Birth * 1/2
(First Viewing)

In New York, the widow Anna (Nicole Kidman) decides to get married to her fiancé Joseph (Danny Huston) after having grieved the death of her beloved husband Sean for ten years. A ten year old boy comes to Anna's mother (Lauren Bacall) birthday celebration and claims to be the reincarnation of Sean, and Anna believes in him.

Nothing extraordinary from the cast or director. Another forgetable Nicole Kidman pic.

Pride & Prejudice, 2005, Joe Wright.

For a year this DVD was sitting idly on the shelf as I had not come around to watch it. For someone who has fast forwarded through the book and has not been able to sit through the '95 mini series, this didn't seem so tempting.

But I have to say that brevity and taste in adaptation of the book for the sake of a movie has played a strong role in making it even more appealing to the impatient audience of the 21st century. Furthermore, acting and selection of the characters has outdone anything that I could have had in mind. Beautiful cinematography suited for a hate/love story, marvelous sets and costumes, also great editing has made it even more rewarding. It also boasts a great score and I can't help but say that this movie did bewitch me body and soul... to the degree of watching it three times already in the past few days. I never thought that one day I'd be obsessed with Pride & Prejudice. Amazing!

Just like all of her films,i watched a very early Kidman film the other night Called "Dead Calm" from 1989,that was OK.

Macfadyen's walk through the fog towards the end is astonishing.

Indeed, and the music accompanying this scene masterfully conveys this astonishment.

I wish I could get the music sheets/midis for piano sonatas of this score somewhere for free, alas, I've not found anything yet.

I love the ball sequence, too. The camerawork and sound editing is very impressive; with interweaving conversations captured in one take, with lots of movement in and out of frame; ambitious choreography pulled off well.

Yes, I wonder how many takes they must have had for that ball sequence. I can't really say which of Elizabeth/Darcy encounters is my most favorite. All elements are blend with such a great taste in their right places, it doesn't fail to impress when you go back and watch it over and over again.

But I adore those in Rosings the most. Especially when they are sitting in the chapel and Elizabeth's eyes meet those piercing blue eyes of Darcy and camera roles back so fast thank God, just when you feel your heart drop off your chest. Amazing camera work...

I don't think I've ever heard of it

Never much cared for Nicole Kidman.

Her nude scenes remind me of the bare chested pre-teen Vietnamese boys on the Save The Children commercials.

Bakushû (aka Early Summer) ***
(First Viewing)

In postwar Tokyo, this household is loving and serene: older parents, their 28-year-old daughter Noriko, their married son, his devoted wife, and two rascally sons. Their only discontent is Noriko's lack of a husband. Society is changing: she works, she has women friends who tease and argue, her brother sees her independence as impudence, she sees it as normal. When her boss suggests that she marry a 40-year-old bachelor who is his friend, all the members of her family press her to accept. Without seeking their advice, and to their chagrin, Noriko determines her own course of action.

Setsuko Hara really did a great job as the main star, Noriko. This concludes the "Noriko Trilogy" as I've also seen Late Spring and Tokyo Story although I do need to rewatch both in the near future.

300 *
You have to read my review keeping in mind that I don't like LOTR, Braveheart, Star Wars, Gladiator(to some extent), Independence day, majority of the action movies and in general formulaic hollywood with corny lines about freedom, hope etc. I like Sin City though. Now what happens when you mix together the parts that I dislike the most from all the above mentioned movies? You get 300. I somehow was under the (wrong) presumption that this is a serious historical movie on the battle between 300 Spartans and a huge number of Persians. I didn't know much about Spartans until this movie... still it is to be seen more as stylistic effort than a historical movie. Some of the visuals are wonderful and grand. Several others betray the computer technology used. You might like it if you like grand inspiring films.

Edward Scissorhands **
(First Viewing)

A modern day fairy tale which tells the story of Edward, the man created by an inventor, who died before finishing him and left Edward with scissors where he should have hands. One day when the local "Avon" representative calls at the historic mansion where Edward has been living alone, she takes him home to stay with her family. He has to adapt to the new life and environment that he isn't used to. Soon he shows a talent in cutting hair and hedges, and wins every body's heart. But life isn't always so sweet.

Not Johnny Depp's or Winona Ryder's finest work. I know this film has quite a following but it didn't impress me in the least.

My 2nd favorite movie of the year thus far. I thought it was absolutely fantastic and it made some serious bank at the box office (although box office numbers today can be misleading). How Disturbia can be the #1 movie in the country 3 weeks in a row is beyond me. And don't even get me started on how Stomp the Yard or Are We Done Yet? made more money than Grindhouse! But back on topic, so far everything Frank Miller touches is gold (and I'm cool with that).

But is it because of Miller's story in the first place, or the movie that Snyder made?

Because really, more and more I am just not that impressed visually with Snyder's flick.

A combination of both

You mean the slow motion....or the man-meat abs?

Slow motion, the backdrop, etc. (not the man-meat abs)

Spider-Man *** 1/2
(Nth Viewing)

A rather odd thing has just occurred in the life of nerdy high school student Peter Parker: after being bitten by a genetically modified spider, his body chemistry is altered mutagenically. He can now scale walls and ceilings, he has superhuman strength and super-fast reflexes, and he develops a precognitive sense that warns him of approaching danger. Adopting the name Spider-Man, Peter first uses his newfound powers to make money, but after his uncle is murdered at the hands of a criminal Peter failed to stop, he swears to use his powers to fight the evil that killed his uncle. At the same time, scientist and businessman Norman Osborn, after exposure to an experimental nerve gas, develops an alternate personality himself: the super-strong, psychotic Green Goblin! Peter Parker must now juggle three things in his life: his new job at a local newspaper under a perpetually on-edge employer, his battle against the evil Green Goblin, and his fight to win the affections of beautiful classmate Mary Jane Watson, against none other than his best friend Harry Osborn, son of Norman Osborn! Is this challenge too much for even the Amazing Spider-Man to handle?

Just gearing up for numero 3 on Friday. This is my favorite one thus far and think Tobey Maguire, Willem Dafoe and Rosemary Harris were perfect casts for their individual roles.

Where are you getting your synopses from?

That has to be the most disgusting review I've ever read.

Whats so "disgusting" about it?

That, as a lover of film, and as somebody who has the free will and sound mind (he's not a retard, and he's not living under an oppressive regime which might stamp on his opinions), he's been utterly, undeniably and unforgiveably lazy.

When a retelling of a film's story is more than quadruple in length of the things you actually have to say in response, it's not a good sign of the film. But since Irish seems to like the film, it's not by any means a good sign of him.

In short, I see absolutely no reason why he would even think about posting what he did here. It's a waste of space (in general, on the Internet, and in particular, on this board); of time (his and mine); and, finally and most importantly, a waste of an opinion - and therefore, a waste of time having consumed the film in the first place.

This thread might as well be in the Games Section, because that's what it's become. A regurgitation of what a film tells story-wise (and I'd be surprised if he even wrote that himself), and little if anything more.

Is that what Cinema's worth? A few lines? A few stars? So you can watch a film and say you've just watched it in a post?

Of course, this will probably meet the unoriginal, and again thoroughly lazy response such as, "But I don't like films the way you do", or "I don't know about cinematography or directing", but that doesn't mean you're engaging with the film in any less active a way than me. And for someone who watches a lot of films - no, someone who dedicates a lot of time to watching them - I see no reason why further analysis isn't interesting or indeed possibly essential.

What a fucking waste.

It's disgusting. It's a real, genuine sign of the inertia of society as a whole.

I see what your saying but we all don't take films as serious as you,and look at it as a career more for entertainment.

I've already nullified that response by commenting on it in advance.

This should be moved to the Games forum.

Stop Bitching..Your always moaning

I moan not because I can, not because I have the right to moan, but because I feel the need to moan, because I know that not moaning would be dishonesty, would be lying to myself, would be turning the other cheek on something my deeper, inner, truer instincts believe in or have faith for.

Your first response was anticipated, your second is merely typical of The Ignorant.

Power to the people..

Power with what, at what? Power over whom? To what ends, by which means?

Don't start throwing clichés around when you don't know what they mean.

2879

Oh, sorry, wrong thread.

Dont worry Turi, I wont tell anyone about your sex-change operation.

Oh sorry, that was supposed to be in a PM.

IMDB. Same place I've been getting them for months now