What have you been watching? (DVD or Films on TV)

[TheBaxter]

in preparation for seeing Paranormal Activity 3 this coming weekend, i've been rewatching PA 1 & 2.

watching PA 1 at home, without a packed theater audience, and knowing all the "scares" ahead of time.... it really doesn't hold up. it's really a one-time experience sort of film. it's like walking through one of those haunted houses, where the first time they might get you jumping out from behind something or making a loud bang, the 2nd or 3rd time through you are expecting it so it doesn't affect you. it was a clever idea, and i really really enjoyed it that first time in the theater, but for rewatchability purposes, just doesn't deliver.

PA 2 was interesting. most of my complaints about it (the absence of that feeling of dread you get from the first film, the logical flaws, etc) still apply. it's way too slow at the beginning, and then goes from practically nothing happening to batshit insane stuff way too quickly, so it misses that slow buildup of steadily ramping up the creepiness and intensity of the 1st film. it does have more rewatchability though. the scare moments, when they finally do come, are more intense. though the unintentionally funny moments like the dog getting yanked off camera or the baby floating out of the crib are still quite funny. the part i like best about PA 2, the building up of the backstory, and the way it "wraps around" the first film and ties in to explain what happened in that film, i really liked and it holds up well when you watch back to back. and knowing that PA 3 is going to cover what happened to the two sisters as little kids, it has me looking forward to what they do with #3. i just hope they go for more of that slow-building dread and spookiness of the 1st film, combined with the improved storytelling of the 2nd. then it could be better than either of the 1st two films.

[Spandau Belly]

CLIENT 9: THE ERECTION AND DOWNFALL OF ELIOT SPITZER

I don't follow American politics super close, but a lot of people here in Canada do for the reason that the American political scene is infinitely more entertaining than ours. The personalities and the scandals are at times, stranger than fiction. My theory is that our two cultures relate to politicians in very different ways. Canadians just want politicians to quietly go work and write policy and have as few costly elections as possible. Americans seem to want their politicians to be role models and heroes. Americans like big speeches about values from these charisma machines. And the bigger and louder you preach, the more embarrassing it is when you get caught soliciting blowjobs at airport urinals (seriously, yo).

I did remember Spitzer's big scandal, but had not really heard a lot about him beforehand. I'm not one to judge a guy for cheating on his wife or for seeing prostitutes, but the one thing that really stood out to me was the price. The articles I read mentioning upwards of eight thousand dollars AN HOUR for these hookers. I just couldn't get over this for several reasons. The first being that no fuck on Earth is worth that. I don't care if I were an oil sheik worth hundreds of billions of dollars, I wouldn't pay that kind of money for pussy simply on principle. The other side that I couldn't stop thinking about was how much does a fucking public servant make in USA? Our top ministers barely clear a quarter of a million dollars. That's good money but not so much that tens of thousands of dollars become pocket change. This guy is dropping more than 40K in a month on pussy, how is he making that kind of money vanish discreetly from his household budget? Well, the movie did answer that Spitzer came from wealth, he was the son of a real estate / construction tycoon, but still. That's a fuckload of money to make disappear when you've got a family.

This documentary was paid for by Spitzer’s enemies who wanted to see his image destroyed once and for all. The guy making it agreed to do it on the condition that he get final cut and that Spitzer be allowed to defend himself. The film ends up being very pro-Spitzer. They take us through his career showing us many of his victories against corporate corruption and environmental pollution. They show Spitzer to be a bright and ballsy guy with many associates talking about the high hopes they had for him as a possible future Presidential candidate.

They also discuss his dark side. And I'm not talking about the fact that he likes fucking 20 year old girls with nice cans, because in my book that is not a dark side. They talk about the negative side of his aggression. The hookers talk about his reputation for wanting to "get his money's worth", which means violently jackhammer fucking them. His coworkers and enemies talk about his unprofessional screaming fits and outbursts during which he would make creatively violent statements involving telling people he was going to shove a lawsuit on a hot fire poker and ram it up their ass; or telling people he was going to shoot them right between the eyes. Again, none of this is really a dignified way for any professional to speak.

I was really disappointed in the quality of lying in this movie. I expected better lying from CEOs and politicians. When confronted about his violent side and provided with exact quotations of things he`d said, Spitzer, frequently can’t contain his amused smirk and giggles before making a half-assed attempt to compose himself and say “I don’t know if those were my exact words, but um, the conversation definately became heated, yes.” I mean, c’mon, you’re a politician, shouldn’t this lying shit come more natural to you than that? And these CEOs who are Spitzer’s enemies such as former CEO of AIG, Hank Greenberg, and this other guy who was CEO of Home Depot. You get all the worst liar’s traits lined up. Their eyes dart around, they fumble with their hands, they use all those long-winded liar catchphrases such as “I have no recollection of any such event.” Greenberg at least lies big when he claims that if Spitzer hadn’t revealed his dodgy accounting, which led to his termination as CEO, that he could’ve stopped USA’s financial crisis before it happened.

Who comes off the worst in this is Ashley “Kristin The Hooker” Dupree, who declines to be interviewed for this film. The film paints her as an opportunist who falsely led the media to believe she was Spitzer’s regular hooker when she’d only seen him once. The hookers who are interviewed in this film all roll their eyes at Dupree’s act when she goes on television and cries and plays the role of the innocent young girl who got seduced by the big city and just wants her mum and to go back to church and be good (with the hundreds of thousands of dollars she made from fucking) yadda yadda yadda. She’s got nice cans though.

There are some other funny characters in the film such as Roger Stone, a political goon who styles himself like an aging porn star and has a tattoo of Nixon’s face across his back. He’s pretty ridiculous, but also another horrible liar. When comforted with a death threat he made to Spitzer’s father on his answering machine that is clearly his voice, he goes through your typical liar mannerisms while saying that it is a cut and paste job of various sound clips from him. They play the death threat and it flows so fucking perfectly it’s silly. Anyway, if Robert Zemekis’s team of sound clip cut and pasters did that, it was better than anything they did in FORREST GUMP.

There’s also the young madam who ran the escort service in question. She seems like a real pro businesswoman. I couldn’t believe a 20 year old girl was running this multi-million dollar enterprise. She seemed really mature until she starts snort giggling which was too frequent, but she had the good sense to hire this wannabe bohemian black artist dude to be the client liaison.

Overall this is a pretty good documentary and Spitzer comes across well. Mostly because he completely accepts responsibility for his actions. The documentary is constantly giving him ways out and excuses and painting this picture of conspiracy, but he doesn’t take them. Spitzer wasn’t framed. He pissed a lot of people off who were waiting and watching for him to screw up and he did and he doesn’t blame the people who caught him for his actions. The only thing he somewhat dodges are the tales of his verbally abusive and undignified temper. He is very candid and does try to give honest answers and explain his mentality as much as anyone can explain themselves. I learned a fair bit about this man’s political career, the sophisticated mechanics of this scandal, and got enough enjoyment out of laughing at weirdos and liars to enjoy the film.

[caruso_stalker217]

I was really disappointed in the quality of lying in this movie. I expected better lying from CEOs and politicians.

Dude, seriously. You'd think they could take some of that hooker money and hire a fucking lying coach or something. These fuckers are never convincing. It's always "I have no recollection..." or "I have no knowledge of..."

That fuckin' Clinton, now, that guy knew how to lie with conviction. And he didn't have to pay for the pussy.

[minstrel]

That fuckin' Clinton, now, that guy knew how to lie with conviction. And he didn't have to pay for the pussy.

To be fair, though, look at the quality of the pussy.

What?

[The Vicar]

Haven't you ever picked up a girl at a bowling alley before.......?


Oh wait........

[minstrel]

Haven't you ever picked up a girl at a bowling alley before.......?


Oh wait........

When I was in high school, some friends and I used to go bowling after our Friday night poker games. Occasionally, one or more of us would be stinking drunk. One time, a friend of mine named Willy was so drunk he picked up a bowling ball and flung it as hard as he could, but missed the lane entirely and hit a post that supported the ceiling between the lanes. It left a bowling-ball sized hole in the drywall at about five feet off the ground at three o'clock in the morning. The bowling place operator was PISSED. We got out of there double plus quick (Willy puked out the window of the car as we left the parking lot), and I haven't been in a bowling alley since. Somehow I think the cops are still trying to round us up, even those of us who weren't drunk that night.

So, no, I haven't picked up a girl at a bowling alley. Nor a boy, for that matter. Willy probably hasn't, either. Maybe he's still on probation.

[caruso_stalker217]

That fuckin' Clinton, now, that guy knew how to lie with conviction. And he didn't have to pay for the pussy.

To be fair, though, look at the quality of the pussy.

What?

It's all about convenience, man. Like Schwarzenegger and the maid.

[DennisMM]

MODS: Please don't feel the need to move any of these to individual, old threads. I'll keep my comments fairly brief. Thank you.


Sherlock Holmes, starring Robert Downey, Jr., directed by Guy Ritchie. I like RDJ. He's a very talented actor. He's charismatic. He's terribly miscast as Sherlock Holmes. While this is called a "reinvention" of the character, it's more a bastardization. You see, on my bookshelves I have The Annotated Sherlock Holmes by Arthur Conan Doyle and the very talented Holmesian scholar, the late W.S. Baring-Gould. It's 1500 pages of every known Holmes story and novel when the book was published, with annotations by Baring-Gould on many hundreds of details in the tales. I've read every word of it, and nowhere did I see Holmes blowing off steam by brawling in bare-knuckle, underground boxing. Neither did he insult Watson's fiancee needlessly to demonstrate his powers of observation. He did not swing from meat hooks. He did not work on cases dressed in a stained shirt, with no tie or coat. Although he entertained his minimal sense of humor at the expense of others, he did not make quips. However, he DID use cocaine and opium to occupy his mind when bored, something not seen at all here.

This film gets a few things right about Holmes. He did not like firearms, though he used them on occasion. He considered most people dull and foolish. And he did not believe in the supernatural, which is handled very well here. Other than that, it's a loud, action-filled, mischaracterized mess. Jude Law is all right, though. 5/10

Earlier in the week, I did an Edgar Wright/Simon Pegg double, Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead. Both were very entertaining. I haven't seen Pegg in much, and hadn't been overly fond of him, but in these he was endearing. The films were so good that I don't feel I have to talk much about them. So many reviewers have lauded these two that my own plaudits would merely be echoes. Shaun was very funny and used the conceits of the zombie film with extreme effectiveness. 8/10. Fuzz, while too long by 15-20 minutes, was one of the funniest films I've ever seen. I cackled through it, which is not a typical reaction for me. 9.5/10 and a bonus Japanese Peace Lily

[Spandau Belly]

THE ROBBER
aka DER RAUBER

This is an Austrian film about a famous true life bank robber. The film is a clear aping of Nicolas Wingdings Refn both in style and content. Not that that's a bad thing, Refn is one of my favourite 'new' filmmakers out there so he's a good guy to imitate. Anybody who has seen DRIVE will have a hard time not comparing the two. Because both films are about these skinny gentle-looking introverted heist guys who drive around listening to girlie pop music and both films focus a lot on a romance.

DER RAUBER is about a marathon running bank robber who gets out of prison and quickly and compulsively gets right back into his lifestyle of robbing banks and winning marathons. He doesn't seem to have any use for all the money he's stealing, it's shown more as a compulsion. He just keeps all the money in garbage bags and never spends it or mentions what he will do with it all. He quickly forms a romance with a woman he grew up with who looks like Catherine Keener but with really distracting breasts.

DER RAUBER is definately a bit less Hollywood than DRIVE, they don't give the protagonist a typical understandable motivation and this film is more stark in its style. This movie is fairly enjoyable and somewhat predictable. The final half hour is actually very gripping but there's nothing terribly memorable here. All and all, an okay viewing.

[DerLanghaarige]

I finally watched MIDNIGHT RUN and I really liked it.

[The Vicar]

Finally broke down and rented Dead Snow.
Wish I hadn't.
It's a thoroughly boring, Shaun of the Dead/Evil Dead wannabe, and at that it's a miserable failure.
Fail. That is all.

[so sorry]

Finally broke down and rented Dead Snow.
Wish I hadn't.
It's a thoroughly boring, Shaun of the Dead/Evil Dead wannabe, and at that it's a miserable failure.
Fail. That is all.

Is that the one with zombie nazis?

[The Vicar]

Yup.

[minstrel]

Just watched Little Big Man on Blu-Ray.

I'd never seen this before. It's actually terrific! At times dramatic, even tragic, but at other times hilariously funny, and sometimes all of the above at once, it's a real showcase for Dustin Hoffman.

And Chief Dan George. Man, Chief Dan George rules, doesn't he? What a great character actor he was! And he was perfect in this movie. Watch this back to back with The Outlaw Josey Wales and take in the awesomeness of Chief Dan George. You won't be disappointed.

I won't give any kind of full review of Little Big Man right now, because I know it will be in regular rotation on our home theater for quite a while. Really good movie!

[Bloo]

I did kind of a cult Musical night tonight with Reefer Madness and Rocky Horror

I know RHPS has it's followers (I have several friends that count among them) but man, I just...I guess I don't get it. I'm guessing it's a different experience in a theater with dedicated fans, etc

[TheBaxter]

count me in too. i don't get the appeal of RHPS. i only watched it all the way through for the first time last halloween. i know the theater experience is half (or more like 90%) of the fun, but still.... why this film? it's just not very good. on top of that, back in high school, a certain group of kids at my school suddenly got into the film and started going to it every weekend and acting like it was the coolest thing in the world, and it was all just such sheep-like behaviour that it turned me off the whole thing entirely.

[TonyWilson]

I don't get it either but this girl I know looks fucking awesome dressed up as Magenta.




I don't think you need another reason.

[Bloo]

I don't get it either but this girl I know looks fucking awesome dressed up as Magenta.




I don't think you need another reason.

that's always a good thing.


and man am I glad I'm not the only one that doesn't "get" it...I know this would never happen and if it did there would be hell to pay, but RHPS could actually do for a remake.

[The Vicar]

I've never understood the cult status of RHPS. Its a shite film, simply put.

[minstrel]

I've only seen RHPS twice, and I don't like it much as a film. But when I was in high school in the 70s, my sister had the soundtrack album, so the songs are deeply ingrained in my bones. I think the songs are WAY better than the movie.

[Al Shut]

I know this would never happen and if it did there would be hell to pay, but RHPS could actually do for a remake.

Jack Black for Eddie.

Only that I hate Jack Black

[minstrel]

I know this would never happen and if it did there would be hell to pay, but RHPS could actually do for a remake.

Who would play Dr. Frank N. Furter? Tim Curry is IRREPLACEABLE!!! Hands up everybody who thinks, uh, James Franco could do it? I thought so.

[Al Shut]

Sacha Baron Cohen

[Al Shut]

Wait, I can't stand that one too

[The Vicar]

Richard Simmons..........?

[minstrel]

Good suggestion, though. You do need someone who'll really do anything, no matter how embarrassing, to nail the role. Cohen does that.

[so sorry]

I'd love to see a RHPS remake ONLY for the sheer joy of watching those rabid douchy fans go berserk about it. No way in Hades Town that they would like the idea of a remake.

[DennisMM]

Rocky Horror is not a good movie. I realize it was not meant to be a good movie, in any conventional sense, but it fails as a bad movie. The plot is only an excuse for the songs and a couple of big laugh lines. The acting is horrendous, even when it's supposed to be either flat or over the top. I've seen it on video a few times with my ex, who enjoys it and loves Tim Curry, once in a theater with audience participation and a stage performance during some songs, and once at university with a drunk woman who screamed the audience lines at the wrong times. In the worst and the best circumstances, I didn't find it entertaining. It's a cult film with good reason.

If they want to do a remake, they should cast the parts with the surviving actors, nearly 40 years older. It couldn't be any worse than a standard remake.

[caruso_stalker217]

Picked up EVIL DEAD 2 on Blu-Ray the other day. I've only watched the new "making of" documentary, though. Bobby Joe is still hot.

[TheBaxter]

Rocky Horror is not a good movie. I realize it was not meant to be a good movie, in any conventional sense, but it fails as a bad movie. The plot is only an excuse for the songs and a couple of big laugh lines. The acting is horrendous, even when it's supposed to be either flat or over the top. I've seen it on video a few times with my ex, who enjoys it and loves Tim Curry, once in a theater with audience participation and a stage performance during some songs, and once at university with a drunk woman who screamed the audience lines at the wrong times. In the worst and the best circumstances, I didn't find it entertaining. It's a cult film with good reason.

If they want to do a remake, they should cast the parts with the surviving actors, nearly 40 years older. It couldn't be any worse than a standard remake.

even the songs i don't particularly care for. i guess they're ok, but nothing near good enough to justify the mess that surrounds them.

the only redeeming quality of this movie is susan sarandon running around in her undies.

[Bloo]

Rocky Horror is not a good movie. I realize it was not meant to be a good movie, in any conventional sense, but it fails as a bad movie. The plot is only an excuse for the songs and a couple of big laugh lines. The acting is horrendous, even when it's supposed to be either flat or over the top. I've seen it on video a few times with my ex, who enjoys it and loves Tim Curry, once in a theater with audience participation and a stage performance during some songs, and once at university with a drunk woman who screamed the audience lines at the wrong times. In the worst and the best circumstances, I didn't find it entertaining. It's a cult film with good reason.

If they want to do a remake, they should cast the parts with the surviving actors, nearly 40 years older. It couldn't be any worse than a standard remake.

even the songs i don't particularly care for. i guess they're ok, but nothing near good enough to justify the mess that surrounds them.

the only redeeming quality of this movie is susan sarandon running around in her undies.

I'll be honest, she did nothing for me, at least in this. Her face is too narrow, too harsh (?) for the character she is supposed to be playing. Now give me Susan Sarandon in Bull Durham...

[The Vicar]

Now give me Susan Sarandon in Bull Durham...


Take a number, amigo.

[TheBaxter]

Rocky Horror is not a good movie. I realize it was not meant to be a good movie, in any conventional sense, but it fails as a bad movie. The plot is only an excuse for the songs and a couple of big laugh lines. The acting is horrendous, even when it's supposed to be either flat or over the top. I've seen it on video a few times with my ex, who enjoys it and loves Tim Curry, once in a theater with audience participation and a stage performance during some songs, and once at university with a drunk woman who screamed the audience lines at the wrong times. In the worst and the best circumstances, I didn't find it entertaining. It's a cult film with good reason.

If they want to do a remake, they should cast the parts with the surviving actors, nearly 40 years older. It couldn't be any worse than a standard remake.

even the songs i don't particularly care for. i guess they're ok, but nothing near good enough to justify the mess that surrounds them.

the only redeeming quality of this movie is susan sarandon running around in her undies.

I'll be honest, she did nothing for me, at least in this. Her face is too narrow, too harsh (?) for the character she is supposed to be playing. Now give me Susan Sarandon in Bull Durham...

WHY ARE YOU LOOKING AT HER FACE?!?!?!?

[Hermanator X]

Ive been watching breaking bad, from season 1 to 4 these past few weeks.
Gotta say, im really loving it. I cant read the proper thread, as I dont want to spoil anything, but I read from page one, and realised a fundamental error I had made.
For some unknown reason, I thought I had finished with season 2, but I was only half way through it!!
I have no idea how i managed it, (apart from being a dumbfuck) but I skipped 6 episodes. Strangely enough, season 3 still worked fine. Without any spoilers, the episode I finished with tied directly into the start of S3. I thought it was some sort of "lost" mechanic where the story had some gaps for you to fill in, which until I found out wasnt the case, I really didnt think I had missed any thing. Anyhoo, kinda weird, but really digging the show.

[minstrel]

U-571 is on right now. I've seen this movie several times, and every time, it seems better than it should be. In spite of Bon Jovi. In spite of Matthew McWhathisname. It's actually good, even though it has that cliche submarine movie scene in which they have to go TOO DEEP, and everybody is whispering "two hundred meters ... two hundred ten meters ..." as they all sweat at each other for an hour or so. So dramatic.

But it's cool, anyway, and I kinda like it.

[Hermanator X]

U-571 is on right now. I've seen this movie several times, and every time, it seems better than it should be. In spite of Bon Jovi. In spite of Matthew McWhathisname. It's actually good, even though it has that cliche submarine movie scene in which they have to go TOO DEEP, and everybody is whispering "two hundred meters ... two hundred ten meters ..." as they all sweat at each other for an hour or so. So dramatic.

But it's cool, anyway, and I kinda like it.

I know that this one crops up a lot in regards to discussion of historical accuracy, but im very suspicious of anyone that takes anything that hollywood churns out as an "educational" piece. These days you even need to take a fair swathe of documentaries with a pinch of salt, so to me any feature film is a guide in the roughest sense of the word to the story they portray.
However, I havent seen U571, but I do strangely remember the poster on a a certain bus stop in newcastle I had to go by whenever I went to study.

[minstrel]

U-571 is on right now. I've seen this movie several times, and every time, it seems better than it should be. In spite of Bon Jovi. In spite of Matthew McWhathisname. It's actually good, even though it has that cliche submarine movie scene in which they have to go TOO DEEP, and everybody is whispering "two hundred meters ... two hundred ten meters ..." as they all sweat at each other for an hour or so. So dramatic.

But it's cool, anyway, and I kinda like it.

I know that this one crops up a lot in regards to discussion of historical accuracy, but im very suspicious of anyone that takes anything that hollywood churns out as an "educational" piece. These days you even need to take a fair swathe of documentaries with a pinch of salt, so to me any feature film is a guide in the roughest sense of the word to the story they portray.
However, I havent seen U571, but I do strangely remember the poster on a a certain bus stop in newcastle I had to go by whenever I went to study.

I can't vouch for its historical accuracy. I'm pretty sure it's laughable in that department. I think the British submariners did far more to recover the Enigma machines and so on than the Americans did, but, hey, this is one of those American movies that glorifies Americans. But there you go - whoever makes the movies puffs out their chest, justifiably or not.

[Hermanator X]

U-571 is on right now. I've seen this movie several times, and every time, it seems better than it should be. In spite of Bon Jovi. In spite of Matthew McWhathisname. It's actually good, even though it has that cliche submarine movie scene in which they have to go TOO DEEP, and everybody is whispering "two hundred meters ... two hundred ten meters ..." as they all sweat at each other for an hour or so. So dramatic.

But it's cool, anyway, and I kinda like it.

I know that this one crops up a lot in regards to discussion of historical accuracy, but im very suspicious of anyone that takes anything that hollywood churns out as an "educational" piece. These days you even need to take a fair swathe of documentaries with a pinch of salt, so to me any feature film is a guide in the roughest sense of the word to the story they portray.
However, I havent seen U571, but I do strangely remember the poster on a a certain bus stop in newcastle I had to go by whenever I went to study.

I can't vouch for its historical accuracy. I'm pretty sure it's laughable in that department. I think the British submariners did far more to recover the Enigma machines and so on than the Americans did, but, hey, this is one of those American movies that glorifies Americans. But there you go - whoever makes the movies puffs out their chest, justifiably or not.

Yeah, I totally agree. I just find it funny that people get so put out about such things, as if movies are going to change the historical record. Maybe its naivety on my part, but I think most reasonable people can separate the fact from the art. The inclusion of Jon Bon Bon Jovi is probably a reason to check it out with the missus.

[The Vicar]

Regarding that particular sub, U-571, it is total fiction.

[Hermanator X]

Regarding that particular sub, U-571, it is total fiction.

Next you will be saying the Oirish didnt stick there erses in the air for archery target practice as portrayed in the movie braveheart!!! Down that road madness lies!

[Spandau Belly]

As far as I know (according to IMDB), the director of U571 did ultimately go on British television and apologize for stealing a British achievement and making it American. I don't even think the Americans were in the war when the Enigma machine was stolen.

I don't expect historical accuracy from a film, but U571 was a shit film even if it had been true. Once they stole the German submarine and then all scream in frustration and surprise that the controls were all in German, I think I almost started rooting for the Nazis. The acting was pretty shitty across the board, so Jon Bon Jovi didn't really stand out. I liked the inclusion of a sassy black dude who talked like it was the 70s though.

So in my opinion, that movie really only has PEARL HARBOR to make it look good.

The more American WW2 movies I think about, the more I appreciate the genius of INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS. Quinty just got what Americans want from a WW2 and didn't bother dressing it up like a history lesson or a phoney sermon against war like these other pussy filmmakers do.

[The Vicar]

Regarding that particular sub, U-571, it is total fiction.

Next you will be saying the Oirish didnt stick there erses in the air for archery target practice as portrayed in the movie braveheart!!! Down that road madness lies!

Too late. Already there....

[Ribbons]

Regarding that particular sub, U-571, it is total fiction.

Next you will be saying the Oirish didnt stick there erses in the air for archery target practice as portrayed in the movie braveheart!!! Down that road madness lies!

I think most of the controversy around this film had to do with the change of nationality from Britain (or Poland), which probably felt like a slap in the face to the rest of the world. "Yeah the first Enigma machines were bravely and successfully stolen before America even joined the war, but we're awesome so fuck you guys!" I know it's got more to do with the fact that Hollywood thinks Americans don't like to watch movies starring people who talk weird, but countries (understandably) take that shit seriously.

[Spandau Belly]

THE NEVERENDING STORY

Over in the Oleg Movie Club we are watching fantasy movies this round, so it motivated me to finally see or revisit several other high profile fantasy movies. I know I had seen this film and possibly its sequel when I was a kid, but all I remembered was the flying dog dragon creature. This film is deals with the same themes as THE ADVENTURES OF BARON MUNSCHAUSEN such as the power and importance of imagination; and this film is also very meta, especially the part where they explain the title. But the tone is not like MUNSCHAUSEN at all. Wolfgang Petersen is the director and he calls in lots of his buddies from Germany to do everything else in the credits, so it's not a surprise that the movie has a bit more of a classic German fairytale feel but with a bit more questyness to make it more appealing to modern film audiences.

I found the meta stuff involving the boy interacting with the story he's reading all worked fine. It never felt like a cheap gimmick or undermined any sense of danger or consequence in the film. All and all the movie is pretty tight. The only things holding it back are the budget and technical limitations of the time. The puppets are all good, and so are the sets. It's just certain transitions that would've been smoother with today's effects. The effects used to create The Nothingness that is destroying the world always feel disconnected from what's going on with the characters. The fantasy world also feels really underpopulated, probably because every character would require expensive puppet-making or makeup. The hero goes all over the place traversing every type of landscape but rarely bumps into anybody. Really, if this Empress rules over more than 50 subjects I would be surprised. These limitations from the effects of the time aren't really problems, just little things I noticed here and there, and this is definately a good movie. I liked this film, and I'm glad I watched it.

[DerLanghaarige]

Wolfgang Petersen is the director and he calls in lots of his buddies from Germany to do everything else in the credits,

Well, in fact it's a German movie, made with German money, shot in German studios and made with a German crew, but in English and with international actors, to get all the money easier back on the international market. [/late answer]

[The Vicar]

Wolfgang Petersen is the director and he calls in lots of his buddies from Germany to do everything else in the credits,

Well, in fact it's a German movie, made with German money, shot in German studios and made with a German crew, but in English and with international actors, to get all the money easier back on the international market. [/late answer]

Final score
Germans 4, English 1

[DerLanghaarige]

So I spent the last four days (mostly re-)watching the HARRY POTTER movies. I hadn't seen the final two, but here is a quick overview of my thoughts.

1.) Philosopher's Stone

Got no idea why this gets so much hate. Okay, it lacks lots of the magic of the book and while Chris Columbus is a competent director, he is far away from being innovative, so the movie is a little bit on the run-of-the-mill side. Also the kids are a little bit wooden, the FX are downright shitty and look only slightly better than an episode of XENA, but come on, it's a very entertaining movie and most of all fun to watch! So why da hate, bitches?

2.) Chamber Of Secrets

Everybody feels a little bit more comfortable here. The kids come across more natural, the FX are much better (although the quidditch scenes still look like shit) and the script is willing to take a few more risks in terms of willingness to scare the shit not just out of the kids in the audience, but also out of their parents. (Fucking Aragog and his kids, man.)Looking back, I really would have been okay with Columbus staying in the director's chair, but I respect his decision to leave.

3.) Prisoner Of Azkaban

You can say that this movie has "ruined" the series, by taking a less fairy tale-ish and more contemporary teenie approach to the material. And don't forget that this is the moment in the movie series, when the magic slowly disappeared. It's the last time we see any ghosts for a while and even here it's mostly some nameless alibi ghosts instead of Sir Nicolas.This been said, it's more mature approach works very well, especially because Cuaron didn't forget the fun.

4.) Goblet Of Fire

It's a very competent movie. Mike Newell somehow found a middle way between Columbus's and Cuaron's version of the story. The only thing that really takes the enjoyment of the movie down a notch, is that by now I just don't see a reason, why we should waste so much time on a silly magic tournament, instead of something like an exciting investigation or some shit like that. Sure, it all leads to a great finale, but when the credits start to roll, the movie feels like a wasted opportunity. But an entertaining one.

5.) Order Of The Phoenix

I remember that I didn't like it the first time around, but on 2nd viewing it's one of the better movies of the series. A nice mix between child friendly fun and PG darkness. And David Yates proves himself to be a worthy choice for the director's chair...for now!

6.) Half-Blood Prince

Ugh, I hated the movie the first time and hated it even more the 2nd time. A two hour long snorefest. Stunningly photographed, but neither the comedy moments (love potion) or the dramatic ones work. Okay, I liked the bathroom duel, but the whole movie is so bleak and boring and doesn't make any sense at all. What's so special about Snape being the half-blood prince? I haven't read the book. Is there more behind it, except that he had the habit to write stuff into his books when he was a kid?

7.) Deathly Hallows

The first half was seriously good. I never expected to see a highway chase in a POTTER movie! But as soon as the trio landed in the woods, it all fell apart. After they left out so many stuff from the books, they now insisted on showing us a full hour of Harry, Ron and Hermi on an involuntary camping trip? Really? They could have just trimmed the whole camping section down to something like 15 minutes and put the one hour that was left on the beginning of the next movie.

8.) Cashgrab Of The Warners

I would call it a worthy finale, with some awesome action scenes, some really surprising story twists and a satisfying conclusion for many characters. (Technically it was Neville, who defeated Voldemort.) Plus: Herminone in Belatrix's dress. I don't get the Oscar buzz for Rickman, though. Yeah, he was great. He always is, but nobody deserves an Oscar for 10 minutes of screen time, IMO.

So all in all it is a very good series. It could have been a great one, if there weren't 1 1/2 completely awful movies within and the rushed production shedule would have been less obvious. I get that you can't have a 3 years break between each movie, when your kids actors are supposed to only age one year in each part, but man, they should have hired a bigger team of screenwriters and directors, so that they could easier coordinate the whole project and maybe work on two movies at the same time, without rushing everything.
Most of the fun came from seeing all those supporting characters return, especially the Hogwarts students. Some of those kids where extras from the very first movie and you can see them grow up. And it's interesting to see how the series evolved stylewise. They started out as sweet kids movie and ended up as a dark and brooding war story. And this change was most obvious in its visual style. Just compare the lush colors of the first movie, with the dirty, washed out style of the last few ones.
Oh well. It could have been much better, but come on, they made 8 movies in 10 years, had only one movie that was seriously bad, one that was just half bad, remained a certain level of quality most of the time and only had to re-cast one main character, because the actor died. I hope in 15-20 years they try it again and turn every book into an animated mini series with each 3-4 parts, but what we have until then is seriously good.

[caruso_stalker217]

So I spent the last four days (mostly re-)watching the HARRY POTTER movies. I hadn't seen the final two, but here is a quick overview of my thoughts.

1.) Philosopher's Stone

Got no idea why this gets so much hate. Okay, it lacks lots of the magic of the book and while Chris Columbus is a competent director, he is far away from being innovative, so the movie is a little bit on the run-of-the-mill side. Also the kids are a little bit wooden, the FX are downright shitty and look only slightly better than an episode of XENA, but come on, it's a very entertaining movie and most of all fun to watch! So why da hate, bitches?

2.) Chamber Of Secrets

Everybody feels a little bit more comfortable here. The kids come across more natural, the FX are much better (although the quidditch scenes still look like shit) and the script is willing to take a few more risks in terms of willingness to scare the shit not just out of the kids in the audience, but also out of their parents. (Fucking Aragog and his kids, man.)Looking back, I really would have been okay with Columbus staying in the director's chair, but I respect his decision to leave.

3.) Prisoner Of Azkaban

You can say that this movie has "ruined" the series, by taking a less fairy tale-ish and more contemporary teenie approach to the material. And don't forget that this is the moment in the movie series, when the magic slowly disappeared. It's the last time we see any ghosts for a while and even here it's mostly some nameless alibi ghosts instead of Sir Nicolas.This been said, it's more mature approach works very well, especially because Cuaron didn't forget the fun.

4.) Goblet Of Fire

It's a very competent movie. Mike Newell somehow found a middle way between Columbus's and Cuaron's version of the story. The only thing that really takes the enjoyment of the movie down a notch, is that by now I just don't see a reason, why we should waste so much time on a silly magic tournament, instead of something like an exciting investigation or some shit like that. Sure, it all leads to a great finale, but when the credits start to roll, the movie feels like a wasted opportunity. But an entertaining one.

5.) Order Of The Phoenix

I remember that I didn't like it the first time around, but on 2nd viewing it's one of the better movies of the series. A nice mix between child friendly fun and PG darkness. And David Yates proves himself to be a worthy choice for the director's chair...for now!

6.) Half-Blood Prince

Ugh, I hated the movie the first time and hated it even more the 2nd time. A two hour long snorefest. Stunningly photographed, but neither the comedy moments (love potion) or the dramatic ones work. Okay, I liked the bathroom duel, but the whole movie is so bleak and boring and doesn't make any sense at all. What's so special about Snape being the half-blood prince? I haven't read the book. Is there more behind it, except that he had the habit to write stuff into his books when he was a kid?

7.) Deathly Hallows

The first half was seriously good. I never expected to see a highway chase in a POTTER movie! But as soon as the trio landed in the woods, it all fell apart. After they left out so many stuff from the books, they now insisted on showing us a full hour of Harry, Ron and Hermi on an involuntary camping trip? Really? They could have just trimmed the whole camping section down to something like 15 minutes and put the one hour that was left on the beginning of the next movie.

8.) Cashgrab Of The Warners

I would call it a worthy finale, with some awesome action scenes, some really surprising story twists and a satisfying conclusion for many characters. (Technically it was Neville, who defeated Voldemort.) Plus: Herminone in Belatrix's dress. I don't get the Oscar buzz for Rickman, though. Yeah, he was great. He always is, but nobody deserves an Oscar for 10 minutes of screen time, IMO.

So all in all it is a very good series. It could have been a great one, if there weren't 1 1/2 completely awful movies within and the rushed production shedule would have been less obvious. I get that you can't have a 3 years break between each movie, when your kids actors are supposed to only age one year in each part, but man, they should have hired a bigger team of screenwriters and directors, so that they could easier coordinate the whole project and maybe work on two movies at the same time, without rushing everything.
Most of the fun came from seeing all those supporting characters return, especially the Hogwarts students. Some of those kids where extras from the very first movie and you can see them grow up. And it's interesting to see how the series evolved stylewise. They started out as sweet kids movie and ended up as a dark and brooding war story. And this change was most obvious in its visual style. Just compare the lush colors of the first movie, with the dirty, washed out style of the last few ones.
Oh well. It could have been much better, but come on, they made 8 movies in 10 years, had only one movie that was seriously bad, one that was just half bad, remained a certain level of quality most of the time and only had to re-cast one main character, because the actor died. I hope in 15-20 years they try it again and turn every book into an animated mini series with each 3-4 parts, but what we have until then is seriously good.

I bowed out after AZKABAN which I thought pretty much fucked up all the really good shit in the book. And I don't think I read the last two books because who needs this shit anyway.

[Bloo]

I loved Azkaban and I will argue that it is in fact the most magical of all the movies

[caruso_stalker217]

They straight dropped the ball when Harry confronts the Commish. That should've been an intense scene of power and violence(!) but was somehow upstaged by a werewolf with an eating disorder.