripple" in the air.

I thought the ripple was supposed to pique our curiosity about that particular spot the juror kept looking at. It worked for me.

Spoiler:

And I thought the resolution of that mini-mystery was incredibly touching. And I am saying it as an atheist.

If there was supposed to be some symbolic meaning to the ripple beyond that, it went over my head, too.

It just seems like Mikhalkov took a story which was excellent because it was so focused and simple, and complicated and muddied it to the point where it's hard to care.

Well, I admired he didn't retread the ground of the masterpiece and offered such a different take. The old one was tense, elegant, and universal drama, the new one is more of a baroque and contemporary satire. I liked how he took the existing story and infused it with his own ideas, while not disrespecting the source. He basically treated it as another, less faithful, staging of a theatre play (which the story originally was) rather than a "remake". We'll have to agree to disagree on whether it was a successful restaging.

[stepurhan]

Cashback

An art student breaks up with his girlfriend. in the aftermath he finds himself unable to sleep and so gets a job in an all-night supermarket. There he meets a bunch of "wacky characters" and hilarious hi-jinx almost entirely fail to ensue. Instead the lead character mostly self-examines in irritatingly pretentious voice-over and dull flash-backs to his youth.

Oh, and he discovers an ability (imagined) to be able to stop time. He uses this ability to half-strip the female customers in the shop so he can draw them in the nude. This gets a lot of coverage on the box despite being at most 4 minutes of the 102 minute running time. I expected as much going in.

Will appeal to people that like looking at unclad women if they skip straight to scene 4 on the DVD, though they'll still probably want to turn the sound off (ultra-pretentious voice-over about life and beauty and his childhood) or those that think extended voice-overs and unnecessary slo-mo scenes make a film intellectual.

Still not the worse film I've ever seen though.

[Lucien21]

Zombieland

Best comedy horror since Shaun of the Dead.

After someone eats a contaminated buger and catches Mad person disease (Zombies) it spreads to 99.9% if the people in the world leaving the USA deserted.

Redubed Zombieland by one of the survivors who is trying to survive by a series of rules he has made up. Rule 1: Cardio (Fat people were the first to be eaten), Rule 4 (Double tap zombie to make sure they are dead) He teams up with a few other survivors and travel across country to a final showdown in a theme park.

This is a hilarious film. Woody Harrlson is soo funny as the bad ass in search of the last twinkie in the country and Jesse Eisenberg provides his normal neurotic stick which works well as a foil for the jokes.

It has one hilarious cameo (which I won't spoil) and lots of zombie action in between the jokes.

I loved it and it was especially ironic watching zombies in a theme park while in Orlando ( I fly home tomorrow)

5/5

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

A Serious Man. I'm still working through this one...

[tsa]

I saw Up yesterday. I found the first half very good. The way the story of Carl and Ellie was told, and how Carl decided to let his house float to South America was very well done. But as soon as Carl and Russel arrived in South America...

Spoiler:

disaster struck, in the form of talking dogs and lots and lots of unexplained and horrible things. I hate talking animals in any movie, and in this movie they weren't necessary at all. There was also much too much unnecessary violence in the movie, from dogs flying planes resembling Japanese kamikaze pilots a bit, shooting at Carl and Russel, to the villain falling to his death. After the movie ended I was left with many questions. Where did the dogs come from? And the complicated electronic collars they wore? How did the dogs so unbelievably intelligent? How did the famous adventurer get as crazy as he was? Why couldn't Carl and Russel show him how beautiful live birds are? Making the adventurer plunge to his death was a convenient way to get rid of him, and of course killing the villain happens in many movies, but it's not something I would want my four year old kid to see. I'm sorry but compared to Ratatouille and Finding Nemo, for instance, this movie is rubbish in my opinion. It has some good parts, but more than half of it looks too much like a bad action movie. I wouldn't go there with my kids.

[Lucien21]

Sounds like their last film.

Wall-e was great for the first half until they introduced the beach ball humans and went all action chase movie.

Shame.

[tsa]

Ratatouille was their last good film IMO.

[MoriartyL]

You two don't know what you're talking about. Both WALL•E and Up were absolutely brilliant. It sounds like you just have some bias against chase scenes.

[tsa]

Nonsense. I just expect more from a Disney/Pixar movie. And I wouldn't want to expose my kids to violence like in Up.

[Lucien21]

Hasn't seen UP so can't comment, but Wall-E was superb up until it pandered to the kids.

I know it's a kids film, but the first half of the film was like a silent movie with Wall-E emoting more emotion than most disney films added together just by his actions. It was superbly put together and then it seemed they remembered it was a kids flick and reverted to standard action flick duties.

Not saying it was a bad film, but that it was a disappointment after the glorious beginning. It just sounds like UP follows a similar formula.

[geggis]

I'd personally argue that Wall-E is one of Disney's best, never mind Pixar's! Of course the opening is the strongest part of the film but the ingenuity doesn't stop and it has some strong messages to boot. Lucien you really hit the mark regarding all Wall-E's emotive gesturing, Pixar were on top form when they were animating him. I've welled up on numerous occasions when he goes all gooey and romantic with Eve. The focal depth in the film really adds to the opening scenes and of course Thomas Newman's soundtrack is just superb.

Also, could someone please correct me if I've used any apostrophes incorrectly.

[tsa]

They seem correct to me but I'm not a native speaker.

[geggis]

Thanks tsa! I've just been under the impression I may be using some incorrectly

[Erwin_Br]

I saw Up yesterday, and I think it's one of Pixar's best. I've never been moved by a cartoon before, well maybe as a kid, but the first part of the movie was very touching. It's incredible how they managed to show the life of Carl and Ellie in just a few minutes, and then evoke some strong emotions. Usually that takes at least half a movie to do that.

Regarding the violence, I'm not that squeamish about it. If you have a problem with the violence in Up, then you'd better put a lock on your TV for your kids, because the average cartoons kids are watching feature far more violence. Even so, wasn't Bambi's mother shot? Didn't the villain in The Rescuers have a shotgun?

I agree that Up is more tailored to adults, compared to other Pixar films, though.

[UPtimist]

Oh god, now everyone is going to think my name refers to that movie...

Saw 2 Days in Paris the other day, and it's reasons like this that having a movie channel is such a great thing. I had never even heard of the movie but it was just absolutely funny, realistic and just a wonderful break from movies that try to force things. Just marvellous, and it's not just meaningless comedy either.

Just like Eagle vs. Shark, never heard of it before but I found it to be absolutely brilliant, hilarious and even beautiful.

[aries323]

Personal Effects ----

A very quiet movie about two people having lost someone near and dear to them - we follow them as they stumble to their feet - trying to move on.

Also, Aston Kutcher proves he can act.
(not just as a funny guy)

[Zack]

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (The 2009 Remake)

I watched The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 last night, and I thought it was incredibly suspenseful. John Travolta was an absolute psycho, who was evenly matched in his verbal sparring with Denzel Washington, who was the movie's hero. The two actors were great together, and I hope they'll star in another movie together. John Turturro also did a good job as a hostage negotiator, who has to help Denzel out.

The movie was very fast-paced, and did not let up for it's 105 minute running time. If you like suspenseful action-thrillers, don't hesitate to rent this one.

[Zack]

The Brotherhood of the Wolf

I watched this last night, and it was a very exciting and lengthy foreign movie. It was made in France in 2001, and it had a terrific mixture of Horror, Adventure, Martial Arts, Romance, and Mystery.

The movie stars Samuel Le Bihan, as an important doctor from France, who is hired by the king of France to go to this small town, and kill a beast that is killing the women and children. With him, is an Indian, (played by Mark Dacascos) who is his sworn brother, and faithful sidekick. Without spoiling anything else, all I will say is that what starts off as a monster hunt, turns into a very twisty, and dark conspiracy type movie.

I was in the mood to try something different, and it had been a while since I last saw a great foreign movie. So that's why I decided to rent this movie from Netflix, and I'm glad I did because I loved it! I started watching it at 9:30p.m., and didn't finish it until 12:15a.m. The reason is because it's two and a half hours (or 2 1/2). It's also because I hit the rewind button a few times to rewatch some plot developments, and some of the fight scenes, which were incredible. Monica Bellucci co-stars also, as a very seductive woman, who isn't what she seems. Finally, for those people who are afraid of watching the movie with subtitles on it (because it was made in France), there is an option to watch it dubbed in English.

As you may have guessed, this movie gets a definite recommendation from me if you guys haven't seen it yet. It's action-packed at times, and it's also creepy.

I hope this helped you out.