Films: Rate and Discuss

[JUL3]

Yeah, I threw in "that is really a comedy" specifically for the King's Speech, because there are some parts of it that make far damn funnier than many comedies I've seen. I have to respectfully disagree with you though. The Big Lebowski, virtually any Monty Python, Wayne's World, I just can't imagine having never seen these.

Oh I should have clarified, in this context, when I say 'comedy' I mean the Judd Apatow kind of movie, the 'this is hilarious because it's scenarios that wouldn't happen in real life!' formula that makes these people millions.
Monty Python is the pinnacle of comedy, it's just a shame humour of it's caliber no longer exists. Instead we get Will Ferrell shouting really loudly, great comedy.

 

[Sheepo]

I just looked up Judd Apatow because I was pretty sure I disagreed with you, but it turns out I had a pretty big misconception of who he was, as it appears he was responsible for about 90% of mainstream comedy movies in Hollywood in the last decade. I was thinking of him as the guy who did Superbad, Knocked Up, and Forgetting Sarah Marshall, pretty much exclusively. Admittedly, the first of those isn't very good, but I think what makes those movies funny is the sincere and true to life little worlds and characters they create.

 

[JUL3]

I despised Forgetting Sarah Marshall, I dunno what it was, but there was something really not right with Jason Segel. It had a few funnies, but it was rather mediocre in all other respects.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Judd Apatow's comedy would be 500% more bearable if everyone else weren't trying to emulate him.

Seth Rogen's inexplicable streak of leading roles hasn't helped him much by association, either.

 

[JUL3]

Judd Apatow's comedy would be 500% more bearable if everyone else weren't trying to emulate him.

Seth Rogen's inexplicable streak of leading roles hasn't helped him much by association, either.

Very true.

 

[Sheepo]

Um, do you think it's cool because that's the year we're in?

 

[JUL3]

>SNIP<

 

[David.Seth2]

Fido - 8/10...
Think: E.T. / Harry and the Hendersons / The Water Horse / My Dog skip... but replace the alien, bigfoot, the loch ness monster, and the dog with a ZOMBIE in the 50s/60s.
So fun, light hearted... but still damn gory, and pretty funny.

Definitely worth checking out if only for the fact that it's decent departure from your standard zombie movie fare.

I just saw this about a few weeks ago, and it is really funny. But I would compare the movie closer to shows like Leave it to Beaver and Lassie, with the kid being the Beaver and Fido being Lassie. Hell, the kids name is Timmy, and at one point of the movie his mom says "What’s that Fido? Timmy’s in trouble?". It was on Demand (Comcast), maybe its still on there.

 

[The Monkey]

The difference is, Japanese game shows' content isn't taken particularly seriously by either their audience or producers. Everyone knows it's mindless and silly, and they just roll with it whether a particular bit works or not. Whereas The Hangover tries very hard to make you buy the idea of a tiger in a bathroom... and then never lets you see the tiger... and then never addresses the tiger for the next two hours as the four meander around Vegas. Galifianakis and the overall level of dramatic acting were the only good things in the film.

The tiger is explained a while later. Also, I wasn't talking about Americans, but about a lot of my Swedish friends, who say The Hangover was different from the average American dumb comedy. I don't think it is.

 

[Lucid]

I just saw this about a few weeks ago, and it is really funny. But I would compare the movie closer to shows like Leave it to Beaver and Lassie, with the kid being the Beaver and Fido being Lassie. Hell, the kids name is Timmy, and at one point of the movie his mom says "What’s that Fido? Timmy’s in trouble?". It was on Demand (Comcast), maybe its still on there.

Hah, I actually watched it on Demand.
And yeah, you're right it definitely does feel like those old 60s shows more than anything else.

 

[Shyam]

Animal Kingdom 8/10

An Australian movie based on the real life incidents of Walsh Street police shootings and a bit on the Pettingill crime family. I thought the acting, especially by James Frecheville was good, and the actress who plays the matriarch in the movie was excellent. I have to grudgingly say I liked this movie,

itwas quite good, for an Australian movie.

 

[JUL3]

itwas quite good, for an Australian movie.

What are you implying?

 

[Sparta]

What are you implying?

Dude, I'm from Wantirna and work in the Aussie film industry. The vast majority of our films are awful because the vast majority of them are cultural dramas that everyone has seen a thousand times before. Our industry sucks and a lot of the films made in it, suck.

Edit: I should point out a few things though as to why we suck. It's not our lack of talent. We have the talent. If you look at our short films, we're doing great across the board. We have a 25 year old who recently took out the International Jury Prize for Short Filmmaking at Sundance and for the past two years, Aussie directors have taken home the Camera D'Or prize for best debut feature from Cannes. This year one of our animators is up for an Oscar for his debut short film as well, along with Jacki Weaver who is up for Best Supporting Actress and who (as much as I hate to admit it) is probably going to lose to Melissa Leo in The Fighter.

We definitely have the ability, we simply don't have the funding. Most of the funding for these projects come from government entites who follow strict guidelines about producing only a limited number of "genre" pieces over drama pieces. Because of that, we get the same old shit being turned out year after year and nothing changes until something like Animal Kingdom (a genre film) comes along and blows everyone away. Meanwhile, potentially huge intellectual properties have to go overseas to Hollywood to get the funding they deserve, and more often than not, those that get foreign funding make absolutely ridiculous amounts of money. Like Saw (which was made by two former RMIT students) or Wolf Creek.

The government simply doesnt fund anything from new filmmakers as a general rule, unless they already have almost all of the funding or are finishing their film and need a little extra to cross the line. They also seem convinced that their job should be to only make films of "cultural" value, which to them means dramas about Australian families that go nowhere. Its bullshit really. Every Australian film has cultural value.

 

[Stigmata]

The tiger is explained a while later. Also, I wasn't talking about Americans, but about a lot of my Swedish friends, who say The Hangover was different from the average American dumb comedy. I don't think it is.

Ah, well, a lot of Americans also think it's different from the average American dumb comedy

 

[Bad^Hat]

Speaking of Aussie films, I was meaning to see Tomorrow When The War Began. Any good? I barely remember the books from school but I know I enjoyed them.

 

[Yorick]

Twilight fans I know of: Very many

Twilight fans I know of who think Twilight is comparable to Shakespeare: None

I could have made my point better. Most Twilight fans that I know can't even spell Shakespeare.

Wool 100% Whatthe****/10. Pretty good movie, suitably creepy at times. Definitely a bit out there. But, you know, open to interpretation, which I always like. Surprised that so few people have seen / heard of it. It felt almost like the Japanese equivalent of a David Lynch film, though probably not quite as insane.

 

[JUL3]

Dude, I'm from Wantirna and work in the Aussie film industry. The vast majority of our films are awful because the vast majority of them are cultural dramas that everyone has seen a thousand times before. Our industry sucks and a lot of the films made in it, suck.

Edit: I should point out a few things though as to why we suck. It's not our lack of talent. We have the talent. If you look at our short films, we're doing great across the board. We have a 25 year old who recently took out the International Jury Prize for Short Filmmaking at Sundance and for the past two years, Aussie directors have taken home the Camera D'Or prize for best debut feature from Cannes. This year one of our animators is up for an Oscar for his debut short film as well, along with Jacki Weaver who is up for Best Supporting Actress and who (as much as I hate to admit it) is probably going to lose to Melissa Leo in The Fighter.

We definitely have the ability, we simply don't have the funding. Most of the funding for these projects come from government entites who follow strict guidelines about producing only a limited number of "genre" pieces over drama pieces. Because of that, we get the same old shit being turned out year after year and nothing changes until something like Animal Kingdom (a genre film) comes along and blows everyone away. Meanwhile, potentially huge intellectual properties have to go overseas to Hollywood to get the funding they deserve, and more often than not, those that get foreign funding make absolutely ridiculous amounts of money. Like Saw (which was made by two former RMIT students) or Wolf Creek.

The government simply doesnt fund anything from new filmmakers as a general rule, unless they already have almost all of the funding or are finishing their film and need a little extra to cross the line. They also seem convinced that their job should be to only make films of "cultural" value, which to them means dramas about Australian families that go nowhere. Its bullshit really. Every Australian film has cultural value.

I understand what you're saying. I mean I've found that I prefer British films over Australian. It's just a bit difficult to not get defensive when someone says "for an Australian movie". Call it national pride.
Excuse me for asking, but if you're from Wantirna is it safe to presume you attended Wantirna College? I know two teachers there, one of which is the media teacher...

Speaking of Aussie films, I was meaning to see Tomorrow When The War Began. Any good? I barely remember the books from school but I know I enjoyed them.

It's fantastic. I never read the books, but apparently the film is actually very decently similar.
Regardless though, it's a great film, definite reccomendation.

 

[Sparta]

I understand what you're saying. I mean I've found that I prefer British films over Australian. It's just a bit difficult to not get defensive when someone says "for an Australian movie". Call it national pride. Excuse me for asking, but if you're from Wantirna is it safe to presume you attended Wantirna College? I know two teachers there, one of which is the media teacher...

Yeah I figured Shyam was just being in good humour. I actually live just around the corner from Wantirna College, but I never went there. I went to Aquinas out in Ringwood.

 

[JUL3]

Yeah I figured Shyam was just being in good humour. I actually live just around the corner from Wantirna College, but I never went there. I went to Aquinas out in Ringwood.

Oh okay, even so, that's bizarre, small world. I may have looked upon your home once or twice when I've been there.

 

[Yorick]

I finally saw Slumdog Millionaire, which was quite good.

 

[Warped]

Just Go With It 8.5/10

Very funny movie I saw with my girl on Valentine's. Honestly we both were laughing throughout the movie. Adam Sandler still makes me chuckle even if half the jokes were repeats. Anyway it was painfully obvious who ends up with who during the movie but its worth a watch if you have someone special to see it with.

 

[JUL3]

House on Haunted Hill (remake) - 5/10

Kinda cool visuals, terrible acting (aside from Rush), lacking real horror (I didn't jump once, I simply thought 'Oh, that's scary') & a stupid ending. Not a very good movie.

 

[Escaep]

There Will Be Blood: whatdidijustwatch/10. It is hard for me to say whether or not this movie was good. I would watch it again but I don't know if I could sit through another 2 and a half hours.

 

[Qonfused]

I watched the first two hours of that movie and then the DVD I had glitched out. I've heard from everyone that the conclusion is an amazing sight, but I doubt I can sit through the same two hours ever again.

 

[Yorick]

I thought I was the only person who didn't like that movie.

 

[Yuri]

Yorick, your opinions are all shit.

 

[Yorick]

Oh right, carry on then.

 

[Dead Phil]

This is why i don't watch horror movies... the suck most of the time

 

[Bad^Hat]

It's definitely a laborious movie to sit through. The conclusion is great, and really caps off the sense of dread that builds through the entire thing, but I wouldn't say it makes the movie if you hadn't liked it up until that point.

Edit: It's not a horror movie. Way to judge a book by it's uhh... title?

 

[taviow]

This is why i don't watch horror movies

Oh godddd what the F*CK have you just said? I'm speechless.

 

[Lucid]

This is why i don't watch horror movies... the suck most of the time

Dude, I... what?

 

[Dead Phil]

I was talking about the "house on haunted hill"

 

[Sheepo]

Well, you should've quoted it, given what you were talking about was like five posts back. However, I'll actually side with you on this one, because I find the amount and tone of the backlash that such a slight misunderstanding caused very odd.

 

[knut]

there will be blood is amazing you bunch of ****ing scrotums.

 

[Qonfused]

Babies: ?/10

No score because I don't know how to rate something like this. It's like nothing I've seen before. It is literally an hour and a half of babies. There is no dialog. There is no script. There is no plot development. There is no story arch. It's babies. This wouldn't be anything to talk about if it wasn't for how it was put together. This documentary purely rides on the creator's ability to edit. And it's edited well. It juxtaposes scenes together and talks to you without using words. It's the ultimate fly on the wall picture. It's cute, funny, and oddly thought provoking. It showcases different cultures, different geographical areas and parenting methods. None are shown less or more than other ones: they just are.

 

[unozero]

good burger 10/10

 

[JUL3]

Salt - Angelina Jolie is f*cking ugly now/10 (7/10)

It was okay, I watch these sorts of films with such low expectations now that I'm never dissapointed, but I'm not wonderfully impressed either. Jolie's ugliness was a slap in the face though.

Spoiler

-

Disturbia - 8/10

I kinda liked it, there's something about American suburbia that I find fascinating (probably the contrast to where I live).
The only real complaint I have for this film is how in the last half hour it switches genre. That felt rather forced I felt.
But props to LaBeouf for a much better performance than we saw in Transformers.

 

[Sparta]

there will be blood is amazing you bunch of ****ing scrotums.

This. A thousand times this.

 

[Bad^Hat]

However, I'll actually side with you on this one, because I find the amount and tone of the backlash that such a slight misunderstanding caused very odd.

That's what you always say.

Salt - Angelina Jolie is f*cking ugly now/10 (7/10)

Your Buddhist Of The Year certificate is in the mail as we speak.

Seriously though, that's considered ugly? That's the first time I've seen her looking remotely human in years.

 

[Asknoone]

She is indeed an ugly woman.