maybe, but screenwriting is more than just lifting lines from a page.

What may soundgood when you read it, doesnt necessarily sound good when you say it. And it's not just the writing, but the delivery that adds to the 'psued-intellectual' feel. 

36 Quai Des Orfevres (2004) - unconvincing and highly derivative mix of the gritty crime films of the 70's and the blockbusters of today. Movie concerns two rival senior police officers cometing against each other fo a promotion by attempting to catch a local mob.

There was potential here but the direction ranges from poor-average and the script doesnt quite know what it wants to be. There are some very good scenes at time, mainly due to Daniel Auteiul who is vry good in his role and te occasional bit of sharp dialogue.

But for every good scene, there's a bad one. And the action, whislt good, is lifted directly from Heat. Actually, the movie does try to be Heat in other areas but fails.

Hollywood remake on the way, with Deniro and Clooney. Like I said, lots of potential, so remake could be better.

5.5/10 

Wolf creek - No more than what you expect it to be, but it's made with great skill Doesnt quite rival the first hour of High Tension, but then it doesnt have the silliness of the last 15 min of that movie either. I didnt find the first half hour boring/uninteresting as a lot of people claim, then again I dont mind movies that dont jump straight into the action. Also, the first 30 min probably contains some of the best shots of the aussie landscape put on film.

The rest of it iswell made and quite tense (also liked the homages towards Picnic at Hanging Rock and duel). Not as gory as I was expecting, but that is a good thing, as a lot of modern day horror films mistake gory for scary. In two minds over John Jaraat, he's menacing when he breaks out of the aussie outback ocker schtick, but that doesnt really happen often enough. It's a deliberate choice but didnt really work for me completely. Still, well made, and much better than the recent bunch of american horror crap.

7/10 

La Ceremonie (1995) - Considered to be one of the prolific Claude Chabrol's best films, this slow burn, moody and ultimately unsettling movie is indeed very very good.

Concerning an upper class french family who hire a new maid with something not quite right about her and her subsequent friendship with the local post office clerk who is also slightly off normal, it is a beautifully acted film by a who's who of french actresses (isabelle huppert, jacqueline bisset, sandrine bonnaire and virginie ledoyen) and is also assuredly directed and excellently written. It takes its time laying all the cards on the table, before unassumingly going on towards its inevitable climax.

If anything, I thought it could have been shot better to heighten the mood (especially the lighting), but as it is, this is still quite a classy watch.

7.5/10 

...and these aren't films - they are BBC natural world documentaries, but I suggest anyone with an ounce of interest in what goes on in our planet watches them as soon as possible as they all contain beautiful photography and exceptionally interesting subjects.

If you can't see them on TV, you can get them on DVD (which I recommend, as they contain really great behind the scenes extras), but they are also very easy to track down in high quality formats through slightly more illegal channels.

Each programme usually runs for around 50 minutes.

Life in the Undergrowth - 5 part series about the life of various insects. Some really amazing stuff in here, including a mammoth centipede that hunts bats, spiders that poach the catches of larger spiders, ants that kill trees and more. Some of these just blew me away.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/lifeintheundergrowth/

The Blue Planet - A series of 8 programmes about life in the sea. I saw this a long time ago, so I don't remember all the programmes that well, but I do remember the second programme about what lives down in the darkest depths of the oceans was very cool, and contained some extremely odd creatures. My least favourite of these series, but certainly worth checking out.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/programmes/tv/blueplanet/

Planet Earth - 5 part series about life on the planet. Obviously not as in-depth as the others, but still as in-fucking-credible. I've only seen the first in the series so far, and I nearly shed a tear when I saw the little elephant trying to find it's parents out in the desert. Amazing slow motion shot of a shark snatching a seal too. Really, incredible stuff.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/planetearth/


There is also an extremely awesome Channel 4 programme about the science team that was studying the aftermath of Chernobyl floating around out there that I thoroughly recommend people check out. It's a pretty old TV recording, so the quality isn't great, but it really is worth watching, so don't let that deter you. The name is something like "inside chernobyl's sarcophagus"

Also on Chernobyl, there is a great BBC made factual drama based on the life of Valeri Legarsov - the expert who was brought in to oversee the evacuation and cleanup of the plant, who later commited suicide because of it.

There is another documentary called "Chernobyl Hearts", which I have not yet seen, that apparently won an oscar. 

It is about the only TV show I've ever turned down nights in the pub to watch. It originally aired in 2001, I think. If you haven't seen it, you really should. 

Was at a small film festival here.
It's better than I expected. Maybe a bit too much Gore there. But the data is presented pretty well. The radiative forcing a bit so-so. I'm so tired. My mind is disintegrating from all the vitutus.

I'd say it's worth watching definitely! 

Yep, I'm a fanboy:

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/2824/vprop2ee2.jpg
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/3293/vprop4px3.jpg
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/5069/vprop5zy9.jpg 

Au revoir les enfants (1987) - Semi autobiographical film from Louis Malle and it makes my top 10 films of all time. I would not change a frame of it.

Concerning the friendship between two boys at a safe haven catholic school in France 1944, before the war was over. One boy, a newcomer, at first threatens the other by matching him intellectually but is then also angered by him getting special treatment from the school staff. Eventually though, they become friends only to regret it later.

Its amazing in its scope, despite what may appear to be at first a fairly narrow focus. It's written and acted so well (I dont think kids have ever been this good) that you never once think you're watching a movie. It also helps that it achieves all that it sets out to do without a hint of hisrionics, melodrama or forced sentimentality.

By the time you finally realise where the title comes from, you already know you're watching a masterpiece.

9.5/10 

is that a real one from the movie? Did you buy it? Looks useful for scaring randoms.

Nitin, I like the sound of that film... I'm tempted to write down all your 9/10s and take the list down to the rental store next time I go :) 

It's an eBay ripoff I paid $30 for which is probably worth no more than $10. It is officially licensed, more yellow than white, but pretty accurate except for the shaping of the eyes (the movie mask has narrower eyes). The wig is a cheapy which I may replace with a more accurate, dark-brown and less poofeh wig. Also thought about airbrushing the mask the proper color, but in the right light it's not so bad.

If I spend any more money on this thing I'm better off buying a replica of this guy's:

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/1104/sc1188ql2.jpg

He has the DC replica mask (which is expensive) and is going to make molds from it. That's him with V's graphic novel artist, David Lloyd, by the way. 

by that Herzog guy.

Cut away 2/3 or half of the material and you got a good short film.

It just doesn't work as a real film. It's basically improvised story, stitched with unedited video footage with a soundtrack. Fun at times anyway. It could have been so much better. 

the footage is documentary-like but it's not as beautiful as it could be.

Sigh, it's impossible to talk about this without telling too much. 

didnt the one in the movie have a yellowish tinge ?


starbuck,

hehe, you could just go here, the 3.5 - 4 star ones are highly recommended. Imdb links if you want to know what the movie is about too.

http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&id=nitin 

The Thin Red Line - nice try but apart from some extremely fluid and skilled camerawork, I found it to be bloated, overponderous and ultimately unsuccesful.

I mean when you see the umpteenth symbolic gesture to reiterate the same point over and over again, that destruction is part of nature's cycle, you just wish that Malick would get on with it rather than have his cast spout philosophy 101 lines to explain said symbolism.

But the camerawork, as mentioned above, almost saves the day. Like all great cinematography, it's not just used as style here but pretty much becomes the substance to an extent.

But not enough to sustain a 163 min running time. Also, the never ending cameos became quite distracting too.

5/10 

Somewhat, but not nearly as tinged as this Warner Bros replica. 

Munich - this one really depends on what you go in expecting. From all the reviews at time of release about even-handedness and political arguments being debated, I was expecting something else.

As a standard genre-thriller, it's pretty damn good. Excellently directed and written in that regard. As anything more than that, it is not very convincing. Poorly directed and averagely written and there's a handful of truly misjudged scenes in that regard.

Also, the "accents" are very distracting at first, but once the genre plot starts, you dont really notice them because of the quality of the direction/writing.

Overall, it's quite good, despite me expecting something different.

7.5/10 

is a movie I would have to see again to make a
solid assessment.

As a standard genre-thriller, it's pretty damn good. Excellently directed and written in that regard. As anything more than that, it is not very convincing.

That statement I'm a bit intrigued by. I felt the same about parts of the movie as being unconvincing because of the usual Speilburg manipulation (of story elements I mean, not the politics) while other parts felt like the screenwriter got an inside scoop on how that game was played in the seventies.

For instance, the temperment of the French Anarchist in the movie who played the different sides during the cold war like Pagannini played a violin felt dead on perfect. It made you want to sip some wine in the South of France with the old man and listen to stories about the grand old days of the Resistance.

One scene where the Israelis and Palestinian groups are sharing a pad felt too pointed as a moralistic statement, especialy when Fienes and the PLO guy give speaches about their different views of the homeland. This sort of thematic excess is like marking a few pages of a novel with a yellow highlighter and writing in the margins, 'this is the point of it all.'
Quite distracting.

There were flaws of the anachronistic sort. For instance, the explanation given of why the PLO leader was a protected asset of the CIA while in London. In the pre-Church Committee era, self preservation would have been a far more convincing motive to keep out of North America than cash.

But I agree with you, as a genre spy thriller, this was real good stuff. You wont forget that honeypot's fate anytime soon. 

yep, agree on the usual spielberg sentimentality creeping in some scenes and detracting (the climax of the 72 flashback intercutting with something bana is doing in particular).

That scene at the pad you refer to is also another one I agree on, it's not a bad scene in itself but, given the genre stuff it's surrounded by, it's out of place.

The end scene between rush and bana is far more effective, if only because of the background it is shot against. 

Casshern (2004) - Well I guess there's definitely a first time for everything. I know I can be a bit harsh with scoring but this deserves nothing better than a big fat 0.

Quite possibly the worst thing I have ever seen, certainly nothing else comes to mind immediately. This is emabrassing in every department.

Oh, if you're still wondering, it's a Japanese film based on a manga about a sort of super warrior created who fights against an army of mutants in the future. Its main "attraction" (and I use that term very very loosely) is that its shot completely against green screen with CGI used for background, much like Sin City and Sky Captain. It's as bad a visual mess as you can get though.

0/10 

Ricky Gervais Live 1 Animals - Disappointing is probably the best way to put it. Sure, there were funny bits and Gervais' delivery made the material better but I thought most of it wasnt all that great, and definitely less clever than his tv stuff. I suppose thats a norm for standup comedy but given that most of it would have been preprepared, I dont count that as an excuse.

There is one 10 min sequence that is particularly good but the rest is probably why I dont like stand up comedu much - cheap jokes, with lots of sewaring to cover up for the lack of funniness.

5.5/10


Ricky Gervais Live 2 Politics - Very similar to theabove, but I would rate it slightly lower as its even less funnier.

5/10


Shoot the Piano Player (1960) - Truffaut's followup to The 400 Blows and he obviously wanted to make something lighter and more Snakes on a Plane.

But this comes across as if he didnt now what he really wanted and is an unsuccesful freeform exercise that is part film noir, part drama and part comedy, and neither part is successful in its execution. The freeform style does result in some great scenes, but overall I found it corny and silly.

4.5/10


Walk the Line - This is an opinion on the movie, I dont care for the music of Johnny cash (although surpisingly that element is not the main focus).

Anyway, I found it to be a fairly pedestrian affair, except that both Phoenix and Witherspoon were very impressive (even more so when they were on the screen together). Any scene without them, however, felt very hollow and average.

Phoenix gets more of the 'big' scenes but he does pull off his character quite well, without really going too histrionic. Witherspoon I found more impressive because she probably had 1-2 'big' scenes but her acting was great even when she wasnt doing these.

Also, good to see a biopic that manages to avoid most the trappings of the genre (although admittedly the start ticks all the boxes, as does the father/son relationship and the episodic nature). At least, they focused on the person, rather than what he did.

6/10 

The Girl on the Bridge (1998) - well, this is a bad movie. And it tries so hard, that it's laughably bad in some scenes. Patrice Leconte's hugely successful french movie is set in a bizarre fantasy world passing off as real life and the plot concerns a girl saved from jumping off a bridge by a knife thrower who offers her an alternative to jumping : become his assistant, and therefore get a bit of a kick out of life before it may or may not end at the end of one of his knives.

Shot in black and white, presumably to give it that otherworld feel I was talking about before (although this could have been achieved via colour, so I dont see the point since there is no other reason to do the black and white stuff here). It does have another great performance from Daniel Auteiul who somehow manages to play a very difficult character quite well, but I found Vanessa Paradis' character quite annoying.

And the script is embarassing really, barring one or two scenes.

4/10


The African queen (1951) - Bogart's a gun in my eyes and John huston has made some great films, but this was absolutely terrible. I have still yet to understand why Katherine Hepburn was held in such high regard because once again I found her performance to be quite phony and unconvincing.

The script is not very good, and Bogart is the only reason to keep watching. He does well with what he's given, but even he has some cringeworthy scenes that he cannot rescue.

3.5/10


Elevator to the Gallows (1959) - This was Louis Malle's first movie, and whilst it doesnt make my top 10 like Au Revoir Les Enfants, it's still a great film.

Terrific noir thriller about a couple who plan a crime that we see, but they dont, fall apart piece by piece. It unfurls its details expertly and then it all comes together so deftly that it's hard not to be impressed with the script and the confident, assured direction. Jeanne Moreau is great as one half of the couple too. Miles davis' jazz score also works well, and it's shot very nicely.

8.5/10 

I have still yet to understand why Katherine Hepburn was held in such high regard because once again I found her performance to be quite phony and unconvincing.

She represented a 'strong-willed, independent woman' at the very time (post-war) that feminism was becoming ascendent, so her lack of acting abilaty was overlooked and that distracting speach impedement she possessed that some people would call an accent was somehow tolerated. Gawd, that Ma&Pa Kettle metalic hiss of a voice hurts my ears just thinking about it even though I haven't seen a film she was in in over a decade. 

I know it doesnt mean much but 14 oscar noms ?

So someone obviously thought she had some acting ability. Some of it was there in philadelphia story but I cant say I've really seen it. 

I know it doesnt mean much but 14 oscar noms ?

It doesn't mean much.