Wow, it sounds so good! I still didn't to see it -- I couldn't get my husband to come out on the weekend, and I hate to keep bugging him about it.
But I really want to see it! Oh well ... maybe some time this week.
Give YOUR Movie review
- Thread starter Mrs Gil-Galad Took
- Start date
Wow, it sounds so good! I still didn't to see it -- I couldn't get my husband to come out on the weekend, and I hate to keep bugging him about it.
But I really want to see it! Oh well ... maybe some time this week.
Aravis Kenobi
New member
Wow, it sounds so good! I still didn't to see it -- I couldn't get my husband to come out on the weekend, and I hate to keep bugging him about it.
Do keep bugging him...it works on my brother-in-law.
My sister asked me how it was, so I think they are considering going to see it. If I don't get to see Crooked Arrows in June, I plan on seeing Avengers again, but in 2D. Me and 3D glasses don't jive well because of my glasses. 
ahyperdude
New member
Every time I see someone has posted on this thread, I'm excited to see a new review.. Can you (AK and Inkspot) discuss elsewhere? Just like a PM or VM? Thanks
Aravis Kenobi
New member
Technically inkspot was discussing the review, so...I don't see your point. Or are you suggesting that all of the posts between you and I were spam, or was that acceptable?
Since inkspot hasn't yet seen the film, discussion in Avengers thread would be spam.
ahyperdude
New member
Fine, drive people crazy with your random conversation! NO ONE WANTS TO SEE IT, so PLEASE just do it in a PM. IT'S NOT THAT HARD.. Copy the last reply, put it in quotes, and reply to it in a message to Inkspot. I asked nicely, and there is no reason why you need to get mad at me for it.
Right, I don't think you have to post a review to post in here, or otherwise people wouldn't know whether you liked their review or not. And as AK says, technically I was responding to something she added to her review, and then she responded to me, so ...
But just so you won't be disappointed, I will give my movie review of
Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie
This was made I believe in 1998. The premise is the same as the old TV show MST3K: a mad scientist has kidnapped a flunkie and shot him into space in a satelite where he float around and is forced to watch bad science fiction movies. The theory is the movies will break his brain, and make him a zombie slave. When that happens, the scientist will know what movie to force all humanity to watch, and it will break their brains, and he will be able to rule the world.
But what really happens is, the flunkie has used spare parts from the satellite to build some robots who keep him company and watch the bad movies with him. And they make fun of them the whole time, making jokes about the bad dialogs, sets, acting, script, effects, etc. They make these jokes as the movie is being shown, and they go very fast so you have to be paying attention in order to keep up with the jokes.
In "Mystery Science Theater 3000: the Movie," Mike and the bots are forced to watch a movie called "This Island Earth" which is really cheesy and pointless and stupid. But their jokes are hilarious throughout. This is about the same as the TV episodes, though. The only difference is, because they made this one for the big screen, they use some mildly offensive language; I guess they thought they had to do that. On the TV episodes, they don't usually use any profanity.
I give it 8/10; I have seen some MST3K episodes on TV that had more laughs pack into them, but this one was pretty good.
But just so you won't be disappointed, I will give my movie review of
Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie
This was made I believe in 1998. The premise is the same as the old TV show MST3K: a mad scientist has kidnapped a flunkie and shot him into space in a satelite where he float around and is forced to watch bad science fiction movies. The theory is the movies will break his brain, and make him a zombie slave. When that happens, the scientist will know what movie to force all humanity to watch, and it will break their brains, and he will be able to rule the world.
But what really happens is, the flunkie has used spare parts from the satellite to build some robots who keep him company and watch the bad movies with him. And they make fun of them the whole time, making jokes about the bad dialogs, sets, acting, script, effects, etc. They make these jokes as the movie is being shown, and they go very fast so you have to be paying attention in order to keep up with the jokes.
In "Mystery Science Theater 3000: the Movie," Mike and the bots are forced to watch a movie called "This Island Earth" which is really cheesy and pointless and stupid. But their jokes are hilarious throughout. This is about the same as the TV episodes, though. The only difference is, because they made this one for the big screen, they use some mildly offensive language; I guess they thought they had to do that. On the TV episodes, they don't usually use any profanity.
I give it 8/10; I have seen some MST3K episodes on TV that had more laughs pack into them, but this one was pretty good.
Aravis Kenobi
New member
Thank you. There's no rule in this thread that says you can't have a discussion about a review (and if there is, it must be an unspoken/invisible rule). Otherwise, why bother posting them if you can't discuss people's reviews?
I haven't watched any movie except Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian...I really don't want to give a review on it. The first movie is loads better.
I also last watched The Prince of Egypt (1998), but I'm pretty sure I already gave a review on it.
Totally agree about Night at the Museum 2, it was not nearly as good, or funny, as the first one. But that happens a lot in sequels.Thank you. There's no rule in this thread that says you can't have a discussion about a review (and if there is, it must be an unspoken/invisible rule). Otherwise, why bother posting them if you can't discuss people's reviews?
I haven't watched any movie except Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian...I really don't want to give a review on it. The first movie is loads better.
I am going to give my movie review of "Gone with the Wind," because on the Teen Jeopardy Tournament, the clue was: Want to know how it was for a European woman running a coffee plantation in Africa in the 1920's? Read this book, and one of the young contestants guessed Gone with the Wind. Nothing could be further from a description of GWTW than that! So, in case you never saw this epic film ...
I believe it was made in 1936 or thereabouts, and it stars the beautiful Vivien Leigh as vivacious Scarlett O'Hara, a selfish, headstrong teenaged girl in pre-Civil War Georgia. The film follows her life as she is disappointed in love and rushes into a war wedding with a boy she barely knows and cares nothing about ... Throughout the film she is pursued by the older rogue, Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) but remains obstinately committed to her forbidden love for Ashley (Leslie Howard) who is married to a lovely young woman who idolizes Scarlett, Melanie Wilkes (Olivia deHavilland sp?).
This is an epic film that shows some of the horrors of the civil war and the havoc it wreaked in the South even after the war was over -- and it moves Scarlett steadily toward her breaking point as she is forced to fend for herself, provide for her family, and eventually (and too late) realize how dear and strong Melanie is ...
All the acting is first rate. The script is very well done considering the magnitude of the book they had to work with. The costumes are wonderful. This is definitely a 9/10. The only drawback for us today is the way slavery and slaves are portrayed. Although the O'Hara slaves are shown as noble and good, even heroic, they're also painted as quite child-like and dependent on their owners. But this was the author, Mitchell's, view of slavery when she wrote the book.
If you can keep that in perspective, this is a good romance and very fascinating classic film.
Aravis Kenobi
New member
Seriously? Even before I saw the movie, I knew what the plot roughly was! I saw the movie in full on Netflix...just to say I'd seen it.
So, I can sufficiently say I despise the film even though it's got some really great cinematography. Scarlett made me want to smack her at each turn, Rhett I couldn't stand, and ugh. Maybe it's a curse of being a Southerner, but I know for a fact that the film has got several historical inaccuracies, especially considering that 99% of plantations in the south weren't majestic or grand, they were not glamorous. And, women didn't wear hoop skirts like that each day, if at all. In fact, when I wanted to create a Civil War costume a few years ago for our fall carnival, I did some looking into what the women wore every day, and I was pretty surprised by the results. Growing up in the South, I think I'm safe in saying that I grew up with the glamorous, Hollywood version of the Southern lifestyle then (and trust me, this is an entire issue I like discussing at other times). But, something to be said for me getting older: I've also learned to despise those inaccuracies. It's kind of like movies such as, oh, Finding Neverland. Movie I LOVE, but the way they portray Native Americans is disappointing to me (even though I know that's reflective of the time period the movie was set in). I don't know, I'm just soured on films like GWTW and others like "The Horse Soldiers" with John Wayne and Bill Holden, and maybe it's due to the blatant stereotypes and untrue depictions of life in the 1860s.
But the film has some good effects and style, I will give it that. Just not a fan of its story.
Don't you think Scarlett is like a lot of us, convinced of what will make her happy and continually grasping at it while not even stopping to consider what we'll do when we get it? Rhett (in the book) accuses her of throwing away happiness with both hands at one point, and it's true ... she's so blind to the true state of her heart, and the reality of the people around her, she boldly reaches out for just whatever she wants and doesn't realize it's not what will really bring her joy....
You should read the book, maybe, it's quite absorbing.
But I agree, the historical inaccuracies would be alarming to someone who went into the film with that knowledge. But I think mostly people get swept up in the story.
You should read the book, maybe, it's quite absorbing.
But I agree, the historical inaccuracies would be alarming to someone who went into the film with that knowledge. But I think mostly people get swept up in the story.
Aravis Kenobi
New member
Maybe she is, but she makes me want to slap her to shut her up. For 4 hours, that isn't a good thing.
Narniabeaver2005
New member
Title: Die Geschichte vom weinenden Kamel
Year: 2003
The Plot on IMDb: Springtime in the Gobi Desert, South Mongolia. A family of nomadic shepherds assists the births of their camel herd. One of the camels has an excruciatingly difficult delivery but, with help from the family, out comes a rare white colt. Despite the efforts of the shepherds, the mother rejects the newborn, refusing it her milk and her motherly love. When any hope for the little one seems to have vanished, the nomads send their two young boys on a journey through the desert, to a a backwater town in search of a musician who is their only hope for saving the colt's life.
Rating: 10
My Review: If you want to watch a movie from Mongolia don't miss this.
Deserved more Oscar noms.
Year: 2003
The Plot on IMDb: Springtime in the Gobi Desert, South Mongolia. A family of nomadic shepherds assists the births of their camel herd. One of the camels has an excruciatingly difficult delivery but, with help from the family, out comes a rare white colt. Despite the efforts of the shepherds, the mother rejects the newborn, refusing it her milk and her motherly love. When any hope for the little one seems to have vanished, the nomads send their two young boys on a journey through the desert, to a a backwater town in search of a musician who is their only hope for saving the colt's life.
Rating: 10
My Review: If you want to watch a movie from Mongolia don't miss this.
Deserved more Oscar noms.
Aravis Kenobi
New member
The Tunnel of Love (1958)
Starring: Doris Day, Richard Widmark
Plot (from imdb.com): The Pooles are unable to have a baby after years of trying. They apply to the Rock-A-Bye Adoption Agency, and are assigned Miss Novick as an investigator. Through a farfetched mis-communication she gets a very bad impression of Augie Poole and indicates her report will be unfavorable. What's even more frustrating for the Pooles: their neighbors have already had 3 children, with another on the way, without even trying, and the father (played by Gig Young) seems to not be able to stand either his wife OR his kids, and is a constant flirt (i.e. he plays around a lot, it's implied). Through even more far-fetched circumstances, Augie is able to change Miss Novick's mind, and later comes to believe the baby she is carrying is his. Rock-A-Bye does find the Pooles a baby, and Augie is convinced it is Miss Novick's, and that he is the real father...so much so that his wife comes to believe it, too. She threatens to leave him, but all the misunderstandings are finally cleared up for a happy ending.
Review:
I was kind of "eh" about this when it started, especially considering its subject matter. I mean, even though they don't come out and say certain things, things are implied well enough that I'm really glad I was watching this movie by myself. That aside, I thought it was an enjoyable movie; the plot had me guessing and I really thought that the baby the Pooles adopted was Augie's...but it wasn't. It was a comedy film, of course, and Doris Day proved yet again she can not only do comedy, but she can also do drama. I've only seen Richard Widmark in a handful of movies, if even that many, and my viewing experience with widmark was limited to Westerns. Widmark, however, proved himself to be a much better actor than I think I gave him credit for. He was funny, and very easy to pull for as the upright and moral Augie. What I think I liked about this movie was its contrasting "study" of the moral character of Augie vs. the philandering ways of his next door neighbor, Dick (Gig Young). Augie and Isolde were trying so very hard to have a family, while Dick has 3 children, another on the way, and can't stand his own kids! Not only that, Dick dates other women while still being married; this is something that Augie tries, and finds out he just isn't cut out for it. What I loved about Augie is that he's extremely bothered by the fact that the baby they adopted might actually be his by another woman; it bothers him that he might have gotten another woman pregnant, and he tries to do right by her (sends her money, but in the end, we find out why she needed the money). However, it should be noted that while the guilt of his "act" eats at him, he never comes out with the truth until the very end of the film...and even then, the truth is told for him by Miss Novick. But it's nice to see a character struggling with (though imagined) the consequences of his actions. You don't see that much anymore.
Rating: 7.5/10
Starring: Doris Day, Richard Widmark
Plot (from imdb.com): The Pooles are unable to have a baby after years of trying. They apply to the Rock-A-Bye Adoption Agency, and are assigned Miss Novick as an investigator. Through a farfetched mis-communication she gets a very bad impression of Augie Poole and indicates her report will be unfavorable. What's even more frustrating for the Pooles: their neighbors have already had 3 children, with another on the way, without even trying, and the father (played by Gig Young) seems to not be able to stand either his wife OR his kids, and is a constant flirt (i.e. he plays around a lot, it's implied). Through even more far-fetched circumstances, Augie is able to change Miss Novick's mind, and later comes to believe the baby she is carrying is his. Rock-A-Bye does find the Pooles a baby, and Augie is convinced it is Miss Novick's, and that he is the real father...so much so that his wife comes to believe it, too. She threatens to leave him, but all the misunderstandings are finally cleared up for a happy ending.
Review:
I was kind of "eh" about this when it started, especially considering its subject matter. I mean, even though they don't come out and say certain things, things are implied well enough that I'm really glad I was watching this movie by myself. That aside, I thought it was an enjoyable movie; the plot had me guessing and I really thought that the baby the Pooles adopted was Augie's...but it wasn't. It was a comedy film, of course, and Doris Day proved yet again she can not only do comedy, but she can also do drama. I've only seen Richard Widmark in a handful of movies, if even that many, and my viewing experience with widmark was limited to Westerns. Widmark, however, proved himself to be a much better actor than I think I gave him credit for. He was funny, and very easy to pull for as the upright and moral Augie. What I think I liked about this movie was its contrasting "study" of the moral character of Augie vs. the philandering ways of his next door neighbor, Dick (Gig Young). Augie and Isolde were trying so very hard to have a family, while Dick has 3 children, another on the way, and can't stand his own kids! Not only that, Dick dates other women while still being married; this is something that Augie tries, and finds out he just isn't cut out for it. What I loved about Augie is that he's extremely bothered by the fact that the baby they adopted might actually be his by another woman; it bothers him that he might have gotten another woman pregnant, and he tries to do right by her (sends her money, but in the end, we find out why she needed the money). However, it should be noted that while the guilt of his "act" eats at him, he never comes out with the truth until the very end of the film...and even then, the truth is told for him by Miss Novick. But it's nice to see a character struggling with (though imagined) the consequences of his actions. You don't see that much anymore.
Rating: 7.5/10
Aravis Kenobi
New member
The Young Victoria (2009)
Stars: Emily Blunt, Rupert Friend, Miranda Richardson, Jim Broadbent, etc.
Plot: (imdb.com) Dominated by her possessive mother and her bullying consort, Conroy, since childhood, teen-aged Victoria refuses to allow them the power of acting as her regent in the last days of her uncle, William IV's rule. Her German cousin Albert is encouraged to court her for solely political motives but, following her accession at age eighteen, finds he is falling for her and is dismayed at her reliance on trusty premier Melbourne. Victoria is impressed by Albert's philanthropy which is akin to her own desire to help her subjects. However her loyalty to Melbourne, perceived as a self-seeker, almost causes a constitutional crisis and it is Albert who helps restore her self-confidence. She proposes and they marry, Albert proving himself not only a devoted spouse, prepared to take an assassin's bullet for her, but an agent of much-needed reform, finally endorsed by an admiring Melbourne.
Review: I think I saw this movie on Netflix instant without even seeing the trailer...or maybe I saw the trailer and then saw it. Anyway. I watched this film back to back the first time(s) I saw it. Each time I watch it, I fall more and more in love with it: the costumes, the acting, the story, and the music. Emily Blunt as Victoria absolutely shines in this movie. She carries herself like a queen, and her acting is, I think, at its best in this film. Yes, the film is kind of a chick flick (the majority of it focuses on how Albert and Victoria fell in love with each other and married, etc.), but it's deeply rooted in historical facts. From what I know, the film is fairly faithful to the people it portrays, and one has only to look at images from the film in comparison to paintings of Victoria/Victoria and Albert to know the filmmakers knew what they were doing. The costumes are gorgeous, especially Victoria's. The music is perfect for the time period, even the inclusion of Sinead O'Connor's "Only You" at the end. All the acting in the movie was solid. I'm sorry to say that the film didn't get more recognition when it was released, even though it won the Academy Award for Best Achievement in Costume Design.
If you have any remote interest in England monarchy movies, I recommend this one. 9.5/10
Stars: Emily Blunt, Rupert Friend, Miranda Richardson, Jim Broadbent, etc.
Plot: (imdb.com) Dominated by her possessive mother and her bullying consort, Conroy, since childhood, teen-aged Victoria refuses to allow them the power of acting as her regent in the last days of her uncle, William IV's rule. Her German cousin Albert is encouraged to court her for solely political motives but, following her accession at age eighteen, finds he is falling for her and is dismayed at her reliance on trusty premier Melbourne. Victoria is impressed by Albert's philanthropy which is akin to her own desire to help her subjects. However her loyalty to Melbourne, perceived as a self-seeker, almost causes a constitutional crisis and it is Albert who helps restore her self-confidence. She proposes and they marry, Albert proving himself not only a devoted spouse, prepared to take an assassin's bullet for her, but an agent of much-needed reform, finally endorsed by an admiring Melbourne.
Review: I think I saw this movie on Netflix instant without even seeing the trailer...or maybe I saw the trailer and then saw it. Anyway. I watched this film back to back the first time(s) I saw it. Each time I watch it, I fall more and more in love with it: the costumes, the acting, the story, and the music. Emily Blunt as Victoria absolutely shines in this movie. She carries herself like a queen, and her acting is, I think, at its best in this film. Yes, the film is kind of a chick flick (the majority of it focuses on how Albert and Victoria fell in love with each other and married, etc.), but it's deeply rooted in historical facts. From what I know, the film is fairly faithful to the people it portrays, and one has only to look at images from the film in comparison to paintings of Victoria/Victoria and Albert to know the filmmakers knew what they were doing. The costumes are gorgeous, especially Victoria's. The music is perfect for the time period, even the inclusion of Sinead O'Connor's "Only You" at the end. All the acting in the movie was solid. I'm sorry to say that the film didn't get more recognition when it was released, even though it won the Academy Award for Best Achievement in Costume Design.
If you have any remote interest in England monarchy movies, I recommend this one. 9.5/10
Narniabeaver2005
New member
Sibirskiy tsiryulnik
I give The Young Victoria 9.5 too.
Stars: Julia Ormond
Plot: Douglas is a foreign entrepreneur, who ventures to Russia in 1885 with dreams of selling a new, experimental steam-driven timber harvester in the wilds of Siberia. Jane is his assistant, who falls in love with a young Russian officer, André, and spends the next 10 years perfecting the harvester and pursuing her love, who has been exiled to Siberia.
Review: If you have 3 hours go watch this epic movie. There is also a 4 hour and 30 minutes version somewhere.
9/10
I give The Young Victoria 9.5 too.
Stars: Julia Ormond
Plot: Douglas is a foreign entrepreneur, who ventures to Russia in 1885 with dreams of selling a new, experimental steam-driven timber harvester in the wilds of Siberia. Jane is his assistant, who falls in love with a young Russian officer, André, and spends the next 10 years perfecting the harvester and pursuing her love, who has been exiled to Siberia.
Review: If you have 3 hours go watch this epic movie. There is also a 4 hour and 30 minutes version somewhere.
9/10
The Spanish Inquisition
New member
I agree with everything you said about Gone With the Wind. Terrific acting, effects, writing and filming, but I can't STAND the characters and plot.
Movie: The Elephant Man (1980)
Prominent Actors: Anthony Hopkins, John Hurt, Anne Bancroft, John Gielgud
Plot: Based on a true story, this movie (set in Victorian England) is about a surgeon named Fredrick Treves (played by Anthony Hopkins), who finds a hideously deformed man working for a circus freakshow. The man, John Merrick (played by John Hurt), is called "the Elephant Man" and kept in a cage, shown off for the amusement of fair-goers. Treves rescues Merrick from the circus and brings him to the hospital, which turns out to be just a circus of another kind.
Review: I honestly believe this is a movie everyone should see. The acting is phenomenal. The makeup used to make John Hurt look deformed is incredible. Although it is an intensely emotional film (several parts made me cry), it never feels cloying or manipulative. Some parts of it are very hard to watch because of the absolutely cruel way Merrick was treated. My only criticism is that I wish it had been more historically accurate.
Note: This film is rated PG. It contains some mild language and some scenes of violent abuse. There is no blood, but it is still hard to watch.
9/10
Thanks for the reviews, y'all. I actually saw 2 movies while on vacation.
1. The Avengers. I will just agree with AK's review from earlier in this thread. It was really good and entertaining. I have not seen all the other Marvel comics movies, but it made me want to see them for the backstory. Very enjoyable, but I would not bother with "Real 3D" again, it did not seem to me to add anything to the action.
2. Dark Shadows. I was really looking forward to this because of Time Burton directing and Johnny Depp starring as Barnabas Collins. I was only a baby when this program first came on TV, but it was on in reruns when I was on jr high, and I loved it. I expected Burton to bring back all the kitcsh and camp that made it so much fun.
Sadly, he did not. The plot was horrible and revolved around the witch Josette's lust for Barnabas who alternately gave in to her or spurned her, all the while claiming not to love her. I don't remember that from the TV show at all! The acting was not that great, even the beautiful and talented Helena Bonham Carter had a crappy character and couldn't make anything of it.
I would not even recommend this to anyone, it is a film full of missed opportunities. I expected a lot more!
1. The Avengers. I will just agree with AK's review from earlier in this thread. It was really good and entertaining. I have not seen all the other Marvel comics movies, but it made me want to see them for the backstory. Very enjoyable, but I would not bother with "Real 3D" again, it did not seem to me to add anything to the action.
2. Dark Shadows. I was really looking forward to this because of Time Burton directing and Johnny Depp starring as Barnabas Collins. I was only a baby when this program first came on TV, but it was on in reruns when I was on jr high, and I loved it. I expected Burton to bring back all the kitcsh and camp that made it so much fun.
Sadly, he did not. The plot was horrible and revolved around the witch Josette's lust for Barnabas who alternately gave in to her or spurned her, all the while claiming not to love her. I don't remember that from the TV show at all! The acting was not that great, even the beautiful and talented Helena Bonham Carter had a crappy character and couldn't make anything of it.
I would not even recommend this to anyone, it is a film full of missed opportunities. I expected a lot more!
Aravis Kenobi
New member
I'm glad you enjoyed Avengers. I've been trying to convince my sister that she doesn't have to see all the others beforehand, but no luck. I'd really like to see it again.
Inkspot...it's The story of weeping camel in english.
Departures (2008) Japanese w/ english subtitles
A man who had a job with an orchestra moves back home to find a job. He gets hired as an encoffiner, one who prepares bodies for the next world.
Excellent movie, very mutilayered, deals with the subject in a beautiful and gentle way. The pace is on the slower side which considering the subject is not a bad thing at all. There are quiet spaces in the movie that let you think about/absorb what you have just seen. Deals with finding out who you are and with being left.
No violence, no bad language, nudity but not sexual at all.
10/10 for me...oh and the music is great too.