Top.Mail.Ru
Not just your average movie...
close
? ?
Not just your average movie... [entries|friends|calendar]
BERJAYA
Rebelling against those generic brand films.

[ website | arsagagirl (mod) ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

The Perfect Host [04 Oct 2011|10:16pm]
BERJAYA
carnivalstars
I love David Hyde Pierce from his character in Frasier.
I really want to see this movie! Has anyone seen it?
As far as I know, they are still just doing select screenings.


Website: http://theperfecthostmovie.com/


Trailer:
post comment

[29 May 2008|04:55pm]
BERJAYA
el_cliche
[ mood | BERJAYA contemplative ]

I wasn't really sure where to post this, but then remembered this kind-of-almost-not-quite-forgotten community. It's a quote from the A.V.Club's interview with Jeffrey Tambor. What is this talk about 'auras'? I don't know, but I definitely like the question and am wondering whether anybody else has a response to it. Anyway...:

AVC: Do you feel like there's a difference between "movie stars" and someone like yourself?

JT: That's an interesting question. I've actually never been asked that before. Let me take my time here… No. I think it's the same W-2 form, if you understand what I'm saying. [Laughs.] All roles are character roles. On the other hand, there are those people who have an inner… You know, this is a good question. Let's keep on it until I get it, because I like it. No. I think we all do the same thing. You can't get by on aura alone. That I know. Everyone has to dig in. Everyone has to do the same set of, "What is this about? What is this character doing?" Everybody from Spencer Tracy to Brad Pitt to Jeffrey Tambor.

Everyone has to do the same work—you know, I teach acting. But there are those people who come on, and there's just something about them in and above themselves that has to do with chemistry and electricity—this aura about them. And that's unmistakable. Do I have that? Yeah, I think I have that. Am I a star? That's a different thing. I mean no, I'm not in People magazine. But I must be doing something right, because I've done it for 50 years! And I like doing what I do. I never want to have that on my shoulders—I never want to be number one on the call sheet. That's a life that I don't want. I mean, I'm not ducking the responsibility. But consider what I get to do: Next week, I'm going and laying down a track for WordGirl, which is an important PBS project about teaching kids language. And then I can go be silly.

post comment

Almost time [27 Apr 2008|11:50pm]
BERJAYA
pelennor_fields
I love summer movies.

Don't get me wrong, I can talk for hours about indies and style and directors, the art of the medium and the influence of the old on the new. But let's face it- when we were kids, what grabbed us were the spectacles, the big adventure pieces. And even more than that, just the ability to tie the experience of watching a movie to a place and time. Going with a large group to the midnight opening of the latest chapter in an epic series, or sitting in a cool theater on a hot, lazy afternoon catching some sharp, mean little horror movie or raunchy comedy.

Which brings me to my point. I know WBT is generally about smaller art films, but what would everyone say are the best of the recent summer movies (Note the recent- No Empire or Batman or Jurassic Park; let's keep the boundary at about, say, ten years)?
post comment

Best Headline Ever [25 Feb 2008|03:20pm]
BERJAYA
pelennor_fields
"Coen Brothers Drink P.T. Anderson's Milkshake"

I don't get the uproar. Having seen both, I thought No Country For Old Men was clearly the better movie (which isn't hard- I thought There Will Be Blood sucked).
4 comments|post comment

Wake the hell up, people [21 Feb 2008|06:10pm]
BERJAYA
pelennor_fields
Since it's that time...

What does everyone think is the biggest Oscar robbery of all time? There's a great argument for the two-years-in-a-row snub of Jim Carrey (I know he hasn't done anything worthwhile for some time, but it's very very hard to argue that his performances in The Truman Show and Man On the Moon weren't completely phenomenal). But the biggest one, I think, has to be The Fellowship of the Ring. I know, the prevailing sentiment is that the Academy wanted to wait until Return Of the King and recognize the trilogy as a whole, but that's an incredibly disingenuous move (from my perspective) given the implication that each Lord of the Rings was the best film of each year, but they just didn't want to give it any awards. I'm choosing Fellowship over Two Towers because while I still think TT was better than Chicago, I did enjoy them both. But there is no excuse as to why A Beautiful Mind, one of the worst acted, worst directed, and all around WORST movies I've ever seen should have won Best Picture over Fellowship anywhere other than Bizzaro World- where Tom Hanks is the record holder for most Razzie awards and Quentin Tarantino directed the first two Harry Potter films.
2 comments|post comment

Your good dog, Richard [13 Nov 2007|10:08am]
BERJAYA
el_cliche
[ mood | BERJAYA impressed ]

 BERJAYA

You want to know why this community has been so silent for so long? Because it is so very difficult to find anything that can be called "way better than." And so when we do get post, they're about Grindhouse or about Harry Potter, both fine in their own right, but hardly the hidden gems that this community was created for.

So, in the interest of bring some color back to the cheeks of this group, I present you with Robert Altman's Secret Honor.

The film's running time is an hour and a half. There is one character, Richard Milhous Nixon (Philip Baker Hall), who spends the entire movie in one room -- talking to himself. Well, not to himself, but to posterity: he's got a tape recorder and a video monitoring system, all of it focused on him alone. Nixon talks about his life and the reasons for his resignation, all a blend of fact and fiction; but I think the real strength of the film is in Hall's portrayal of Nixon as a worn out, angry, frightened man. In fact, since I don't think that Hall even resembles Nixon that much, it was easier at times to just look at the character as a sort of everyman, losing his mind (in a way) after a long struggle with life.
Because this is the film version of a one-man play, the dialogue at times is strikingly poetic. It's definitely the kind of movie you have to be in the right state of mind to watch, but it is undoubtedly worth the effort. It's magnificent.

post comment

[02 Nov 2007|04:36am]
estherblodgett
I guess since I'm new here, I wanted to say Hi!, So Hi!

(Sorry if this movie isn't accepted!) I would like to ask if anybody saw Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain (http://imdb.com/title/tt0414993) and what they thought about it. I loved it and truly thought it's way better than most movies today because it isn't a generic love story/sci-fi movie.

I know many people have theories on the movie. I posted my thoughts a long time ago at my journal, if you're interested. Warning, that entry contains spoilers! =D
post comment

Planet Terror or Death Proof [28 Oct 2007|06:14pm]
kareemjahlid
[ mood | BERJAYA curious ]

I think this group should be made active again, so here goes

which Grindhouse film do you prefer: Death Proof or Planet Terror?

I prefer Death Proof personally.

It is funnier, more quirky and witty, less corny, more fun to watch, more interesting, more original and unique

what do the rest of you think?

5 comments|post comment

[17 Sep 2007|06:22pm]
BERJAYA
el_cliche
[ mood | BERJAYA confused ]

 Question: Why does Ryan Gosling keep getting roles in movies when he lacks the ability to act? I mean, is looking [relatively] alright all it takes to get into a film career these days? Maybe I'm just naive, but I've always thought that having some semblance of talent was a prerequisite for a career in acting.

16 comments|post comment

new to group [21 Aug 2007|04:50pm]
kareemjahlid
[ mood | BERJAYA chipper ]

anyways, about me and my taste in movies: I'm probably one of the most eccentric and eclectic movie fans ever.

I like a wide range of movies. I like the action-adventures(Pirates of the Caribbean) to the Fantasies(Harry Potter, Bridge To Terabithia)) to the stupid comedies(Scary Movie, Norbit, Don't Be A Menace To South Central.....) to the blaxploitation movies of the 70's(Coffy, Superfly) to GOOD horror movies(not that dumb slasher shit like Saw, I'm talking about unique stuff like The Grudge or the classics like The Shining and The Birds) to the artsy ones(Pan's Labryinth) to the ones that really make you think(V For Vendetta) to the crazy action movies(Sin City and Kill Bill) all the way to animated(Monsters Inc., Shrek)

The only movie genres I've written off are SciFi(I hate BOTH Star Wars and Star Trek), CURRENT horror movies(which brings up the piece of shit we call Saw), Romance Comedies(which is also the reason why I SERIOUSLY liked Date Movie, because it makes fun of and exploits the romance comedies for how crappy they are), superhero movies(Spiderman, The Hulk, Superman, etc..................out of all of those, the only one that I really like is the ORIGINAL Batman(Batman Begins sucked), and AVERAGE action movies(like Die Hard and xXx, those kind of action movies are too boring and slow for my taste, I'm into the more wild and humorous ones like Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill)

felt the need to establish my presence before just jumping in the group

5 comments|post comment

me again [11 Aug 2007|02:51am]
BERJAYA
synesthesiac
Just watched Lady Vengeance. Christ. Same director as Oldboy, similar theme [released from jail, a woman goes in search of revenge on the man responsible for her imprisonment]. It is exactly the opposite of what I expected it to be. Bleak as hell from start to finish.... a bit less gory than Oldboy but possibly the darkest film I've ever seen - it makes Oldboy look like Kill Bill. Throughout Oldboy, even in the darkest moments, there's a streak of twisted hope that isn't remotely present in this one. Like Oldboy it's very surreal [same style of surreal, claustrophobic, graphic set-pieces and peculiar events that seem to come out of nowhere], and has an element of dangerously unhinged comedy, but the subject matter and the way it plays out... my god. DEFINITELY worth seeing [even just for the spectacular use of Vivaldi], but jesus - don't watch it if you're in a maudlin mood. I'm somewhat shellshocked.
post comment

Hi, I'm new [10 Aug 2007|12:30pm]
BERJAYA
synesthesiac
...and this seems like a good place to feed my film fixation. I found it after searching for other people/groups who like Gegen Die Wand [one of my alltime favourite movies - on a side note, has anyone seen Transylvania yet, starring Birol Ünel from GDW? Is it any good?].

So... hello!

I've been on a dvd spree lately. Thoughts on the three I've watched so far [I'll avoid any spoilers]:

Disco Pigs
Odd as hell, this. Irish film from a few years back, adapted from a play. A teenage boy & girl, 'Pig' and 'Runt' grow up next door to each other, twins in all but blood; their relationship sits uneasily between twins and romantic soulmates. In their emotional entwinement they're totally detached from the world around them, to the point of sociopathy, and run about terrorising and confusing everyone around them. Then age 17 hits, and Pig's feelings for Runt become decidedly sexual [perhaps too instantly, but as a narrative device I guess it's pretty necessary] - something she's not ready for. And everything turns to chaos. The two parts are played with fantastic rawness - Cillian Murphy's 'Pig' is a proper little droogie; a nasty and frightening car-crash character who you uncomfortably empathise with but can't exactly sympathise with. Elaine Cassidy's 'Runt' is more likeable, and equally watchable in a cloudy, dreamy sort of way. The feeling with the film [and, I anticipate, the play, though I've not seen it] is that the ideas for the characters spawned the story, and everything else was assembled in a mad rush; narrative, music, the works. The rawness is sometimes frustrating, but it really does suit the tone of the film and the characters themselves; too constructed a film would have felt contrived. As it is, I think it leaves you a little emotionally isolated, but intrigued. Three stars.

Domino
I expected this to be a slap-bang-wallop guilty pleasure. It was much more stylised and brutal than I expected. Keira Knightley takes a lot of criticism from film fans but I think she's mostly good in this, the right mixture of youthful nerves and self-assembled toughness. Her narration is irritating though, as is the tendency for people's words & phrases to be echoed pretentiously over the soundtrack, and the constant recurrence of the tagline, 'heads you live, tails you die'. It's like it's meant to be a druggy movie, when really, drugs play very little part in the story. I guess they were trying to keep away from tv-movie territory, but they've over-egged the pudding somewhat. The acting's excellent throughout, the cinematography's eyecatching but often distracting... ultimately, again it's not easy to care about the characters much. It's worth a watch but I wish I'd rented rather than bought it. Two & a half stars.

The Wind That Shakes The Barley
I'm doing what I always do, getting interested in one actor and working through their back catalogue. Another Cillian Murphy flick, directed by Ken Loach so you know it'll meet a certain standard. Actually it's phenomenal. Long but well fleshed out, it gives you a heartrending look at the 1920s Irish struggle for independence, through the eyes of the Cork locals that formed an early incarnation of the IRA. Liam Cunningham's supporting performance as an educated and principled train driver caught up in it really stood out for me. As an English viewer of the film, I'm really not convinced by the angst that surrounded the film's release, about it being supposedly anti-British; it portrays the struggle as experienced by one group of people, and I think it does it truthfully. There are momentary glimpses in the film, actually, of some of the English soldiers' own experiences of the conflict, and these do a lot to balance the film. Orla Fitzgerald's strong in it too, playing the love interest but holding her own both as an individual character and as a counterpart to Murphy, and not merely being the fluff balanced on his arm. I can see myself watching this film repeatedly. Four stars.

Now I've got Lady Vengeance, Death in Venice, Nil By Mouth, Munich, Dolls and Roma to work through. Onwards...
2 comments|post comment

[13 Jul 2007|09:02am]
BERJAYA
el_cliche
[ mood | BERJAYA enthralled ]

I can't really write a full review right now, but suffice it to say that Harry Potter & the Order of the Phoenix is the best yet of the series. A lot of the reviews I've read have been kind of negative, which I don't understand. When I get a chance, I'll elaborate, but for now, just know: #5 is #1.

1 comment|post comment

Little Children [25 May 2007|02:43am]
BERJAYA
arsagagirl
The first time I saw "Seven", I had a small panic attack (I'm not even kidding, but hey I was pretty young) after it was over. Not since then has a movie ever made me feel like that. Like my entire stomach had gone into my throat. Not until I watched "Little Children". This has got to be one of the most unintentionally terrifying movies I have ever seen. This review is going to suck, because I don't know what to say. I still haven't figured out how I feel about it, except that I will probably not be sleeping tonight. For those of you who have seen it, do you understand me when I say it's terrifying? Not the story, but specific scenes and characters (namely "Ronnie"). I need help. I need opinions. I hated it but I loved it. I think.
post comment

The List [15 May 2007|09:50pm]
BERJAYA
pelennor_fields
I've always said that there's sort of an unspoken list of movies that every movie buff MUST SEE in order to call themselves movie buffs. Not necessarily movies that everyone has seen, but movies everyone who knows what they're talking about has seen.

The ones that pop into my head are...Collapse )

What I'm curious about is what everyone else would put on this list. I'm not talking personal favorites, remember, but rather movies that everyone should see. And please, no ripping on other people's choices.


Although... y'know, if it is a sort of informal unspoken list, I'd imagine there'd be a consensus about it.
14 comments|post comment

[15 May 2007|10:14am]
BERJAYA
carnivalstars
[ mood | BERJAYA calm ]

The Last Day ****1/2 (out of *****)
I can't remember if I reviewed this or not, but it's a French film starring Hannibal Rising's Gaspard Ulliel. There is nothing I love more than a foreign film I enjoy, and this is one of them. It's simplistic and sad and I don't own a lot of movies since I don't like many, but I actually want to own this. There is something poignant and beautiful about it I can't articulate.

Disturbia ***1/2 (out of *****)
My favorite Hitchcock film is Rear Window, and everyone was saying how this was a knock-off of it so I was like UGH when I went with my sister to see it. This really isn't much like Rear Window at all. The movie really isn't that bad! Some parts made me laugh, and despite the teenager-on-teenager action, I have seen much worse. There were minimal similarities between the movies. And what I did like was that rather than the speculation of what the neighbor was doing, they actually show us, unlike Hitchcock's film. I love murder. =D

1 comment|post comment

Spider-Man & Goodtimes [09 May 2007|11:22pm]
BERJAYA
inkblacksea
"Spider-Man 3"
My rating: (**1/2 out of ****)
This one is going to divide a lot of fans; however, most of the people that I've talked to about the film, I think, are dogging it for the wrong reasons. Everyone seems to be criticizing the film for its campier moments (most obviously, the extended Peter Parker "wagging-finger ladies man" sequence). One of my friends told me "the effects are good, the story is good, but the script sucks". I have no idea what he's talking about. The camp is, for the most part, a good thing. Kudos to Sam Raimi for reminding us that this is, after all, a popcorn superhero movie and that those who take it too seriously need to lighten up. People expecting a dark and brooding Spidey movie because of the introduction of the Venom character should know better than to expect that. Raimi is consistent with the vision that he established in the first two films. So what doesn't work about it? I think the biggest problem with "Spider-Man 3" is that it's simply too freaking huge to possibly work. There are too many characters and too many story-lines intersecting with one another to allow for any of them to really breathe. Instead, what we get are the fragments of individual plotlines, jammed together in a very jagged and sometimes shockingly abrupt fashion. It seems like Raimi wanted to outdo himself here in every possible way. I don't think he needed to. "Spider-Man 2", I think, was a near perfect movie because it was very focused. "Spider-Man 3" replaces that focus and simplicity with excess. Still, in spite of lots of weak points, there's enough good about it to warrant going to the theatre to watch it. Raimi is an excellent director and worthy of immense praise and "Spider-Man 3", though it's the weakest, is still a worthy installment in the franchise.

P.S: Did anyone happen to catch what George Lucas had to say about the film in his interview with Roger Friedman on Fox News? Long story short, he said: "It's a silly movie...there just isn't much there...once you take it all apart, there's not much story, is there?". Hmmm...it's hardly fair for Lucas to criticize the third installment of "Spider-Man" when his "Episode III" was probably the biggest filmed disappointment to hit theatres in years. I'd even go as far as saying that Raimi is a way better director than Lucas...
1 comment|post comment

[02 May 2007|10:38pm]
BERJAYA
el_cliche

BERJAYA

Aside from having some pretty cool lesbian S&M scenes, this one is pretty forgettable. It's a badly made horror movie, but it's not funny bad -- it's just bad. And, really, it could have been pretty good, except that it moves way too slowly (Okay, I know your camera is cursed. Do you really have to take 50 more pictures to prove it to me?) None of the actors knew how to act.
The one redeeming feature of the film (aside from the occasional nudity, of course) is the dream sequences which border on subliminal messages, with different scenes spliced together very quickly, some in color, some in black and white.
The movie ended and I thought, "That's it?" There's a surprise "twist" ending, but it's really not all that surprising and definitely lacking on twist-ness.
I really wanted to like this movie. The synopsis speaks of a dominatrix doll, quote-unquote "kinky nightmares", and a bottomless pit in the livingroom. It wasn't very good, though. Sorry.
post comment

[02 May 2007|09:03pm]
BERJAYA
___hellowinter
Tears Of The Black Tiger (Fah talai jone - A+

I saw this on Saturday. My sister has been anticipating it for months. She dragged me along, and I was so super honored after viewing it. Someone told us, before seeing it, that the movie was so visually appealing that you could make a movie poster out of every shot and anyone in the world would be tempted to see it. It's so true. The colors are so saturated and bright and amazing. The settings are extremely artistic. Plus, the soundtrack was great. The music was a knock off of the ones from old Westerns with a mix of traditional Thai music. There are so many little things that make you love it. I'll tell you, but you're going to have to watch it to understand. Like the really fake mustache on Mahesuan and the pink university that Dum and Rumpoey attended.
1 comment|post comment

Grindhouse [08 Apr 2007|01:10pm]
BERJAYA
inkblacksea
My rating: ***1/2 out of ****

I can't think of a better reason to get excited about movies again than a double feature of new full-length films by Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino for the price of one. And believe me when I say that they're both well worth sitting down for the three plus hour run-time that it takes to get through them. "Planet Terror", Rodriguez's film, is total awful horror movie heaven. It's a blast. However, it's Tarantino's "Death Proof" that really sticks with you after the film is over. Tarantino makes a different kind of grindhouse movie: a slower, more thoughtful and appropriately harder-hitting piece of work. "Death Proof" isn't perfect. It's probably about fifteen minutes too long and it drags its feet pretty bad for a few of those, but the end result is surprising and thrilling.

Also, the faux-trailers in between the two films: priceless. Both Eli Roth's "Thanksgiving" and Edgar Wright's "Don't" are absolutely hysterical. Rob Zombie's trailer for "Werewolf Women Of The SS", though, not so much, which is just more evidence of how uncool he is. (PS: Did anyone catch the trailer for his remake of "Halloween"? Ugh...)
4 comments|post comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]

BERJAYA