[kuze]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

I enjoyed Inside Man as well.

One of the better movies recently released. The absence of any violence and its criticism is, without doubt, the most outstanding feature.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

I am a huge Dune geek, and a great fan of David Lynch.

And I absolutely hate the Dune movie! As far as I'm concerned, it didn't get anything right apart from the sandworms and Francesca Annis.

...and the medieval atmosphere, and the Atreides self-righeousness (they're all pretty uptight, but that's the same in the books), the Harkonnen's love for blood and mayhem, the emperor's cowardice, the Fremen's fanatism, the Bene Gesserit over-confidence, the violence, manipulations, and treacheries, the modern yet antique technology... and the desert, ever present, dangerous and beautiful. It's all very theatrical and epic, as in the books.

Frankly, the only thing that didn't fit the books, in my opinion, are the ending and the strange additions like the weirding modules. Not that I care about any of these, really.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Ninth

...and the desert, ever present, dangerous and beautiful.

Ahhh...makes me want to watch Lawrence of Arabia again. The best "desert" film ever made. I guess I should comment no further though, as that would require a David Lean thread.

[lumi]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

Ahhh...makes me want to watch Lawrence of Arabia again. The best "desert" film ever made. I guess I should comment no further though, as that would require a David Lean thread.

I saw that a few days ago. I'm not sure if I'm able to consider it one of the best films made, but it's far up on my list of movies. I sometimes have a hard time getting into older movies, so I'll have to rewatch it before coming to a better conclusion.

[Crunchy in milk]

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

I absolutely hate the Dune movie! As far as I'm concerned, it didn't get anything right apart from the sandworms and Francesca Annis.

I thought some of the sets, props and scenes where excellent. Not exactly what one might picture from reading the books but worth looking at for their own uniqueness. Hell its only a couple of hours (the extended DVD version is filled out with utterly shit narration and comic drawings, so no use watching that). For me, the best part of the Dune movie was the music. That and Sean Young... *quiver* what a fox.

-----

I just watched Ultraviolet. Given the number of names in the opening credits (for the creators) you'd think they might have splurged on a continuity editor or someone with a script and a red pen at the very least.

If you took the plot and the atrocious dialogue in the film and wrote it all down (you'd be the first) it wouldn't fill half an A4 page and yet still they managed to have gaping continuity errors. If I was editing the film I'd take out every single line of dialogue and consign the 'pathos moment' shots to the cutting room floor. You're just as reliant on the audience making sense of the film, but you don't add to their confusion nor upset those trying to enjoy it for vicarious action. I don't say this in jest, I truly believe it would make the film better paced for its content.

As someone who came off of Equilibrium (an earlier Wimmer film) so recently with a lot of cheesy "this is going to be so bad its good" enthusiasm for Ultraviolet, even I was disappointed. The next time someone says the Star Wars prequels where utter dogs dressed up in too much CGI tell them to watch Ultraviolet. But be kind, and suggest they mute the sound and have the remote handy to skip the second anyone's face fills more than a quater of the screen.

[lumi]

Originally Posted by Crunchy in milk

As someone who came off of Equilibrium (an earlier Wimmer film) so recently with a lot of cheesy "this is going to be so bad its good" enthusiasm for Ultraviolet, even I was disappointed. The next time someone says the Star Wars prequels where utter dogs dressed up in too much CGI tell them to watch Ultraviolet. But be kind, and suggest they mute the sound and have the remote handy to skip the second anyone's face fills more than a quater of the screen.

I have a crush on Mila Jovovich, and I wish she would stop picking bad movies. I think I need to see if Ultraviolet is as bad as people keep saying. XXX and The Fast and the Furious weren't as bad as I kept hearing, but I tend to give in easily for action.

I happened to see Equilibrium recently, and it wasn't good. It was a sub-par action movie that tried but failed to have meaning. The gunkata may have been cool one time, but it grew old quickly.

[lumi]

Originally Posted by [toj.cc]Phantom

Brothers Grimm

I just realized that the Mirror Queen was Monica Bellucci, who played Merovingian's wife in The Matrix Reloaded. She makes movies better.

[Crunchy in milk]

Originally Posted by Spider Crusoe

I have a crush on Mila Jovovich, and I wish she would stop picking bad movies. I think I need to see if Ultraviolet is as bad as people keep saying. XXX and The Fast and the Furious weren't as bad as I kept hearing, but I tend to give in easily for action.

I happened to see Equilibrium recently, and it wasn't good. It was a sub-par action movie that tried but failed to have meaning. The gunkata may have been cool one time, but it grew old quickly.

Equilibrium was great because of that very hammy-ness. I wanted to see more of it in UV but watching Milla do it just wasn't very satisfying. They took this unique (and hilarious) fictional martial art and threw special effects all over it to try and get you to swallow it. Totally the wrong direction IMO.

I kind of wish Mila would ditch the sci-fi genre. She might have limited range but I still think she'd do better in comedy or better yet, horror. Think about it - guys would be horrified at the thought of her pretty self being cut up and girls would find it somewhat kathartic.

I could sit through fast and the furious and even XXX without reaching for the remote, but the same can't be said for Ultraviolet. After watching this I have no excuse not to watch Aeon Flux now. It can't be worse.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Spider Crusoe

I saw that a few days ago. I'm not sure if I'm able to consider it one of the best films made, but it's far up on my list of movies. I sometimes have a hard time getting into older movies, so I'll have to rewatch it before coming to a better conclusion.

If at all possible, watch it in a theater with a 70mm print. That's the only way to REALLY appreciate Lawrence of Arabia (unless you have a 123" screen like me, ). And watch the PAL SuperBit version if you watch it at home. It's far better than any of the others, even the NTSC SuperBit.

[Tobbe]

Recently saw Boondock Saints, that was an interesting movie, in a kinda funny way.

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by Ninth

I saw Inside Man, and loved it. As far as, er... bank robbing movies go, that the best I've seen.

Is Inside Man the one with Al Pacino shouting "Attica!". If yes, I agree.

But seriously, I am with Brisk Nap on this film. It was not bad, but I'm surprised people here liked it that much. The plot points that could be great twists, except

Spoiler:

well, the "inside man" one - this one was pretty cool,

were foreshadowed way too early and hammered into our heads long afterwards. A few others were utterly unbelieveable.

Spoiler:

Sure, there is simply no way to tell the difference between the political speech and common people talking. New York is a scary place to live, if its police is that bright.

The visual side was great (the setting somehow looked both realistic and larger-than-life; nice effect, that), so was the occasional humour, and you can't go wrong with Denzel Washington and Jodie Foster (although she wasn't at her best - maybe because her character didn't have anything to do in the movie). But the script could have used serious re-working.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

The plot points that could be great twists, except

Spoiler:

well, the "inside man" one - this one was pretty cool,

were foreshadowed way too early and hammered into our heads long afterwards.

Sure, but who cares? It's still loads of fun watching the police struggling with all this.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

A few others were utterly unbelieveable.

Spoiler:

Sure, there is simply no way to tell the difference between the political speech and common people talking. New York is a scary place to live, if its police is that bright.

True, but it's not really a problem.

Spoiler:

Replace the political speech by a play, or a movie soundtrack, and there you have it.

That's just a slight slip.

My point is: this movie isn't brilliant, and it's not a masterpiece. It's just the best movie of its genre that I've seen: fun, beautifully made, efficient (and for the record, I loathe Usual Suspect).

[AFGNCAAP]

I don't know. I started thinking about Inside man after making that post and I came to the conclusion it's full of more crucial plotholes than the "Albanian" one. In order of importance they are:

Spoiler:

1.How much time after the bank robbery do the final scenes take place? A week, right? Am I to believe that the Christopher Plummer character not once checked the bloody deposit box during that time (after not-so-brightly allowing the police to see the list where #392 was missing, I might add)?

2.While we are at it, is it truly a "perfect" bank robbery that involves a scruffy, stinky man in black glasses and with a big bag appearing out of nowhere in the staff-only section of the bank? And shouldn't the four "hostages" in the car be more afraid of Denzel spotting them than their disguised leader?

3.What about the the bug-in-the-case thing? I can buy the police falling for it - I would probably do, too. I am interested, however, why Russell (Clive Owen) assumed the case will stay wherever the decisions will be made.

4.Washington believing faked hostage execution five seconds after he was totally convinced the robbers are bluffing about the use of violence.

Yeah, I enjoyed it while it lasted, but it's a kind of film that is ruined once you start thinking about it afterwards.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Yeah, I enjoyed it while it lasted, but it's a kind of film that is ruined once you start thinking about it afterwards.

For the record AFGNAACP, all I ever said about Inside Man was that I "enjoyed" it as well. This has, so far, been a terrible year for movies. I haven't seen United 93 yet, and hopefully it changes that problem (just based on what I've heard it's pretty darn good). But for THIS YEAR Inside Man stood out a little for me, but that's not saying much.

[Karmillo]

Dont worry, Pirates of the Carribean 2 will come out in the summer and Blow all the other movies away



Hopefully....

[Once A Villain]

Saw United 93 today. It was a very effective, well researched account of what happened. There was nothing Hollywood about it. No superstars, no unrealistic moments, handheld cameras were used, etc. I was impressed. The ending was especially powerful. Well done.

[Melanie68]

Speaking of that movie, I just read this article by Thomas Moore commenting on this movie. Not a review but a reflection on the type of 9/11 movie it is and what role he feels movies dealing with 9/11 should have.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Melanie68

Speaking of that movie, I just read this article by Thomas Moore commenting on this movie. Not a review but a reflection on the type of 9/11 movie it is and what role he feels movies dealing with 9/11 should have.

Thanks but no thanks... I just can't respect the opinion of this guy. He writes an entire article about what the film should be, and then says, "I will not go to see United 93." He wants the movie to delve deeper into the reasons for the attack and the reasons people commit such atrocities on one another, but he hasn't even seen it. Also, if the film is just a factual, dramatized account of what happened...what's wrong with that? Perhaps that was the intent.

Tora! Tora! Tora! was the same type of film. Granted, that film was made nearly thirty years after Pearl Harbor. Still, I don't think it's "too soon" for this movie. The filmmakers spoke with every single family that lost someone on United 93, and they all agreed that the film should be made. It is dedicated to the memory of all who died on September 11, 2001. Also, there's no blatant flag waving in this movie, and the director is British.

[AFGNCAAP]

What does it even mean "too soon"? It's been almost five years. And Paul Greengrass is not a man I expect to shoot a cheap cash-in on the tragedy.

[Starflux]

Wow, talk about coincidence, I just yesterday saw the Dune movie. And it was completely laughable. I never saw Patrick Stewart in a more misplaced role. Gurney Halleck is supposed to be this ugly troubadour, not a royal soldier carrying a banjo. Anyway, the movie was completely ridiculous. I'll admit that Sting in a metal diaper did have some merit, but the rest of it... Especially the scene where the old duke spits out the poisonous gas and it's this enormous green whirlwind, haha =D

Frankly, the only reason the movie was palatable at all was because Kyle MacLachlan is as ever enigmatic, charismatic and mesmerizingly aloof in everything he does.