If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot. More details on our policies, especially our Own the Source rule are available here. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.

A few reviews
To The Ends Of The Earth - 1948 - 6/10

[Image: 2vbrj1u.jpg]

Dick Powell stars as Federal narcotics agent trailing human traffickers and opium smugglers.
From San Francisco to Shanghai to Cairo to Havana, coordinating with local authorities.
Stock footage for exotic exteriors are OK if you can suspend disbelief.
There is no main villain here, only shifting hydra heads per location.
Dry, exposition driven narrative, similar to T-Men, FBI Story, and The House On 92nd Street.
Better for those who appreciate starchy doc-dramas.
Reply
Le Vent de la Nuit - 1999 - 4/10
AKA:  Night Wind

[Image: le-vent-de-la-nuit_390050_40633.jpg]

Pretentious French twaddle with Catherine Deneuve and Xavier Beauvois.
Deneuve having affair with younger man, because she is bored, or dead inside.
The young man describes himself as an artist, when he is not even an assistant.
Then there's a 60s burnout.
Tedious slog with stagnant pond characters.
Given an extra star because Deneuve remains attractive.
Reply
Carnage - 2011 - 6/10

[Image: movietrivia_1226-LRAINER-Carnage-MOVIE-F...ll_600.jpg]

Saw this first as local theatre production.  Live drama.  Hated it.
Film version boasts big names:  Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, John C Reilly, Christoph Waltz. Roman Polanski directs.
Carnage remains a play set in one room, though.
Two sets of parents escalate the playground spat begun by their two boys.
Highly annoying. Jodie Foster's character was defensive and always had to have the last word. Waltz was on his cellphone more often than off.
If you like talky dramas, jump on this one.
Even after I finished a bottle of red it didn't get any better.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ............
Reply
In The Deep - 2016 - 6/10

[Image: 15493dd.jpg]

Loca turista story.
Two sisters get talked into shark dive.
Get lowered into infested waters while safely protected inside a steel cage.
Sounds like fun!  What could go wrong?
The trip is cash only, the boat is a rust bucket, the winching mechanism is aged.
The crewmen illegally chum the waters and down our girls go.
Docked a point because one sister is an irritating whine and their reasons for doing this are wrong.
Given a point because the photography is imaginative and the plot plays out in real time.
Reply
I know I'm beating a dead horse but I don't see a mere 1 point difference between these two reviews.

(08-26-2016, 02:56 PM)Vultural Wrote: Girl Shy - 1924 - 7/10

[Image: Annex%2B-%2BLloyd%252C%2BHarold%2B%2528G...FPT_01.jpg]

Black and white, Silent era slapstick.
Funny Harold Lloyd comedy about a shy milquetoast who pens The Secret Of Making Love, even though he is nervous around females.
Jokes cascade furiously, with mishaps and a hair raising run-to-the-altar finale through Los Angeles circa 1923.

(08-29-2016, 04:17 PM)Vultural Wrote: Carnage - 2011 - 6/10

[Image: movietrivia_1226-LRAINER-Carnage-MOVIE-F...ll_600.jpg]

Saw this first as local theatre production.  Live drama.  Hated it.
Film version boasts big names:  Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, John C Reilly, Christoph Waltz. Roman Polanski directs.
Carnage remains a play set in one room, though.
Two sets of parents escalate the playground spat begun by their two boys.
Highly annoying. Jodie Foster's character was defensive and always had to have the last word. Waltz was on his cellphone more often than off.
If you like talky dramas, jump on this one.
Even after I finished a bottle of red it didn't get any better.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ............
Reply
(08-29-2016, 04:20 PM)TVs Frink Wrote: I know I'm beating a dead horse but I don't see a mere 1 point difference between these two reviews.
(08-26-2016, 02:56 PM)Vultural Wrote: Girl Shy - 1924 - 7/10
Carnage - 2011 - 6/10

    Well, friend, at the risk of antagonizing you, there likely is no definitive response.  Enjoyment of films is subjective, while scoring is arbitrary.  I have often said my reactions to and opinions of any given film lie within the review itself.  Even there, I attempt to be extremely careful not to reveal too much of the plot, particularly twists.

    I have a fairly narrow scoring range, which I have acknowledged several times.  5-6-7 is the norm.  Much of this stems from my age and viewing experience.  I have easily watched 5000 films, though the total is possibly closer to 10,000.  Over the years my expectations diminish and fewer releases give me that Wow feeling.  I settle down, hoping the story is not yet another rerun.

    As I have mentioned before, my youthful scores would have hovered in 1-2 or 9-10.  Dreadful! or Astounding!  I have not “seen it all” but I have seen plenty.  Experience is often repetition and predictability.  Hard for me to get as excited as I once did for a new James Bond movie.  Fighting - victory.  More so for any “super hero” franchise.  Humans are gullible, however,  Consider how we swallow politicians' promises year after year, decade after decade.  Maybe we are trusting, maybe we want to believe, maybe a predictable formula is just easy.

    Numerous acclaimed films I watch and appreciate, without liking.  They are important, they are quality, but the aftermath felt like broccoli, rather than chocolate.  Oftimes, I will get more pleasure from sorry films, usually depending on the energy and honesty of the production.  Give me an Ed Wood over a Troma release any day.  I will score those low, yet in my comments confess how much I enjoyed them and reasons for.  Could be, I have a shallow streak.

    Most readers don’t angst over my scores.  A numerical valuation is a signpost, after all, a shade more useful than thumbs up or thumbs down.  If my rating system truly disturbs or offends you, I can dispense with it altogether.

    Apologies, I prefer brevity.
Reply
That's fine.  I just read your reviews as:

Very funny! 7/10
Boring as hell!  6/10

I believe I'm not quite as old as you, but not that far off, and I'm sure I haven't seen as many movies as you, but certainly I've seen plenty...and I think I understand how rating systems generally work and I don't think your ratings fit.  You should just rate things on a four star system and give mostly 2's and 3's.
Reply
I love V's reviews!!!  Big Grin

I may not always agree or even understand them, but I gobble them up eagerly and find them thoroughly enjoyable.
His rating reviews are his alone.  They are subjective and I do not see any issue with them.
Though, half the fun of critics is disagreeing and arguing with them.  Tongue LOL!
"... let's go exploring!" -- CALVIN.
Reply
Georgia O'Keefe - 2009 -  6/10

[Image: f26.jpg]

Biography of painter O'Keefe (Joan Allen) and husband Alfred Steiglitz (Jeremy Irons).
Well acted, well photographed, shifting from Manhattan to the Southwest desert.
Probably should have been a mini-series.
As shown, this seems more a sketch of mannerisms and iconic paintings.
Reply
Kill Command - 2016 - 6/10

[Image: 206mvy0.jpg]

Not bad actioner, if cobbled together and derived from familiar templates.
Soldiers are dropped on remote island for another training session against robotic targets.
An engineered human accompanies them, as observer for the defense contractor.
As on previous missions, the robots make mindless sitting targets.
(The combat droids resemble something dad assembled from a Popular Mechanics kit.)
Except this time, the units start to learn from mistakes.
Imagine the Colonial Marines from Aliens assaulting a Skynet secret facility.
No kids - no juvenile comedy - no romance.  Yay!
Hardly original, but a no-nonsense “hunter-hunted” genre flick.
Others might score this higher.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)