Yoda Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 I’ve been meaning to make a film review thread just to see what you guys think about me as some sort of a movie critic. I can’t say I’m very good at it but I try to inform the people on each film I viewed just to give them a good idea of what kind of a movie I’ve seen. So whatever film I see I’ll try to write a short review and post it in this thread. Since I have school I won’t be posting a new review everyday but at least once a week would be good. Feedback is gladly appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 I take it the Star Wars movies are BIG thumbs up Sounds like a cool idea, good luck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted September 17, 2004 Author Share Posted September 17, 2004 Directed By: John Sturges Cast: Steve McQueen, James Garner, Richard Attenborough, James Donald, Donald Pleasence and Charles Bronson Genre: Adventure/Action Length: 172 minutes Cinema: 1963 Rating: Not Rated I had heard a lot of good things about this movie before viewing it and I just had the intention to rent it and see just how good it really is. It turns out as no disappointment. McQueen who is one of my favorite actors gives a solid performance starring with other great actors such as James Garner, Donald Pleasence and Charles Bronson. Based on the book by Paul Brickhill, which dealt with a real breakout from a German prisoner-of-war camp in which the author himself was interned, "The Great Escape" chronicles the exploits of a group of Allied POWs during World War II who undertook one of the biggest prison breaks of all time. In 1943 the Nazis decided to put their worst escapees in one ostensibly escape-proof, maximum-security camp. These were prisoners who had most often tried to escape previously, and putting all of the rotten apples in one basket seemed like a good idea at the time. What the Nazis didn't figure on, though, was that in this one camp would be the best escape artists of the war and, thus, the toughest men to control. Control them the Germans could not. Although this is an action film, there is a minimum of violence and no profanity, so, if you're interested in such things, it is suitable for family viewing. Furthermore, it has aged well; unlike many older films, it does not look in any way dated. Indeed, I would say it remains as fresh and inspiring today as when it was made. And let us not forget that Elmer Bernstein's remarkable music is still instantly recognizable. That popular march tune that plays throughout the picture is an inspiration in itself. Grade: A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFanForever Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Excellent first choice. Gotta love McQueen as the Cooler King in that movie. A favorite of mine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 (edited) If you are trying to be professional you would want to be more formal without being personal. But for a message board it's good. And I'd like to see more reviews from you, being a huge movie guy myself. Maybe I'll give some of my own reviews about more obscure movies! By the way I saw this movie when I was really young and found it boring, but if I saw it again I'd probably completely change my mind. Edited September 17, 2004 by KipWellsFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 If I'm not getting my historical events mixed up, the reality of this story is that about 74 men escaped and all were rounded within a short period of time. 50 of the escapees were executed as an example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASHWOUND Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 I’ve been meaning to make a film review thread just to see what you guys think about me as some sort of a movie critic. I can’t say I’m very good at it but I try to inform the people on each film I viewed just to give them a good idea of what kind of a movie I’ve seen. So whatever film I see I’ll try to write a short review and post it in this thread. Since I have school I won’t be posting a new review everyday but at least once a week would be good. Feedback is gladly appreciated. That would be cool..I did DVD reviews last year http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...&hl=dvd+reviews Since i watch tons of movies a month, i thought I would write reviews for them, but I'm too damn lazy Did watch 4 new movies this week..like Godsend(which was stupid) Twisted(even stupider) Jersey Girl(which i enjoyed) and The Punisher(which had no plot, but still enjoyed) Now that was easy.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Gleason Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 I used to be the main reviewer for: www.sexgoremutants.co.uk And still have a ton of stuff I need to write for them. I have also been published in Deep Red magazine and Firelight Shocks. I have respect for anybody that wants to get into that line of journalism type or writing, as I can say it takes A LOT of skill to actually be good at it. Any yahoo can write it, but few and far between can actually make it good. Good luck to you Yoda!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlackSox8 Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 That would be cool..I did DVD reviews last year http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...&hl=dvd+reviews Since i watch tons of movies a month, i thought I would write reviews for them, but I'm too damn lazy Did watch 4 new movies this week..like Godsend(which was stupid) Twisted(even stupider) Jersey Girl(which i enjoyed) and The Punisher(which had no plot, but still enjoyed) Now that was easy.. holy s***...I watched The Punisher(better than i expected it to be)..and Twisted(sucked) too...but i also watched Enemy at the Gates(just ok), and City by the Sea.(good movie) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Since it's all about movie discussion...has anybody seen the 1962 version of the Manchurian Candidate? Thoughts? I thought that this movie was amazing. The dream sequence at the beginning was really cool, IMO. And unlike most thriller/action flicks, this one actually had a script. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted October 12, 2004 Author Share Posted October 12, 2004 Directed By: Stanley Kubrick Cast: Kirk Douglas, Jean Simmons, Laurence Olivier, Charles Laughton, Peter Ustinov, and Tony Curtis Genre: Adventure/Action Length: 196 minutes Cinema: 1960 Rating: Not Rated Spartacus, born a slave in ancient Rome, finds himself in a gladiator school run by Batiatus (Peter Ustinov, who won an Oscar as best supporting actor). There he is trained with other slaves to fight in the arena, for the purpose of being sold to Romans who wish to watch, for amusement, combat to the death. There he meets Varinia (Jean Simmons) and falls in love. But when Roman senator Crassus (Laurence Olivier) drops by and insists on a fight to the death right there at Batiatus' school, it evolves into a riot as the slaves revolt and escape. Spartacus eventually organizes them and they cross the land freeing other slaves and building an army. Love is both the engine and the subject of Spartacus. It is because Spartacus loves fellow slave Varinia and is about to be deprived of her by the evil senator Crassus that he starts the revolt in the first place. Her love for him, in turn, gives him the courage to lead his rebel army even though it means certain death. This theme is made flesh in Douglas's performance. Paths of Glory is Kirk Douglas's greatest film, but Spartacus is his labor of love. Spartacus plan is to make it to Southern Italy where they will pay a large group of pirates to sail them far away from the Roman Empire that had enslaved them. The film spends a great deal of time showing us the backstage antics of those in power in the Roman Empire, namely the political warfare being waged between a senator with dictatorial ambitions, Marcus Licinius Crassus, and an older, more restrained senator, Gracchus (Charles Laughton). For 1960, the film was decidedly frank about Roman decadence, which gives it an edge that is lacking in too many sword-and-sandal epics of the era. The film contains a great deal of talk about Gracchus' fondness for many women, and he and Batiatus have an amusing conversation about why corpulent men are better people. There was no rating system in 1960, but this restored version has received a PG-13 for violence, along with a couple of brief moments where Simmons is partially nude. Even if you don’t care that much about the actual movie, get hold of the Criterion DVD version to learn the real behind-the-scenes “dirt.” After hearing Charlton Heston croon inanely about how each of the actors and film personnel in Ben Hur were either “good” or “very good,” this pleasurable DVD sets a new standard and feels like a Roman feast and orgy of film tidbits. It’s compelled me to re-watch Spartacus more times than I would have thought possible! Grade: A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldmember Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 I'm Spartacus. No I'm Spartacus. NO I'm Sparticus. NO I'M Spartacus... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxman352000 Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 I'm Spartacus. No I'm Spartacus. NO I'm Sparticus. NO I'M Spartacus... Just thinking the same thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Another good review of a movie classic film that I haven't seen in eons. I'll have to get around to it. I think I'll be doing a review for this movie very soon. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117958/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted October 13, 2004 Author Share Posted October 13, 2004 Another good review of a movie classic film that I haven't seen in eons. I'll have to get around to it. I think I'll be doing a review for this movie very soon. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117958/ I’m looking forward to your review. I'm Spartacus. No I'm Spartacus. NO I'm Sparticus. NO I'M Spartacus... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted October 23, 2004 Author Share Posted October 23, 2004 Directed By: George A. Romero Cast: Judith O’Dea, Duane Jones, Karl Hardman, Russell Streiner, Keith Wayne and Judith Ridley. Genre: Horror Length: 98 minutes Cinema: 1968 Rating: Not Rated Halloween is right around the corner and a great way to celebrate the October festivity is by enjoying a couple of old classic horror movies. And why not start the marathon with a film directed by George A. Romero? He is the man who pretty much started the zombie movies. This film managed to successfully mesh the concepts of flesh-eating zombies, isolation, and global panic realized on a claustrophobic and intimate scale. The story begins with a brother and sister, arriving at a remote cemetery to visit their mother's grave. The sister, Barbara, (Judith O'dea) sees a strange man coming toward them, and is shocked to see him attack and kill her brother. Terrified, she flees to a nearby farmhouse that appears to be abandoned, and hides inside. Soon thereafter, other people begin to show up, chief among them Ben (Duane Jones) who is the only one with a cool enough head to take charge. They barricade themselves inside the farmhouse, terrified by the increasing number of zombies outside and the news coming form the television inside, which informs them that the plague of walking dead is not just a local occurrence, but a worldwide epidemic. As the danger outside encroaches, tensions inside mount, leading to power struggles and betrayal. While the unknown cast is generally competent, with only Judith O'dea's overdone hysterics occasionally dragging things down, props go to Duane Johnson, and props to Romero for having the guts to cast a black actor as the film's protagonist in 1968. The blonde, O'dea, got top billing, but she's just a screaming piece of scenery. Johnson carries the film, and is very much the hero of the piece. Grade: B- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 Interesting to see you review that because I just watched the original trailer for it and it made the movie look just terrible. Nonethless good review. heres that trailer http://videodetective.com/home.asp?PublishedID=826530 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted October 24, 2004 Author Share Posted October 24, 2004 Interesting to see you review that because I just watched the original trailer for it and it made the movie look just terrible. Nonethless good review. If you haven’t seen the original Night of the Living Dead, than you’ll probably find the film to be boring. I brought a friend of mine over so that we can see it and he walked away ten minutes into the movie! It’s a black and gray film, can be slow at some times, and if you’re not a zombie movie fan than you won’t like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 If you haven’t seen the original Night of the Living Dead, than you’ll probably find the film to be boring. I brought a friend of mine over so that we can see it and he walked away ten minutes into the movie! It’s a black and gray film, can be slow at some times, and if you’re not a zombie movie fan than you won’t like it. I think you're wrong there -- the first time I saw the movie (a few years ago now) I loved it. It was a little shocking when it came out (zombies eating body parts, on screen), and it still shocked me. I definitely wasn't bored. But maybe I'm just naive. Also, I think the b&w is better than color here. As you can guess, I think the final grade is too low. Anything below an A- I can't understand. It's a true classic from a b-film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted October 30, 2004 Author Share Posted October 30, 2004 Director: Alfred Hitchcock Cast: Janet Leigh, Anthony Perkins, Martin Balsam, Vera Miles, and John Gavin Genre: Horror Length: 110 minutes Cinema: 1960 Rating: R The Halloween marathon continues. The old classic films keep playing in my VHS tape player and after you see Alfred Hitchcock’s name the title PSYCHO appears! As you might tell, I enjoy watching movies from the 50’s and 60’s. Classics. The first time I saw this thrilling movie is when I was right around the age of 10. You’d say that at that age you find black and white movies to be boring. It’s completely the opposite with me. The instant I saw this film I was unable to take a shower in motels for some years. Even now I make sure that every door is locked securely before I can “risk” taking a motel shower. Hitchcock’s film has that much power. The attractive blonde Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) is an unhappy camper at her office job at a Phoenix, Arizona real estate office and unhappy in her romance with hardware store manager Sam Loomis (John Gavin). When one afternoon the trusted Marion is given $40,000 in cash to be deposited in the bank, she impulsively goes on the run with the stolen company money thinking this will give her enough of a head start to begin her life over again somewhere else. Becoming exhausted and increasingly more frightened after being on the lam for over a day, the neophyte criminal stops for the night at the secluded and deserted Bates Motel. She's greeted by the friendly but nervous motel keeper Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), who cheerfully mentions that she's the first guest in weeks. As the lonely Norman serves her a meal he talks about his beloved mom, and in further conversation he also gets her thinking about life's traps. The paranoic woman decides that stealing the money wasn't such a good idea, and decides to get a good night's sleep and tomorrow to give back the stolen money in Phoenix. But things take a different turn when she gets into the shower, the most famous slasher scene ever filmed. After the unfortunate heroine is dispatched with in a most hygienic Gothic way, the film turns its attention on the sick mind of Norman and the chilling conversations he has with the domineering specter of his mother about loose women. Hitch's mordant humor shines at its most playful when Perkins says "Mother's not herself today." I can go on and on all day about just how good this movie is (how this film invented slasher films) but I’ll leave it like this. Grade: A+ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 Haven't seen it so I can't agree or disagree with your review but being a horror fan myself I am somewhat embarassed to not have seen this one. Good job Yodes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted December 28, 2004 Author Share Posted December 28, 2004 Directed By: William Wyler Cast: Charlton Heston, Jack Hawkins, Haya Harareet, Stephen Boyd, Hugh Griffith, Martha Scott, Cathy O'Donnell, Sam Jaffe and Finlay Currie Genre: Action/Drama Length: 212 mins. Cinema: 1959 Rating: G If you thought Gladiator was good, then you haven’t seen anything yet. As a matter of fact, Ben-Hur is no gladiator movie. As the title sequence tells us, this is "A Tale of the Christ," an unabashed religious fable, albeit one that only shows its hero from the back. Of course, Jesus is not the real subject of this tale, it's Judah Ben-Hur, a Jewish prince living in Judea, played by Charlton Heston. Ben-Hur lives high on the hog, here in the year 26, as we're told. And he's a good guy, nice to his slaves and everything. But woe be unto Judah when the Romans step up their military presence in his territory. Despite their being led by his old friend Massala (Stephen Boyd), tensions run high, and when some tiles accidentally fall from Ben-Hur's roof, nearly hitting the new Governor of Judea, Judah is quickly sentenced without trial to hard labor, rowing in the galleys of the Roman navy. From prince to slave he goes, and because of his endless compassion, Ben-Hur finds himself legally adopted by a Roman nobleman whose life he has saved years later. He practices his charioteering, and soon enough he is at liberty to avenge not only his imprisonment, but that of his mother and sister as well. That vengeance, as any moviegoer knows, takes place on the chariot course in a sequence so famous, dramatic, and long it consumes 10 chapters of the film's 61-chapter DVD release. Ben-Hur won 11 awards out of 12 nominations making it the most awarded film of it’s time. Charlton Heston took home the Best Actor award for the title role, while Hugh Griffith won the Best Supporting Actor award for his portrayal of Sheik Ilderim. William Wyler won the Academy Award for Best Direction. Only problem I have with this film is its length. If it were cut down to at least 2 hours then it would have made the movie more enjoyable. But don’t mind me. Heston is unforgettable. His performance is what makes this film so special. The chariot race says it all for me. Grade: A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnthraxFan93 Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 When does the porn review come on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 wow 212 minutes. That's crazy. Never seen that one, I like Spartacus though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.