What was the last movie you've seen?

[dsheinem]

I've been clearing some stuff off the DVR, which always results in a mixed bag...

Role Models (2009) – This movie was a nice surprise, and even though the score below might suggest otherwise, I had quite a few chuckles and thoroughly enjoyed this by the numbers comedy. Paul Rudd is one of those people that can either completely annoy me or make me laugh, and he is always better when he plays a sleazy role like he does here. McLovin’ shines in the role of a LARPer, and the other kid is the perfect foil for Sean William Scott. Yes it is predictable and sappy, no there’s nothing especially memorable about it, but dammit I laughed at it more than I had at the last few comedies I’d watched.
Grade: 3/5

The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009) – This movie was a perfect reminder of two things. 1) It is possible to have a movie with great talent – Tony Scott, Denzel Washington, John Turturro, and James Gandolfini – and still produce a film that is much less than the sum of its parts and 2) John Travolta ruins almost every movie he is in. I am not sure why I thought this one might be different than Travolta’s other* shitty action films, but I had high hopes. And though some scenes are decently shot, Gandolfini’s mayor is interesting, and the predictable story moved briskly, overall the film just wasn’t very good. I suppose I should see the original some time – is it any better?
Grade: 2/5
*excludes Pulp Fiction and Face Off

The Unborn (2009) – I wasn’t sure what to make of this one after it was over, as there were some parts I really liked – the Jewish angle on mysticism/exorcism was new to me, there were a few well edited scenes that created a genuine scare, some of the effects/imagery were memorable, and Odette, Oldman and most of the rest of the cast are all competent in their roles (oh, and Odette Yustman is gorgeous!). That said, too much of the film felt uneven, largely due to pacing problems. In other genres these may be more easily overlooked, but a good horror film relies on good pacing, and this 90 minute movie felt like 2+ hours. The “twist” or “reveal” at the end was both obvious and unnecessary, and the film tried to do more than it really needed to at parts. Worth a look for fans of stuff like the American versions of The Ring, The Eye, or even The Grudge, but otherwise you may want to pass.
Grade: 2.5/5

Pride and Glory (2008) – I’m a sucker for a good cop drama, and this is one of the better ones I’ve seen in some time. The story has some interesting twists and turns, lots of scenes for the all-star cast to shine in, and excellent direction that looks invisible (as fits the film). I was a little less than satisfied with the very end (which seemed to leave some unanswered questions). A few scenes in particular – one involving an infant, for example – are especially gripping and tense. It’s good to see Norton in top form again (I felt some of the more recent films he’s starred in were lacking), and overall I can give this film a strong recommendation.
Grade: 4/5

Next Up: More DVR clearance...

[Pulsar_t]

The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009) – This movie was a perfect reminder of two things. 1) It is possible to have a movie with great talent – Tony Scott, Denzel Washington, John Turturro, and James Gandolfini – and still produce a film that is much less than the sum of its parts and 2) John Travolta ruins almost every movie he is in. I am not sure why I thought this one might be different than Travolta’s other* shitty action films, but I had high hopes. And though some scenes are decently shot, Gandolfini’s mayor is interesting, and the predictable story moved briskly, overall the film just wasn’t very good. I suppose I should see the original some time – is it any better?
Grade: 2/5
*excludes Pulp Fiction and Face Off

Agreed, I thought it was a weak remake. There was a big fan of the original here but it seems he hasn't posted in a while.

[Pulsar_t]

UHF — From the golden age of parody film, UHF is brimming with good old humour with a bit of social commentary thrown in for good measure.

[Pulsar_t]

YES! Finally a movies that lambasts FACKBOOK!

[Octopod]

Chasing Ghost

[wip3outguy7]

Just got back from seeing Inception. This is the reason we go to the movies.

I'm going to have some awesome dreams tonight.

[t0yrobo]

Went to see Inception for the imax opening last night. It's easily one of the better movies I've seen in theaters this year, but it feels dumbed down, and the plot elements about Dicaprios character are so similar to Shutter Island it's distracting. Technically it's escellent though, very good sound and music, and one of the coolest fight scenes I've seen.

[REPO Man]

Just got back from seeing Inception. This is the reason we go to the movies.

I'm going to have some awesome dreams tonight.

I totally wanna see this, but I'm practically broke (two days after payday, to add insult to injury) and another payday is two weeks away.

[vash23n]

Just watched Romero's Survival of the Dead. It was pretty good. I did not like Diary of the Dead so much, but this one was a step in the right direction. Watching this, I realized just how annoying Romero fan-boys are. The whole "all other zombie movies suck because they don't follow Romero's formula" argument gives me a headache. This movie, like all of his so far, redefined the zombie genre of movies. This movie's formula is not the same as Night of the Living Dead so does that mean this movie sucks? I can't tell you how many times I have heard that 28 days later is terrible because the "monsters" run - well, in this movie, they do a lot of things. One even rides a horse and at the end the zombies learn how to eat a different source of meat other than human. In Land of the Dead, they learn to unify themselves and lay siege to a city, In Day of the Dead, one learns how to use a gun. Seems to me, Romero is big on redefining a genre of movie he helped define in the first place. Seems like he is big on the zombies maintaining a part of their human selves. So a zombie is able to till a farm, deliver mail, shoot a gun... but I guess if they run the movie is a shameful contribution to the genre.

I love all zombie movies, and I can't help feeling so many people are missing good films because they are so obsessed with what Romero does. Maybe these people should start paying attention to what Romero actually does.

Also:
Saw Halloween II - the remake, that is. All I can say is eh. I did like it as a slasher flick. I was looking forward to seeing the hospital parts as Halloween II (the original) is one of my favs. I had heard that the hospital scenes only took up the first like 25 minutes. These were lies, as the hospital scenes and any homage to Halloween II were like 10 minutes and a dream sequence. As for the rest of the movie. I have heard a lot of reviews saying that the remake of the first Halloween involved 25 minutes of a typical weird nervewracking Rob Zombie movie followed by a pretty faithful adaptation of the first halloween movie. I agree with this review for the most part. Unfortunately, this remake (Halloween II) is almost 2 hours of that Rob Zombie chaos. I am a big Zombie fan, I loved 1000 Corpses and Devil's Rejects, but this movie was a bit too jumpy for me. The biggest issue I had was that I had no idea what era this movie took place in. I thought it was like the 70s and then I heard "Lady Lumps" and thought it must be in modern times. I started thinking that I was reading too much into it, however, and this was certainly meant to take place in the 70s as their is a lot of black and white television playing that "Knights in White Satin" song. Not too mention some of the fashions. Then, we are pretty much assured it is taking place in the present time with talk of Jeffrey Dahmer and the vehicles everyone seems to be driving. I am all for merging the past and present to serve as a homage to the original Halloween, but it was sort of disorienting.

I must say that I heard a lot of people were annoyed with the chick who plays Laurie Strode, but I was fairly impressed with her performance. Well, at first I found her annoying - the dirty hippy look and I don't care about anything attitude was a bit irritating. I started thinking about her situation, however, and found her reaction personality-wise to be pretty believable. More so if it had been in the 70s. I am still a bit confused about the end. I assume they mean to portray that she was the new Michael Myers and that the original is dead. It is her that has been going on the rampages and her who kills Annie and runs amok at the end. My problem with this is - does she beat the crap out of the the two rednecks and their chick in the field? Does she end up kidnapping herself at the end? Loomis (sp?) walks into the shack at the end and seems to be talking to Michael and Laurie separately. I guess this could be explained by him being a shrink who understands what is happening, but it seems like a cop out thrown in at the end to shock everyone. Also, how is she beating the crap out of him (and everyone) when she is just a regular teenage girl. Nothing against girls, but she is a youngster going up against guns and such. I am sure this is the point of the quote at the beginning saying something about dreams about white horses giving a person abnormal strength and rage. A little too much overall and I just wanted to see a quality upgraded remake of Halloween II.

[wip3outguy7]

I totally wanna see this, but I'm practically broke (two days after payday, to add insult to injury) and another payday is two weeks away.

Beg, borrow or steal to see it. And do yourself a favor, see it in the theater. I pity anyone who watches this on a laptop screen.