GameBanshee Forums

While I realize there are some dedicated web sites where users can read and post reviews of movies, I think these sites suffer because of user anonymity. I know that I personally would benefit more from reading movie reviews posted by users I'm familar with. I obviously haven't been a frequent poster, but I do feel like I've read enough posts to get at least a sense of what some of you are like.

In addition, at least in the United States, I feel like I have to take particular care when I choose which movies to see in the theater, with the skyrocketing of ticket prices.

To that end, please feel free to post here reviews of movies you've seen. I'm sure reviews will range from sparse to detailed, but I hope that posters will take care to ensure that their reviews do not reveal too much of a movie's plot.

Regards.

I saw "American Pie 2" about a month ago. The original portrayed a group of American high school seniors who made a pact to lose their virginity before graduating from high school. The sequel picks up after this same group's first year of college, with the guys coming back to their hometown to spend the summer.

In my opinion, the movie is a wonderful sequel to the first American Pie. Its humor falls along the same lines of the original (deliciously juvenile and gross) but it still manages to be fresh. The return of original's entire cast is a nice touch.

On the negative side, despite that this type of movie doesn't place much emphasis on character development, I was disappointed with the lack of development/depth in certain characters, such as Mena Suvari's character.

It will be interesting to see who among the large cast of budding stars will go on to true movie stardom, and who will be relegated to TV sitcoms. I have a feeling that many of their careers will probably fizzle, given today's plethora of 20-something actors, but if I had to wager, I would pick Tara Reid and William Seann Scott.

[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: Crassus ]

I saw Rush Hour 2 a month ago or something. Quite funny and entertaining, although not anything great.


BTW @non americans- American Pie is typical dumb gross american humor.

@ThorinOakenshield: What do you expect? We are dumb. Our education ranks pretty bad in the world. Besides, I see nothing wrong with gross body part humors as long as I am entertained, but too much is just too boring.

I saw Musketeer yesterday very good movie. Any history buff would hate it because it isnt much at all like the original 3 musketeers because this movie makes 1 of them a star then then have like a "squad" of other musketeers in the movie. They have porthos and arimus in there (the other main musketeers) but they arnt important characters there is only 1 REAL good musketeer and he isnt a musketeer until the very end well i wont give away to much of the movie but there are alot of really good battle scenes and i thought the storyline was pretty good

eeek double post some delete this post

[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: KillerKid ]

Originally posted by KillerKid:
<STRONG>I saw Musketeer yesterday very good movie. Any history buff would hate it because it isnt much at all like the original 3 musketeers because this movie makes 1 of them a star then then have like a "squad" of other musketeers in the movie. They have porthos and arimus in there (the other main musketeers) but they arnt important characters there is only 1 REAL good musketeer and he isnt a musketeer until the very end well i wont give away to much of the movie but there are alot of really good battle scenes and i thought the storyline was pretty good</STRONG>

What do you mean, won't give it away? The thing was written 150 years ago by Dumas pere, and has been a bestseller ever since. You might as well claim you won't give away what happens to Frodo in the Lord of the Rings.

It's anachronistic, but not because one muskateer is the hero; but because the director, David Lester, and the screenwriter, Spike Milligan, chose to satirize the atmosphere of deep romance, courtly manners, and serious action which Dumas created. In the original book, D'Artagnan's lover is a sweet, naive rather ethereal type, who is killed by Milady; in the film, she's played by Raquel Welch--and there's nothing ethereal about Raquel Welch. Half the battles are won by tricks of deception and misdirection.

I'm not objecting to the film, which I really like (and which is only the first half of the novel, in any case), but it's not The Three Muskateers. I suspect a true, faithful film version of the book couldn't be made these days, because many of the social attitudes it takes for granted in its audience are completely out of fashion.

On a note of Musketeers, I found "Man in the Iron Mask" Kind've a neat follow-up to the whole Musketeer story (Of the Three, and D'artanon anyway)

Final Fantasy
there was a really rubbish storyline about ghosts from another planet coming to earth and killing everyone by sucking their souls out.
The Characters were rubbish. Almost exactly like final fantasy 8s characters. And anyway everbody dies so it doesn't matter much does it?
The script was rubbish because the main hero falls in love with another guy and it is about 10 times worse than bg2 romance scripts but it doesn't matter because he dies, right?
The only good thing about it was that the graphics were very good
In all about 1/10

For all your DVD reviews: [url="http://www.dvd.reviewer.co.uk"]Top DVD site[/url]

Yeah, I heard what you said. But this place lets you logon and publish your (named) reviews. Its DVD's so they're a bit behind the Cinemas. However, the news is comprehensive (not just DVD's) and the US reviews are extremely timely.

You might find a certain Grunt Boy wandering aimlessly in there too.

Cool Topic :

I am going to take a stab at AI.

As anyone who has been lurking for the last week will know i watched this for need of a better word movie last week. Even now i still get sleepy just thinking about it. It is one of the most limp and tired efforts at convincing Sc-Fi ever created.

Olsmet is as expected not particularly good. His acting is very mundane, i get the feeling this was as much the fault of Spielberg as Olsmet. Anyone who has been witness to his talent in 'The Sixth Sense' will know that he can act.

The acting is improved by the intoduciton of Jude Law. Although his dialogue and character are entirely banal his character manages to sparkle with an energy that was sorely lacking. William Hurt was also very stoic in his performance, belivable would probaly be the most appropriate term. THe only other actor of note is Teddy, a CG bear who follows our 'hero' around, he is constantly amusing and provides some activity.

I get the impression that Spielberg was attempting to create a movie that made a statement, but was lost in the rush for impressive CG. Spielberg IMO has only ever created one film that has merit - Schindlers List. That film is great.

As i mentioned the CG's of this film are particularly impressive. There is very little that is unbelivable, the green screen is not obvious and remains consitently good throughout.

I can understand that we as an audience have to suspend disbelief and on an emotional level empathise with the characters, it is a shame that this is not possible since we never feel connected to anyone....excpet Teddy The film fails to get the viewer involved. That is probably the main problem, it is like watching a really poor documentary.

Frankly i have not had a more boring 2:15hrs in a long time. Biochemistry lessons were more interesting than this.

Avoid at all costs, i can't believe i spent £4 on what amounted to sleep. If anyone did enjoy it, please tell me how.

*yawn* as someone so appropriately put it in the cinema

Originally posted by Aegis:
<STRONG>On a note of Musketeers, I found "Man in the Iron Mask" Kind've a neat follow-up to the whole Musketeer story (Of the Three, and D'artanon anyway)</STRONG>

The Man in the Iron Mask was based on yet-another novel of Dumas pere, a later one in the Muskateers series. He produced several hundred novels during his lifetime, although it's known that he employed a host of hacks to do various parts of his serialized works for him. Someone was said that Dumas would be considered a great writer, if anyone could be certain that any novel he wrote was entirely his.

Any one seen Don't Say a Word? Its looks like a cool movie.

@Sleep: You didn't like AI? Hmm... I kind've enjoyed, but not so much for the CG, or scrupt. I thought the actual plot, andconcept of it all was quite original. I agree with you that it had it's weak points, but you gotta give these people some credit for their originality.

December 20, 2001

FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING


I saw "Fellowship" yesterday night (after waiting in line the livelong day with ten thousand other fanatics) and felt compelled to let the rest of you know that the world will never be the same. Yes, yes, four months ago the world was changed by terrorists attacks in the United States. Not to sound banal, but the repercussions of this event, the adaptation of Tolkien's masterpiece onto the silver screen, makes September 11 seem like the Clinton/Gore presidency - desperately forgettable.

The "Fellowship of the Ring" is destined to become the standard by which subsequent fantasy movies will be measured (in the same way Star Wars heightened the bar for the Science Fiction genre). Ian McKellan (sp?) as Gandalf, and Elijah Wood as Frodo Baggins may for the first time in Hollywood history vie for the same Best Actor Award despite appearing in the same movie. Their performances are legendary. The viewers I spoke to outside the theater were as convinced as I that Elijah Wood was born to play the part of the Ringbearer, and McKellan was born to play the part of the mysterious Wizard. Jackson just didn't select the appropriate actors, he travelled to the Grey Havens and persuaded the genuine characters to return with him to 21st Century Earth and join the rest of the cast.

Tolkien fans will not be disappointed. The movie is beyond excellent, beyond censure. It is useless to praise or criticize Peter Jackson's accomplishment, in the same way it is useless to praise or criticize an autumn sunset or the Aurora Borealis. The movie was meant to be produced, just like the book upon which it is based was meant to be written. If Tolkien had been alive, he would have given the movie his personal seal of approval and encouraged his readers worldwide to go and see the movie for themselves rather than read the literature. "There are nuances in the adaptation," he would say, "that I meant to convey in my writing but failed to do so because of the limitations in the medium. Mister Jackson has captured those vagaries and displayed them beautifully on the screen." Suffice it to say, there will be an overwhelming increase of Tolkien fans creating their own websites or becoming full-time members in fantasy-related message boards extolling the greatness of the author and the Richard Burbage-like achievment of the director who resurrected a genre back into the mainstream.

Can "Fellowship" be surpassed in its dramatic movement, choreography, acting brilliance, spine-tingling cenematic experience? Yes, it can. It must. There are two more installments to be released by New Line, "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King" in 2002 and 2003 respectively.

There is no doubt in my mind that "Towers" and "King" will equal or surpass their illustrious predecessor. The elements that shaped "Fellowship" will be present in both movies since they were shot simultaneously, unlike the Star Wars saga whose quality diminished the further it got away from the original.

I have already bought tickets to see the movie again tonight. Its doubtful I will get in, however, since the line-up in every theater in Washington is said to be half a kilometer long, and security insist that those who haven't seen it yet be allowed to go in first. In the meantime, I can only attempt to lead a normal life until the second installment is released at about this time next year. The year-long wait can only heighten the experience, like an extended engagement between faithful lovers waiting impatiently for the day of their wedding.

[ 10-07-2001: Message edited by: EMINEM ]

Originally posted by Aegis:
<STRONG>@Sleep: You didn't like AI? Hmm... I kind've enjoyed, but not so much for the CG, or scrupt. I thought the actual plot, andconcept of it all was quite original. I agree with you that it had it's weak points, but you gotta give these people some credit for their originality.</STRONG>

No i didn't, i thought it was exceptionally boring and that the plot had been done before and better, hell even Pinochio the Disney movie was better than that.

I am not going to give Speiberg credit for taking one mans (Kubrik) vision and distorting it to his own sickly sweet nonsense.

[ 10-07-2001: Message edited by: Mr Sleep ]

Originally posted by Dark Angel:
<STRONG>Final Fantasy
there was a really rubbish storyline about ghosts from another planet coming to earth and killing everyone by sucking their souls out.
The Characters were rubbish. Almost exactly like final fantasy 8s characters. And anyway everbody dies so it doesn't matter much does it?
The script was rubbish because the main hero falls in love with another guy and it is about 10 times worse than bg2 romance scripts but it doesn't matter because he dies, right?
The only good thing about it was that the graphics were very good
In all about 1/10</STRONG>

Gee thanks, bub. You know this topic is about movie reviews, not movie spoilers. Reminds me of a Simpsons flashback where Homer, after just seeing The Empire Strikes Back, loudly talks about how Darth Vader is really Luke’s father. Everybody in line to see the movie had it ruined for them.

@EMINEM, I pray your powers of precognition are accurate.

Originally posted by EMINEM:
<STRONG>December 20, 2001

FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING

I saw "Fellowship" yesterday night...</STRONG>

WHAT?! I didn't think this was out until December!?

Originally posted by Lazarus:
<STRONG>WHAT?! I didn't think this was out until December!?</STRONG>

It's only open in select theaters. You have to look carefully. Very, very carefully.

Originally posted by EMINEM:
<STRONG>It's only open in select theaters. You have to look carefully. Very, very carefully.</STRONG>

I guess I'd better start looking, then! Does "select" mean like a few theaters across the entire US, or like one theater in each city?