Movie review thread...
-
<p>Beyond the Edge - worth a watch. If you have already seen the numerous docos based on the footage taken during the expedition when Hillary and Tenzing 'knocked the bastard off' then you'll find a lot of it appearing again. What they have done, though is added new footage (some of it stunning) of the mountain and re-enacted the stages of the climb above the South Col (which hadn't been filmed). The editing is very good and the actors shot's taken on Mount Cook blend seamlessly into footage taken up Everest itself.</p>
<p>It is a kiwi-centric view and although rightly lauding the work and tenacity of Hillary and Lowe they did seem to downplay some of the poms efforts. I'm OK with that as the original docos were the opposite.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As an aside I saw this in 3D hoping for some eye popping scenic shots. Sorry, but I just don't get this fascination with '3D'. It's not 3 dimensional at all, just quite obvious layers of 2D. It's like looking through a kid's viewfinder. I found it gimmicky and offputting.</p> -
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.criterion.com/films/28024-thief'>http://www.criterion.com/films/28024-thief</a><br><br><img src="http://i.imgur.com/RrJrgi2.jpg" alt="RrJrgi2.jpg"></p>
<p> </p>
<p>SOON</p> -
This is the end - and it very nearly was after 1 hour 45 or so....granted there were a few laughs' but basically it was a bunch of mates filming a party and then imagining what would happen if the apocalypse came, oh and they were obviously high when writing the story...M4L will hate it, didn't see nearly enough of Emma Watson....
-
<p>I watched the documentary Blackfish yesterday. It is about the plight of Orcas in captivity, and focuses in particular on SeaWorld and Tilicum, the male that has been involved in the killing of three people. Very much worth a watch.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2545118/'>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2545118/</a></p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfish_(film)'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfish_(film)</a></p> -
<p>The Purge - set in the US in about 10 years, with almost no unemployment or crime; with the exception of an annual 'Purge' where for 12 hours, anything goes, even murder. I liked it, a bit of tension, ok story and acting (lead by Ethan Hawke and Lena Headley, also thought Rhys Wakefield was pretty goor as the 'Polite leader') but best of all, it didnt overstay it's welcome at only 1.26 hours!</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="390358" data-time="1379024154">
<div>
<p>Jeez The Rock has been bloody busy recently!!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Pain & Gain - WTF! Not sure how close this was to the actual story, but can only assume it cant be too far off as you couldnt make that sh!t up! SOme of it was seriously stupid, it was funny!!</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Just watched this last night and it was a seriously good black comedy - I nearly fell off my chair when I read that Michael Bay directed it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Marky Mark was touching on his The Departed level of acting and The Rock was hilarious as well ... he's one wrestler who can actually act.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I read a bit about the actual story and obviously it's not that funny in real life but they seemed to have got the idiocy of the guys right.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Only issue I had with it was the length TBH, it could have been 20 minutes shorter.</p> -
<p>Saw captain Phillips last night, apart from Greengrass' get the drunkest barfly to hold the camera technique he seems to love it was up to his usual high standards, if you've seen the doco that came out a few years ago it deviates a bit from that but it's not argoesque in its deviation from the facts.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="400802" data-time="1383442260"><p>Just watched this last night and it was a seriously good black comedy - I nearly fell off my chair when I read that Michael Bay directed it.<br>
<br>
Marky Mark was touching on his The Departed level of acting and The Rock was hilarious as well ... he's one wrestler who can actually act.<br>
<br>
I read a bit about the actual story and obviously it's not that funny in real life but they seemed to have got the idiocy of the guys right.<br>
<br>
Only issue I had with it was the length TBH, it could have been 20 minutes shorter.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Yeah a lot of films these days seem to be over 2 hours, and many, needlessly -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="400805" data-time="1383443840">
<div>
<p>Yeah a lot of films these days seem to be over 2 hours, and many, needlessly</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I often make a decision on what to watch by running time - there a few movies I want to see but the 2 hours plus running time puts me off.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Watched Before Midnight last night, the third in the "Before" trilogy after Sunrise and Sunset. They played around with the formula a bit which was ok.</p>
<p>However they made the [spoiler] Julie Delpy character way too unlikeable, they made Ethan Hawke's unlikeable in parts too, but she was much worse ... I found that it took away from my enjoyment of it as a film too much. [/spoiler]</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Worth a watch if you like the original, may be a bit too chick flicky for some of you 80s action movies lovers around here ... but it does have boobies, although I'm not going to go back a few pages and figure out what bloody boobies rating they should be ....</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="400914" data-time="1383527906">
<div>
<p> </p>
<p>Watched Before Midnight last night, the third in the "Before" trilogy after Sunrise and Sunset. They played around with the formula a bit which was ok.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I watched the first film ages ago and really enjoyed it. Sort of half watched the second one but never finished it. Is it worth me going back and watching 2 and 3?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="canefan" data-cid="400953" data-time="1383549781">
<div>
<p>I watched the first film ages ago and really enjoyed it. Sort of half watched the second one but never finished it. Is it worth me going back and watching 2 and 3?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The first is by far the best but they're all watchable - but if you couldn't make it through the second then you probably wont make it through the third.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Watched <em>Side Effects</em> tonight (I'm on a movie watching binge at the moment) the final 'feature'* film from Sodenbergh. It was a decent thriller. I'm a big fan of Sodenbergh so am disappointed to watch his last film.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>*<em>Behind the Candelabra</em> was a HBO movie so not considered feature to be extremely pedantic.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="400963" data-time="1383554240">
<div>
<p>*<em>Behind the Candelabra</em> was a HBO movie so not considered feature to be extremely pedantic.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Hmmm, so what do pedantics make of <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067023/'>Duel</a>...? Is it Spielberg's first feature film, or not?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="red terror" data-cid="401010" data-time="1383582489">
<div>
<p>Hmmm, so what do pedantics make of <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067023/'>Duel</a>...? Is it Spielberg's first feature film, or not?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>No idea, I'm just quoting what the movie mags/news say ... to further confuse it Behind the Candelabra got a cinema release around the rest of the world.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm sure there is some definition out there of what constitutes a 'feature' - TBH, I assumed you would be the one to know RT.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="401042" data-time="1383608748">
<div>
<p>No idea, I'm just quoting what the movie mags/news say ... to further confuse it Behind the Candelabra <span style="color:#ff0000;">got a cinema release around the rest of the world</span>.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Same thing happened to Duel. It was originally a Made-For-TV movie (ABC network in the USA, I think), but was released internationally on a big screen. I believe to be eligible for Academy Awards, feature films need to be projected at least once on a big screen in the U.S., but the the rules governing Best Documentaries might have some new flexibility in that requirement.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="red terror" data-cid="401064" data-time="1383620574">
<div>
<p>Same thing happened to Duel. It was originally a Made-For-TV movie (ABC network in the USA, I think), but was released internationally on a big screen. I believe to be eligible for Academy Awards, feature films need to be projected at least once on a big screen in the U.S., but the the rules governing Best Documentaries might have some new flexibility in that requirement.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>But is that only if they don't air on TV first? Because I read somewhere that Behind the Candelabra can't be eligible for the Oscars, and if it was as simple as screening it once on a big screen you would think they would to give Douglas a shot at the Oscar?</p> -
<p>I thought wikipedia might help me but it doesn't completely resolve the question. It states the agreed-upon term in relation to film-length (duration) and it being a main attraction at the top of a bill (from the old days when they used to load up all sorts of small films and cartoons, newsreels, etc., before the "feature film.") That all makes sense, but it doesn't expand upon the new definitions relating to TV. It might have to do with qualification guidelines Oscar vs. Emmy, I dunno. </p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_film'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_film</a></p> -
<p>Here's an piece from the Qualification Rules for the Academy Awards. Seems to explain what you guys are looking for...</p>
<p> </p>
<p></p><p></p><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">Rule Two: Eligibility<br>
1.Eligibility for Academy Awards consideration is subject to Rules Two and Three, and to those special rules approved by the Board of Governors that follow.<br>
2.All eligible motion pictures, unless otherwise noted (see Paragraph 9, below), must be:
<p>
a.<strong>feature length (defined as over 40 minutes),</strong><br>
b.<strong>publicly exhibited by means of 35mm or 70mm film, or in a 24- or 48-frame progressive scan Digital Cinema format with a minimum projector resolution of 2048 by 1080 pixels</strong>, source image format conforming to ST 428-1:2006 D-Cinema Distribution Master – Image Characteristics; image compression (if used) conforming to ISO/IEC 15444-1 (JPEG 2000), and image and sound file formats suitable for exhibition in commercial Digital Cinema sites. </p>
<p>The audio in a typical Digital Cinema Package (DCP) is 5.1 channels of discrete audio and that is the preferred audio configuration, although up to 7.1 channels is acceptable. The minimum for a non-mono configuration of the audio shall be three channels as Left, Center, Right (a Left/Right configuration is not acceptable in a theatrical environment).</p>
<p>The audio data shall be formatted in conformance with ST 428-2:2006 D-Cinema Distribution Master – Audio Characteristics and ST 428-3:2006 D-Cinema Distribution Master – Audio Channel Mapping and Channel Labeling.<br>
c.<strong>for paid admission in a commercial motion picture theater in Los Angeles County</strong>,<br>
d.<strong>for a qualifying run of at least seven consecutive days</strong>,<br>
e.advertised and exploited during their Los Angeles County qualifying run in print media, and<br>
f.within the Awards year deadlines specified in Rule Three.<br>
3.<strong>Films that, in any version, receive their first public exhibition or distribution in any manner other than as a theatrical motion picture release will not be eligible for Academy Awards in any category. This includes broadcast and cable television as well as home video and Internet transmission.</strong> Motion pictures released in such non-theatrical media on or after the first day of their Los Angeles County qualifying run remain eligible. Also, ten minutes or ten percent of the running time of a film, whichever is shorter, may be shown in a nontheatrical medium prior to the film’s qualifying run.</p></blockquote> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="401162" data-time="1383686600">
<div>
<p>Here's an piece from the Qualification Rules for the Academy Awards. Seems to explain what you guys are looking for...</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Cheers!</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="387009" data-time="1377486650">
<p>Olympus has Fallen; typical action film where 1 man can take on an army and win, at around 2 hours, a bit long for this genre IMO, but still, shooting, fighting, explosions, secret weapons....</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>White House Down - practically identical storyline, along with OTT action scenes with fighting, guns explosions and shit, sweet, of also similar criticism, a bit long for this genre at 2.11!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>No boobs though M4L, in fact eye candy was all but non-existant!</p>
