Page 345 of 482
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:37 pm
by Heksagon
Here's another thread where I haven't posted enough lately. Here's a bunch of films I've seen during the past month or so.
Miracle (Gavin O'Connor, 2004) 7.5/10
The Big Knife (Robert Aldrich, 1955) between 8.5 and 9/10
Twentieth Century (Howard Hawks, 1934) 4.5/10
Still Life (Jia Zhang Ke, 2006) between 8 and 8.5/10
Stop-Loss (Kimberley Peirce, 2008) 2/10
The Flame and the Lemon (Ole Christian Madsen, 2008) 8.5/10
Hunger (Steve McQueen, 2008) 7/10
Boarding Gate (Olivie Assayas, 2008) 6/10
It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World (Stanley Kramer, 1963) between 5.5 and 6/10
--dated
Chop Shop (Ramin Bahrani, 2007) 7.5/10
In Cold Blood (Richard Brooks, 1967) 8/10
Oliver! (Carol Reed, 1968) 8.5/10
Sweet Sixteen (Ken Loach, 2002) 5.5/10
Our Man in Havana (Carol Reed, 1959) between 7.5 and 8/10
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm
by Reza
My Name is Khan (Karan Johar, 2010) 7/10
As with most Bollywood films they manage to throw in everything and the kitchen sink. Elements of both Rainman and Forrest Gump along with the after effects of 9/11 on Muslims living in America. The plot is very pro-Muslim (as the star of the film is one) and President Obama gets to play a part too in the plot.
The film has stirred controversy in Bombay with the Shiv Sena political party disrupting the film's opening last Friday because the star, Shah Rukh Khan, made positive comments about Pakistan. Nevertheless, the film opened to huge boxoffice all over India (except Bombay, which is controlled by the Shiv Sena..... and who also run the Bombay underworld) and Pakistan.
The film has all elements of a Bollywood film that the public like to lap up along with the return, after 10 years, of the popular star pairing of superstar Shah Rukh Khan and leading lady Kajol. The songs are sung as part of the background score and the film goes on too long after the intermission but it is extremely well acted and conveys all it's messages with a sledgehammer. A major plus for me was that it was shot mainly in lovely San Francisco.
Edited By Reza on 1266206053
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:42 pm
by anonymous1980
The Red Balloon (Albert Lamorisse) - 7/10
How did this win Best Original Screenplay? It's a 30-minute long, nearly dialogue free French children's film. Kinda odd that it managed to win.
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:05 am
by mlrg
El Secreto de sus Ojos (2009) - 9/10 - Absolutely stunning!
Invictus (2009) - 3/10
Nine (2009) - 2/10
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 4:07 am
by anonymous1980
An Education (Lone Scherfig) - 8/10
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 5:13 pm
by Big Magilla
Okri wrote:Big Magilla wrote:Uri wrote:
Good for him. This is exactly where the slyness of the film lies – these little old ladies are the real villains, and David is the subversive, hence positive, element, unless, off course, one is committed to the petite bourgeois mind-set of Jenny's background.
Maybe, but two wrongs don't make a right, or is that too old fashioned a concept for these times?
What is he doing that is wrong, exactly?
If I have to explain it, then there's no hope left in the world.
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:57 pm
by Okri
Big Magilla wrote:Uri wrote:Big Magilla wrote:David makes money by moving black families into flats near elderly women who are afraid of them, so he can then buy their flats on the cheap.
Good for him. This is exactly where the slyness of the film lies – these little old ladies are the real villains, and David is the subversive, hence positive, element, unless, off course, one is committed to the petite bourgeois mind-set of Jenny's background.
Maybe, but two wrongs don't make a right, or is that too old fashioned a concept for these times?
What is he doing that is wrong, exactly?
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 1:06 pm
by Big Magilla
Uri wrote:Big Magilla wrote:David makes money by moving black families into flats near elderly women who are afraid of them, so he can then buy their flats on the cheap.
Good for him. This is exactly where the slyness of the film lies – these little old ladies are the real villains, and David is the subversive, hence positive, element, unless, off course, one is committed to the petite bourgeois mind-set of Jenny's background.
Maybe, but two wrongs don't make a right, or is that too old fashioned a concept for these times?
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 12:29 pm
by Reza
Big Magilla wrote:Since the film is set in 1961, today's audiences can feel superior to the characters representing their parents', grandparents' or great-grandparents generations and be thankful the world has become more enlightened in the last fifty years. Or has it?
The Million Dollar Question.
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:03 am
by Uri
Big Magilla wrote:David makes money by moving black families into flats near elderly women who are afraid of them, so he can then buy their flats on the cheap.
Good for him. This is exactly where the slyness of the film lies – these little old ladies are the real villains, and David is the subversive, hence positive, element, unless, off course, one is committed to the petite bourgeois mind-set of Jenny's background.
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:31 am
by Big Magilla
I probably should have said "although the film is not anti-Semitic" instead of "if not outright anti-Semitic", which puts a different connotation on it.
Of course the film is not overtly anti-Semitic. Such well established actors as Emma Thompson and Alfred Molina with their impeccable liberal credentials would never appear in such a film, but...
David makes money by moving black families into flats near elderly women who are afraid of them, so he can then buy their flats on the cheap. He and is friends steal expensive objects from homes that up for sale. He has a wife he'll never leave. It plays into all the worst fears of the bigots.
The voiceover at the end makes it clear that Jenny benefited from the affair, but she allows the headmistress and everyone else around her to maintain their smug superiority by keeping it to herself.
Since the film is set in 1961, today's audiences can feel superior to the characters representing their parents', grandparents' or great-grandparents generations and be thankful the world has become more enlightened in the last fifty years. Or has it?
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:48 am
by Uri
Big Magilla wrote:If not outright anti-Semitic, it comes dangerously close with Peter Sarsgaard's character all the things her bettors warned her against.
Anti-Semitism is a constant team in An Education. Most of the characters in it, from the headmistress through Jenny's parents to Jenny herself, are driven by it in the different ways they react toward Sarsgaard's David, whose attractiveness derives from being an exotic, dangerously persuasive Other, which is all about him being Jewish. But the film is not in any way anti-Semitic. The lack of distinction is a sorry product of simplistic PC oriented method of evaluating ideas and the way they are manifested.
Jenny's pseudo rebel, with which she toys being safely guarded by her deeply inherited conservatism and a confidence deeply rooted in her belonging to the main social section, is mirrored by David's conflicting emotions as someone who forever will be shutout of it. From Moshe Mendelssohn to the Coen brothers, from Baruch Spinoza to Sabin, the fascinations and bewilderment Jews felt for the Christian culture they were operating in but never fully immersed in combined with the supremacy/inferiority complex attached to it, made for major driving force – in philosophy, the arts, science, business – you name it (ok, not sports), but also it might be manifested in more personal ways, such as David's pathetically endearing, self suggestive attempt to act as if his relationship with Jenny is the real deal. Maybe it's the racially built in Shylock in me, but I felt that in En Education there was a sense of compassion and understanding for David's motives and actions.
Edited By Uri on 1266054666
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:31 pm
by Precious Doll
A Prophet (2009) Jacques Audiard 8/10
Valentine's Day (2010) Garry Marshall 5/10
Outrage (2009) Kirby Dick 7/10
Spawn of the North (1938) Henry Hathaway 5/10
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:18 am
by Big Magilla
I agree. Mulligan compares more to Watson than Hepburn.
If a 50s comparison is to be made then Leslie Caron in Gigi would be a more fitting one than Audrey in Roman Holiday.
I liked the film's production style tremendously and also agree that Rosamund Pike is the standout in support. However, I didn't care for the film overall. If not outright anti-Semitic, it comes dangerously close with Peter Sarsgaard's character all the things her bettors warned her against.
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:38 am
by Hustler
Reza wrote:An Education (Lone Scherfig, 2009) 7/10
I liked the 1960s atmosphere which brought back memories of the films made in Britain at the time. Also liked Carey Mulligan though don't understand why she has been compared to Audrey Hepburn. Rosamund Pike is also outstanding and I'm glad some of the London critics have recognised her performance with nominations.
Precious (Lee Daniels, 2009) 6/10
Films like this always make me think that we have our own troubles here in Pakistan while the ones in the U.S.A., in many ways, are of a more serious nature......dealing with the family unit (or lack of). What amazes me is that a Government so interested in the lives of other nations has failed to address and help out with basic issues of their own people. Yes, I know they are ''trying''.
Extremely disturbing film about child abuse and incest, with Gabourey Sidibe a standout as the damaged teenager. Mo'Nique is also very good as the abusive mother while it was a surprise to see how effective Mariah Carey is as the welfare counselor.
An Education 8/10
Carey Mulligan could be compared with a fresh and young Emily Watson. She´s absolutely delightful
Precious 5/10
I was very disappointed about that movie which I´ve been expecting with anxiety. I´ve found it so conventional and manipulative.
The perfomances are great: Mónique, Sidibe, Carey, Patton and even Kravitz.