The words of critics only mean much to my mental box if I have seen the movie. Other than that, its just empty words.

I think it would be important for us to define what we are referring to as critics here. Don V, if you are considering the link your provided to be made up of people who are not "critics", then we have different definitions of the word.

When I say that people are taking critic's opinions into account when they choose which movies to watch, I am saying they are considering outside opinions in general, not just people like Ebert who get paid to critique movies.

Do you agree that outside opinion, other people's opinions, whether they be critics or members of a film board or compilers of a top films list, are taken into account by you when you choose whether or not to watch a film?

My point is, I don't read a review and say "He thinks it's good, I will check it out."

I read about films through normal articles about genres, actors, or whatever. Or I read things like that site I listed. I watch what interests me or what is supposedly innovative for it's time. I don't care for anyone's opinion when considering a movie.

But looking at lists like that or reading what has been called "innovative" is still considering someone's opinions.

I'm referring against critics reviews.

If something is innovative, that's usually a fact. Citizen Kane was innovative, despite anyone's opinion. Sure hype sparks interest now and then, but it's usually bullshit.

I don't normally read or listen to critics. If someone tells me it didn't get good reviews, it doesn't change my mind if I want to see it or not. My first thought is through the previews at the theater or on commercials. If I don't like the preview, I probably won't end up watching it. Though there are exceptions, that's a key if I am not a spectacular fan of any of the players to the film.

Vercetti, you say that AFI is a dumb list? Could you tell me why it is. I took a quick glance through the top 50 of the website's list you gave. I like 2001's placement, but disagree with Casablanca being 31st.

I hate it for limiting the list to American films, aside one or two UK ones. It's just an annoying list. They Shoot Pictures has a much more diverse list I respect more. It's also a great resource for director information.

You have to expect that it would be only American movies for it is the American Film Institute 100 years of American Film list. The problem is, I have stayed too much on the American side and not seen any French films besides a adaptation of the play Cyrano de Bergerac in English class last year.

Good Night, and Good Luck ** 1/2

A good drama about Edward R. Murrow's problem with Senator Joe McCarthy. A great performance by David Strathairn and a noteable performance by George Clooney as well. I don't know why but after watching it I felt it was too short.

The Living Daylights ** 1/2

Timothy Dalton wasn't too bad in his first attempt at James Bond. I thought the movie started out very good but towards the end lost all the excitement and interest it had built up.

I agree.

There are movies I will see because of a particular actor, director, or its subject matter, regardless of the reviews.

And there are some that I will avoid for the same reasons, regardless of what the critics may say.

But we are all critics in one sense or another, and what we hear about films - from whatever the source, be it a "professional" review, or something that we read here on the BB, or whatever - very often plays some part in the selection process.

I don't think any of us limit ourselves to films that only involve cast members or directors or that we like, or subject matter that interests us.

If that were the case, we'd never expose ourselves to anything new.

As MMTH says "It's not like you go to the movie theater or go to the video rental store and just choose something at random."

Just re-watched both Donnie Brasco (1997) and then, for comparison purposes, City Hall (1996).

Brasco, I think, was Pacino's last "great" picture (altho he was pretty good in The Insider).

You really feel that he absolutely is the character he portrays, unlike Johnny Depp who I always felt was mis-cast and not believable as an Italian FBI agent.

In City Hall, though, which, while predictable, isn't a bad movie - although I'll confess to enjoying anything that Pacino is in that involves NYC, the Mafia, police corruption, etc. - I felt like I was watching Pacino "act", and not very well.

He gives a Pacino-like over-the-top and not believable eulogy at a little boy's funeral, and seems pretty wooden and unemotional throughout the rest the film.

But his role in Insider was very small. How about "Devil's Advocate?

Finding Nemo

Aww, a daddy fish goes on a mission through dangerous waters to rescue his son Nemo, his only living family member, after he was taken by an evil diver.

A nice, fun and heartwarming movie with some really likable characters. There's humour but not many laugh out loud moments though you'll watch it with a smile on your face.

Good, but not a "great" performance, IMO.

In watching Devil's Advocate I felt like I was watching Al Pacino acting, just as I felt when watching City Hall.

Very similar style performances, I thought.

Watching Donnie Brasco, I felt Pacino was Lefty Ruggiero.

Actually, now that I think about it, there are very few Pacino performances that I would label as "great", although I've thoroughly enjoyed quite a number of his films.

I agree with Plaw and I disagree on Pacino's role being short. He dominated the second half more then Crowe like he had the first half, and it was his best role from the 90's.

The Devil's Advocate was decent but overrated.

You are INSANE.

Where did you find it? I can't seem to find it on torrentspy.

eMule, although the size of the movies quickly slow your computer after a few of them. I have to get rid of a few.

Mystery Train - (Jim Jarmusch;1989;USA/Japan)
Three vignettes loosely connected through a motel in Memphis, Tennessee.
Another great film from Jarmusch. Human interaction dominates the film, especially with more of Jarmusch's subtle humor here and there. All three vignettes worked wonderfully. The cast supported the film wonderfully, and Screamin' Jay Hawkins as the motel clerk was perfect for some of the comic relief. I also liked Nagase, Kudoh, and Buscemi's roles in the film, not to mention Tom Waits brief moments as the radio DJ. The music is great, like Jarmusch's other films.

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind.

What?

This is actually a stunning film. But I feel a little background knowledge of the film would have helped me viewing of it instead of me questioning its validity whether it was actually based on truth or not whilst engaged in some of the more surreal scenes. Don't worry, no spoilers.

For those that don't know, and I assume this applies to most outsider to the US, this film is actually based on an unauthorised autobiography of Chuck Barris. The creator of hit games shows The Dating Game (the original Blind Date) but he claims on the side he worked as a CIA contract killer.

I think he's a nutter and highly delusional but I'll probably never know for sure. That makes the individual viewer able to believe what they want and adds to the mystique of the movie.

That's all I'm giving you. Watch this film. I would bet opinions on it would split a room as much as marmite would.

Re: The Insider
Better than his role in Donnie Brasco?

Before Sunrise
Richard Linklater 1995 US (2nd time)
A young American and French student meet on a train in Budapest and decide to spend the night together, before she leaves for Paris.
Conversation piece relying on contrasting philosophies from its two characters to drive it along; the acting had to be brilliant, and it is, with a kind of awkward sensibility which develops into a confident intimacy as it goes on.

Before Sunset
Richard Linklater 2004 US (2nd time)
Jesse and Celine meet nine years after their first meeting.
The characters have developed into wiser, older adults, and the two actors embody them convincingly; but, as the script's self-reflection would have it, neither of them have really changed, and the narrative's swing into bittersweet nostalgia makes for an infuriatingly perfect final moment.

Lost In Translation
Sofia Coppola 2003 US/Japan (Nth time)
Two Americans in Japan, one an actor, the other a lonely wife over on her husband's business, meet up and enjoy each other's company.
Underplayed, affecting tale of two people stuck in marital problems and finding unconsumated comfort in each other; it is a refreshingly minimalistic approach fuelled by excellent performances.

Nil by Mouth
Gary Oldman 1997 UK/France (1st time)
Domestic violence, drugs, alcoholism and unemployment within a working-class London family.
That we're still watching this after two hours of vulgarity and outright seediness pays testament to the talent of Oldman and his cast; performances lift it above monotony, and the director, filming in hand-held close-ups with very few wide-shots, keeps us absorbed throughout. If we do not care for these characters, we are at least curious how their squalid lives will turn out.

Better than his role in Donnie Brasco? [/b][/quote]Yes, by a little. To be fair, Donnie Brasco could use a rewatch.

16 Blocks **

Exactly what I expected. A 2 hour "ride" that takes us alongside Bruce Willis (Detective Jack Mosley) and Mos Def (Eddie Bunker) running around New York City trying to arrive at a courthouse in 2 hours that is only 16 blocks away. I will give credit to Mos Def as he surprised me with his performance.

THE PINK PANTHER (2006) - **

I hate my family.

Anyway, the film wasn't as awful as I thought(perhaps hoped?), but its still Febuary-released clunk to fill up the schedules for Hollywood....though hey, if you need to entertain your bastard brat kids for a few hours....its either this or CHUCKIE CHEESE.

Though really, imagine Jean Reno...a Frenchman having to play along with Americans acting as Frenchies.....man, talk about the pains that one does to feed his harlem.

If it's any consolation, this film was better than THE TRAIL OF THE PINK PANTHER and every other one since Sellers croaked....but that's damn faint praise, isn't it?

Forgot this, which was seen in school.

The Life of David Gale - (Alan Parker;2003;USA/Germany)
A capital punishment abolitionist is accused of murdering his colleague and is sent on death row, where he's interviewed by a reporter.
A decent film that could've been good had it not suffered from some annoying things, like the flashes of various words like "rape, death, martyr" in between transitions. Otherwise the cast supports this film well, and it works to an extent. It could've been better with some more provoking scenes dialogue-wise, especially between Winslet and Spacey.

Samurai I: Musashi Miyamoto ***

I've heard this being called "Japan's Gone With the Wind" and so far I love it. This is probably my most enjoyable Toshirô Mifune performance. I have to give props to Hiroshi Inagaki on the directing of this film. He told a delightful story and keep it well pace throughout. I am now currently eagerly awaiting to watch both Samurai II and Samurai III which I should do in the next 2 days or so.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Mike Newell 2005 U.S./U.K. (1st time) 1/2

A lot better than I thought it would be. I'm a big Harry Potter fan (more so the books than the films). There were a few parts in the book that I wish would have made it into the film, but overall I think they put in all the best things, and left out the unnecessary drivel. Best Potter film thus far.

Samurai II: Duel at Ichijoji Temple ** 1/2

Kind of a disappointment from the first one but still entertaining nonetheless. This had more action and fighting in it but I felt it moved slower than the first Samurai. I'm looking forward to completing the trilogy later on tonight.

CLOCKERS (1995) - ***

A solid crime drama from the always-controversial Spike Lee, with superb acting(as always) from Harvey Keitel(with this may have been the last major studio film where he headlines the top billing. Think about it!), Turturo, Lindo, etc. Lee has seen better days directorial, but still worthy of a rental for the casual film buff and the Lee fan completist.

ATTACK OF THE KILLER TOMATOES (1978) - *1/2

You know, I love good "bad" movies as the next hopeless nerd on this planet, but this was a rotten vegetable(or was it fruit?) Instead of simply a humorous stupid "bad" movie that translates to goodness on my Trash Meter, this stinker instead is just plain stupid. Perhaps the filmmakers were trying too hard to mock the monster/alien invasion movies of the 50's, or they just beat a decent 30 minute joke into NINETY MINUTES. Urgh.

On the plus side though, loved the theme song. Followed by sequels and a cartoon series.

HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER (1989) - ***** - Masterpiece!

Oh fuck. I am a hard-skin fellow, but even this movie creeped me out in a disturbing way. Named by Entertainment Weekly as one of the 20 Scariest Horror Movies of All Timeand among Roger Ebert's "Great Movies", this flick does deserve its legendary infamous reputation.

A subdued abstract dramatic exercise about a serial killer, without the comic bookish superhero-gimmick status of SILENCE OF THE LAMBS or SE7EN. No, this feels like a real psychopath that stalks the highways of America, who kills for both as a hobby, and as a sick passion.

If anything, with the jump-scare condition of horror in Hollywood, to see a film with a chilling ending that is simply just a shot of a suitcase that was ditched on the side of the road.....ya, let's just say I had a hard time sleeping. I heavily recommend it to my cinema buff friends, especially Capo, DV, and everyone else!