Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 129

Thread: Lord Rahl's Cinematic Review Repository

  1. #41
    Hobbes's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hobs Crk
    Posts
    10,732

    Default Re: Lord Rahl's Cinematic Review Repository

    Yeah, and the minigames were good, too.

    BLM - ANTIFA - A.C.A.B. - ANARCHY - ANTI-NATIONALISM

  2. #42
    Boustrophedon's Avatar Grote Smurf
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    3,158

    Default Re: Lord Rahl's Cinematic Review Repository

    Katie Holmes was terrible. You can see her nipples through her shirt in one scene though.

    I agree

    And yeah come to think of it: it would have been awesome if they would press the button and blow up their own boat! Drama and "oh nooo" galore

  3. #43
    Lord Rahl's Avatar Behold the Beard
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright!
    Posts
    13,779

    Default Re: Lord Rahl's Cinematic Review Repository

    It would have brought yet another evil twist to Joker's character and would have saved me from hearing Bale's Batman from giving Joker a speech.

    Saw (2004)


    Oh man. I remember the night I went to see this movie. I thought it had potential. I should have reminded myself that Cary Elwes (who is good in just a few movies, including my favorite of all time) was in it. It starts off a little interesting and then it starts to get idiotic. The bad guy sets up shotguns on the ceiling? What the is that? Perhaps the most idiotic "trap" I've ever seen. Then the bad guy gets shot in the back with a shotgun and immediately gets up and walks away like nothing happened. I don't know about you, but if I was shot in the back with a shotgun from about...10 yards away, I would have a serious wound and most likely die. But the bad guy didn't give a I guess.

    What else? Oh yes, Danny Glover doesn't do anything in the movie except act like he's lost his mind, breathe heavily, and then die. He had one of the most pointless roles in any film. Congrats Glover! First you are in Lonesome Dove, one of the best westerns in history, and before you know it you're in the most random chase scene in history and then die. There is so much more I could say about how disappointing this movie was but I'll leave it at this.

    2.5/5 Stars

    2012 (2009)


    If I was to use only junior high or high school vocabulary to describe this movie, the only word I would use would be, "gay". Seriously, Roland Emmerich has created a disaster movie that became monotonous in its disaster sequences, and especially boring in its attempted character development.

    Sure, the disaster sequences have awesome special effects, but when the audience sees the main characters survive every single mega-disaster over more than a two hour span, it becomes boring. For example, the group of main characters survive disaster and epic deaths three times in a plane where they almost don't take off while the landing strip breaks and falls from under them, they almost crash after taking off because they don't pull up and the land is breaking and falling beneath them, AND they almost die because they DON'T PULL UP from the dying terra firma and man-made objects underneath.

    The worst part(s) of the movie is/are the character development. Every single scene of the character development feels forced, and after the movie has finished its first big disaster scene, its formula of disaster, emotion, disaster, emotion (repeat) becomes way too predictable and consequently not enjoyable. The last 30 minutes or so were tough for me. First of all, the entire world pretty much has ended with most of the Earth's population already dead, but for some reason Emmerich decided to add on even more dire situations, I guess just to make the end more climactic. Well, that didn't work. It made me groan in annoyance.

    The worst part at the end was the whole moral dilemma addition to the story. Yeah, when a tidal wave that is 1,500 meters high (I think that was the number) is coming to you and you only have 2 minutes until it arrives, you're going to worry about getting thousands upon thousands of people inside of a ship. Oliver Platt's "evil" character was the only one who was acting realistically. Oh, and when Chiwetel Ejiofor's character complained about his room on the ship being able to hold 10 people in it...the last scene you see him in is with the President's daughter, not eight more, so obviously he forgot about the needs of others.

    When Roland Emmerich made ID4, he had the formula right. It was a disaster movie, but it was also a comedy, having Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum give some good scenes, and it was also a sci-fi action-adventure. With 2012, it's just a disaster movie with bits of emotional scenes to make it "matter" to the audience. Either go see this in theaters drunk or rent this (and be drunk). That's the only way you'll enjoy it.

    2.5/5
    Last edited by Lord Rahl; May 23, 2011 at 05:33 PM.

    Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
    Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Ex-Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
    I may be back... | @BeardedRiker

  4. #44
    Hobbes's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hobs Crk
    Posts
    10,732

    Default Re: Lord Rahl's Cinematic Review Repository

    2012 was absolutely idiotic. Bad acting, bad plot bad everything. Wasted my money on that one.

    Hey have you by any chance reviewed Star Trek IV?
    Last edited by Hobbes; May 28, 2011 at 06:35 AM.

    BLM - ANTIFA - A.C.A.B. - ANARCHY - ANTI-NATIONALISM

  5. #45
    vizi's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Misery's the River of the World
    Posts
    11,337

    Default Re: Lord Rahl's Cinematic Review Repository

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Rahl View Post
    Next comes Thor's friends. I forgot their names...because they're forgettable characters. You've got the dude who has weird hair, an out of place mustache (that means his mustache should have been in a Three Musketeers movies instead of one where he's supposed to be a Norse god), and fights with a...rapier (WTF)?! Then you've got the chick with the shield and Ray Stevenson as the guy who ate too much and fought with an axe. I wish they had just replaced his character with his Titus Pullo character in Rome. And did I mention the Asian dude? Why is there an Asian Norse god and why does he have to be so obviously Asian? Look, I understand they wanted some diversity in the movie so every single person wasn't white...but it's a movie about NORSE gods. Adding in a random Asian guy to add diversity and do some martial arts is just stupid. The movie has a badass black dude who's the gatekeeper of sorts but I didn't understand why he was chosen as that character either, though he did an good job of it and was actually one of the more interesting characters in the movie.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warriors_Three

    Let's see...a fat hairy guy. Check. A dude with a rapier. Check. An Asian dude, a Mongol looking person. Check.

  6. #46
    Lord Rahl's Avatar Behold the Beard
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright!
    Posts
    13,779

    Default Re: Lord Rahl's Cinematic Review Repository

    Quote Originally Posted by vizi View Post
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warriors_Three

    Let's see...a fat hairy guy. Check. A dude with a rapier. Check. An Asian dude, a Mongol looking person. Check.

    I never read the comics but even though they were in the comics they were still terrible.

    Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
    Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Ex-Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
    I may be back... | @BeardedRiker

  7. #47
    vizi's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Misery's the River of the World
    Posts
    11,337

    Default Re: Lord Rahl's Cinematic Review Repository

    As characters in the movie they were rather pointless but they were put in their because they were in the comics and not for the sake of diversity.

  8. #48
    pchalk's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    lots of places ;-)
    Posts
    2,452

    Default Re: Lord Rahl's Cinematic Review Repository

    just read the Thor review. the character descriptions are truly priceless . i havnt seen the movie but was pretty pessimistic after seeing the trailer. ill prolly end up seeing it anyway tho since some friends of mine seem to be all about it for some reason.

    edit: ok just read avatar, laughed even harder at the picture
    Last edited by pchalk; June 24, 2011 at 06:16 PM.

  9. #49
    Lord Rahl's Avatar Behold the Beard
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright!
    Posts
    13,779

    Default Re: Lord Rahl's Cinematic Review Repository

    Quote Originally Posted by pchalk View Post
    just read the Thor review. the character descriptions are truly priceless . i havnt seen the movie but was pretty pessimistic after seeing the trailer. ill prolly end up seeing it anyway tho since some friends of mine seem to be all about it for some reason.

    Did you end up seeing it? And oh man does Green Lantern look bad. I read that it's not doing nearly as well as Warner Bros thought it would...but for some reason are already working on a sequel. The same goes for Thor. They're making another too. WHO THE IS IN CHARGE AT THESE COMPANIES?!?!?!?!

    edit: ok just read avatar, laughed even harder at the picture

    Some part of me thinks Cameron should be sued for pretty much knocking off Disney's Pocahontas and/or Dances With Wolves. All Cameron did was take those stories and then set it in the future. Oh wow, real creative...

    I've been told to post another review so here we go...

    Inception (2010)


    Ever since seeing the first trailer for Inception I had already decided that I wanted to see the movie. Even before the later trailers that explained the general plot came out I could tell that the movie would be something psychological and different from other movies simply because of the imagery. Add to that the now famous, at least with my friends, Inception Noise made such an impact on me with its boldness and insanity in sound. Since The Dark Knight, I was waiting for Nolan to make his next movie that wouldn't become something fanboys would profess to be the best movie ever made simply because it had Batman in it. I'm sure Christopher Nolan wanted to distance himself from Batman as well so that he could do something that was more personal and not based on famous comic book mythology. Inception is definitely this movie.

    I'm not yet ready to say that Inception is definitely genre defining yet - I want to see it again to more fully understand the movie - but I am tempted to. I don't think I've seen a movie like this before that better portrays and visualizes the psyche or our dreams like Inception. The movie is complex yet understandable and never has a dull moment. The drama is deep, interesting, and relatable while the action pieces are truly outstanding and literally jaw-dropping. But what really makes Inception stand out is simply it's concept. In today's Hollywood where endless sequels and/or retelling of stories is becoming ever more popular, much to the chagrin of true movie lovers, Inception is genuinely a breath of fresh air. Although there are similarities to previous movies such as Total Recall and The Matrix, among others, Inception is too great a movie itself for those similarities to degrade it. It is rare that a film is made that is so saturated with intelligence, emotion, psychology, and complexity, and mixing it with action, acting, and production with such masterful execution. It is truly a diamond in the rough.

    Nolan was able to present complex ideas of reality (and unreality), guilt, love, and faith in a unique and convincing way unlike any other movie has done. Since we see dreams, and therefore these ideas, in the movie the ideas are more easily understandable. This is why Nolan was able to add on the layers of intense visceral emotion with DiCaprio's character and aesthetically extraordinary visuals and make it all work together to perfection. Cobb, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, is a sort of tragic character who, while an expert in navigating and manipulating people's dreams, has his own deeper emotional problems that he wrestles with the entire film. Ellen Page, who I had doubts about, did a very satisfactory job as the young illusionary architect and portrays the audience as well in my opinion. She is new to the dream invading business as we are so her fascination and imagination remains around the level of the audience (at least for some!). Page, who plays Ariadne, is also a psychological and emotional guide throughout the movie as well, so while she is new to the dream invading business like the audience is, she is also our sort of shepherd.

    The character of Mal, Marion Cotillard, is memorable as psychologically unsettling as well as being an emotional cornerstone. Other notable performances come from Joseph Gordon-Levitte as Arthur who is a sort of technical and practical genius. His ability to fight while being flung around like a rag doll and in zero gravity is quite impressive! Tom Hardy is the BAMF Eames who enjoys witty jokes, impersonation, and the ability to kick ass. Michael Caine enjoys what could best be described as a glorified cameo.

    Action in Inception is much like it was in The Dark Knight, long sequences full of impressive stunts, explosions, and great cinematography. Christopher Nolan seems to understand that the audience doesn't actually want quick cuts in our action scenes. Michael Bay likes to shove the action at us and over edit. This makes the action confusing, incoherent, and causes a lot of headaches. Nolan allows us to take in the action with lengthy camera shots and the pacing of his action, which is very evident in The Dark Knight as well, is slower but no less entertaining. In fact, the action is given more purpose and feels epic. But none of the action would feel right if i felt unnecessary and this cannot be said of Inception. The action is connected to the storyline and effects the characters beyond the physical. One thing I know for certain is that the what should now be called the "Hallway Scene" will be one of the most visually impressive and jaw-dropping action sequences in a very long time. The last 30 minutes or so of the movie comprises of the climax. Some have disapproved of its length (I may be overestimating it) but I reminds me very much of the lengthy action sequences like The Matrix: Reloaded's highway car chase, Children of Men's "Uprising" battle at the end, and obviously The Dark Knight's car chase. The length of Inception's climax is lengthy, yes, but I found its pacing able to keep momentum and satisfying in its execution.

    I appreciate Inception's visual portrayal of dreams. They are imaginative yet simple. Everything in the dream, even the most mind-twisting, is shown in a realistic but creative way. The dream must look and feel real in order to be believable, so the realism makes sense although some viewers wish for something more surreal. Inception's tricks are not done visually, rather, psychologically where reality is a sort of unknown. Another thing that should be noted is Hanz Zimmer's soundtrack. I found his The Dark Knight score to be mostly unimpressive but with Inception my opinion is contrary. It is loud, driving, and uplifting in a powerful way yet isn't "happy". It is triumphant.

    Christopher Nolan's Inception is a film I consider to be as perfect of an execution of film as one can get. The concept is intriguing enough but the addition of psychological, emotional, and visual components adds layers of complexity and entertainment that few movies can match. Some movies have too much action but don't engage the mind while others feel too pretentious in their message. Inception challenges the mind, portrays raw and realistic emotion, and stuns with its visuals and impressive action sequences. At this point, I can find no legitimate gripe with the movie. Flaws are insignificant. Once again Nolan has triumphed in film-making with Inception, creating a perfectly executed sci-fi thriller that will certainly stay memorable for years to come. Is this Nolan's masterpiece? That's hard to say so early but it can't be far off.

    4/5 Stars


    Here are my two terrible "Inception Noise" videos. The first one...was the first video put on YouTube that highlighted it.



    Last edited by Lord Rahl; July 06, 2011 at 01:52 AM.

    Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
    Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Ex-Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
    I may be back... | @BeardedRiker

  10. #50
    pchalk's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    lots of places ;-)
    Posts
    2,452

    Default Re: Lord Rahl's Cinematic Review Repository

    havnt had a chance to see thor yet. i have to agree tho, green lantern looks terrible. even tho this isnt his first action role i guess, i find it difficult to picture ryan reynolds outside of comedy

  11. #51
    Lord Rahl's Avatar Behold the Beard
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright!
    Posts
    13,779

    Default Re: Lord Rahl's Cinematic Review Repository

    Sorry for not posting a review in awhile. I've had some members tell me post more so here's the next...(I apologize for the long-windedness)

    Conan the Barbarian (2011)


    Moviegoing is supposed to be an experience. You take the time out of your busy, hopefully (because that means you're working), life to sit down, get comfortable, and watch a vision brought together by creative people in the film industry. Well, that's what you're hoping to see. You must understand, my friend and I didn't go to see Conan the Barbarian because we thought we'd see a good movie. Honestly, it seems like there are no good movies coming out...at all. Every month I check the movies that will come out and am depressed by what I see. Maybe it's just this summer... I don't know. My friend and I were bored and since we both like the original Conan movies we thought that the new one wouldn't be so bad as to let us down. Besides, what guy doesn't want to see a huge dude waving a massive sword around and slaughtering evil minions? Unfortunately for us the movie, as well as the whole moviegoing experience for that night, was pretty darn disappointing. And just so those of you who are reading this know, this review is going to be pretty long.

    First off, neither one of us wanted to see the movie in 3D but the closest theater only had it in 3D at the time we wanted. I don't want to say that I hate 3D...but I hate 3D. I'll get more into that later, and if you've read my Pocahontas, that's a joke, review then you'll already know a bit about why I don't like its use in movies. So my friend and I get to the ticket booth. The guy who gets us our tickets asked us both some question about whether we've got some special card for their theater. I guess it's some sort of special membership card like, "Buy two tickets and get one free!" or some other deal like that. Anyway, my friend and I both say we don't have the card and I asked the guy, "Do you get bored asking every single person who buys a ticket if they have the card?" He chuckled and said, "Yes." With our tickets we also get our oh-so-stylish 3D glasses. The theater was packed when we got inside and by that I mean there was only one dude sitting in a middle chair, good choice, sitting three or four rows down from the projector, not the best choice (too high). Thankfully we got to the movie petty much right before it started so we didn't have to sit through the repeated ads, stupid trivia questions, and uninteresting videos about TNT shows (I'm guessing that's only a US thing).

    Finally the lights began to dim, an image popped up telling us to put on our 3D glasses, and then trailers began. I was a bit surprised why the trailers weren't in 3D but I didn't pay too much mind. There was one of Contagion. You know, another Soderbergh movie where it seems half of Hollywood's stars were cast for his movie. Then...there was one for Abduction. Haven't seen the trailer? Well, here it is:


    Yes, you saw correctly. That's Taylor Lautner, the chesty werewolf dude from the Twilight movies, in an action movie. If at this moment you feel like committing suicide then I understand. What has the world come to? Taylor Lautner in an action movie? I'll admit, happily, that I've not seen any of the Twilight movies but I only need to see the trailers to them to understand them well enough. Whose idea was it to try and Make Lautner an action star? Sure, he may have a good body but that's only because he was shirtless, or so it seemed, in the Twilight movies half the time. And it seems Abduction, as far as chesty Lautner goes, will be the same. Then there's his voice. Did you hear it? How's a guy with an effeminate voice like that supposed to convince audiences he's a badass? Maybe only chicks will want to see it though and they'll bring their unwilling dates along. So if seeing that trailer didn't put me in a bad mood, as I laughed at the utter absurdity of a Lautner action flick, then what happened after definitely didn't help. What happened? Well, the trailers we were watching ended...but the lights still didn't get dark enough. I was confused and then became even more confused when we saw another image go up on the screen telling us to put on our 3D glasses...even though we already did. Why? Because there was still five minutes of 3D trailers to watch. Oh how that annoyed me. Just get to the damn movie!!! My experience at the movie that night was not very pleasurable at that point.

    Right now you're probably wondering when I'm actually going to get to reviewing Conan the Barbarian. I know what you're thinking. Don't worry, it's coming right up. Finally the lights dimmed more and I let out a sigh of relief that we would actually be watching the movie we paid $14 for. After all, that's what you go to a movie theater to do, right? Watch the movie? Yes.

    How is Conan the Barbarian? Is it a good reboot of the original that took Arnold Schwarzenegger from a famous body builder to one of the most recognizable Hollywood stars? Let me tell you what it is. It's loud, bloody, action-packed, and has Ron Pearlman in it. The mere presence of Ron Pearlman in a movie almost makes it automatically awesome. Now let me tell you what Conanis not. It is not intelligent, funny (intentionally or unintentionally), coherent, emotional, or fun.

    First you have a LOTR-esque introduction with Morgan Freeman narrating a quick overview of the setting Conan would be brought into at his birth. After the introduction we see Conan's birth, and by birth I mean Ron Pearlman cutting open his wife's womb and taking Conan out to show to her because she'd been stabbed in a battle that was going on. You see, Conan was born into war. I thought the scene was awesome because Ron Pearlman, who plays Conan's father, is two people at once: murderer and midwife.


    If you don't pop that baby out from the mere sight of him then he will cut it out.

    Actually, the beginning, when Conan is still a boy and learning from his father, is about as emotional and on the verge of meaningful as the movie gets. Once Conan is on his own is when things get much less interesting and much less involving. Unfortunately, adult Conan is most of the movie. So the evil guys kill his dad and Conan wants to kill him. Then we have Conan next with his...other barbarian friend. Why are they friends? I don't really know. The movie doesn't care about character development once Ron Pearlman is off the screen. You know, Conan in a sense is very much like Season of the Witch (I've reviewed that movie previously in this thread) in that Ron Pearlman is pretty much the only positive thing in it. Well, that's not entirely true. Very soon into Conan, after the drawn out origin story, you see many pairs of breasts. I guess all female slaves in Hyboria are young, attractive, and nudity is mandatory. According to imdb there were two belly dancers, probably nude as well, and six topless wenches. That's something I enjoyed from the movie.

    Pretty much what follows Conan's origin story is a cluster of unintelligible plot, poorly shot action sequences, loudness, and forgettable effects. For those who've seen Red Letter Media's review of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, you'll understand how after watching it the viewer has a revelation about just how bad the story was and how things didn't make sense. For those who haven't seen it, or the other movie reviews they've done, here is a link to it. I had the same sort of feeling when I saw Conan. Not the revelation, I just knew that the plot made no sense at all. I'm not saying I couldn't understand the story. The bad guy wants to enslave all of Hyboria with an all-powerful magic and Conan wants to kill him because he killed his father. A story of revenge is easy enough to comprehend. However, the way everything happens in the movie simply didn't register for me. Give me a movie like Miller's Crossing or Brazil where it actually takes some thinking to understand the complexities in story and relationships and I'll love it, but if you give me a story like Conan where things just seem to happen without any significance or explanation then my mind will simply turn off. If the script is written so poorly that my brain ceases to care about what it's taking in then we have a problem.

    Let me talk about the lack of character...at all in this movie. So we have Conan. He wants revenge. Ok, we get that. Does he have anything significant to say? To put this into perspective, will anyone remember any line from 2011's Conan the Barbarian? No. Does anyone remember lines from 1982's Conan the Barbarian? Most definitely. I don't know many guys who don't know this dialog:


    I've already mentioned Conan's friend. I don't remember his name. The movie never says why they're friends, although I must say my brain might not have cared at all for such an explanation, so why should I care? You've got the bad guy, Singh, played by Stephen Lang, who just says evil stuff all the time. Then you have his daughter, Marique, played by Rose McGowan, who has a sort of weird semi-incestuous relationship with her evil daddy. By the time in the movie where the incest is made more than implied I already knew it was going to happen. When you know something like that is going to be in a movie before it's meant to be known and the "surprise" has little to no build up or significance - Seriously, the movie didn't go back to it after the one scene - then you're doing it wrong.


    And honestly, who would want that hand to touch your Johnson?

    The most unnecessary character in the movie is this thief Conan randomly meets named Ela-Shan, and I only know that because I'm checking imdb, not because I remember his name, who has one scene where he's yelling at Conan...something. Honestly, I don't remember one word of what he said because the sound was so terribly loud and ill-suited for any sort of dialog that I actually said, "What?" after his talking was over. I think he told Conan where he could meet him or something. But why was this thief even in the movie? Well, Conan comes back for him to get into the bad guy's city and the thief has this...key to open up a sort of...latch to a tunnel that leads to some...underwater lair...where there's a...man-eating...Kraken-like monster. That is it. That's the only reason the thief is in the movie. Not to add any sort of unique personality that would lead to interesting dialog or interaction between Conan so we can better understand the fantasy world the movie is set in. No, that would make too much sense. No. They had to have him so Conan can get to the bad guy's place. Lastly there is the "pure blood" monk babe that Conan is prophesied to cross paths with, Tamara, playing by Rachel Nichols. She's lived in a monastery her whole life...but about five minutes after we're introduced to her character she's killing fully armed and armored bad guys. I understand how they don't want her to be completely helpless but the logical guess is that she's probably never touched a weapon or fought a man hell-bent on capturing or killing her. There's a weird sex scene in the movie with her and Conan. First they're making out on a cliff right by the ocean. Next they're having a slow motion sexual encounter on some...hay(?) in the pitch dark. The next scene is her leaving Conan in the morning while he's still asleep and we're shown a massive cave. So...where did they find this cave and where did they get this bedding? It's just one of many scenes in the movie that leaves you mumbling dissatisfaction to yourself. Oh, by the way, Conan says he doesn't believe in slaves but then he ties up Tamara and says she's his property.


    Conan had never had sex with a green-skinned alien before.

    Now to the camerawork and visuals. The director of Conan the Barbarian is Marcus Nispel. He's another one of those film directors that used to direct music videos and for some reason some idiots decided to give him a big budget to make a bad movie. The directing is fine for most of the movie until you watch the action scenes. Unfortunately for the audience Conan is an action movie so action scenes are abundant throughout. Nothing really leads up to any of the battles so there's no suspense when things start to get bloody but the real problem is with the quick edits in the action that is so rampant in today's movies. For 's sake show the action! My friend and I both had the same idea where we compared the incoherent action in Conan to the understandable and impressive action in the Indiana Jones movies. The movie's action is mostly unimpressive sword battles but there was something different, a horse carriage chase. Too bad it was the worst action scene in the entire movie and the quick edits were so numerous that I barely understood what was happening.

    Overall the SFX weren't terrible but they definitely weren't impressive. But I want to talk about the 3D. I'll admit that I didn't hate the 3D in Conan but 3D movies as a concept still offend me. Sometimes a shot will look cool in 3D but that's a rarity. I see 3D every day and when I go to the movies I want to see something that looks like a film, not some gimmicky cash grab device for movie studios to rake in the green from the sheep-like demos, including junior high and high school students that think it makes the movie "more awesome." The biggest problems with the 3D occur when the camera is moving fast. I'm pretty sure the frame rate is severely lessened when movies are converted to 3D. Things just look too damn choppy and with a movie like Conan where all of the action is swift and thrown around with the edits it makes it look even worse. Another huge problem I have with 3D is the "depth" it has. It seems to have three layers of depth to it, like a close, medium, and far. If you have a shot where things are in between those three layers then the 3D effect ends up looking much like a pop-up book where it's all about some things sticking out farther than others. It simply looks fake. So, the bottom line is 3D sucks.


    And if you're bringing back tech from the 50s you seriously have some creativity problems.

    But what is really the problem with 2011's Conan the Barbarian? I think the answer is simple enough. It's impossible to talk about this new movie without mentioning the original from 1982. 2011's version lacked almost everything that made the original such good entertainment. Is the original corny now and perhaps unintentionally humorous in some parts? Yes, but it had adventure, clever and witty dialog (even with Schwarzenegger delivering the lines), mystery, and most of all it was fun. Marcus Nispel's version is simply a poorly executed movie without style, significance, emotion, thoughtfulness, or humor. Pardon the pun but what Nispel did to what we knew as Conan on film was pretty barbaric.


    And for that he should be punched.

    2.5/5 Stars


    I told y'all it'd be long! Why did I spend so much time writing a review for a terrible movie? I had no idea.

    The next review I might do is Brazil. I have it on Blu-ray and it's prrrrrdy.
    Last edited by Lord Rahl; December 14, 2011 at 03:06 PM.

    Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
    Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Ex-Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
    I may be back... | @BeardedRiker

  12. #52
    Hobbes's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hobs Crk
    Posts
    10,732

    Default Re: Lord Rahl's Cinematic Review Repository

    Not gonna watch this one. Why Hollywood like to ruin my favourite franchises, I will never know.

    BLM - ANTIFA - A.C.A.B. - ANARCHY - ANTI-NATIONALISM

  13. #53
    Boustrophedon's Avatar Grote Smurf
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    3,158

    Default Re: Lord Rahl's Cinematic Review Repository

    Yeah agreed. It didn't look like much in the trailers great review Rahl! I fully agree with your analysis of 3D btw It's a money cow and nothing more. In my country they don't even have adjustable 3D glasses for those who wear regular glasses (like me) so I won't be spending my money on it. It's an extra 2 euro (2.8 dollars) in my country...

  14. #54
    pchalk's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    lots of places ;-)
    Posts
    2,452

    Default Re: Lord Rahl's Cinematic Review Repository

    i honestly just cant watch 3D without feeling sick to my stomach. i find myself taking the glasses off after 5 min and closing my eyes to take a break

    btw LR i saw Thor finally on the airplane. to me the only good parts were the awkward scenes of him trying to fit in human society. but overall bad movie

  15. #55
    Boustrophedon's Avatar Grote Smurf
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    3,158

    Default Re: Lord Rahl's Cinematic Review Repository

    Quote Originally Posted by pchalk View Post
    i honestly just cant watch 3D without feeling sick to my stomach. i find myself taking the glasses off after 5 min and closing my eyes to take a break

    btw LR i saw Thor finally on the airplane. to me the only good parts were the awkward scenes of him trying to fit in human society. but overall bad movie
    Yes, that one quote in the pet shop was hilarious

    “Bring me a horse!”

    “Um, we only sell cats, dogs and birds…”

    “Then give me something big enough to ride!”

  16. #56
    Lord Rahl's Avatar Behold the Beard
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright!
    Posts
    13,779

    Default Re: Lord Rahl's Cinematic Review Repository

    Quote Originally Posted by Hobbes. View Post
    Not gonna watch this one. Why Hollywood like to ruin my favourite franchises, I will never know.

    I think the studio executives must think, "If it worked back then it will work now." So, if they release these movie reboots it will appeal to a new generation because of all the "teh awesum 'splosions" and the older generation already knows it and likes it. I guess that's a good way to bring in cash from a huge target audience.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boustrophedon View Post
    Yeah agreed. It didn't look like much in the trailers great review Rahl! I fully agree with your analysis of 3D btw It's a money cow and nothing more. In my country they don't even have adjustable 3D glasses for those who wear regular glasses (like me) so I won't be spending my money on it. It's an extra 2 euro (2.8 dollars) in my country...

    Thanks. One thing I don't understand is why traditional cartoons haven't been shown in 3D. I think Looney Toons would be pretty cool with 3D.

    Quote Originally Posted by pchalk View Post
    i honestly just cant watch 3D without feeling sick to my stomach. i find myself taking the glasses off after 5 min and closing my eyes to take a break

    It definitely ruins the movie experience. I want to watch film, not strain my eyes.

    btw LR i saw Thor finally on the airplane. to me the only good parts were the awkward scenes of him trying to fit in human society. but overall bad movie

    Yeah, I liked it when he was being all arrogant and ignorant of Earth.

    Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
    Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Ex-Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
    I may be back... | @BeardedRiker

  17. #57

    Default Re: Lord Rahl's Cinematic Review Repository

    I guess the only thing the movie had going for it was the thin veiled allure of incest, and they even failed to deliver on that.

    Plus wtf, he never used the super powerful crown to do anything, nor did McGowen's character do anything significant besides those sand men.

  18. #58
    Lord Rahl's Avatar Behold the Beard
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright!
    Posts
    13,779

    Default Re: Lord Rahl's Cinematic Review Repository

    Yeah, McGowen's character had no purpose in the movie. She just looked creepy, cut girls with her knife...nails (whatever you want to call them), and wanted to have sex with her dad...for one scene.

    Half in the Bag from Red Letter Media reviewed Conan briefly (go to 6:05). They pretty much say it's terrible too. The simplest and worst screenplay ever.


    Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
    Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Ex-Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
    I may be back... | @BeardedRiker

  19. #59
    Lord Rahl's Avatar Behold the Beard
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright!
    Posts
    13,779

    Default Re: Lord Rahl's Cinematic Review Repository

    Time for another movie review. And trust me that this one won't be nearly as long as the one I did for the stain known as Conan (2011).

    The Debt (2011)


    On another bored weekend my friend and I decided to go see another movie. The only one that slightly interested us was The Debt. It's hard to turn down movies that involve Nazis. From the trailer I had a feeling that the movie would be a bit better than it was implying.

    Because The Debt revolves around multiple characters both in the past and present the movie jumps around from time to time to the past and present (present in the movie is 1997). This jumping back and forth may confuse some people who see it, especially at the beginning of the movie where you still don't know the characters are very well, but to someone who doesn't mind a bit of intellectual guesswork it's not too hard to figure out. However, I will say that the jumping back and forth, mostly at the beginning and end, does create a pacing problem.

    What The Debt does very well is acting. Every actor does a fine job in the movie. With actors such as Tom Wilkinson Stephan) and Ciarán Hinds (David) you know they'll do their job right, and of course Helen Mirren (Rachel) delivers. They play the three main protagonists in their aged years, after their mission to find and kidnap Doctor Bernhardt, "The Butcher of Birkenau," played by Jesper Christensen, a Nazi who they wish to try as a war criminal. The younger cast involves Marton Csokas (Stephan), Sam Worthington (David), and Jessica Chastain (Rachel). They all do a good job as well. I was a bit uneasy of Worthington as one of the actors but he did his part quite well. Actually, I thought a downfall of the movie was that he did not get more screen time. So yes, The Debt is well-acted.

    Pacing of the movie is average. As I said at the beginning and end the movie goes back and forth between the past and present, and in that respect the middle of the movie is what I enjoyed the most, and that does mess with the fluidity of the film. My friend and I agreed that part of the pacing problem had to do with the way the movie was shot. I can't quite put my finger on it but it seemed as if the director didn't know whether to shoot it as a more slow-paced, suspenseful, and intimate movie or more of a mainstream action thriller.

    The movie is definitely not "action-packed" but throughout there is some very rhythmic music that I think tries to keep the audience's attention. For me it took me out of the movie. You have all of this splendid acting but the music doesn't allow us to appreciate it as much as we should. I think another problem is the script. It's as if I bought into who the actors were but not necessarily what they did. Part of that has to do with how I said the movie tried to be mainstream. Sometimes I felt as if it was trying to be historical but then it'd have scenes that I thought didn't necessarily fit. Another mishap was parts of the script, what the actors said. The Debt has these great actors and yet at times has them deliver unrealistic and melodramatic lines.

    Perhaps the most obvious grievance I have is with the overall message, or at least what the message wanted to be. Stephan, David, and Rachel have to deal with living a lie and so the overall theme is about regret, but at the end of the movie things didn't have a profound affect on me, especially the way the movie actually ended. Not that I wished for the movie to be all about, "Teh Nazis r evil and teh Izralees need to put teh bad guy on trial!!!11!1!," but the movie never seems to stick with what it wants to imply in its message.

    Overall The Debt does well, actually excellent regarding the cast and their acting, but the uncertainty of the film's identity, pacing problems and the beginning and end, and lacking script leave it an average movie that simply demands more.


    On the bright side, John Madden did direct it.

    3/5 Stars
    Last edited by Lord Rahl; September 06, 2011 at 10:45 PM.

    Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
    Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Ex-Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
    I may be back... | @BeardedRiker

  20. #60
    Lord Rahl's Avatar Behold the Beard
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright!
    Posts
    13,779

    Default Re: Lord Rahl's Cinematic Review Repository

    Our friend Wild Bill Kelso posted the link to the following movie on Facebook and I actually ended up watching all of it...and damn was I glad I did.

    The Fog of War (2003)



    I watched this last night on Google Video. I'll be honest, even though I'm a history nut, a history major and teacher at that, I'm not very learned on McNamara at all. I know who he was but I'm not entirely knowledgeable of all he was involved in. However, I'm always up to learn more and this documentary did an excellent job of enlightening me, causing me to think, and enjoy what was presented.

    The Fog of War is split up into different "lessons" from McNamara himself. I felt as if the movie was perfect for a college class dealing with politics and the like. Most documentaries have interviews with additional footage that relate to the subject but The Fog of War has McNamara with a seeming personal interest in explaining himself, his decisions, the events he was involved in, and more importantly have us learn something from HIM. HE wants the audience to learn what he's thought about in order for us to succeed and not make any mistakes he did. You can tell McNamara is a man who has thought a lot about what he's done and what he was involved in. Being 85 years old, at the time of the documentary's release, probably has something to do with that. In any case, I very much enjoyed getting a sort of international conflict lesson from McNamara's lessons.

    With each lesson there are events from McNamara's life that are highlighted. For example, with "Empathize with your enemy", the first lesson, we learn of how important that was in keeping the US and USSR from engaging in a nuclear war. You're much more likely to make the right decision, a decision that has everyone alive at the end of the day, if you understand your enemy and can empathize with them. Later on McNamara explains that one of the reasons Vietnam was such a failure was because both sides failed to understand and empathize with the other. This is one reason why the documentary works, because not only are these lessons a part of history, they are personal for McNamara.

    The additional footage that follows the clips of Errol Morris, the director, interviewing McNamara is always pertinent but some of it is much more interesting, that being the footage rarely seen, than other footage, that being the slow motion footage of napalm strikes in Vietnam, for example. However, much of the footage is accompanied by music from Philip Glass. I love Philip Glass and this is another good score from him. It's definitely not his best. If you've seen Koyaanisqatsi or have heard a good amount of his music then you'll notice how very similar the music he composed for The Fog of War is to them. Still, it's Glass and he creates a sort of ominous feeling throughout the entire film.

    In all I think the documentary works best because it's a sort of biography of McNamara's life, it's a history lesson in many ways, it's a good lesson of political science, and it's also an introspective of McNamara since he talks about himself, his decisions, his successes, and his failures. All this together makes for an informative and interesting documentary, one that you'll be glad to have watched.

    4/5 Stars


    By the way, here's the link to the documentary: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...96013688235740
    Last edited by Lord Rahl; September 23, 2011 at 09:31 AM.

    Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
    Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Ex-Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
    I may be back... | @BeardedRiker

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •