| You're currently viewing the Jolene Blalock - We Want Brunette Jolene SciFi Fan Forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. We do not release ANY email information at the Brunette Jolene Board!! As a new memeber your access will be limited until you have 10 posts. Once you reach that level other sections of the Forum will open up. Due to spam we have blocked certain IP and email addresses. If you are having difficulty with registration, please email the board admin using the link and request to be added manually. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Random Movie Reviews | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: 10 Feb 2008, 20:28 (1,110 Views) | |
| Rigil Kent | 18 Mar 2008, 20:50 Post #21 |
Cote de Pablo (& Jolene, of course) worshipper
|
So, I watched the director's cut of Troy tonight which I recently purchased. To preface, I love the original version. Yes, it has some flaws in it, but Sean Bean as Odysseus was as Ewan MacGregor playing Obi-Wan, and the fight scenes for Achilles flat out kicked righteous, mondo ass. For the most part, the director's cut is more of the same, though there's something like 30 minutes of extra footage added throughout the movie. Most of this extra footage is character stuff, where we get a better insight into the players throughout, and it really helps. Take Priam, for example. There's more of an explanation of why he's this ultra-devout worshiper of Apollo; it involves Hektor's childhood when he (Hektor) was stricken with an illness that the physicians said would kill the boy by dawn. Priam went to Apollo's temple and prayed the entire night. They even added a new scene that introduces Odysseus and it's fantastic. For those of you unaware, Troy is basically a more realistic telling of Homer's The Iliad. An absurdly in shape Brad Pitt portrays Achilles, the man "born to take lives", and Eric Bana playes (to perfection) the honorable and far more sympathetic Hektor Breaker of Horses. All of the mythological aspects are absent, and liberties are taken with the story (i.e. Menelaus is slain by Hektor instead of returning to Sparta with Helen, Paris survives, etc.) The core concepts of Homer's epic poem remains intact though: the war is just a backdrop for two arrogant Greek lords to have a pissing contest while one honorable Trojan tries to defend his city. In this newer cut, there's a bit more violence (just a bit - they actually have the Greeks, or the Achaens if one wishes to be accurate, ripping "babies" away from their mothers and tossing them during the sack of Troy), a lot more nudity (I think all of the female nudity was cut in the original version and Diane Kruger - Helen - is smoking hot), and some of the really awkward scene transitions from the original are gone (I'm thinking of the introduction of Briseis actually.) As to the characterizations, I've always enjoyed Brad Pitt as Achilles, despite my reservations when I heard he was cast. Yeah, he probably should look more ... I dunno ... Greek, but I loved how he moved while fighting. For those of you who have read the Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan, I envision his storming of the beach scene as how the blademasters would look while "dancing the forms." And the later scene when he's talking to Agamemnon's guards kicks righteous ass even though it's a real subtle thing. Again, WoT fans may recall in the first book when Elaida Sedai identified Rand's sword as heron-marked and how the guards reacted. Rose Byrne (Briseis) is remarkably beautiful in this movie and, for some reason, I found myself preferring her over the equally attractive Diane Kruger (Helen). Maybe it's 'cause Helen caused so much damned trouble in this movie. *shrug* Saffron Burrows, who plays Hektor's wife (whose name escapes me at the moment) looked really unhealthy thin and it was distracting; me and my roommate kept making snide comments about Hektor leaving her something to eat or perhaps showing her where the food is stored, etc. Amusingly enough, I even recognized Nigel Terry as the Apollo high priest; he played King Arthur Pendragon in the nigh-perfect Excalibur. Anyway, for blood and guts fans, this movie is recommended, particularly if you can get a copy of the director's cut. |
 |
 
|
| Kevin Thomas Riley | 18 Mar 2008, 22:21 Post #22 |
Lord of the Rohirrim
|
Hm, I might have this director's cut a try. I wasn't that keen on the original (cut) movie and actually prefer the much les expensive TV mini-series Helen of Troy (starring the awfully cute Sienna Guillory as Helen :wub:) that came out around the same time. |
|
|
|
| Jedikatie | 19 Mar 2008, 05:00 Post #23 |
Moderate you, I will...
|
Hector's wife's name was Andromache. Thing is, I like the mythology in this story, so their taking out of that aspect is exactly why I didn't much like this version of the story... well, that, and the fact that the rewrote the storyline because I sat there in the theater going, 'but he's not supposed to die, he's not supposed to live, that's wrong,' etc. to myself. |
|
|
|
| Rigil Kent | 19 Mar 2008, 06:03 Post #24 |
|
Cote de Pablo (& Jolene, of course) worshipper
|
I suppose I'll have to disagree with both of you in terms of appreciating this movie. For me, I rather liked how they streamlined it by excising the more mythological elements, thus grounding it in realistic terms while maintaining enough of the the core storyline that one can see how the myth was arrived at. Take Achilles' death, for example. He died because Paris the Coward riddled him with arrows, yet by the time the other Greeks showed up, the only arrow that was still in him was the one in his foot, thus explaining the amusing (Roman invention, I believe) myth angle that he was invincible except for that one spot. As to the deaths that weren't in the original story (or the characters who survived when they shouldn't), I just shrugged it off. It's Hollywood and I've yet to see them do a translation of some form of literature without screwing up some aspect to it. That's just the nature of the beast. And in regards to the USA telemovie, Helen of Troy, I recall watching it and thinking it wasn't that bad; the way they did the Godly intervention was something I rather liked and I appreciated that Menelaus was a sympathetic character in that version. But it had as many flaws as Troy did. To each their own, I suppose. |
|
|
|
| Jedikatie | 19 Mar 2008, 06:21 Post #25 |
|
Moderate you, I will...
|
No problem, Rigil. I just like mythology. I was the mythology expert on our Latin certamen (quiz bowl) team for 5 years in junior high and high school. So seeing The Iliad on the screen without those aspects takes away from the story for me. :shrug: I'm not saying that the way they did it isn't more realistic, it probably is closer to the truth of what actually did happen, it's just that they took out the stuff that, for me, made it the Iliad... |
|
|
|
| Rigil Kent | 19 Mar 2008, 07:23 Post #26 |
|
Cote de Pablo (& Jolene, of course) worshipper
|
Well, growing up as a D&D geek, I'm bound to love the mythology as well. When it comes to The Iliad, the intervention of deities is, frankly, the only way that a lot of that story makes sense (like Helen's wildly uneven decisions to jump back and forth between Paris and Menelaus, or how Paris is snatched from his duel with Menelaus and tossed into bed with Helen, etc.) Realistically, it's hard to believe that the Trojans wouldn't be - to a man - really pissed off at Paris for getting them into a war because he couldn't keep his fly zipped. With Troy, I was curious to see how the story would look boiled down to it constituent parts and absent of the godly aspects. Overall, I think they did a pretty interesting job, even if I have some minor complaints about some of the characters as you did (like both Aggie & Menelaus being slain and Paris surviving). Plus, as I said, I love watching Achilles move in combat. The taking of the beach scene (which is expanded a bit to include some more Ajax, as well as a little bit more Achilles in the director's cut) always brings to mind a Wheel of Time blademaster due to the way each "form" flows into the next, and I can't help but to imagine a lightsaber duel choreographed by the guy(s) who choreographed these fight scenes. No ridiculous CG, just pure, unadulterated ass whooping. *GLEE!* And it's got Sean Bean playing a good guy. B) A smart good guy. "It is no crime to say that a dead man is dead." |
|
|
|
| Rigil Kent | 22 Mar 2008, 18:52 Post #27 |
|
Cote de Pablo (& Jolene, of course) worshipper
|
So, because I should have been doing something else but didn't feel like it, I decided to watch the third of the Bourne movies again. I've owned The Bourne Ultimatum for a while now, but never really got around to re-watching it for various reasons. Back in the 80s, when I was in high school, I got on a serious Robert Ludlum kick and devoured most of his books so I've actually read the three Bourne books the three movies are loosely based upon. Obviously, a lot of changes had to be made in order for the movies to work since they were pretty topical at the time. The plot of the first Bourne novel (The Bourne Identity) revolved around the notorious assassin, Carlos the Jackal. Carlos was, in fact, the reason why Bourne was created. Thus, they had to rewrite the plot somewhat. When I caught the first Bourne movie in the theater, I loved it. There was a bit too much shaky-cam for my tastes (something that has carried over through the two sequels but is, unfortunately, one of those things a modern movie goer has to expect anymore), but it was still a kick ass movie. Matt Damon was totally convincing as a super bad ass who was freaked out when he realized that he was a super bad ass. Contrast him with Arnold in Total Recall; I mean, really, a guy built like Arnold was in the 80s and he's surprised that he can break people? Come on. The first sequel - The Bourne Supremacy - was a surprisingly good sequel, especially given that it was coming from Hollywood which is notorious for putting out a good first movie and then utterly screwing up the sequel. Honestly, the only exceptions to this rule that come to mind for me are Aliens, The Empire Strikes Back, Wrath of Khan, and this second Bourne movie. Admittedly, I was really disappointed when they killed off Marie in the beginning of Supremacy though that's probably 'cause I've got this thing for Franka Potente. She really reminds me of a girl I knew some years back who I still occasionally lose sleep over because I never told her how I felt about her (blame the fact that I'm an ... emotional cripple, if you will.) The third Bourne movie is more of the same, so if you didn't like the first two, you'll probably hate this one too. Bourne kicks everyone's ass who comes after him and works his way up the feeding chain to get what information he wants. After three movies, one would think that the bad guys learn ... but in their defense, the ones who do figure it out are generally ignored by the newest group of idiots in charge. This movie picks up in Moscow, immediately after Bourne interacted with that Russian chick at the end of the second movie and the phone call that served as the denouement of Supremacy is actually incorporated into the action of this movie. Pamela Landy - played by the always good Joan Allen - is a good guy in this one, having figured out that Bourne is not the walking death machine he was claimed to be. Well, actually, he is, but now she knows he just wants to be left alone and, as she states in a scene cut from the movie, trying to kill him and failing just pisses him off. The lovely Julia Stiles is present again and, while she's as attractive as usual, there seems to be some subtext to her character absent this time. It almost seemed as though the director was trying to imply that she had been involved with David Webb (Bourne's real identity prior to his transformation into Captain Badass), but they never actually explain what her deal with him is. Thus, the scenes where she looks at Bourne (either longingly or not) seem ... off, like we're supposed to know something that we don't. That is, IMO, the only real misstep of this movie which isn't even cleared up with the scenes that were cut. I wonder if the director commentary explains it... As in the previous movies, the action scenes are just gold. Watching Bourne beat the excrement out of someone is fraking awesome and I love how physical the fights are. They're brutal and kinetically fast, usually resulting in the audience exhaling in relief when Bourne is finished whipping someone's ass. Adding to his repertoire, he kills a guy with a towel in this movie after using a hardback book to smack him around a bit. And the car chase is fantastic as well. In the past, I've commented about how I like movies about smart people and Bourne is exactly that. I suppose that may be why I like the franchise so much: when Bourne begins doing something, you know it's because he's thinking. That, I think, is the character's greatest weapon and is one that is always being underestimated by the opposition. I recently saw that Damon had signed on for a fourth Bourne movie and I desperately hope they can maintain the ass whooping momentum that they've achieved thus far in the three movies released. My grade is Four and a Half Ass Whippings out of Five. |
|
|
|
| Rigil Kent | 29 Mar 2008, 23:33 Post #28 |
|
Cote de Pablo (& Jolene, of course) worshipper
|
So, for whatever reason, me and my roommate decided to watch Elizabeth: The Golden Age tonight after having watching the first Elizabeth movie earlier. Compared to the first one, this sequel is ... well ... lacking in a lot of ways. Don't get me wrong: it's very pretty and not a bad movie per se, but the historical inaccuracies are immense! Elizabeth is too young in a lot of the movie and the so-called triangle between her, Raleigh and that hot handmaiden that Raleigh married is kinda boring. The one thing that really irks me in both of the Elizabeth movies is how the Catholics are portrayed as the root of all evil in that time. Now I'm not a Catholic (I consider myself agnostic actually), but I swear, all the Catholics in these movies need were red lightsabers and they would have been Sith. It got to the point where it seemed almost like self-parody. But, as I said, it's very pretty to watch and some of the outfits are wicked cool. But unfortunately, I can't give it more than 2 and a half stars out of five. |
|
|
|
| Rigil Kent | 23 Apr 2008, 14:31 Post #29 |
|
Cote de Pablo (& Jolene, of course) worshipper
|
So, I went and watched The Forbidden Kingdom today and, as much as I may hate to say it, I was only mildly entertained. Given that both Jackie Chan and Jet Li are in it, I knew that the fight scenes would be good and, for the most part, they didn't let me down. And, of course, there were some pretty damned cool visuals. The Medusa chick (she of the white hair) was pretty nice and I couldn't help but to laugh when the two masters kept beating up the clueless white kid. Unfortunately, the rest of the flick was kinda ... blah. I honestly can't tell you a single character name (apart from the Monkey King, but then, I dig monkeys so...) There was Jet Li playing the monk (and come on - who didn't see the identity reveal at the end?), and Jackie Chan playing the drunken master (and ditto that), and the annoying white kid who reminded of the dude from Transformers that ultimately made out with the unbelievably gorgeous Megan Fox, and then there was the gratuitious quasi-love interest. Plot was pretty paint-by-numbers too, and I couldn't help but to hear that stupid "Montage" song from Team America in my head during the ... training montage. I never quite understood why the Bad Guy was a bad guy ... although it may have something to do with the fact that he had mascara on. Now I'm not one of those people who think that the Bad Guy's complete motivations have to be revealed, but I would like a bad guy to have a reason other than "he's a bad guy." Maybe they revealed the reason, but I missed it. So, while I enjoyed the fight scenes, sitting through the rest of the movie was pretty difficult. It's definitely not my all time favorite wuxia movie ... that would still be Wong Fei Hung or Once Upon a Time in China as I originally knew it... 3 stars out of 5. |
|
|
|
| Rigil Kent | 29 Apr 2008, 20:26 Post #30 |
|
Cote de Pablo (& Jolene, of course) worshipper
|
Just finished watching I Am Legend and thought it was pretty good. I thought Will Smith did an excellent job at conveying his character's desperation and incremental loss of sanity, and, though I'm evidently in the minority, I rather liked the ending of his story since it seemed entirely within his character to act the way he did (I mean ... 3 years with just his dog for company and believing he was the last survivor of humanity kinda turned him a little insane). And, as a dog lover, I was pretty sad to see Sam(antha) die, even though it was pretty obvious that was going to happen from the get-go. My biggest gripes has to be with the vampire-zombie dudes. I hated the CG look because it was so obviously CG. IMO, good computer graphics should be seamless, so you can't look at something and think "yep, that's CG." Take the clonetroopers from EpII & III, for example. They never built an actual suit of armor for any of the troopers and instead CGed it into existence ... yet you can't tell. The vampire-zombies in this movie just looked fake and pretty lame to me. Still, that gripe aside, it was a solid action-adventure with splashes of horror thrown in. I give a solid 3.5 vampire-zombies out of 5. |
|
|
|
| Kevin Thomas Riley | 30 Apr 2008, 09:42 Post #31 |
|
Lord of the Rohirrim
|
Really! I'm amazed. At least I thought they had a suit when one of them weren't wearing their helmets and we could see Temuera Morrison's face. |
|
|
|
| Rigil Kent | 30 Apr 2008, 11:24 Post #32 |
|
Cote de Pablo (& Jolene, of course) worshipper
|
The only they built was a couple of helmets. I remember seeing this Making Of thing for EpIII where Morrison is putting on the helmet and is wearing one of those green-suits. Needless to say, I was pretty surprised... |
|
|
|
| Rigil Kent | 1 May 2008, 20:56 Post #33 |
|
Cote de Pablo (& Jolene, of course) worshipper
|
Iron Man As you may know, I had tickets for an advance screening of the latest comic book to movie property tonight and just got back from seeing it. To be perfectly honest, I can't think of a single flaw in this movie. As a comic book movie (wherein comic book physics overrule normal physics), it's nigh perfect. For those of you unaware, Tony Stark (played perfectly by Robert Downey Jr.) is a billionaire playboy genius whose company (Stark Industries) is a leading weapons developer for the US. In the original comic, he was badly injured and captured while in the Far East (Vietnam, I believe, since it was written in the 60s) where he learned firsthand that his weapons were being used against the troops he designed them for. To escape from his captors (who want him to build weapons for them), he constructs the Mark I suit which is rudimentary but allows him to get to safety. The movie updates this tale by having him be injured/captured in Afghanistan. The bad guys are an organization known as the Ten Rings, which is clearly a homage to a major Iron Man villain known as the Mandarin. Stark actually sees American servicemen killed by his weapons and is horrified to see these terrorist types equipped with the gear that he built for the USA. As before, he builds the Mark I, kicks a crapload of terrorist butt, and returns home to try and change the direction of his company. There's no shortage of action in this flick, which shouldn't be a surprise since its a movie based on a comic book, but I was surprised at the amount (and effectiveness) of the humor present. It's also a good thing that comic book physics are being employed, 'cause I counted at least three times where a real person would have died. Visually, the armor is awesome and the CG work is top notch. As it should be, it was mostly seamless throughout, with only one or two instances that leaped out to me as unmistakeably CG work. The cast is also first rate. As I said earlier, Downey does a great job with Stark, bringing across the womanizing, borderline alcoholic genius to life. Gwyneth Paltrow is equally great as Stark's long-suffering executive assistant and potential love interest, Pepper Potts; I was especially appreciative that the story actually knew how to use her to great effect, something that even Batman Begins can't say. Unlike the movie versions of Lois Lane or MJ Watson or Mrs. Tom Cruise, Pepper is actually useful for more than just being the damsel in distress. And who knew that Jeff Bridges could look so cool? So, after having seen it once, I give it a solid 4 Suits out of 5, reserving the right to increase or decrease my ranking as time passes. Trust me, I fully intend to watch it again. The only drawback to it tonight was that there wasn't a new trailer attached for The Dark Knight, though the Indy & Hulk trailers were nice... |
|
|
|
| Jedikatie | 2 May 2008, 05:53 Post #34 |
|
Moderate you, I will...
|
So did Samuel L. Jackson (as Nick Fury) happen to show up in the film in a cameo spot after the end credits, or did you stay that long? There was a story over at Sci Fi Wire yesterday that there might possibly be one... |
|
|
|
| Rigil Kent | 2 May 2008, 05:59 Post #35 |
|
Cote de Pablo (& Jolene, of course) worshipper
|
I didn't stay for the end credits. I'll have to let you know once I've watched it again. |
|
|
|
| Jedikatie | 2 May 2008, 06:10 Post #36 |
|
Moderate you, I will...
|
^ Okay. That same article also mentioned that it's confirmed that Downey filmed a scene (as Iron Man) that's supposed to be in the Hulk movie as well... |
|
|
|
| Captain X | 2 May 2008, 20:36 Post #37 |
"Vice" Admiral
|
I just saw Iron Man, and in my theater, they did show the Dark Knight trailer, a rather lengthy one actually that shows the Joker talking the mobsters into basically hiring him to kill the Bat. Anyway, awesome movie, and I agree whole-heartedly with what Rigil said about it. I can also confirm that there is a scene after the credits that features a one-eyed Samuel L Jackson as Nick Fury in Stark's house. Stark asks him who the hell he is and Fury tells him that he isn't the only superhero, and he drops the name "Avengers", so I'm guessing that they want to set it up for a sequel involving them. |
|
|
|
| Rigil Kent | 3 May 2008, 20:03 Post #38 |
|
Cote de Pablo (& Jolene, of course) worshipper
|
Heh. The "Avenger Initiative". That kicks ass. Yeah, I went back and watched it again tonight (when I should have been studying). Sound quality and visual quality of the theater I went to this time kind of stunk, but they played the new TDK trailer and I sat through the credits for the Nick Fury scene. Awesome. Sam Jackson kicks ass. |
|
|
|
| Jedikatie | 3 May 2008, 20:10 Post #39 |
|
Moderate you, I will...
|
Maybe I can talk my best friend into going and seeing it with me, then. |
|
|
|
| Jedikatie | 4 May 2008, 14:27 Post #40 |
|
Moderate you, I will...
|
Apparently a lot of people like Iron Man this weekend... Iron Man is box-office gold |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Movies · Next Topic » |
2:11 PM Jan 7