Give YOUR Movie review

Could we please get back to the thread topic? I'm beginning to feel like ahyperdude did a few weeks ago. Take this discussion somewhere else, please. I don't mind discussing movie reviews and opinions about said films...but clearly y'all want to discuss that idea in depth, and it should be moved. This isn't a "debate princess movies" thread.

Just sayin'.
 
Title: Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Story: A testing facility does tests on apes, trying to create a medicine to cure Alzheimers (I think that's what it was). The medicine proves to work, but the main test ape tries to escape because of it's newfound wisdom. The monkey ends up getting shot and all the other apes existing in the facility are exterminated besides a new born baby. The main scientist takes it home and learns it received the medicine through it's mother, so it is just as smart. But an Ape this smart cannot survive enclosed in a house now can it.

Elements:
Acting: It was very good! James Franco was awesome! I couldn't really detect any fakeness

Filming: Fair, some parts were confusing but other scenes were really amazing like when the monkey's would climb to the top of a tree, the city view was amazing!

Effects: I wasn't particularly pleased with the effects. Some of the monkeys looked rather fake at points, although others seemed insanely real. Overall I didn't love it.

Storyline: Not my favorite, it was a tad copycat, and then end was pretty much horrible, through most of the movie I was board, waiting for the climax, and the climax could barely be called that. SPOILER/Alternative ending Like REALLY? You only send three highway patrol cop cars to stop a group of hundreds of monkeys? Unrealistic. What I think they SHOULD'VE done, was had a full out CLIMAX with swat, special forces etc. They kill all the monkey's or at least think so, although this was a distraction, and two escape to the forest to reproduce and come back in the next one! SPOILER/Alternative ending

Summary: 6-10. It was OK in my opinion. The end was pretty bad other then the scene in the credits which REALLY got me excited for the next movie which is planned for a release in 2014. Would I suggest you see it? Sure, although it isn't the most entertaining thing you'll see.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the review; I had wondered about that one, too. I saw the old Planet of the Apes a long time ago, and it was very scary to me at the time. I was a child, I think.

Anyway, I probably won't bother with PLanet of the Apes as you only give it a 6/10.

I watched "The Ghost and the Darkness." This is an old movie, probably at least 20 years old, about the true story of the two man-eater lions who terrorized the African province of Savo where the British were trying to build a bridge to connect the railroad back in the days of colonial imperialism.

It is very scary! The lions are like Jaws only they are stalking through the tall grass of the savannah rather than swimming through the murky ocean. You see the waving grass and every now and then the flash of a lion's eyes or tail or mane. Very suspenseful.

There is a lot of man-mauling violence and blood, although it's not REALLY graphic, it is pretty bloody. The acting is very good, and the lion scenes are very realistic with a real pair of adult male lions. I enjoyed the film for what it was, very suspenseful and exciting and scary. The cinematography of the African veldt was very pretty.
 
ahyperdude said:
Title: Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Click to expand...

I've been wanting to see this, but saw it had several F words and decided not to. Everything I heard about the movie was good, and that Andy Serkis should have been nominated for an Oscar for his [motion capture] performance. Least I think it was that one. He's been in a lot so maybe it was another movie he did recently.
 
^ Actually it's not about evolution, but instead ethical treatment of animals. It's sort of a "shoes on the other foot" story. The undercurrent story is disregard for the past
because the end of the film shows the Statue of Liberty buried in the sand, everything America stood for having been forgotten.

ahyperdude said:
It's fine :) I can bet you almost anything it was the OLD old one.. I'm fairly sure that one was really bad
Click to expand...

It's been many years since I saw Planet Of The Apes but I don't recall a single F word. Anything above mild, common profanity was extremely rare in that decade. And it's brilliant.
 
So...my dad lied to me in saying that the original films were based on evolution? I find that hard to swallow because evidently he has seen at least the first one, and he didn't tell me that because I asked to see the film; I made some passing comment on it. Animals don't have souls, and I think it's arrogant presumption to place them in such circumstances.
 
Aravis Kenobi said:
So...my dad lied to me in saying that the original films were based on evolution? I find that hard to swallow because evidently he has seen at least the first one, and he didn't tell me that because I asked to see the film; I made some passing comment on it. Animals don't have souls, and I think it's arrogant presumption to place them in such circumstances.
Click to expand...

No need to be harsh, I never said as such.

Perhaps your father misinterpreted or doesn't remember correctly. My grandmother used to tell me how horribly sad So Dear To My Heart (the old Disney) was because the lamb died and the child was mistreated. Upon seeing it again she realized she'd confused it with an entirely different film and SDTMH was actually sweet and ends happily. Perhaps instead of relying on what I say you could see it for yourself and decide. I've never taken anyone's word on what a film is like because nine chances out of ten they'll see it differently (much like all the different stories the police hear from witnesses after an accident).

Regardless of whether animals have souls (and the discussion of such is religious and not media related so I won't elaborate besides saying many Christian and Jewish people would disagree with you, the Bible doesn't say, and some churches don't even believe unborn/miscarried infants have souls due to the "breath of life" never entering them), they deserve ethical treatment. Inhumane cruelty is wrong for any living creature.

Also it could be said the film makes a strong statement against racism since the "differences" are what lead the apes to enslave humanity.

But of course, please don't take my word for it. If it interests you, see it, and decide for yourself. :)
 
Doubtful that he misinterpreted, since he's typically right about things like that. I've never had any interest in seeing them anyway, except maybe the newest one because of Andy Serkis. I'm not at all for the inhumane treatment of animals, but in my line of work? I advocate animal use for research, and I feel as if people look at me as if I want to kill animals for the sake of selfish human welfare (and if you want to know my stance on animal research, feel free to shoot me a message and I'll passionately tell you why). That's my problem with the whole 'unethical treatment of animals' message. They put animal life far above that of humans, which is NOT how we were created by God (I don't believe God put animals in charge over humans, but man in charge of animals).

Anyway, going off on a tangent there. Hoping to see The Artist next week, and I'm really hoping it doesn't let me down because of all its hype.
 
The Help (2011)

I'd wanted to read/see The Help ever since it became so popular last year, but it took me a little while to get around to it. I finally read the book a few months ago, and I enjoyed it very much. Last night I watched the film, and I was also very pleased with it.

The movie version was very faithful to the original story, despite the multiple narrators and rather scattered plot that are found in the book. Though some of the details were removed/changed around, it still left me with many of the same thoughts and emotions I had while reading Kathryn Stockett's novel. There were some parts that I felt were incompletely dealt with, such as the traumatic events in Miss Celia's life - but there really wasn't enough time to fully flesh out every single plotline. There sheer number of significant characters made it extremely difficult to convey all of their stories, but I think they handled the job well.

The acting, scenery, costumes, score, etc. were also very impressive. The atmosphere was rich and inviting, which clashed interestingly with the unsettling themes. At times I felt like there was a bit too much of a disconnect between the polished images depicted in the movie and the rawness of the book. Some of the dialogue seemed a little to refined, and a couple of the characters were a bit over the top (such as the main antagonist, Hilly Holbrook). But those are very small points of criticism. Overall, I found the aesthetics and characterization compelling.

On the themes, and how successfully they were dealt with: I felt that in both the book and the movie, the topic of racism was not handled as well as it could have been. With such a long and detailed story, I would expect a more nuanced take on the subject. Perhaps it would have been more revolutionary a couple decades ago, but in this day and age, I think we've moved beyond a basic understanding of the importance of racial equality. What The Help seems to communicate in large doses is "racism is bad." But I think we are ready to expand upon this fact. This was the one area where I felt quite disappointed in the story.

The film did succeed in making me cry, which does not happen very often (I reserve my tears for books, which I can react to alone and without fear of embarrassment... haha). There was a good balance of happy and sad, which I think many different types of audiences would enjoy. I don't know if I could give it a number rating at this point; I'd definitely like to watch it a second time before doing that. But I will say that it is a great film that deserves most of the praise it's received, and I'd recommend it to anyone looking for a good movie to watch (even though the book is better :) ;)).
 
Movies like "The Help" are made for one reason: the Hollywood establishment likes to keep on being angry at the same targets, and DOESN'T WANT TO ADMIT that the racial injustices of the Fifties and early Sixties HAVE ALREADY BEEN REMEDIED BY NOW. That movie is a way of beating a dead horse.
 
One of Alfred Hitchcock's earliest and least-remembered films is titled "Seventeen." It has nothing to do with teenage romance; it's more or less a detective story. Carol has it in her collection, and we watched it last night.

Since it was produced in 1932, everyone who had anything to do with making it had probably worked on silent movies also. The transition from the silent format is highly evident in this movie -- particularly in the extremely exaggerated facial expressions that some of the actors assume in close-ups.

In case you ever see it, be notified: the script leaves a lot of things unexplained for a long time.
 
Lila, thanks for the review of The Help. I enjoyed the book as well and had wondered whether I would like the film, but I had heard there was a lot of language, and I don't really like that ... Glad to know it was faithful to the book.

CF, I think Hollywood primarily makes movies to make money, although I agree with you, and Lila in her way, that the conversation about racism can be moved on from the "racism is bad" message, and everyone can get over the past now.
 
Of course no one in show business _dislikes_ making money; but wealth has never been the _only_ motivator. There are actors, directors and writers who have a warped "sense of mission," in which they "idealistically" desire to pull down the Judeo-Christian moral tradition and every element of society that supports it.
 
FYI re Planet of the Apes: over in the hijacking thread, we have confirmation that the apes did not become intelligent through evolution, but through scientific experiments that humans did on them, so if you're disliking the films because they support evolution, that is not an issue. If anything, the stupidity/evil of humans trying to "play God" is on display, not an endorsement of evolution.

Now on to my movie review: on the plane on Saturday I saw a film called "Salmon Fishing in the Yemen."

It was kind of a cute comedy about a British Dept of Agriculture and Fisheries researcher strong-armed into helping a Yemeni sheik and his attractive assistant create a river for salmon fishing in Yemen. Turns out the mountains there are cool, and via an aquifer the underground water can be brought up to make a stream. The researcher was forced into it because the British government wanted a light-hearted good news story from the Middle East -- he never thought it could be done but was drawn into the challenge and fell in love with the assistant.

It was cute, but based on a novel, not on a true story, and so there were some things they could have done differently. The researcher left his wife for the assistant, which made things dramatic but it was a pointless sort of sub-plot that made you like him less. (The movie did all the "right" things of making the wife seem like she was uncaring and discouraging toward him so he had a reason to leave, etc.)

Other than that, it was quite watchable and funny, in an adult BBC kind of way.
 
Back
Top