Movie review rant

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hix said:
Argo
And it's based on a true story. Set over November 1979 - January 1980 it tells of six American diplomats hiding out in Tehran after the US Embassy was besieged by revolutionaries demanding the return of the Shah, who had fled to the USA.
Click to expand...

The revolutionaries were not demanding the return of the Shah (historically I mean - no idea what the movie said) - In fact the exact opposite. The revolutionaries were responsible for overthrowing the Shah. They stormed the american embassy because they did not like the fact that the Shah (with his brutal secret police, Savak) was installed by the CIA (i.e. America) so that was their way of venting. The Shah orchestrated a coup with the help of America to overthrow the democratically elected Mossadegh because Mosadegh had started nationalising oil companies - even 50 years ago, the American agenda was the same. ;) I suspect that the movie overlooked this part of history and the reason for the revolution.
 
Oh wait, now I understand what you meant. :D You mean they wanted him to return to string him up in the town square. Ok, yeah that is true then. I thought you meant that they wanted him to return to power, which of course, they didn't. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
 
Chlidonias said:
I just got back from watching The Expendables 2.

etc etc etc
Click to expand...

I just realised that Chuck Norris is 72 years old! 72!!!!!

Just had to share.
 
Chlidonias said:
I just realised that Chuck Norris is 72 years old! 72!!!!!

Just had to share.
Click to expand...

The reason Chuck Norris looks 30 although he is 72 is because age tried to catch up with him, but he roundhouse kicked it right back to 1970

Chuck Norris doesn't age, he levels up!
 
Rock of Ages

I must admit having a soft spot for musicals, and this was no exception. I watched it at the movies, and my partner bought the soundtrack and then DVD, which we watched last night. And it is very good.

Essentially, this movie is a collection of late 1980s rock songs joined together by a basic storyline. It features some rather big names (e.g. Tom Cruise), some well-known people (Catherine Zeta-Jones, Alec Baldwin, Russel Brand), and then the two "juvenile leads" who I've never heard of. Unusually the first half of the movie focuses strongly on the juvenile leads, but the second half gives quite extensive exposure to all characters.

The acting is surprisingly good, and the singing is excellent (excepting Alec Baldwin, who may have been channeling Pierce Brosnon in Mamma Mia!) and it has some very funny stuff in it. Some of the choreographed scenes are brilliant and the sets aren't as Spartan as in other musicals. It doesn't drag, but it could probably be a couple of songs shorter.

This is a musical, so to expect anything other than a enjoyable, but predictable, story is to be disappointed. You just have to relax, and let the story take you away, which it certainly can. Well described as a "guilty pleasure".

Rating: 7.5/10
 
zooboy28 said:
Rock of Ages

I must admit having a soft spot for musicals, and this was no exception. I watched it at the movies, and my partner bought the soundtrack and then DVD, which we watched last night. And it is very good.

Essentially, this movie is a collection of late 1980s rock songs joined together by a basic storyline. It features some rather big names (e.g. Tom Cruise), some well-known people (Catherine Zeta-Jones, Alec Baldwin, Russel Brand), and then the two "juvenile leads" who I've never heard of. Unusually the first half of the movie focuses strongly on the juvenile leads, but the second half gives quite extensive exposure to all characters.

The acting is surprisingly good, and the singing is excellent (excepting Alec Baldwin, who may have been channeling Pierce Brosnon in Mamma Mia!) and it has some very funny stuff in it. Some of the choreographed scenes are brilliant and the sets aren't as Spartan as in other musicals. It doesn't drag, but it could probably be a couple of songs shorter.

This is a musical, so to expect anything other than a enjoyable, but predictable, story is to be disappointed. You just have to relax, and let the story take you away, which it certainly can. Well described as a "guilty pleasure".

Rating: 7.5/10
Click to expand...

I saw this musical live on stage in Melbourne and I loved it. I was singing along to almost all the tracks, and they even gave each member of the audience a little 'cigarette lighter' (it was really a plastic thing with an LED at the top).

We sat in the front row so I had an extremely good view. I haven't seen the movie, but all the women were wearing lingerie for the entire show - my wife was not impressed, and compared it to a strip show.

I am looking forward to seeing the movie version soon, but I will probably have to watch it alone. :D
 
zooboy28 said:
Rock of Ages


Rating: 7.5/10
Click to expand...

I like a good musical too but I've not seen this based solely on the fact that Tom Cruise is in it. My single man protest against actors and actresses I don't like :)

I'm seriously considering not going to see On the Road because Kirsten Stewart is in it.
 
nanoboy said:
I saw this musical live on stage in Melbourne and I loved it. I was singing along to almost all the tracks, and they even gave each member of the audience a little 'cigarette lighter' (it was really a plastic thing with an LED at the top).

We sat in the front row so I had an extremely good view. I haven't seen the movie, but all the women were wearing lingerie for the entire show - my wife was not impressed, and compared it to a strip show.

I am looking forward to seeing the movie version soon, but I will probably have to watch it alone. :D
Click to expand...

The movie actually has a number of differences with the stage show (which I would love to see), including a number of new characters replacing old ones, different songs and quite a different storyline (based on wikipedia comparisons). It certainly didn't have lingerie-clad women throughout, although they were present in the strip club obviously.
 
PAT said:
I like a good musical too but I've not seen this based solely on the fact that Tom Cruise is in it. My single man protest against actors and actresses I don't like :)

I'm seriously considering not going to see On the Road because Kirsten Stewart is in it.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's an acceptable reason. I genuinely expected him to ruin the film, but he doesn't. You should give it a go.

The only such person I can't stand to watch is Martin Clune, which luckily restricts very few movies.
 
Savages

There's been a fair bit of advertising for this movie, and I wasn't sure what to expect. I thought it might be based upon the Shirley Conran novel of the same name, but it's not. It is, however, entertaining.

It's about drugs, and a small backyard drug growing distribution group being bullyed by a large and brutal Mexican cartel. Some good performances by the three primaries and Benicio del Toro who plays a scary (and sick) cartel enforcer. A little graphic in places (after all, Oliver Stone directed) and some suspense, a little slow to start, but once it gets going it keeps you hooked.

As I said, entertaining.

:p

Hix
 
Has anybody seen "Cloud Atlas"? I found it rather sublime and mind-bending. It is six interlocking stories ranging in time from 1850 in the South Pacific to the 25th century with stops in 1931 England, 1973 San Francisco, 2012 England, and 2144 Korea. It bombed at the U.S. box office, but I suspect that it may become a classic once it finds an audience on DVD, Netflix, etc. - or maybe not.

It has elements reminiscent of "Master and Commander", "Shaft", "Star Trek", "The Matrix", "The China Syndrome", "Forest Gump", and possibly many other films that people will find, but mixed together in a novel and epic fusion. It is 3 hours long, but was the rare film that I actually wanted to keep going.
 
Based on the reviews here, I don't want to see the new Conan, but I do want to see Savages and Cloud Atlas.

I'll give a couple movies I saw in 2012 a plug:

Iron Sky - Funny, but well-made movie about Nazis that were hiding out on the moon since the end of WWII, that are getting ready to invade earth now.

The Devil's Double - absolutely wonderful movie about Saddam Hussein's psychopathic son and his body double.
 
The Expendables 2

Well, Chlidonias did a spot on review. I watched the movie and came away thinking "what was that all about?". It seemed like a reunion of ageing action stars from the 80's and 90's.

Questions: who was missing? We're there any iconic female action actresses from that era?

I missed Steven Segal, and Wesley Snipes. I was half expecting the Chinese woman to be Lucy Liu or Michelle Yeoh.
 
nanoboy said:
Questions: who was missing? We're there any iconic female action actresses from that era?
Click to expand...
there were, for example Cynthia Rothrock, Brigitte Neilsen, Grace Jones, even Sigourney Weaver. But did you miss the bit in Expendables 2 where the women from the village took up arms to defend themselves from Van Damme's lot, but because they were women they couldn't hit the side of a barn with their firearms? Only men can fire guns.

nanoboy said:
I missed Steven Segal, and Wesley Snipes. I was half expecting the Chinese woman to be Lucy Liu or Michelle Yeoh.
Click to expand...
I think Stallone wanted Snipes for the movie but he was still in jail? And there were issues with Seagal. But apparently he may be in the third movie (yes, there is going to be a third one....)
 
Chlidonias said:
there were, for example Cynthia Rothrock, Brigitte Neilsen, Grace Jones, even Sigourney Weaver. But did you miss the bit in Expendables 2 where the women from the village took up arms to defend themselves from Van Damme's lot, but because they were women they couldn't hit the side of a barn with their firearms? Only men can fire guns.


I think Stallone wanted Snipes for the movie but he was still in jail? And there were issues with Seagal. But apparently he may be in the third movie (yes, there is going to be a third one....)
Click to expand...

Women can't shoot - everyone from the 80's knows that. :D My wife is a better clay shooter than me though. :o

Snipes was in jail? No way! I know Seagal is really fat now, but I am sure he will get in shape. Maybe he can be a baddie like Jabba the Hutt.
 
Chlidonias said:
I can't remember if it was for the first Expendables or the second but I did read that Stallone wanted Snipes but couldn't for that reason. He went to jail in 2010 for a three-year sentence for tax evasion. See here Wesley Snipes reports to prison to begin three-year sentence for tax evasion | Mail Online
Click to expand...

Looks like Cage will be in the third instalment, and Rourke, Snipes, and Harrison Ford are maybes. I read in another article that Seagal is also a maybe. I want to see some aikido!
 
I just read that there will soon be a Machete sequel. There is a child start turned hottie in the movie, and Sofia Vergara, Danny Trejo, Mel Gibson, and a few others. Copying and pasting a link is difficult on this device, but I am sure that you can google it yourself if you are into Rodriguez movies.
 
Seven Psychopaths

Despite the plot being a little convoluted (which may confuse some people), I found this an entertaining movie.

The plot is roughly as follows:

Marty is a screenwriter and is trying to write a screenplay for a movie titled "Seven Psychopaths". It's a collective of short stories about seven different psychos. One of his psychos he got from a story he heard about a Quaker. Another involves a Vietnamese Monk. And he doesn't want it to be a violent movie.

His best friend Billy is a psychopath (but Marty doesn't recognise this until later). Billy wants to help Marty by introducing him to psychos and puts an ad in the paper. Billy and his friend Hans make a living stealing dogs - Billy nicks 'em, and a few days later Hans returns them and collects the reward. Despite appearance, Hans is also a psycho.

Then Billy steals a shihtzu that belongs to Charlie, a local mob boss and a bona fide psycho. He desperately wants his dog back and goes to some lengths and kills a few people to do so.

Although Colin Farrell looks a little tortured through most of the film, the cast do a great job - especially Sam Rockwell and Woody Harrelson. And Tom Waits is pretty damn scary as well - especially at the end during the credit roll. And there are lots of twists that keep things moving and keep the movie interesting.

As I said earlier the plot is a little convoluted, particularly with respect to the name of the film being the same as the film Marty is writing, although the two don't coincide. But if you ignore the inconsistencies you'll probably enjoy it (if you enjoy movies about bad guys shooting people with little provocation).

:p

Hix
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top