The Movie/Film/DVD thread...

Hardy · Post by **Hardy** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:43 pm

J0rdz wrote:
youthful_implants wrote:Pandorum.

Film of the year for me, because I love that kind of thing. DARK!

And plus Antje Traue is HAWT covered in blood and dirt.

Saw it the other night and loved it!!
My mate recommended it saying it was a mix between Event Horizon and The Descent. Great way to sum it up imo

For real? I thought that movie was shite. Trying to be way too many things at once, and didn't do a particularly good job of any odf them.. I liked the ideas they had, but they were poorly executed. Could have done without the mutantation thing completely. It just didn't make much sense to me.

Hardy · Post by **Hardy** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:47 pm

ghetto kitty wrote:I watched Antichrist last night by Lars Von Trier.

Fucking full on.
This is not a movie for the faint hearted, and not a movie for those of you who like to escape the dark side of life...

visually AMAZING, the first sequence is a film masterpiece, but my god if it isnt DARK and brutal as fuck.
a copule scenes had me crawling up the wall away from the screen...going 'oh fuck oh fuck'
but many concepts covered, death and rebirth, the passion of sex and death, love and hatred, the power of animals, dreams...

Cant say i 'liked' it , but it really was an experience.

7 out of 10.

Sums it up pretty well. I always approach LVT's films with pessimism and expect a lot of arrogant wankery and pretentiousness (which was def present in this film) and I thought a lot of this film was trying to be shocking for the sake of shocking (which is never shocking), but on the whole I enjoyed it. Magnificently shot. CHAOS REIGNS.

Hardy · Post by **Hardy** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:35 pm

I just watched Dread, a shit adaptation of a great short story by Clive Barker.

ghetto kitty · Post by **ghetto kitty** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 12:14 pm

Hardy wrote:
ghetto kitty wrote:I watched Antichrist last night by Lars Von Trier.

Fucking full on.
This is not a movie for the faint hearted, and not a movie for those of you who like to escape the dark side of life...

visually AMAZING, the first sequence is a film masterpiece, but my god if it isnt DARK and brutal as fuck.
a copule scenes had me crawling up the wall away from the screen...going 'oh fuck oh fuck'
but many concepts covered, death and rebirth, the passion of sex and death, love and hatred, the power of animals, dreams...

Cant say i 'liked' it , but it really was an experience.

7 out of 10.
Sums it up pretty well. I always approach LVT's films with pessimism and expect a lot of arrogant wankery and pretentiousness (which was def present in this film) and I thought a lot of this film was trying to be shocking for the sake of shocking (which is never shocking), but on the whole I enjoyed it. Magnificently shot. CHAOS REIGNS.

I thought this one was a bit less wanky than some of his others, as in, there was actually a coherent storyline! egads!
The first sequence should go down in histroy, fucknig amazing. and i loved some of the nature things, like the acorns constantly attacking them etc....
now hardy, please tell me....what do you think was the point of that fox speaking CHAOS REIGNS?
i mean, we saw the animals in really gruesome moments, and it was only for the guy to see/experience (which was kind of his own madness seperate to hers imo) ...but tbh it was great until that fox opened its mouth and spoke like 'the devil'.

talking animals, i cant help it, it screams 'BABE' to me and lessened the whole point he was making with the brutal side of nature stuff...

youthful_implants · Post by **youthful_implants** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 12:57 pm

Hardy wrote:
J0rdz wrote:
youthful_implants wrote:Pandorum.

Film of the year for me, because I love that kind of thing. DARK!

And plus Antje Traue is HAWT covered in blood and dirt.

Saw it the other night and loved it!!
My mate recommended it saying it was a mix between Event Horizon and The Descent. Great way to sum it up imo
For real? I thought that movie was shite. Trying to be way too many things at once, and didn't do a particularly good job of any odf them.. I liked the ideas they had, but they were poorly executed. Could have done without the mutantation thing completely. It just didn't make much sense to me.

it wasn't 'trying' to be many things at once - it IS many things at once. I like complicated stories, with depth and guts. thought the direction was spot on.

you seen sunshine? you probably hated that as well right? its genius IMO.

the space horror genre is alive and well!

it was all perfectly explained. they were asleep for over 900 years, and the enzymes in the feeding tube supposed to geneer their evolution got out of wack when they got stuck inside the space ship.

also because I raved about it on twitter the director Christian Alvert got in touch with me and said thanks, how cool is that?

C.I.A. · Post by **C.I.A.** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:14 pm

Tried to go see The imaginarium of Dr Parnassus on Tuesday night. The boy, his bro and I had all seen it before but wanted to check it again before it was pushed aside by this Twilight madness. Sound broke in the cinema ... atleast we were compensated... I got three free movie passes.

My god it is an amazing film.

Saw 2012 and lolled through the whole thing... "The earth's crust is supercritical" type comments, John Cusac outrunning an earthquake, a tsunami and some volcanic activity. The age review was spot-on when it said that this is a big cheeseburger of a film. Nothing too substantial, but still pretty good if you want to watch some good CGI for an hour and a bit.

Hanging out for Alice in Wonderland and Where the Wild Things Are.

Yays for having some good stuff in the pipeline!

Post by **JAMESSSS** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:44 pm

SUPER-CRITICAL!

Kaiproject · Post by **Kaiproject** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:19 pm

C.I.A. wrote:Tried to go see The imaginarium of Dr Parnassus

hmm how much longer is it on for, haven't seen it yet omg

Hardy · Post by **Hardy** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:19 pm

ghetto kitty wrote: I thought this one was a bit less wanky than some of his others, as in, there was actually a coherent storyline! egads!
The first sequence should go down in histroy, fucknig amazing. and i loved some of the nature things, like the acorns constantly attacking them etc....
now hardy, please tell me....what do you think was the point of that fox speaking CHAOS REIGNS?
i mean, we saw the animals in really gruesome moments, and it was only for the guy to see/experience (which was kind of his own madness seperate to hers imo) ...but tbh it was great until that fox opened its mouth and spoke like 'the devil'.

talking animals, i cant help it, it screams 'BABE' to me and lessened the whole point he was making with the brutal side of nature stuff...

Yeah was def less wanky. Agree with opening scene, though the actual penetration cheapened it a lot imo. And yes I loved the acorns too!

I think "Chaos Reigns' is mainly 2 things: A statement about him trying to control, make sense of and rationalise that which is irrational (ie. her fear and madness) through psychotherapy and any other means. Secondly, I think it's a broad statement about life in general (and a sentiment I totally subscribe to): At the heart of everything, we really have very little control over life, but try extremely hard to do so. We may be able to have superficial control over certain aspects of our lives and the world around us, but in the end we have to stop fighting inevitibility and, to a degree, surrender to forces beyond our comprehension.

mixtress · Post by **mixtress** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:07 pm

deep.

Saw Paranormal Activity the other day. It wasn't as scary as I thought it would be which was a slight let down but it was still pretty scary. It took too long to build to all the good scary bits, too incremental in their delivery of the frights. I guess it was their way of building suspense. By the end of the movie I wanted to beat the shit out of Micah the boyfriend. He wasn't very understanding of his girlfriend Katie's experience and seemed to disrespect her wishes at every turn, which really pissed me off. The twist at the end was very good, had us all pondering the possibilities of what happened previously, given the outcome. Don't wanna give anything away so I won't go into it, I think I might see it again to catch things I may have missed that I'm now wondering about.

Glad to have supported a movie that only cost $11k to make, rather than paying to see a $350m movie like Avatar which (after seeing the preview in the cinema) looks like a big Hollywood piece of Cameron crap. I refuse to partake.

3.5 spooks outta 5

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:44 am

heres a 1 star review of paranormal activity...

http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertain ... 03349.html

ghetto kitty · Post by **ghetto kitty** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:05 am

Hardy wrote:
ghetto kitty wrote: but tbh it was great until that fox opened its mouth and spoke like 'the devil'.

talking animals, i cant help it, it screams 'BABE' to me and lessened the whole point he was making with the brutal side of nature stuff...
Yeah was def less wanky. Agree with opening scene, though the actual penetration cheapened it a lot imo. And yes I loved the acorns too!

I think "Chaos Reigns' is mainly 2 things: A statement about him trying to control, make sense of and rationalise that which is irrational (ie. her fear and madness) through psychotherapy and any other means. Secondly, I think it's a broad statement about life in general (and a sentiment I totally subscribe to): At the heart of everything, we really have very little control over life, but try extremely hard to do so. We may be able to have superficial control over certain aspects of our lives and the world around us, but in the end we have to stop fighting inevitibility and, to a degree, surrender to forces beyond our comprehension.

I actually liked the penetration (

can of worms right there ghetto)
in the opening scene because with the soundtrack etc, otherwise it would have been TOO beautiful somehow...seeing the actual cock etc made it so much realer for me because visually it looked like a painting etc...

I totally agree with you on the reason behind chaos reigns, both for him and in the wider sense of the world (hell, I kind of call myself a chaos majician if im pressed) and the fact that chaos creates patterns where there are none, creates reason and logic from randomness, even to the point of 'everythnig happens for a reason' even the horrible, brutal and seemingly unfair things (like one's child falling out of a window when you are in the throes of passion)

BUT - my problem was with the talking wolf. I mean, anytime i see a real animal's lips made to SPEAK it just loses me. I swear if Yoshi spoke one day, I would answer back without thinking, but I bet his lips would not look like that fake-human-annunciation thing that they do when animals speak in movies. I dunno, "Chaos Reigns' were pretty much the ONLY words outside of the dialogue between husband and wife...and summed up lots of the themes in the whole movie...
i just wish he had spelled it in acorns, had it flashing before his eyes when he was hiding in the cave, ANYTHING but CGI wolf lips uttering it in satans voice.

the best thing about this movie was the hour long convo/debate everyone watching it had afterwards.

gnat · Post by **gnat** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:22 am

pandorum and paranormal activity both look way too scurry for me

saw where the wild things are fridee night. was not what i expected. kinda expected more whimsical tbh. was good, not great. heavy play of emotion- the wild things are a bit emo

the fort they make is totally sick and there are some lolworthy moments that remind you spike jonze is in the driving seat. max is a little shit, not particularly likeable tbh.

worth a see on big screen due to scenery- victorian coastal areas a lot of it but don't rush imo...

youthful_implants · Post by **youthful_implants** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:37 am

gnat wrote:pandorum and paranormal activity both look way too scurry for me

saw where the wild things are fridee night. was not what i expected. kinda expected more whimsical tbh. was good, not great. heavy play of emotion- the wild things are a bit emo

the fort they make is totally sick and there are some lolworthy moments that remind you spike jonze is in the driving seat. max is a little shit, not particularly likeable tbh.

worth a see on big screen due to scenery- victorian coastal areas a lot of it but don't rush imo...

they're just too American, I saw it on Friday too. I dunno, giving them personalities kind of detracts from their mystery too much.

Kids wont like the film, too slow, lack of explosions and coherent narrative.

Art film for sure, beautiful cinematography.

mecka · Post by **mecka** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:12 pm

Twas interesting how each of teh wild tings was a reflection of various aspects of max

mixtress · Post by **mixtress** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:26 pm

Gnat, Paranormal Activity wasn't anywhere near as frightening as I thought it'd be. My own imagination was worse so I reckon go for it. Even though it didn't live up to expectation, the expectation of getting scared was half the fun.

Kaiproject · Post by **Kaiproject** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:01 pm

what should i get on bluray? about to get my new big shiny hdtv

obviously full 3d flicks would get a massive benefit, ive heard wall-e looks pretty amazing on bluray

got a mate who's got heaps of bluray rips as mkv (around 7-8gb each) including UP too

can't waitt

mecka · Post by **mecka** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:32 pm

Kaiproject wrote:what should i get on bluray? about to get my new big shiny hdtv

obviously full 3d flicks would get a massive benefit, ive heard wall-e looks pretty amazing on bluray

got a mate who's got heaps of bluray rips as mkv (around 7-8gb each) including UP too

can't waitt

Pixar anything. The dark knight. Blade runner. Animation in general but not anime - teh japs are a bit slow on the uptake (or just cant be arsed producing a decent transfer without noise or shit washe out colours).

Amick · Post by **Amick** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:16 pm

deviant · Post by **deviant** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:20 pm

Hardy wrote:
mecka wrote:2012 was well rad. so bad it was good imo. a lot of detail in the sfx shots which was amazing. going to see again next week with ex.
Watch it as a comedy and it's awesome.

Watch the posted video on YouTube.

everything pales in comparison to this movie

mixtress · Post by **mixtress** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:11 pm

hilarious

AND Debbie Gibson. A must see for sure.

Feigan · Post by **Feigan** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:32 pm

is that really a movie?

reeks of 'snakes on a shame'

Amick · Post by **Amick** » Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:28 am

Caved in and watched 2012.

All I can say is....

LMAO!

Epic comedy.

tee193 · Post by **tee193** » Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:56 pm

youthful_implants wrote:

Kids wont like the film, too slow, lack of explosions and coherent narrative.

when i saw it there were kids that ran to the front when the credits ran screaming and jumping on seats and one little boy roaring at the girls, awesome, i know if i saw it when i was a little kid i probably would have fought all my family after with sticks haha

Stray · Post by **Stray** » Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:04 pm

Feigan wrote:is that really a movie?

reeks of 'snakes on a shame'

I loved this movie.. it's so bad, and deliberately so, I just couldn't stop laughing!

DBoy · Post by **DBoy** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:47 am

Saw revolver and king of California last night.

Revolver 7.5/10
some simply perfect cinamtic moments with classic gangsta flick references, black caddies with reflective overview shots etc. Tries to tackle theme of ego with Plato references deep physcriatric anaysis. Might need to watch again. But mostly just good gangsta flick. Think it worked

king of California 7/10. Put it in the little miss sunshine basket. Slow moving, quirky and probably described as charming. Worth the wait for ending, you'll smile.

mrj · Post by **mrj** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:04 pm

so I saw Time Travellers Wife

I had read the book about a year and a bit ago and loved every page. So the movie of course was always going to be a let down, and it sure didn't fail to deliver in that department.

Casting was terrible. Eric Bana was an ok choice for Henry and I'll let it slide, but the casting of Clare was shocking. I just don't understand the choice. I was also dissapointed with the casting of Henry's dad (yanno Mr DeTamble, can't remember the first name in the book). Worst still is they never even casted Kimmy, just completley wrote her out of the story, which is terrible given how important a feature Kimmy is in Henry's relationship with his Dad. Clares dad was resonably well casted but I was always pictured him to have a big beer belly in the book, her mum was probably the only person in the whole movie whose casting i completley agreed with.

Everything else I guess was just standard dissapointments for book to movie action. Parts of the book that I felt were pivotal to the story never made it to the movie, it was just a bang bang bang of plot points really. Incredibley dissapointing that it was missing the bit where Clare see's Henry for the last time. Such an important feature of the book.

Worst of all was opening sequence. I understand that have to set context but jeez it was terrible. Henry's relationship with his younger self was so beautifully handled in the book, and so to see his visit to the Natural Science Museum written out and the plot points from that just crammed into the scene with his mum was annoying in the extreme.

What I will say is that the movie seemed quite disjointed. I felt like I got what was going on as I had read the book, but felt that if you hadn't it wouldn't make any sense at all.

All in all, not well casted, extremley clusmy story telling that is major let down to what was a beautiful book.

Feigan · Post by **Feigan** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:22 pm

^ Just finished reading in the last couple of weeks Josh. Loved the book so I won't ruin that by seeing the movie.

Lizkins · Post by **Lizkins** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:18 pm

i haven't read the book, and saw the movie and thought it was really good.

Feigan · Post by **Feigan** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:41 pm

wanna borrow a copy Liz?

ghetto kitty · Post by **ghetto kitty** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:29 pm

I loved the book too. And now, I'm not going to see the movie.

gnat · Post by **gnat** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:22 am

saw this on the weekend. gorgeous story. highly recommend

Lizkins · Post by **Lizkins** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:22 pm

Feigan wrote:wanna borrow a copy Liz?

thanks Feigs!

i would, but the last time i borrowed a book was off my best mate and that was a few years ago and i still have it, terrible! i kept it for so long that when i tried to return it to him he wouldn't take it back cos he is convinced its not his and that it was mine. however he did lend it to me when we were mashed, so that could also be why he has forgotten.

either way, i would feel bad holding on to it for ages.

mixtress · Post by **mixtress** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:47 pm

givesies backsies Liz!

I saw 2012 on dodgy copy at home the other day. Paaaathetic. The CGI was ok but for heaven's sake the story was shocking. The bit at the end where they decided to let more people on the arcs...those people were the one's who'd spent $1bn on tickets, so it's not like it was a terribly humanitarian thing to do.

I knew it would be shizen but I watched it anyway. Will I ever learn? Actually I have, coz even if someone paid me $100 to go see Avatar, I'd decline.

youthful_implants · Post by **youthful_implants** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:55 pm

mixtress wrote:givesies backsies Liz!

I saw 2012 on dodgy copy at home the other day. Paaaathetic. The CGI was ok but for heaven's sake the story was shocking. The bit at the end where they decided to let more people on the arcs...those people were the one's who'd spent $1bn on tickets, so it's not like it was a terribly humanitarian thing to do.

I knew it would be shizen but I watched it anyway. Will I ever learn? Actually I have, coz even if someone paid me $100 to go see Avatar, I'd decline.

why?

Rotten Tomatoes gives it 87% so far. Thats a pretty high score which will inevitably come down when the movie opens in Aus but they're usually spot on.

http://au.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/

mixtress · Post by **mixtress** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:08 pm

I'm sure a lot of people will like it but it's something I won't bring myself to watch. I just don't think it's necessary to spend over $500m on a movie (including marketing). It's a monumental waste of money imo. I'm proud that an Aussie got the lead but I think it looks like a cocksuck of a movie. Flame me all youse want but that's the way I feel about it.

I only watched 2012 cause it was a dodgy copy and they didn't make any money out of me. And I STILL regret it cause it wasted almost 3 hours of my day. I might be wrong about Avatar, it might be the best movie of all time but I just can't do it.

youthful_implants · Post by **youthful_implants** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:16 pm

mixtress wrote:I'm sure a lot of people will like it but it's something I won't bring myself to watch. I just don't think it's necessary to spend over $500m on a movie (including marketing). It's a monumental waste of money imo. I'm proud that an Aussie got the lead but I think it looks like a cocksuck of a movie. Flame me all youse want but that's the way I feel about it.

I only watched 2012 cause it was a dodgy copy and they didn't make any money out of me. And I STILL regret it cause it wasted almost 3 hours of my day. I might be wrong about Avatar, it might be the best movie of all time but I just can't do it.

thats fair enough!

it is a lot of money I know, it seems obscene.

I felt like that about Damien Hirst's diamond encrusted skull he did which cost 14 million quid, and 500 million beats that by a loong way.

Post by **JAMESSSS** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:22 pm

How is it a waste of money?

It will make money!

DBoy · Post by **DBoy** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:26 pm

you ever counted how many names are in the credits. Film industry employs a lot of people.

mecka · Post by **mecka** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:53 pm

gnat wrote:

saw this on the weekend. gorgeous story. highly recommend

is that about that chick from twilight?

where teh fuck did the teef smiley go. bring back teef.

also, zombieland is fucking ace and i highly recommend it to everybody.

mixtress · Post by **mixtress** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:25 pm

James, it will no doubt make money. How can a film not make money when it has a $150m marketing budget? Have you seen the 4 minute "making of" commericals on free-to-air? Of course people will see it, in droves no doubt. I prefer not to be one of them.

Dboy, I'm glad people were employed to make the film. A whole bunch of other people will go see it which means I don't have to. It's just something I can't support.

Amick · Post by **Amick** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:30 pm

mixtress wrote:James, it will no doubt make money. How can a film not make money when it has a $150m marketing budget? Have you seen the 4 minute "making of" commericals on free-to-air? Of course people will see it, in droves no doubt. I prefer not to be one of them.

Dboy, I'm glad people were employed to make the film. A whole bunch of other people will go see it which means I don't have to. It's just something I can't support.

Download it and give away as many copies to your friends if you're so against it imo.

mixtress · Post by **mixtress** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:33 pm

Amick · Post by **Amick** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:36 pm

...or just tell them a brief explanation of the plot and the ending.

You can start by putting it in your sig.

Post by **JAMESSSS** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:05 pm

mixtress wrote:James, it will no doubt make money. How can a film not make money when it has a $150m marketing budget? Have you seen the 4 minute "making of" commericals on free-to-air? Of course people will see it, in droves no doubt. I prefer not to be one of them.

Dboy, I'm glad people were employed to make the film. A whole bunch of other people will go see it which means I don't have to. It's just something I can't support.

Maybe I don't understand your problem with it?

It just seems like a weird reason to choose not to see something based on how much money it cost?

mixtress · Post by **mixtress** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:33 pm

I also said it looked like a cocksuck of a movie. Couple this with it costing $500m and you've got yourself my reasons for not wanting to see it. Substance is key.

Post by **JAMESSSS** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:48 pm

Ahh I missed that. If it looks like you don't like it that's fine.

I just don't see why it would matter how much it cost?

mecka · Post by **mecka** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:16 pm

There's something to be said for the cinematic experience. Of course this is entirely subjective but I for one can see the value behind going to see what will inevitably be labelled as a special effects masterpiece.

It was the same reason I went to see 2012 - twice - at the cinema. Sure its a garbage film plotwise and in terms of character development but witnessing what CGI is capable of on the big screen is worth the price of admission alone. 2012 took CGI detail to insane levels and I am amazed that another movie is being released in the same year that will probably trump it.

Each to their own though.

mixtress · Post by **mixtress** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:36 pm

mecka wrote:Each to their own though.

gnat · Post by **gnat** » Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:20 am

mecka wrote:
gnat wrote:

saw this on the weekend. gorgeous story. highly recommend
is that about that chick from twilight?

where teh fuck did the teef smiley go. bring back teef.

NO!

it's a great quirky little story. PC would love this. and prob GK too

i'm busting to see the lovely bones. loved the book. read it years ago. lol at marky mark suddenly playing a dad in movies. still hot but man we're getting old!