Metropolis (1927)

I had heard many good things about this movie before I got it for my birthday. Now that I've finally watched it, I must say I am astonished at the shear mastery with which this film was produced. The special and visual effects of this film are phenominal in every concievable way. The cinematography is far ahead of its time. The acting in the film is superb. Fritz Lang turns what would have been made in America now-a-days as a generic SFX light show with no substance into a gothic masterpiece. That being said, I did find that though the themes of the plot are provocative and important, I don't think the storyline was formulated in a respectable enough way to make the film have total coherent sense. One minute it's a movie about class seperation, next it's a movie about religion and cooperation, than it's a love story. It doesn't seem like they really integrated the different plot elements so much as they skipped from one plot to another. But this film is still fantastic and aweinspiring to watch. It really puts the science fiction movies we see in the modern day into real perspective.

8/10

Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror

The first known adaptation of Bram Stoker's classic novel, Nosferatu combines a nightmarish villian with gothic imagery to make a film that it totally creepy. The film is a classic, which is not to say that it holds up pretty well compared to more recent horror films. It's incredibly dated, and might even be considered cliche nowadays. But Nosferatu left me feeling a certain ammount of respect for the people who made it. Without a doubt, this is the movie that shaped horror.
That being said, it does have some flaws. The movie is true to the book to a certain degree. Many of the characters have been renamed for the German audience. However, it is still easy to see who the characters represent. However, the film seems to decide to keep characters even when they serve no real purpose in the story. The character representing Van Helsing only gets a  few seconds of screen time, and all of it does nothing to further the story. We never get to see him as the brilliant scientist/Dracula's worst nemesis as he will appear in later films. Why would you keep a character when he serves no purpose at all to your story? Also, I found the ending wholey dissapointing. What a sucky way for such a cool villian to go.
However, flaws aside, the film is still a classic, with good acting and incredible cinematography. It's definetly worth a see.

7/10

Terminator 2: Judgement Day: 6.5/10
I was expecting better. The opening scene with the war was pretty awesome and all and the T-1000 was pretty cool. Other than that, it really wasn't that great. The acting was a mixed bag (although the person who played sarah connor was good in the crazy scenes), Arnold Shwarzenegger's failure to actually kick ass sucked (Not a SINGLE kill outside of the T-1000) and the little kid was annoying. It tries to have some kind of lesson about violence being bad and shit, but it really fails in its delivery. I really was expecting more from the man who made Aliens.

Quote from: GonzoClockTerminator 2: Judgement Day: 6.5/10
I was expecting better. The opening scene with the war was pretty awesome and all and the T-1000 was pretty cool. Other than that, it really wasn't that great. The acting was a mixed bag (although the person who played sarah connor was good in the crazy scenes), Arnold Shwarzenegger's failure to actually kick ass sucked (Not a SINGLE kill outside of the T-1000) and the little kid was annoying. It tries to have some kind of lesson about violence being bad and shit, but it really fails in its delivery. I really was expecting more from the man who made Aliens.

WHAT THE HELL IS THE MATTER WITH YOU.

Quote from: SlurpeeWHAT THE HELL IS THE MATTER WITH YOU.

QUOTED FOR TRUTH

Quote from: SlurpeeWHAT THE HELL IS THE MATTER WITH YOU.

I was expecting something like this.

I will readily admit that the mental hospital scenes were great and the T-1000 was super cool. However, alot of the action was plain stupid. The scene with the minigun: stupid. The highway car/helicopter chase: stupid. The finale: stupid (except for the part where the T-1000 reforms. That was cool). It also looses points for the kid, who was an annoying faggot, and pacifist Arnold, which was lame. It was a fun movie, I will give you that, but that does not keep it from being anything but an okay movie in my eyes.

Quote from: GonzoClockI was expecting something like this.

I will readily admit that the mental hospital scenes were great and the T-1000 was super cool. However, alot of the action was plain stupid. The scene with the minigun: stupid. The highway car/helicopter chase: stupid. The finale: stupid (except for the part where the T-1000 reforms. That was cool). It also looses points for the kid, who was an annoying faggot, and pacifist Arnold, which was lame. It was a fun movie, I will give you that, but that does not keep it from being anything but an okay movie in my eyes.

WHAT THE HELL IS THE MATTER WITH YOU

Quote from: GonzoClockI was expecting something like this.

I will readily admit that the mental hospital scenes were great and the T-1000 was super cool. However, alot of the action was plain stupid. The scene with the minigun: stupid. The highway car/helicopter chase: stupid. The finale: stupid (except for the part where the T-1000 reforms. That was cool). It also looses points for the kid, who was an annoying faggot, and pacifist Arnold, which was lame. It was a fun movie, I will give you that, but that does not keep it from being anything but an okay movie in my eyes.

THE THUMB.

Quote from: Poltergeist Clock

THE THUMB.

DOWN

Apocalypto-7.5/10
It was a fantasic movie with brilliant cinematography which was obviously bred for greatness. It's too bad it was nearly ruined by a corny and predictable ending which was probably historically inaccurate. If Mel Gibson wants to make a great movie he shouldn't give it a lame ending.



Oh and also

Quote from: SlurpeeWHAT THE HELL IS THE MATTER WITH YOU.

I'd have to second this because T2 was the best one

Quote from: SilverCherryClockI'd have to second this because T2 was the best one

Thank you!

Amadeus: 9/10
A brilliantly directed and acted piece of film. Humorus, tragic, and thought provoking. So go see it.

Casino Royale: 4/5.

Definitely check it out. The best Bond in years. The other recent Bond movies are comicbook abortions - their main saving grace being Pierce Brosnan who at least has some style and intelligence.

I liked Daniel Craig as Bond in this one. The fact that he had blond hair and blue eyes didn't distract me at all from the fact that he is Bond. My main gripe was that he didn't have much charisma - I know he perhaps isn't meant to yet, but I don't know if he could pull it off if he plays Bond for any further roles.

The action was terrific, and for the most part it was much more realistic (read: intelligent) than in other recent bond movies.

Munglai is enamored with the title sequence animation. Who else has  seen it? I like some aspects of it, but overall it doesn't feel as finished as it should...  I like all the intricate and ornate designs and stuff. But some of it seemed incongruous and clumsy... Trace Bitmap anyone? That has never looked good to my eyes. And their tweens were lazy. LOl. And the changing from real graphics to 2d didn't feel necessary or right.

The script was generally pretty great. Except for a couple of terrible cringeworthy lines...

"OH BABY IF YOU WERE ALL ASPLODED, AND ONLY YOUR MOUTH AND LITTLE FINGER WUZ LEFT... THEN I'D STILL LUV U

WHY? CUZ U KNOW I'D STICK DEM IN YO HOLEZ?".

And the structure was really odd.

I lost count of the amount of acts in this film. Usually there's four.. What was there here.. 7? The film kept "ending", and then not ending. It was Return of The King again, except, with this film, I wasn't disappointed when I realized that the movie wasn't actually ending.

Quote from: GonzoClock;612029Amadeus: 9/10
A brilliantly directed and acted piece of film. Humorus, tragic, and thought provoking. So go see it.

I heard that movie was historically inaccurate. But I'm not one of those people who doesn't go see a movie just because it isn't exactly ture to the source material. I'll see it.

Stranger Than fiction.

Quite good, interesting and funny. Worth a viewing.

Casino Royale: 4/10[/I]:
Blugh, I hated this. I could barely detect any plot until the end where they threw in random plot twists that were hard to grasp because very little had been revealed near the first 2 hours of the movie. Way longer than it should be as well, I saw about 100 potential ending points but they HAD to make it longer.

2001: A Space Odyssey; 9.75/10[/I]
Brilliant, Confusing, and Awesome as hell all at the same time, parts of it seem unnecessarily long, but the whole plot and acting, etc is brilliant. But the ending made absolutely no sense but I loved it.

Quote from: FolderClock;613504Casino Royale: 4/10:
Blugh, I hated this. I could barely detect any plot until the end where they threw in random plot twists that were hard to grasp because very little had been revealed near the first 2 hours of the movie. Way longer than it should be as well, I saw about 100 potential ending points but they HAD to make it longer.

2001: A Space Odyssey; 9.75/10
Brilliant, Confusing, and Awesome as hell all at the same time, parts of it seem unnecessarily long, but the whole plot and acting, etc is brilliant. But the ending made absolutely no sense but I loved it.

So Casino Royale is terrible because you can't understand what's going on, but 2001 is amazing because you can't understand what's going on. Got it.

Quote from: LeekClock;613515So Casino Royale is terrible because you can't understand what's going on, but 2001 is amazing because you can't understand what's going on. Got it.

It's funny, because not one, but TWO complaints of Casino Royale, confusion and being too long, are both evident in 2001, yet 2001 is apparently much better.

Quote from: Adrenaline;613528It's funny, because not one, but TWO complaints of Casino Royale, confusion and being too long, are both evident in 2001, yet 2001 is apparently much better.

Oh Irony, thy name is FolderClock.

Quote from: LeekClock;613515So Casino Royale is terrible because you can't understand what's going on, but 2001 is amazing because you can't understand what's going on. Got it.

No no no, not at all.

2001 had a detectable and entertaining plot until the last 20 minutes or so, making the better part of the movie understandable. Casino Royale, on the other hand, had very little plot detectable until the last third of the movie. For example, I could completely understand what occured in 2001 UP UNTIL Dave reached the monolith in orbit of Jupiter, but I couldn't find a major plot in Casino Royale up until midway through the poker game, and even then it seemed to totally cancel out the first half of the movie before he arrived. Casino Royale also seemed to be padded out with action sequences and classic bond love scenes. Don't get me wrong, I know this is typically the Bond formula, but from what I've seen in earlier Bond movies, this padding seemed irrelevant to the plot, or just because they hadn't revealed enough about it in the earlier part of the movie. Maybe I'm just judging in on prior experience in bond, maybe I just prefer science fiction. You can't change my opinion.

EDIT: Plus, in 2001 any parts that would confuse you early on would be revealed as significant later in the movie, rather than in bond, (I didn't seem to catch) the majority of plot details seemed to be left out.

Maybe it's because I saw Casino with a large group of people.