Wild Hogs isn't for everyone, just for those who like lighthearted comedy with a whole lot of cliche quotes from old biker movies.

The crowd seemed to get the jokes. Soundtrack is only okay, and the plot is really, really, very-very bad. I liked it.

There are some good shots of bikers going along the highway. When the Del Fuegos (real biker club) comes by, it's authentic. I don't care for riding in a bunch like that, but you have to admire the skill it takes to keep a passle of hogs tracking along side-by-side.

We went to see it in the movie house on a lark. It would be good on DVD too, as there really isn't anything going on that's not right up front.

Slapstick entertainment with a few good lines, and of course Harleys rumbling about.

The Lives Of Others
Germany

WINNER: FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM 2007 This is truly one of the most outstanding foreign films I've ever seen . I thought that nothing could top "Sophie Scholl - The Final Days ", but this film is even better!
The place is East Berlin and the year is 1984, and the movie begins with a simple surveillance assignment. This movie definitely qualifies as suspenseful and thrilling, but it relies more upon character development than any high action or car chases. I don't want to give the plot away, but I GUARANTEE YOU WILL ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT!

300


If you are looking for a historical documentary... This is not the film for you.
If you do not like the graphic sight of hand to hand battle scenes... This is not the film for you.
If you are easily offended... This is not the film for you.

Now that I got that out of the way..

I loved this movie!! It was an almost perfect adaptation of Frank Miller's graphic novel.

Sure. Sure. Call me the typical aggressive violence loving man ,but it was much more than that. It was about men standing for something they believe in. Fighting to protect the ones they loved and the place they called home.

It's quite funny how many 'political' reviews there have been regarding this film. I know of a few liberals(people I know) who talked this movie up before it came out, and now they hate it..

This movie is packed full of great one liners as well.

Like my cousin told me after seeing it... If you aren't a wuss, you will love this movie.

I saw The Departed last night.
There have been movies in the past the have won the best picture of the year and I think how the heck did that win.
This was a movie that was longer than I thought but it was an excellent movie.
As for the Best Picture of the year?
ummmm yes very good but I have to watch some others that were up for the awards and see if I think this was the best.

I saw this the other night, what an excellent movie!. Another great film by Scorsese.

I agree. I loved this movie, but maybe its because I really love Leonardo DiCapri. I thought he did an excellent job in the movie. However, the ending left me a little cold. Like, why didnt we ever find out what was in the envelope?! It drives me insane just thinking about it.

Sleeper posted what was been the typical defense of 300/. I've already run this argument passed my friends and they say the same thing.

Well, its guy movie.

You will be hard pressed to find a person harder to truly offend than me.

I'm contentious yes but violent even downright obscene movies rarely get so much as a blink. I sat through the Passion unrepulsed, thought Apocalypto was just plain tame and didn't see what the fuss was all about.

...and for those of you who've seen Battle Royale a film that many mistakenly believe has been banned in the US...that's likely just Looms or Titus though if anyone has had the pleasure well can I get a witness?

So talking to me about the squeamish gets you nowhere.

The problem was not just the violence, it was its lack of depth or meaning.

300 is decent eye candy, but it offends because it insults the intelligence, I mean am I really supposed to identify with these sorely underdeveloped caricatures (for it does us a disservice to call the characters) who defend a "civilization" which engages in infanticide, killing wounded enemy soldiers en masse and executing envoys just for fun.

It is hard to explain the extend to which Sparta as depicted lacked redeeming qualities, it was so bad they had to completely do away with any historical merit in the treatment of the Persians.

Its literally like they took the Orcs and Goblins of middle earth, and tried to paint them into ancient Greece... it didn't work.

Here's a rule going into the film, white, perfect teeth, chiseled physique, loin-cloth, dumb as a stump?

Good Guy.

Anyone of the following: non-white, ugly, thoughtful, or fully clothed...

Bad Guy

You won't go far wrong...

Its entertaining under all this baggage, yeah.

But only just. I sat through that movie saying to myself... if only I were inebriated... this would be so cool.

After reading the thread I am less interested in 300 which will surely be brought by the Netflix fairy at some time.

recent arrivals from said fairy include Babel.

I thought it was Crash gone wrong. Reasonably thoughtful but not worth sitting through as entertainment and not as art either.

The best part about it was seeing characters not from the United States in more complex roles.


In the mailbox today included

Casino Royale, the Departed, and the Holiday.

The first I am much more interested in after reading this thread.
the Departed I am not much more interested in than before. I have lost much interest in the genre but continue to wait for the next Godfather or at least Usual Suspects.

The Holiday is only recently something I have heard about and now I really want to see it.

And your's is the typical drivel about how this movie is just "eye candy" and macho gore flick.

I never try and tell somebody to go see or don't see a movie, I just say whether I liked it or not.

Read this close and slow... This movie is based off a c-o-m-i-c book written by Frank Miller. It was not supposed to be a historical representation.

I enjoyed this movie not only for the eye candy, but for the message how men should be strong in the face of insurmountable odds and never back down. Sadly this is a quality I see many men in our society losing.

Saw the Departed last week. Waste of time.

Saw 300 this week. It was okay but lacked the punch of Sin City.

Speaking as a comic book reader since the age of twelve and having 15000 of the darn things I'd say the adaption was more along the line of James O'barr (The Crow) except it simply didn't have the emotion behind it.

This movie reminded me alot of Gladiator with Sin City visuals but I kept hearing monty python musicals after see the troop go off with that dumb twin flute.

There was some pleasant eye candy but the costumes of the archers were directly out of a Daredevil/Electra vs the Hand graphic novel.

I agree it was a welcome change compared to the modern metro-sexual crap passing itself off as entertainment, but the fit and finish could have been better.

I think another 30 minutes and some focus on comradeship would have endeared the viewer to the character a little better. One of the trademarks of an Akira Kurosawa flick is the inner turmoil verses duty. That is in essence what 300 is. Forget the 101 references I could make between George and Xeres. Forget the rampant elitism only to have outcast Epialtes the hunchback betray them. What the viewer really needs is a peek into father Darius' earlier attack and the evolution of the warrior code to click with Leonadis. For historical purposes, the movie should have shown the advanced state of technological prowess by tying the triremes together. Unfortunately the movie covered the comic too closely in this regard and you need a Sam Raimi type producer (aka Spiderman) to read between the lines to adapt something that is close to the original but conscientious of the format.

In short you need a comic lover and reader that knows the ins and outs and weaknesses between the two formats to give us something entertaining while attempting to be true to form. Batman Begins is a good example of taking the formats seriously.

300 follows the likes of Spawn because excessive creator control does not guarantee a good translation between the formats.

I give this one 3 out of 5 stars.

Hot Fuzz

Saw this tonight.

Laughed lots.

It's a top notch comedy action fillum. And, it's set in the West Country, where I live - though I'd like to think I'm more Simon Pegg than Nick Frost, in outlook if not in physicality. Timothy Dalton is a much better comic villain than he was as James Bond (on which topic, I got the [i]Casino Royale[i] DVD on Monday and enjoyed it immensely, despite having already seen it twice at the cinema.)

Nuff said.

Well, except for "By the power of Greyskull!!", which works much better as an exclamation of incredulity than it ever did as an invocation of power.

I enjoyed back to back nights with excellent films. Doesn't happen much. The Holiday was as good of a date flick as you'll find. Casino Royale did the nearly impossible of seeming to live up to the trademark elements of good Bond films while advancing the genre to a much better place at the same time.

But bother am I sick of the English now

BOB"S YOUR UNCLE!

300- softcore porn for closet case Republicans. Spartans wearing leather thongs in lieu of historically accurate body armor belittling Athenians as "boy lovers" And of course we have to break the law to defend freedom because "freedom isn't free" (actual quote).
Are we positive this wasn't ghost directed by Jeff Gannon?

Yeah I thought the 'freedom isn't free' line was a bad choice. I sort of giggled at it, then I couldn't help following the line up with "no, there's a hefty ----ing fee!"

300 Was interesting visually. I'm a Frank Miller fan, and I really enjoyed Sin City, even though its violence was over the top in spots. 300 lacked depth. The characters lacked depth, the plot lacked depth, and the visuals, as fantastic as they often were, became mundane after enough repeats.

I read an interview with Frank Miller in which he explains a few things. The lack of body armor was because otherwise the characters couldn't be differentiated unless at a very close angle. He also consciously made the Spartans appear less cruel - and more democratic - than they really were. For example, in the historical Sparta, boys didn't go kill crazy wolves. They had to sneak about and kill a slave without getting caught.

Mainly - and this seems to be pertinent to Sleeper's comments, as well as a few others - the filmmakers have stated there was no attempt to be political in this movie, and no attempt to make analogies with current players or events. When asked if Bush was Leonides or Xerxes, he responded, "that's a good question!"

My problems with the film had nothing to do with politics. It just... lacked. There are some great scenes, some incredible images, but in the end it is style over substance, and that's a shame, because it could have been a really good movie.

In regards to the movie, The Departed, I agree that Leonardo DiCaprio is wonderful and so is the rest of the cast. Even Jack Nicholson is quite good in his role as a maniacal Irish ring leader. For the first hour and a half of the two and half hours, I was completely into the movie. It was making sense. The plot was plausible. But the last hour of the movie was downright absurd. It was nothing but gratuitous violence for its own sake. When the character played by Martin Sheen fell off the building, that was pretty much the turning point for me, where I was no longer able to suspend my disbelief. So, in the final analysis, I'm going to give it a B+ mainly because the acting is quite believable. The plot has some huge holes in it, however. So beware.


For any Will Farrell fans out there, I just saw Blades of Glory. It had Will Farrell, need I say more? It was hilarious and silly, just what you'd expect. There were a few sections that could have used some re-working. But overall, I loved it. I'd give it a B+. (The guy from Napoleon Dynamite is in it, as well as Amy Poeler from SNL). FUNNY!!!

I watched Children of men yesterday, and I highly recommend it. This is the first more-than-PG movie that I have watched in a long while, and I enjoyed it very much. It offered a sobering anecdote into the hypothetical scenario that mankind was dying out. Do people lose their humanity when they lose their future? It wasn’t exactly uplifting, but interesting. I recommend it…Better than the award winning Departed, in my estimation (though I did like that film as well, overall). I read one review that stated, “Children of Men is a heartbreaking, bullet-strewn valentine to what keeps us human.” I think that’s rather accurate.

My only criticism (as a mother), was the lack-of-feeding for the poor newborn infant. When the main character, a man, advised the mother to drape the infant (while it was wailing) over her shoulder and pat its back, I found myself groaning out loud. I wanted to shout, “FEED THAT BABY! Let the child suckle! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?” Obviously written and directed by a non-lactator.

Stranger Than Fiction Saw it last week, very good flick, kinda on the lines of Truman Show

Not as funny as I was led to believe (the premise could be played for pure slapstick), much more engaging. I heartily recommend it to y'all, but don't be expecting Ricky Bobby.

I have seen and enjoyed the “300”. Great graphics and effects makes this a move worth seeing in the theatre.

Just got back from Grindhouse and I loved it.
Planet Terror is a pastiche, but a really fun one. Death Proof, on the other hand is more of a meta movie. It's got elements of several exploitation genres, but doesn't really fit comfortably in any one of them. In many ways it's more about movies than anything else. Specifically more of a deconstruction of the misogyny of slasher and revenge flicks. I really liked the turn Russell's character took at the end of the movie. And just for the record that very last shot reminds me so much of the end of The Hills Have Eyes* that I can't imagine it not being intentional even though it isn't really obvious.
I loved them both, and I found the modernity of both movies to be the most interesting thing- rather than some faux museum pieces it seems to me the movies are what modern film would be like if Jaws and Star Wars never came out...
Also, I'm pretty sure now that Nicolas Cage actually is a pseudonym for Cash Flagg.

*That would be the original, not the terrible pseudo remake.

I agree. I saw Grindhouse this afternoon and was floored by how entertaining it was. The 3 hours flew by. I was expecting to enjoy Robert Rodriguez's "Planet Terror" more, particularly because I like zombie movies, but I ended up finding Tarantino's "Death Proof" to be the real highlight. Both are great in their own way. Rose McGowan's amputated leg makes for some of the funniest dialogue I've ever heard, not to mention that her gun-leg is one of the coolest things I've ever seen. I would say that "Planet Terror" mimics the look of a grindhouse film, but "Death Proof" mimics the feel of a grindhouse film.

I was actually surprised at how well these two work together. "Planet Terror" is more balls-to-the-wall action, while "Death Proof" was more dialogue-driven. It does, however, end the whole movie with one of the longest and viscerally entertaining car chases in recent memory. The subdued audience in my theater was cheering and applauding by the end credits of "Death Proof".

Overall, a very entertaining night, complete with some wicked fake trailers for movies that would probably be entertaining to see themselves. Interesting to note is how many people left after "Planet Terror" ended. I honestly think they left thinking it was over.

*I should say I found the remake of The Hills Have Eyes to be a rather excellent horror flick. Just to contrast Grendel's opinion.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Pan's Labyrinth - **** out of ****

Guillermo del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth is breathtaking filmmaking on every level. It is horrific fantasy mixed with family drama, a disturbing look into what people will do to keep themselves sane in an insane environment. This is at once both an immensely human story and a surreal fairy tale, often at the same time. I have seen this twice now, and it was even better than the second time. I'm looking forward to seeing it a third, a fourth, and a fifth time. It is one of the best movies I've ever seen.

The story involves young Ofelia (an extremely talented Ivana Baquero), torn from her home after the death of her father. Her mother has married a military commander and subsequently travels to live with him. Ofelia has no desire to follow or even acknowledge her stepfather's presence. She delves into her fantasy stories, wishing for a better time and a better place. Upon arriving at her new home, Ofelia follows an odd insect into a maze of rocks. This all occurs as the Spanish Civil War comes to an end, with the captain losing control of his facilities. His battle against a group of local rebels drives Ophelia even further into her fantasy world.

Or is it a fantasy at all? del Toro blends Ophelia's realm with the real world together, and only once does he give us a clue of what may be real and what may be fake. Even then, the viewer must question the validity of what is presented. It is left to the viewer to decide what is true. Guided by an ancient faun, Ophelia is tested to warrant her placement as the princess of this fairy tale world. Is she the reincarnated spirit of a long-since-dead princess?

"Pan's Labyrinth" earned several Oscars--best cinematography, best make-up, and best art direction--and it isn't hard to see why. This is a beautiful film to watch, with lush colors and an extremely well-presented sense of "being there". It feels like a place everyone can go visit, purely organic and authentic in every way. Even the creatures around seem to be spawned from the earth. Despite the scary nature of some scenes--particularly a chilling moment involving a forbidden feast--not once can you look away. There are images of disturbing beauty, creatures which mimic "real world" counterparts, with some unusual differences.

del Toro is a master at crafting images that haunt and delight. His previous work, from "Cronos" to "Blade 2", has always been above par, but "Pan's Labyrinth" is his masterpiece. It is from start to finish about as flawless a film as any I've seen. Along with Alfonso Cuaron (whose Children of Men has been largely ignored) and a handful of others, foreign filmmakers are setting the cinema bar very high. Do not miss this one. It is a brilliant, original, and exciting piece of work, something that rarely comes along these days.

I'm gonna have to rent Children of Men so I can see what a good movie is like because I have to get the taste of Perfect Stranger out my mouth...and mind...and body.

It's been a bad month for Oscar-winning actresses. First Hillary Swank crashed and burned in "The Reaping" and now Halle Berry follows suit in this stinker. Thank God I had a free pass to this turkey. If was worth exactly what we paid for it.

Let's face it: Halle Berry is drop-dead gorgeous and she gets to wear some nice clothes and the camera loves her, but I am begining to doubt she has any future as a actress. She's just a beautiful piece of furniture as she plays the world least likely investigative reporter living way beyond her means in a swanky crib in New York City. After being foiled in her attempt to out a Republican Senator with a weakness for male interns, she sets her sights on taking down Harrison Hill, a powerful executive of an ad agency (Bruce Willis in full smirk) who may have killed her girlfriend. She is aided in this enterprise by Giovanni Ribisi who plays his part so sleazy he'd give Christopher Walken the creeps.

This is one of those sexy thrillers without any sex or thrills. If you find people pecking away at computer keyboards hot this is the movie for you. Halle drops so many f--bombs you'll think you've walked into a Quentin Tarantino movie. Now I kinda wish I'd just seen "Grindhouse" now. The only reason this movie wasn't a made-for-TV potboiler on Lifetime is Berry and Willis wanted to make it.

The "surprise" ending of this junk will jfry your eyeballs because it's handled in such a ham-fisted manner. I won't spoil it for anyone who enjoys ludicrious plot twists but it's so contrived that you'll either laugh or say, "Oh, come on."

If Halle keeps making these tacky potboilers she's going to be asked to give back her Oscar.

Indeed. I mean cmon, it is the natural instinct. As if he was an expert to begin with. Although, I realized the incessant crying that persisted earlier in the movie (where she also didn't think to feed the baby) was probably a directorial choice, as it was the sound of the baby crying that seemed to bring out some humanity in the mobs of crazy people standing by... Also, right after she gave birth she asked the leading man, "Aren't you going to cut the cord?" How did she know that? No babies had been born in almost 20 years. I guess we are to assume that she read up on the subject or something. All in all, it was really good in terms of acting and just the overall unique concept. However, the storyline was a little bit disjointed, but still well worth seeing. Oh, and Michael Cain was fabulous, as always, playing a sort of revolutionary hippie.




I saw it, too, and felt the same way about it. It definitely was not the usual Will Ferrel comedy movie, however, it was entertaining and had a positive message. The actors were all good in their respective roles. I especially enjoyed Dustin Hoffman as the quintessential University Professor, over-thinking and over-analyzing...

This happens a lot more often than it should. Hilary Swank is a gifted actress--even in bad movies, she is generally one of the few watchable elements. I haven't seen "The Reaping", but something tells me she's probably the best part of the movie. She has won two Oscars, deservedly so, and has done great work in other films such as "Insomnia" and "The Gift". I would say that Swank sometimes picks bad movies, and I'm not entirely sure why. Maybe it was studio pressure? Or purely money-driven? Not to pardon her for "The Core", obviously.

Halle Berry, on the other hand, has had one great performance in "Monster's Ball". I think we can safely say it was the result of good direction and luck. Her performances as Storm in the "X-Men" series continued to get worse the more time she had on screen. "Swordfish", "Gothika", "Catwoman" (oh my dear God, where's a brain clot when you need one?), "B*A*P*S", "Die Another Day", and now apparently this new "Perfect Stranger" film.

She did some fine work in "Introducing Dorothy Dandridge", but again, I think it was merely a fluke.

I've seen two movies (on DVD) that have been mentioned on this thread, and I agree that they are worth seeing.

Casino Royale - I really liked the man who was cast as Bond. I felt he had the right emotional "state", if you will, to be believable as a killing machine. I thought the writing was more clever and less cliche than other bond choices. My only criticism would be the choice of high stakes card game, Texas Hold 'Em. That seemed a little primitive for the atmosphere.

Notes on a Scandal - This was an interesting film. I was quite amazed at the character that Judy Dench portrayed. It is nothing I've seen her do before, and rather proves her worth as an actress. Kate Blanchett was also very believable in her role. They sure managed to find a young-looking adult. At least I hope he's legal, or someone's in BIG trouble. I must say, there is one thing I found completely unnecessary and foolish. At the very end, when Judy Dench (as the character she was portraying) sits on that park bench and meets a lady and the lady gets a coffee mustache. You'd have to have seen the movie to understand the absurdity of that. Cmon...

I stumbled upon Tony Scott's latest Deja Vu which I had avoided seeing in the theaters. The trailers made it look downright dull. And Tony Scott's name attached did nothing to help (after Man on Fire and Domino, I feared seeing another one of his films). Luckily, "Deja Vu" is more Enemy of the State than his more overstylized crap-tastic past two releases. About fifteen minutes in, after the initial (and frighteningly authentic) explosion of a ferry, I realized that this story was not going where I thought it was.

By the end, I found myself completely involved in the story. I highly recommend checking this one out. It's entertaining and intelligent, also creating one of the more unique car chase sequences I've seen to date. Denzel Washington is good as usual, but the real highlight is Paula Patton who plays the mysterious woman. She has a great screen presence that helps us accept the underdeveloped love story (which, in my opinion, comes out of nowhere).

I would also like to point out that this film's trailer is completely misleading. This is not a supernatural fantasy action film, but a truly creative sci-fi thriller. While I wouldn't say this is brilliant, it is above part for this type of genre. The film does leave much to be desired and many questions unanswered, but I have to admit, I had a good time watching it. It also has one incredibly massive leap of logic that makes no sense even after it has been explained (involving a laser pen).

Incidentally, this idea has been explored before in fiction--Arthur C. Clarke, Orson Scott Card, and Stephen Baxter have all written about the same ideas. Clarke and Baxter even teamed up to release "The Light of Other Days", which I highly recommend.

Has Hot Fuzz been released in theaters over there yet?

I'm currently looking forward to, among others:

Spiderman 3
and 28 Weeks Later

Yes, Hot Fuzz has been released here, and a damn entertaining film it is! I laughed at a lot of things that seemed to fly over the rest of the audience's head (like the ultra-flashy editing while the cops were filling out paperwork--a style usually reserved for action sequences). I was not prepared for the amount of over-the-top gore in it, but I found it to be an added treat. The steeple murder (at the actual crumbling church) was perfect--hilarious and completely disgusting.

I think I preferred Shawn of the Dead to this one, but I think that's because I prefer zombie films as opposed to action comedies. Plus, I liked how Shawn dealt with a man who is completely dulled by his boring job only to find a meaning and purpose in his life by killing zombies. I guess you could say that spoke more to me than a man who is completely dedicated to his job, performs it above standards, and is subsequently transferred for it. Yeah, that doesn't really ring true for me.

As for the two you are looking forward to, likewise here. I wasn't a big fan of Spiderman, but the sequel was one of the best films I'd seen that year (whatever year that was). And it looks like 28 Weeks Later has ditched its former low-budget camerawork in favor of a more studio-produced look. I wonder how that will affect how it plays.

WARNING: SPIDERMAN THREE WAS THE WORST MOVIE I'VE SEEN IN TWO YEARS...

The plot SUCKED, the storyline SUCKED, Toby Maguire's crying SUCKED. The only redeeming quality of the movie was it's ridiculously amazing CGI which actually looked real, no joke. But that said, the movie was attrocious, $250 million doesn't buy you a convincing plotline nor does it protect against a corny, predictable ending.

Don't waste your money ladies and gentlemen.

CP

AGREED. Would only add that it may be up there with some of the worst movies i have seen in longer than 2 years. It was actually a decent movie up to one point...but then...one awful, terrible, horrendous point in which the rest of the movie seemed like it was written by someone else. Don't see it!

In worse news, Live Free or Die Hard (Die Hard 4) is rated Pg-13. I weep.

Well, I took my son and saw "Spider-Man 3" and while I don't think it sucked or was the worst movie I've seen in two years (Wolf Creek holds that particular dishonor), I can't give it anything higher than a C+. It was easily the least of the trilogy as third installments usually are.

My biggest problem was there were just too many "Where did THAT come from?" moments. There are some HUGE logic errors, contrived situations and nobody--but NOBODY should give Kirsten Dunst three chances at singing. And that rip-off of John Travolta in "Saturday Night Fever" was painful to watch. Did Sam Raimi think that was funny?

Third movies are usually not as good as the second. "Blade: Trinity," "Alien 3," "The Godfather 3" and both of those two "Matrix" sequels were pretty putrid. In this case, Raimi had a unlimited budget ($250 million!) and plenty of it was spent on special effects. But where's the story?

As a Marvel Comics fan I'm well-versed in my Spider-Man history, so I wasn't really disappointed by The Sandman, but Venom was never one of my favorites and his appearance felt tacked on as if Sandman and the New Goblin weren't enough of a threat.

The thing is, with all the money this movie is making and going to make, there WILL be a fourth Spider-Man movie. But now they are going to have to make me forget how lousy the third one is and remind me how great the second one was.



A PG-13 for "Live Free or Die Hard?" There goes your "yippy ki-yay, mofo."

Im with you, as I didnt think it was the worst movie ever. I left the theater feeling a little...I dunno, empty. And the more I thought about it, the more disappointed I was. However, I differ. I think the Sandman should have been left out of the movie. Like, what did he really do? Nothing. Venom on the other hand should have had a bigger presence. I think the dynamics would have been more interesting. I feel like they just packed in as many bad guys as possible, and it left the plot lacking in any depth.

Additionally, emo Peter Parker was very sad to see. Seeing all that gyrating embarrassed me. And I hope it embarrassed Toby McGuire. Wtf was he thinking?

Today I bought Children of Men because I have heard so many good things about the movie. Well I sat down and watched it and it blew me away. I have to say that the dystopia scenario is by far the most frightening thing in the world to me. Scarier than horror movies or anything...the dystopian vision delivered in this movie was horrible.

But I don't want to talk about the movie really because it was fantastic. What I want to disucss is a bonus feature on the DVD called "The Possibility of Hope" which is said as "Alfonso's Cuaron's documentary on how the revolutionary themes in Children oof Men relate to our modern-day society." Well, it is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. Never have i watched something so blatantly anti-globalization, anti-capitalist, and alarmist. The capitalist system is compared to a cocaine addict. Its as if George Orwell never set the standard for dystopia in 1984. They discuss the most extreme environmental scenarios (overpopulation, catastrophic global warming, mass migration, etc...) and economic problems (economic inequality, immigration, globalization, etc...) and blame it on democratic capitalism. I find it amazing how these people in academia (mostly European) are still considered legitimate for mainstream thought. They criticize utopianism yet idolize the very thing they criticize! Unbelievable.

I highly recommend buying Children of Men on DVD as it is an amazing movie. But renting/net flixing it should be mandatory just to see this documentary.

NOTE: You can watch it on YouTube:
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V

I completely agree. I saw Hot Fuzz several weeks ago and it was the funniest movie I've seen in a while. I can't remember being in a theatre and laughing so hard. I think that it helps to appreciate the movie more if you're a fan of actions movies and have seen a fair number of them.

I saw The Aristocrats recently, too. It's a documentary about the famous improvisational, dirty joke "The Aristocrats". The filmmakers go around interviewing comedians about the joke and many of them give their interpretations. It's hilarious.

**Disclaimer **The movie has a bunch of filth florin filth so I wouldn't recommend it for folks that don't like dirty jokes.

Has anyone seen the sequel to 28 days later, yet? I liked the first one a lot.

I throughly enjoyed Children of Men AND the thought-provoking DVD extra, "The Possibility of Hope." The film itself would easily have been a much more deserving Best Picture winner than the bloated and overrated, The Departed. "CoM" was both depressing in its bleakness, but inspirational in its message of hope.

I didn't find "The Possibility of Hope" the least bit "ridiculous," leder. I found the speakers both visionary and reasoned, not alarmist, in their warnings about the downward spiral the planet in trapped in. If you look at it not from the position of a political or economic system being gored, but from the open-minded perspective that capitalism has it's gross failures as well as its indisputable successes, then it's not so much that they were blaming capitalism as it is they are saying it has failed to lift as many boats as it claims to have. Look around the globe and you tell me YOUR reason for the inequality, poverty, misery and environmental breakdown we're enduring.

A good movie entertains you. A great movie makes you think. Children of Men is a great movie.

I'm already on record as having loved Hot Fuzz.

I've seen The Aristocrats on TV over here (not cable - plain vanilla network TV; our laws allow them to say rude things on TV provided it's late at night) and I have to say that, while it was interesting enough to watch, the actual joke at the heart of the movie just isn't very funny.

I very much sympathised with the British comics featured (Eddie Izzard & Billy Connolly) who, while they were happy to play along, were somewhat at a loss as to why their American coutnerparts derived such hilarity from this one joke.

It's all very American...

I didn't think it funny, myself. I do appreciate British humor, and I thought the two minute Monty Python link that Authormusician provided in the joke thread was eons above 'The Aristocrats'. Mr P and I sat through about 45 minutes of the movie, and then just turned it off. I don't think we laughed once. I don't remember even cracking a smile. It did remind me of middle school, though.

I just saw Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End and of the three trilogy capstones released this summer so far it is the best.

The only one with a shot at being any better is Bourne, and we have to wait for that.

Perfect this film was not, there are a few plot holes here and there, Chow Yun-Fat looks great, but his acting is wasted here. Apparently they lost a few of their comedy writers (though not whoever does the sight gags, which really steal the show). ...and Will Turner is just as bland as always (way to blemish the family name Will )
Davy Jones and his love interest slow things down a wee bit, if only they weren't so dang essential to the plot.

But everything else was great, and there was a lot of everything else.

Johnny Depp misses not one beat in this film and is as much the perfect pirate as his foil Geoffrey Rush.

So we brought them both back from the dead, did we forget this series started with zombie pirates?

The action is bigger, better, and more frequent in this go-round than the previous two installments and the effects show up films like 300 and prove that a mega-budget is no substitute for able directing. More of a compliment really.

Some critics have complained the story is too convoluted. It's not air-tight, but confusing? Hardly.

That I think depends on one's attention span and the poor critics I suspect couldn't be bothered to listen past a half-hour.

The story is just compelling enough to keep the action purposeful which is all we really need. The pirates are wonderfully piratey and all the shifting alliances are only to be expected.

It is simply a better written and more satisfying epic than Spiderman 3 and loads of fun for anyone that liked the first two.

This is apparently the Summer of Trilogies. Let's see... there's Spiderman 3, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, Shrek the Third, The Bourne Ultimatum, Ocean's Thirteen, Rush Hour 3, Resident Evil: Extinction... Any new movies this summer? Well, I guess there's Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer - that's a mere sequel.

I just got back from seeing Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. What a complete, utter waste of time. As a fan of the first two, I was highly looking forward to the third film in this series. By the climactic battle, I no longer cared. Easily one of the biggest disappointments I've had at a movie theater in a while. The first two films are playful, funny, creative. This one is painfully serious, destroys characters we've grown to like, and becomes a complete mess by the end. One of the few times I've actually felt like walking out before the end.

My official rankings of these three films:

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl - **** out of ****
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest - ***1/2 out of ****
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - *1/2 out of ****

Like I said, seriously disappointing. Not even Johnny Depp could save this mess.

I can understand that perspective. The film is decidedly more serious, but not maudlin or pretentious (except may be that opening scene which I'm sure was meant to make no political point whatsoever )

It was a good serious. I like weighty movies and I think a great way to end a lot of the fun is with something rather sad.

Course, my favorite film is Schindler's List so I'm a sucker for tragedy.

I actually like it that Disney was willing to go there after years of peddling to the unbearably-happy-ending crowd.

The movie still has some great comics moments, but like I said its mostly visual.

The award for funniest use of an undead monkey goes to...

I'm not against serious films. In fact, I prefer them. My favorite film is Seven. My top ten list is comprised of mostly serious films (Fargo is the only comedy, and even that has pitch black humor). Schindler's List is often my pick as the best film I've ever seen (although not my favorite--it's rather hard to watch). What I don't like is the complete 180 in tone in this series. The first and second films were sometimes serious, but always had a sense of humor that these things were completely ludicrous. Jack Sparrow worked because everything he did was played as if nothing was serious--except saving his own skin. In the third, it loses its sense of humor entirely, as if the screenwriters were really depressed while writing this one. It was a betrayal of the characters, especially Jack Sparrow.

I think that was my biggest problem with it--that it set these characters up and then basically rewrote them for the third film. There is no menacing villain here like Barbossa from the first or Davey Jones from the second. They are both in the third, but neither generates the sense of dread that the first two did. The dangerous Krakon is completely eliminated--its carcass washes ashore having been killed sometime between the second and third films. I just found the entire film to be completely dull, boring, and without any redeeming quality. Even Johnny Depp seemed unsure of what was going on.

There is a line in the film where one character asks, "Do you think he just makes it all up as he goes along?" I had to wonder if it was just a self-reflexive comment by the screenwriters.

Usually we discuss films we've seen or want to see in this thread, but I'd like to discuss a film I definitely do not want to see.

I know there are horror film fans here on so maybe one of them can explain to me something that I'm confused about. What is the appeal of a film like Hostel: Part II?

For those whom are unfamiliar with the movie's premise, in the original a couple of American tourists venture to Europe, get involved in what they think is going to be a sex party with supermodels and find themselves sold to sadists who torture, mutilate and kill them. Toes are cut off, eyes are gouged out, etc. etc.

Now here comes the sequel, only the guys have been replaced by three girls. The premise remains the same. They are lured in, kidnapped, tortured, mutilated and killed.

I'm not against artists following their vision even if means they create work that is violent, misogynist and racist. Hostel director Eli Roth is an up-and-comer in the genre of splatter cinema. What I am curious about is what is the entertainment value in seeing a young woman, whimpering, crying and pleading for her life as she is hung upside naked.

SPOILER WARNING. If you plan on watching Hostel Part II you may want to click away now:


Heather Matarazzo, who you might know from Welcome to the Dollhouse, The Princess Diaries or a number of other films, is hung upside down, naked, bound and gagged over a pool that slowly has candles lit around it as she screams through her gag throughout. Then a beautiful European woman comes in, disrobes, lays in the tub, and starts toying with the screaming Matarazzo with a long handled sickle. She starts to draw blood and also starts getting off on it. She eventually removes the gag so Matarazzo can beg more pathetically and then cuts her throat, bathing and luxuriating in the blood as it pores over her.


Here is a link to a photo of Matarazzo before she is killed. Though she is not exposed in the photo, it may be disturbing: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hostel_2/g...res&nopop=1

I'm trying to fathom, how anyone could find this remotely entertaining. I understand the motivation of the studio (Lionsgate) that released the film and why Matarazzo agreed to do it and Roth directed it. Money makes the world go round and people will do almost anything for it.

But they knew someone would want to see the sorry, sick spectacle of a nude woman begging for mercy and being denied it in graphic fashion. I share the sentiments of David Poland, a blogger who frequently writes about Hollywood's inner workings and some of the persons who make it run like Eli Roth.

[And not only did he think of this, but he hung an actress, however willing, upside down and naked, gagged and bound, screaming, as nothing but a piece of objectified meat as Roth's camera moves her breasts in and out of frame like some sort of sick porn tease. This is not the first time a director has done something horrible to an actress, but as the scene dragged on, I felt as though I was watching Ms. Matarazzo being raped on a spiritual level. This director did not identify with her as a human in the scene ... she is just the target for a bloody gag.

And then, like the truly sick punk he is, he made a woman do the dirty work in the scene. All said and done, the only person in the film who actually ends up sexually gratified by torture is a woman. There are others who seem to be going there. But this is the one fully executed torture/murder in the film. And just for fun, the woman gets to be naked too. (I would name the 'actress,' but I have no idea which character name is hers and I am not going to watch the scene again to find out.)

I never did respect Roth's work. Now, if he and I crossed paths, I would refuse to shake his hand. The Hot Button


Personally, I'm of the mind that watching a woman be sadistically tortured and murdered is not fun, not entertainment and not something an audience of primarily young men benefit from in any constructive way. In fact, I'd go so far to say films like Hostel II would seem to be little more than a twisted, misogynist, exploitative and utterly repulsive snuff film with professional values.

But maybe it's just that I'm too old or part of the wrong demographic audience for this type of film. My question is who is this film for and why do they want to watch it?

What do you get out of it?

I'm with you, nighttimer. I don't really see the point of Hostel-type films, including the Saw series, and me-toos like Wolf Creek etc., beyond being a proving ground for special effects technicians.

One area where I do differ is I'm not sure it's really all that much worse to depict women being tortured and murdered than men being tortured and murdered.

That said, murder is - of course - a staple of all sorts of story telling going back as early as we have records; Shakespeare's Macbeth is a story about the consequences of murder for gain; Sophocles Oedipus trilogy centres on murder and incest; etc. Indeed the slasher movie genre from which the whole Hostel-type sub-genre spun off follows much the same type of plot - pleasure seekers stray from their usual environs (is it coincidence that none of the Hostel-type films are set in the suburbs where most of their victims, and audience, come from? And most are set 'abroad', and in a generally unfamiliar culture i.e. not France, Canada, the UK, etc.), do something morally questionable (poke around on private property, cover up and accidental killing, survive a freak accident that was "supposed" to kill them, or are just sexually active outside of marriage) and get senselessly - often spectacularly - butchered by locals.

The other "of course" is that if the film industry (not just English speaking - some of the inspiration, and some of the copycats, for and of these films is coming out of Japan and Korea)

The "new" thing these distasteful torture films do is prolong the butchery to minutes and even hours.

Another "can it be coincidence" moment - have you noticed how the new resurgence of these films have mostly been released since the Iraq Invasion has lost it's initial sheen i.e. since Allied personnel have been seen to be carrying out torture?

Saw - 2004, Saw 2 - 2005, Saw 3 - 2006, Hostel - 2003; Hostel 2 - 2007 (All USA); Severance - 2006 (UK); Wolf Creek (Australia) - 2005.

Let's not forget that the release dates are usually 6-12 months after the film was made, and about 12-24 months after it was first written, so (rule of thumb) knock off a year from all of these release dates to work out what era inspired them.

And the last time time there was a glut of this sort of movie? The Texas Chain Saw Massacre - 1974; The Hills Have Eyes - 1977 (USA). Hmm. Was there an unpopular war being waged 12-24 months before 1974 & 1977, I wonder?

I'm a horror film fan, well to be more precise a slasher film fan. From Texas Chainsaw Massacre to Nightmare on Elm Street to Chucky I've enjoyed quite a few of these type of genre films, but I have to agree with you Nighttimer and Julian, there is no cinematic appeal to extended scenes of torture such as the scene described above. There is a sexual component to the bath scene which is sickening and I wouldn't want to spend any extended amount of time with either the director or the writer of this particular movie. I don't think it has anything to do with the troops in Iraq or an acceptance of rendition and torture by the American people. What I think is the case is a cinema out of ideas and relying on shock to get audience share. With the need to put something new and discussion worthy on the screen many directors are going too far, not just stretching the limits of what's acceptable, but leaping right over the lines of indecency and wallowing in excess. Watching such an onscreen depiction makes me feel a little less respect for the human race as a whole. There's no telling how much Brady Bunch I'll need to watch to restore balance.

I will see Hostel: Part II on DVD, just as I did the original. Honestly, I view those films no differently than I viewed The Passion of the Christ. I love gory, bloody films because I view them as purely technical exercises in special makeup effects. The better the effects, the more I usually enjoy them. Although there are occasional surprises, such as the remake of The Hills Have Eyes, which managed to be actually horrifying and scary while upping the gore quotient.

Depends on the film. Eli Roth is a no-talent hack, and his films lack any redeeming quality in my eyes, but such imagery can be involved in very thought provoking stories: Audition, Save the Green Planet and Calvaire all had extremely disturbing violent depictions of torture in the service of thoughtful stories, and all were intended to make audiences consider the societal causes and impact of the violence*. I think in the age of Abu Ghraib understanding the horror of torture is important**. The fact that bad art (like the films of Eli Roth) can be produced using certain images and themes is not an indictment of the use of those images and themes.
George Romero's films, which were their era's equivalent to what you are talking about, definitely played a part in developing my social conscience.

*Audition and Calvaire explicitly critique the misogyny you mention.

**I wonder how many of the people (not referring to posters here) who decry movies like Hostel voted in favor of the current US administration after Abu Ghraib...

I appreciate the responses of Julian, FargoUT, Macura and Grendel72 and your comments in helping me understand the genre of horror that a film like Hostel Part II is tapping into. As I said, I'm not in favor of censorship and anyone who wants to see the film should be able to. But honestly, I don't understand how dropping the "F-word" gets a film a "R" rating but the graphic torture and murder of a woman doesn't get a "NC-17."

I have seen Takashi Miike's "Audiiton" and the torture scene in that film is tough to watch. Miike's film is a bit more ambitious than Eli Roth's splatter fest, though equally graphic. I guess for some people there's no real difference between the two, but Roth just seems to interested in exploiting his actors, not explaining their motivations.

Roth says his film has some political overtones to Abu Gharib, but that sounds like movie publicity hype to me.

Waitress - **** out of **** (4 stars)

Waitress marks a significant high-point for its creator, actress-turned-director Adrienne Shelly. A whimsical, charming and sometimes darkly funny portrayal of a woman coming in to her own, Waitress comes with an upsetting backstory. This was Adrienne Shelly's last film. During post-production, just before the debut of the film at Sundance, Shelly was murdered in her Manhattan apartment after a dispute with a neighbor. I saw Waitress without knowing about this tragedy--I found out only afterwards while searching out the director's other works. I'm not sure how the news would have affected my experience had I known before seeing the film, but it has dampened the smile left on my face by this small gem of a movie.

Waitress stars Keri Russell, a sadly underused actress best known for her work in TV's Felicity. Russell plays Jenna, the titular waitress working in a cafe known for its pies. A gift with sweets, she creates many of them herself. A family tradition of giving odd names to these pies makes for some very funny asides throughout the film. She lives with her emotionally-abusive husband Earl (Jeremy Sisto), works with supportive co-workers Becky and Dawn (Cheryl Hines and Adrienne Shelly), and finds comfort with her new OBGYN Dr. Pomatter (Nathan Fillion). Learning of an unwanted pregnancy, she informs Dr. Pomatter that she will have this baby, but she won't love it.

While the story rarely goes anywhere unexpected, it achieves its greatness through its heart and soul, which exudes from every frame. Much like a painting, the strength of Waitress is found in its details. A letter to Jenna's unborn child turns into a lengthy and brutally honest confessional. Encounters with Joe, the elderly owner of the cafe (Andy Griffith, in a great supporting role), begin like a cliche only to transform into a father-daughter relationship. A beguiling smile to the tune of Cake's "Short Skirt/Long Jacket" is contageously charming.

Shelly's dialog is sharp, witty and intelligent. Its predictability aside, the story maneuvers to its inevitable ending without missing a step. Dawn finds unwanted advances from an elfish romantic. Becky has a secret she isn't willing to tell ... just yet. The budding romance between Jenna and Dr. Pomatter is quick and passionate, although both seem to acknowledge the futility of their affairs. Writer Shelly even finds new comic material to drive a birthing scene, something played out in a countless number of films. When Jenna says, "Give her to me," her emotional detachment seems at a breaking point.

Keri Russell has appeared in small roles, including a memorable turn in the latest Mission Impossible. Here she finds a leading role which provides both comedy and drama in ample doses, and Russell carries the film on her own. While supported by the rest of the cast, it is Russell who ultimately makes it all work as cohesively and believably as it does. Cheryl Hines and Adrienne Shelly both provide memorable turns as co-waitresses (Shelly's real-life murder makes her appearance all the more heartbreaking). Nathan Fillion brings his comic charm to make the romantic affair authentic. Jeremy Sisto has the unenviable job of playing the villain, and while good, his character is underwritten and marks the only real flaw with the film. Last but not least, Andy Griffith turns in a great performance in what may have been an otherwise thankless role.

While Waitress may not receive any recognition when the year-end awards are announced, it is a charming and effusive dramedy, driven in large part by an excellent cast and good writing. Adrienne Shelly's direction contributes to the overall feeling of warmth permeating the film. As the closing credits began, I couldn't help but smile at the sheer pleasure and happiness of Shelly's final film (her 3-year-old daughter makes a guest appearance as Jenna's daughter). The tragic end of Shelly's life adds a bittersweet quality, and one which is hard to get past. While actors have passed on before their work is displayed, Shelly's story is particularly heart-wrenching due to the way in which she died. I honestly don't know if I'd have enjoyed it the same knowing of her real-life murder. However, that said, Waitress joins such effervescent comedies such as Amelie, and easily stands as one of the year's best films.

After what seemed like an eternity I finally found Half Nelson at my local Blockbuster and true to the hype it was the kind of genuinely good film experience that no modern Best Picture winner can match.

In the best independent film talent conquers all as you are faced with actors who don't act. They are their characters

I couldn't imagine them being anyone else.

Half Nelson is a departure from the escapism of cinema and instead a picture into one's own world. It is disarmingly familiar.

At the same time its an original concept that's innovative in its execution.

Plus Plus good film.

Edited to Add a link since some may have no idea what I'm talking about:
IMDB Link

Just saw Shooter -


A very good action flick!