- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Cabin in the Woods. TulaneLSU's 2011-12 movie review thread
Posted on 11/16/11 at 7:22 am to TulaneLSU
Posted on 11/16/11 at 7:22 am to TulaneLSU
Sarah's Key There is a growing corpus of Holocaust movies. Some of the movies are forgettable and are made with platitudinal frivolity, knowing that critics are slow to trash Holocaust movies, even bad ones. The subtitled, French flick, Sarah's Key, was neither lauded nor dumped, but it did receive a relatively lukewarm reception from both critics and audiences alike. After watching it, I think I understand why many critics were slow to say positive things about this movie.
Similar to the flip-flop juxtaposition of two lives in different time periods in Julie and Julia, we find in Sarah's Key two stories: one of a distrait girl running to release what she had locked away and the other of a woman in search of truth, also locked away. But truth is a powerful thing, something that can evoke angst, guilt, even if undeserved, and the pain of memory. Truth is the reason we are all called to be just, compassionate, kind, and humble. When we are not those things, we create a world in which truth harms the innocent and the innocent are decreated. The innocent become afflicted and suffer an unrighteous, unjustified penalty. We see this symbolically applied through the use of water in several scenes. Water, which is supposed to be a purifying substance, is transformed into purity's antithesis, guilt, as a result of the transgressions of others.
So much of the Judeo-Christian tradition is one of story telling. Whether the authors of this story made into a movie are explicitly aware of this characteristic is unknown. But the theme of remembering is strong, so strong in fact the movie opens and closes with a voiceover on the import of a story: "When a story is told, it is not forgotten." Those who have been following the LNBST may be thinking about YHWH's repeated command to remember. Remember your past. Remember where you were. Remember your bondage. Remember who you are because this story is who we are; this narrative of life is a grand drama from which we draw our understanding. The Christian Gospel, likewise, is a continued proclamation of this grand narrative: of what has happened and what is to come. Stories must be told. If they are not, they are forgotten.
I suppose that is the task of all arts: to tell a story, to prevent the story from becoming annihilated into a Heideggerian Vergessenheit. Without the story, the world has lost something vital to it. And that is probably why preservationists do what they do. They are trying to preserve a story because they understand that we are products of a story, of history, and that we are mere fragments of reality, truly illusions, if we have no roots in the narrative of history. The earth cries out with a story. All land is holy because all land has been witness to the story.
There is so much more to unpack from this gem about the little known story of the Holocaust in Vichy France, specifically, the Vel' d'Hiv Roundup. While the movie's focus is on retelling that story and the story of a woman wrestling with the idea of abortion, and does an adequate job of both, where the movie really succeeds is reminding us of the need for roots. Is a self-uprooted class of movie critics the reason for its critical blackballing? 9/10
Similar to the flip-flop juxtaposition of two lives in different time periods in Julie and Julia, we find in Sarah's Key two stories: one of a distrait girl running to release what she had locked away and the other of a woman in search of truth, also locked away. But truth is a powerful thing, something that can evoke angst, guilt, even if undeserved, and the pain of memory. Truth is the reason we are all called to be just, compassionate, kind, and humble. When we are not those things, we create a world in which truth harms the innocent and the innocent are decreated. The innocent become afflicted and suffer an unrighteous, unjustified penalty. We see this symbolically applied through the use of water in several scenes. Water, which is supposed to be a purifying substance, is transformed into purity's antithesis, guilt, as a result of the transgressions of others.
So much of the Judeo-Christian tradition is one of story telling. Whether the authors of this story made into a movie are explicitly aware of this characteristic is unknown. But the theme of remembering is strong, so strong in fact the movie opens and closes with a voiceover on the import of a story: "When a story is told, it is not forgotten." Those who have been following the LNBST may be thinking about YHWH's repeated command to remember. Remember your past. Remember where you were. Remember your bondage. Remember who you are because this story is who we are; this narrative of life is a grand drama from which we draw our understanding. The Christian Gospel, likewise, is a continued proclamation of this grand narrative: of what has happened and what is to come. Stories must be told. If they are not, they are forgotten.
I suppose that is the task of all arts: to tell a story, to prevent the story from becoming annihilated into a Heideggerian Vergessenheit. Without the story, the world has lost something vital to it. And that is probably why preservationists do what they do. They are trying to preserve a story because they understand that we are products of a story, of history, and that we are mere fragments of reality, truly illusions, if we have no roots in the narrative of history. The earth cries out with a story. All land is holy because all land has been witness to the story.
There is so much more to unpack from this gem about the little known story of the Holocaust in Vichy France, specifically, the Vel' d'Hiv Roundup. While the movie's focus is on retelling that story and the story of a woman wrestling with the idea of abortion, and does an adequate job of both, where the movie really succeeds is reminding us of the need for roots. Is a self-uprooted class of movie critics the reason for its critical blackballing? 9/10
This post was edited on 11/16/11 at 7:32 am
3
Posted on 11/16/11 at 7:22 am to TulaneLSU
Season of the Witch I read a few scathing reviews and went to see this just to see how bad a movie Cage was willing to sign to. I was surpised that this movie wasn't nearly as bad as the critics said. The large scale battle scenes are bad and the CGI for the most part about a decade behind, but the story was a bit interesting, and actually surprised me. At first, I thought this was just another attack on the Church of the Middle Ages, but it was actually, in a weird way, a defense of it. The movie was always entertaining and moved very quickly, so you won't be bored. 5/10
Seven Days in Utopia Before watching it, I did something I usually don't: I had a peak at the numerical grades the critics gave this movie. I was not that surprised when I saw the grades were low. It's not unusual for critics to pan an overtly religious movie. Some people, either for personal or intellectual reasons, hate religion. Anything that discusses religion in a positive light is bad to some of these people. I hoped that this was the reason for the low scores because who has seen more bad movies in the theater this year than I have?
The movie is a series of parables in which a budding golf star learns lessons by having his focus unfocused. All his life, the golfer, whose acting rivals the quality of acting on MTV's Real World, has focused on direct lessons from a father who is exacting, goal-driven, vicarious, and relentless. But when that world is torn, he is led to another father figure, played by the philtrum-stached Robert Duvall. Through a series of trials and parables, Duvall's character teaches the young man virtues of middle American religion: conviction, temperance, and detachment.
The messages are well and good for a nominally Christian and unrooted society that has a need for morality lessons, but the teachings of Seven Days are, like so many of the "Christian" movies coming out since Hollywood realized it could make bank after seeing the cash flow after Mel Gibson's The Passion, more suited for a society that is concerned with self first. The movie's theme is less about Christian virtues than it is about the virtues of modern American psychology cloaked in the language of Christianity. The movie's not about finding one's place in the world as a servant; it's about finding oneself. It's not about reconciling after real fractures; it's about superficial hugs and submission: case in point: the golfer's dad in the ridiculous golf scenes that close the movie. There was nothing real in their ostensible reconciliation. The dad's character is merely destroyed, his soul simply disappears after the two supposedly reconcile. And as a result of this phantom redivivus, the character and the relationship he has with the son are incredulous. And as bad as that relationship portrayal is, it's only half as bad as the young man's love interest and her family. Did the director really feel it necessary to include a shadow family?
Apart from giving a nominally Christian self-help message, the movie fails as a work of cinematic art because it has bad acting and no drama. There are no elements of suspense; every bit of this movie is predicated on folk family religion in the most predictable of ways. Whereas the profound lessons of a good work of art come to us in a susurrus, as do the lessons in a movie like A River Runs Through It, this movie is for an uncritical, unthinking audience who needs lessons pasted on billboards and blared on bullhorns. Even with all the bad, the movie moves quickly, and is over before you know it. But the next time I see Melissa Leo in Whole Foods, I will confront her. "Melissa," I will say, "Why did someone of your pedigree agree to do a bad movie? I've seen enough of them this year." 3/10.
Smurfs 3D There is an emerging study of color in contemporary philosophy. Much of it derives from psychological and linguistic theories, but it is annoyingly and fruitlessly emerging in philosophy. While we can objectively differentiate colors based on the spectrum of visible light, the new studies of color are more often than not based on an anthropocentric rather than physical understanding of color. As such, colors are colors in so much as they can create an emotional response. Artists have long known this; why it took philosophers so long to figure out, you figure out. Entering the movie I loved the color blue. Exiting the movie, I detest the color blue.
How can a movie create such a metanoia in opinion? Consider why many children do not like the lima beans. I believe it is not the legume's taste, it the legume's color: similar to the color of children's vomit. Smurfs is no more than vomit on the big screen. And it made me want to vomit. I wish I had listened to the lady in the preview of the Never Say Never copycat, Glee 3D, when she said, "This movie sucks. Get your money back." But we cannot change the past; we cannot undo what we have seen, and what I saw in Smurfs was a raping of my soul by none other than Papa Smurf, whose voice sounds eerily similar to the Larry King voice in those Xtranormal self-make movies.
It was an Indecent Proposal. How else can you explain any actor or actress agreeing to lend their face or voice to this movie? I can see the directors going to Doogie Howser: "Here's $2 mill, will you do it?" If Doogie had actually taken the Hippocratic Oath, he couldn't. I guess moral character is not expected from an actor who does a cameo in a movie about White Castle burgers and semen in a car's backseat. I'm surprised we didn't see any White Castle burgers in the movie. At every turn of the camera angle, there was one more advertisement for some company. Yes, Smurfs is nothing more than a series of infomercials painted blue. The directors then slapped on a five cent sitcom story about being a dad and a few crude jokes, that I hope went over the kids' heads. The sad part is that all that blue turned to green at the box office. Satan is red in my eyes no longer. 0/10
The Social Network Tight writing, great story, and moves at a pace that is irresistible. I haven't sat through two hours that went by more quickly than when watching this one. No performance sticks out; it's just a solid movie all the way around. 9/10
Seven Days in Utopia Before watching it, I did something I usually don't: I had a peak at the numerical grades the critics gave this movie. I was not that surprised when I saw the grades were low. It's not unusual for critics to pan an overtly religious movie. Some people, either for personal or intellectual reasons, hate religion. Anything that discusses religion in a positive light is bad to some of these people. I hoped that this was the reason for the low scores because who has seen more bad movies in the theater this year than I have?
The movie is a series of parables in which a budding golf star learns lessons by having his focus unfocused. All his life, the golfer, whose acting rivals the quality of acting on MTV's Real World, has focused on direct lessons from a father who is exacting, goal-driven, vicarious, and relentless. But when that world is torn, he is led to another father figure, played by the philtrum-stached Robert Duvall. Through a series of trials and parables, Duvall's character teaches the young man virtues of middle American religion: conviction, temperance, and detachment.
The messages are well and good for a nominally Christian and unrooted society that has a need for morality lessons, but the teachings of Seven Days are, like so many of the "Christian" movies coming out since Hollywood realized it could make bank after seeing the cash flow after Mel Gibson's The Passion, more suited for a society that is concerned with self first. The movie's theme is less about Christian virtues than it is about the virtues of modern American psychology cloaked in the language of Christianity. The movie's not about finding one's place in the world as a servant; it's about finding oneself. It's not about reconciling after real fractures; it's about superficial hugs and submission: case in point: the golfer's dad in the ridiculous golf scenes that close the movie. There was nothing real in their ostensible reconciliation. The dad's character is merely destroyed, his soul simply disappears after the two supposedly reconcile. And as a result of this phantom redivivus, the character and the relationship he has with the son are incredulous. And as bad as that relationship portrayal is, it's only half as bad as the young man's love interest and her family. Did the director really feel it necessary to include a shadow family?
Apart from giving a nominally Christian self-help message, the movie fails as a work of cinematic art because it has bad acting and no drama. There are no elements of suspense; every bit of this movie is predicated on folk family religion in the most predictable of ways. Whereas the profound lessons of a good work of art come to us in a susurrus, as do the lessons in a movie like A River Runs Through It, this movie is for an uncritical, unthinking audience who needs lessons pasted on billboards and blared on bullhorns. Even with all the bad, the movie moves quickly, and is over before you know it. But the next time I see Melissa Leo in Whole Foods, I will confront her. "Melissa," I will say, "Why did someone of your pedigree agree to do a bad movie? I've seen enough of them this year." 3/10.
Smurfs 3D There is an emerging study of color in contemporary philosophy. Much of it derives from psychological and linguistic theories, but it is annoyingly and fruitlessly emerging in philosophy. While we can objectively differentiate colors based on the spectrum of visible light, the new studies of color are more often than not based on an anthropocentric rather than physical understanding of color. As such, colors are colors in so much as they can create an emotional response. Artists have long known this; why it took philosophers so long to figure out, you figure out. Entering the movie I loved the color blue. Exiting the movie, I detest the color blue.
How can a movie create such a metanoia in opinion? Consider why many children do not like the lima beans. I believe it is not the legume's taste, it the legume's color: similar to the color of children's vomit. Smurfs is no more than vomit on the big screen. And it made me want to vomit. I wish I had listened to the lady in the preview of the Never Say Never copycat, Glee 3D, when she said, "This movie sucks. Get your money back." But we cannot change the past; we cannot undo what we have seen, and what I saw in Smurfs was a raping of my soul by none other than Papa Smurf, whose voice sounds eerily similar to the Larry King voice in those Xtranormal self-make movies.
It was an Indecent Proposal. How else can you explain any actor or actress agreeing to lend their face or voice to this movie? I can see the directors going to Doogie Howser: "Here's $2 mill, will you do it?" If Doogie had actually taken the Hippocratic Oath, he couldn't. I guess moral character is not expected from an actor who does a cameo in a movie about White Castle burgers and semen in a car's backseat. I'm surprised we didn't see any White Castle burgers in the movie. At every turn of the camera angle, there was one more advertisement for some company. Yes, Smurfs is nothing more than a series of infomercials painted blue. The directors then slapped on a five cent sitcom story about being a dad and a few crude jokes, that I hope went over the kids' heads. The sad part is that all that blue turned to green at the box office. Satan is red in my eyes no longer. 0/10
The Social Network Tight writing, great story, and moves at a pace that is irresistible. I haven't sat through two hours that went by more quickly than when watching this one. No performance sticks out; it's just a solid movie all the way around. 9/10
This post was edited on 11/16/11 at 7:32 am
Posted on 11/16/11 at 7:22 am to TulaneLSU
Soul Surfer - I went into this movie knowing nothing about it, nothing. It was playing when I arrived at the theater, so I went blind. All I knew was it was rated PG. When it began, I thought, "This looks dumb, but at least it's a pretty girl in a bikini." Moments later, the girl goes to church, and I'm thinking, "This must be one of those evangelical Christian movies that's trying to make a way into the mainstream." Bingo. With a star studded cast of Helen Hunt, Dennis Quaid, Craig Nelson (from the show Coach, who seems to be making a comeback with his recent role in the bland Company Men), Kevin Sorbo, and Carrie Underwood it caught me off guard because usually that type of movie has a no-name cast or with that fundamentalist guy Scott from Growing Pains.
For the first hour of the movie, I was really annoyed by it. It was overly preachy, overly sentimental, and overly focus on surfing and the life of a self-centered, selfish family that adds nothing to the world. They lived for their own entertainment, like most of the "evangelical Christians" today who are self-righteous and act that fake Mormon niceness that comes off as smug. People like this family put a lot of people off Christianity because they claim Christ, but live lives of the aesthete, living as if God chose them and them alone to enjoy the world. Suffering? As long as it's not me and my family, who cares? It's that type of teaching that has made much of what passes as Christianity in America the epitome of what Jesus taught against (much like Mormonism). Back to the movie, it was growing in annoying scenes, chirpy lines, and overly sentimental music to a crescendo of all I hate about American happy-clappyism. Where was the reality? The didactic moment?
But something happened in the last quarter of the movie. A pivotal change in the mood and direction, and it made all the difference. I won't spoil it for you, but somehow I got caught up in the young girl's life, and began sobbing uncontrollably in the theater. I have never cried like that from a movie, but this movie somehow reached into my spirit and tugged at it, perhaps more than any other movie since Rudy and A Walk to Remember. I confess that afterward, I felt a little used, but the feelings of manipulation passed when I realized this movie was based on a true story, and the one whose life it is based seemed genuine and true. I feel torn to give it a high rating because of the first 3/4 of the movie and the emotional roller coaster it takes you on, but I will give it a 7/10 just on the fact that it moved me so severely.
Source Code - a movie I went into blindly as well. From the title I thought it was going to be about computer hacking or some silly subject like that. Immediately, the movie embraces you with its mystery and action. The director really does his profession proudly using many of the known and unknown techniques of Hitchcock. To go into more detail is to give the movie away, but throughout the movie, I was intrigued and entertained.
It tries to pass itself off as intelligent, delving into the paradoxes of time travel, but it adds nothing of note, borrowing instead from Terminator and Back to the Future ideas. Not that interesting in my opinion, but what is interesting is the perfectly organized movie, its pace, and its great roles, perfectly cast might I add. I don't think I blinked the entire time. As a mystery-action-thriller, it doesn't get any better than this, but those who try to turn it into some intellectual treatise are morons. 8/10
Take Me Home Tonight The first half hour of this movie was amongst the worst 30 minutes of film in history. The trailer makes it out to be a comedy, but there are no humorous elements to the movie, especially in the first 30 minutes. The most interesting aspect of this movie involves failure and regret and how it has motivated, or rather, marked the movie's protagonist. If the director had focused on that instead of stupid scenes that did not help the movie, it might be worth seeing. But as it lacks comic and true dramatic elements, it flops. The music is pretty good if you're an 80s fan, but what? They didn't even put Take Me Home Tonight in the movie! Really. The title has nothing to do with this movie and the ending is just poor. 2/10
Tangled I felt embarrassed not to know this fairytale. After seeing it three times already I feel that I know the tale backwards and forwards. The young lady, even though she is a cartoon, is very attractive and I found her hair irresistible. The colors are beautiful and the music fun. Not as good as The Princess and the Frog, but still good. 8/10
Thor - Ah, yes, summer is here and so are the blockbusters. The summer has started in high style with Thor. I'm not a fan of those comic book movies, but this Marvel feature crosses the comic genre more than any other before it, even Iron Man. With themes from literature, religion, and science beautifully woven together, not to mention spectacular special effects that are among the prettiest ever made, this is the best movie I've seen so far in 2011. Natalie Portman and the guy who plays Thor have great chemistry, and that's not even the main story. The main story is about sibling rivalry, and it is marvelously illustrated. Absolutely outstanding. 8/10
The Tourist We're supposed to believe that Johnny Depp is the every man? Get real. Jolie is very attractive, perhaps at her prettiest in this film. And the cinematography of Venice is lovely. The story is not and it is one of the most predictable movies of the year. 4/10
For the first hour of the movie, I was really annoyed by it. It was overly preachy, overly sentimental, and overly focus on surfing and the life of a self-centered, selfish family that adds nothing to the world. They lived for their own entertainment, like most of the "evangelical Christians" today who are self-righteous and act that fake Mormon niceness that comes off as smug. People like this family put a lot of people off Christianity because they claim Christ, but live lives of the aesthete, living as if God chose them and them alone to enjoy the world. Suffering? As long as it's not me and my family, who cares? It's that type of teaching that has made much of what passes as Christianity in America the epitome of what Jesus taught against (much like Mormonism). Back to the movie, it was growing in annoying scenes, chirpy lines, and overly sentimental music to a crescendo of all I hate about American happy-clappyism. Where was the reality? The didactic moment?
But something happened in the last quarter of the movie. A pivotal change in the mood and direction, and it made all the difference. I won't spoil it for you, but somehow I got caught up in the young girl's life, and began sobbing uncontrollably in the theater. I have never cried like that from a movie, but this movie somehow reached into my spirit and tugged at it, perhaps more than any other movie since Rudy and A Walk to Remember. I confess that afterward, I felt a little used, but the feelings of manipulation passed when I realized this movie was based on a true story, and the one whose life it is based seemed genuine and true. I feel torn to give it a high rating because of the first 3/4 of the movie and the emotional roller coaster it takes you on, but I will give it a 7/10 just on the fact that it moved me so severely.
Source Code - a movie I went into blindly as well. From the title I thought it was going to be about computer hacking or some silly subject like that. Immediately, the movie embraces you with its mystery and action. The director really does his profession proudly using many of the known and unknown techniques of Hitchcock. To go into more detail is to give the movie away, but throughout the movie, I was intrigued and entertained.
It tries to pass itself off as intelligent, delving into the paradoxes of time travel, but it adds nothing of note, borrowing instead from Terminator and Back to the Future ideas. Not that interesting in my opinion, but what is interesting is the perfectly organized movie, its pace, and its great roles, perfectly cast might I add. I don't think I blinked the entire time. As a mystery-action-thriller, it doesn't get any better than this, but those who try to turn it into some intellectual treatise are morons. 8/10
Take Me Home Tonight The first half hour of this movie was amongst the worst 30 minutes of film in history. The trailer makes it out to be a comedy, but there are no humorous elements to the movie, especially in the first 30 minutes. The most interesting aspect of this movie involves failure and regret and how it has motivated, or rather, marked the movie's protagonist. If the director had focused on that instead of stupid scenes that did not help the movie, it might be worth seeing. But as it lacks comic and true dramatic elements, it flops. The music is pretty good if you're an 80s fan, but what? They didn't even put Take Me Home Tonight in the movie! Really. The title has nothing to do with this movie and the ending is just poor. 2/10
Tangled I felt embarrassed not to know this fairytale. After seeing it three times already I feel that I know the tale backwards and forwards. The young lady, even though she is a cartoon, is very attractive and I found her hair irresistible. The colors are beautiful and the music fun. Not as good as The Princess and the Frog, but still good. 8/10
Thor - Ah, yes, summer is here and so are the blockbusters. The summer has started in high style with Thor. I'm not a fan of those comic book movies, but this Marvel feature crosses the comic genre more than any other before it, even Iron Man. With themes from literature, religion, and science beautifully woven together, not to mention spectacular special effects that are among the prettiest ever made, this is the best movie I've seen so far in 2011. Natalie Portman and the guy who plays Thor have great chemistry, and that's not even the main story. The main story is about sibling rivalry, and it is marvelously illustrated. Absolutely outstanding. 8/10
The Tourist We're supposed to believe that Johnny Depp is the every man? Get real. Jolie is very attractive, perhaps at her prettiest in this film. And the cinematography of Venice is lovely. The story is not and it is one of the most predictable movies of the year. 4/10
This post was edited on 1/26/12 at 6:42 am
Posted on 11/16/11 at 7:22 am to TulaneLSU
Transformers 3 It was slightly better than the second one, but the story of Omega Prime isn't well told. I think if they had gone a little more in depth with the character of Omega, the movie might have gone somewhere, but Bay knew the public wanted to see bang bang pow pow, transform, die Decepticons! than actually develop a character or a story with any depth. It's a shame because all the animation would have buttressed an interesting story. 3/10
The Tree of Life To watch The Tree of Life is to stand before the expanse of the ocean or the heavens, knowing that every little thing you see has meaning, even if you don't understand what the meaning of each thing is. A day removed from watching this film, I feel like Christopher Columbus upon his landing in the new world or Frederick Cook. There is a mysterious infinity of faith and love in The Tree of Life.
Mr. Malick does not want to confuse people. He wants to open their eyes to faith and to the huge questions of faith, questions that are often reduced by fundamentalists of every stripe. For the fundamentalists who claim faith, faith is reduced to certainty. For the fundamentalists who assail faith, faith is a remnant of evolution gone awry. Faith is something to be jettisoned as baggage that has no worth in the modern world. But Mr. Malick sees and believes right through both forms of the same arrogant idolatry. So when Malick begins the film with an epigraph from Job, the divine question in response to Job's creaturely theodical question: "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth...when the morning stars sang together?" we are to view the movie through that passage in Job more than the Genesis creation account(s). This movie, like Job, is one person's, Malick, attempt to reconcile his faith in a good God that brings life to be with the God who allowed his brother to die at an early age. The movie is an an honest prayer, a supplication of integrity to God: God, why did you allow my brother to die? How can you say you are good and how can you ask me to be good, if you, God, are not good?
I think this question, uttered in a soft whisper, as all the movie's direct communication with God is done, is what drives the movie. But the movie begins with the answer: a beautiful sweep of history from the electron to DNA to the dinosaur to destruction to the specific story of one family, all are the work of the God who freely moves as a gaseous spirit of fire, the loving, birthing, consuming fire. We have the question of divine goodness and power within the boundaries of goodness in the beginning and goodness at the end. Thus, I think, it is Malick's way of saying, God, I know you are good. I know you are good, but why? Why? I know you are good. God's goodness is not known in the acetonic assurances of Mrs. O’Brien's mother, who cites scripture, just as Job's friends did. No one, not even God, who does not dwell in the depths of despair with another has the right to do such things. And that is why this movie only can make sense in a Christian worldview, a lens that sees the Creator as the Suffering Servant, the one who bore our iniquities and carried our sorrows. Only this God has the right to answer Job's question with another question: Where were you when I laid the foundations of the world? Only the God who knows suffering of the most real sort can understand Job or Jack O'Brien or Terrence Malick or you or me.
Doorways play such a huge role in this movie. But the most significant doorway is that at the end, when the grown Jack cautiously walks through, or boldly leaps through the door. This is the Kierkegaardian leap of faith. "Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep," says Jesus. And it is only after taking that leap into a new existence that the question of why falls to the wayside and he is reunited in a prelapsarian, or rather, post-redemptive paradise, reunited with his family, transported to a place where every tear has been wiped away, every imperfection made pure. Near the end, Mrs. O'Brien says, "The only way to be happy is to love. Unless you love, your life will flash by." This is the way, the truth, and the life of grace with which the movie opens. And the message is this, I think: That until we leap into the Christ, who was with God in the beginning and who suffered with and for us, and who loved us to the ultimate distance, unless we are bound to that Christ, we will have no love. Without love our lives wither and fade, and death is the end. But with love, with Jesus, we live forevermore in the valley where the tree of life bears fruit for us forevermore.
There is so much more to say about this movie, and perhaps I will one day say it. But I believe this movie to be an inspired work of God. It is a true masterpiece against which all works of art should be compared. It is the greatest movie that has ever been made. 10/10.
The Tree of Life To watch The Tree of Life is to stand before the expanse of the ocean or the heavens, knowing that every little thing you see has meaning, even if you don't understand what the meaning of each thing is. A day removed from watching this film, I feel like Christopher Columbus upon his landing in the new world or Frederick Cook. There is a mysterious infinity of faith and love in The Tree of Life.
Mr. Malick does not want to confuse people. He wants to open their eyes to faith and to the huge questions of faith, questions that are often reduced by fundamentalists of every stripe. For the fundamentalists who claim faith, faith is reduced to certainty. For the fundamentalists who assail faith, faith is a remnant of evolution gone awry. Faith is something to be jettisoned as baggage that has no worth in the modern world. But Mr. Malick sees and believes right through both forms of the same arrogant idolatry. So when Malick begins the film with an epigraph from Job, the divine question in response to Job's creaturely theodical question: "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth...when the morning stars sang together?" we are to view the movie through that passage in Job more than the Genesis creation account(s). This movie, like Job, is one person's, Malick, attempt to reconcile his faith in a good God that brings life to be with the God who allowed his brother to die at an early age. The movie is an an honest prayer, a supplication of integrity to God: God, why did you allow my brother to die? How can you say you are good and how can you ask me to be good, if you, God, are not good?
I think this question, uttered in a soft whisper, as all the movie's direct communication with God is done, is what drives the movie. But the movie begins with the answer: a beautiful sweep of history from the electron to DNA to the dinosaur to destruction to the specific story of one family, all are the work of the God who freely moves as a gaseous spirit of fire, the loving, birthing, consuming fire. We have the question of divine goodness and power within the boundaries of goodness in the beginning and goodness at the end. Thus, I think, it is Malick's way of saying, God, I know you are good. I know you are good, but why? Why? I know you are good. God's goodness is not known in the acetonic assurances of Mrs. O’Brien's mother, who cites scripture, just as Job's friends did. No one, not even God, who does not dwell in the depths of despair with another has the right to do such things. And that is why this movie only can make sense in a Christian worldview, a lens that sees the Creator as the Suffering Servant, the one who bore our iniquities and carried our sorrows. Only this God has the right to answer Job's question with another question: Where were you when I laid the foundations of the world? Only the God who knows suffering of the most real sort can understand Job or Jack O'Brien or Terrence Malick or you or me.
Doorways play such a huge role in this movie. But the most significant doorway is that at the end, when the grown Jack cautiously walks through, or boldly leaps through the door. This is the Kierkegaardian leap of faith. "Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep," says Jesus. And it is only after taking that leap into a new existence that the question of why falls to the wayside and he is reunited in a prelapsarian, or rather, post-redemptive paradise, reunited with his family, transported to a place where every tear has been wiped away, every imperfection made pure. Near the end, Mrs. O'Brien says, "The only way to be happy is to love. Unless you love, your life will flash by." This is the way, the truth, and the life of grace with which the movie opens. And the message is this, I think: That until we leap into the Christ, who was with God in the beginning and who suffered with and for us, and who loved us to the ultimate distance, unless we are bound to that Christ, we will have no love. Without love our lives wither and fade, and death is the end. But with love, with Jesus, we live forevermore in the valley where the tree of life bears fruit for us forevermore.
There is so much more to say about this movie, and perhaps I will one day say it. But I believe this movie to be an inspired work of God. It is a true masterpiece against which all works of art should be compared. It is the greatest movie that has ever been made. 10/10.
This post was edited on 11/16/11 at 7:33 am
Posted on 11/16/11 at 7:27 am to TulaneLSU
If this thread doesn't get you banned for spamming your post count, I don't know what will. Did someone anchor your previous thread?
This post was edited on 11/16/11 at 7:34 am
Posted on 11/16/11 at 7:33 am to TulaneLSU
Reserved for future reviews
This post was edited on 11/16/11 at 7:34 am
Posted on 11/16/11 at 7:33 am to TulaneLSU
Tron: Legacy I did not see the original and have no intention of it. I quite liked this movie even though I don't usually like sci-fi. There's little connection I felt towards any of the characters, and blew most of their roles off as amalgamations of other characters, like from Star Wars to name one. Olivia Wilde is beautiful, the Beloved, and her closeup shots are mesmerizing. Some of the cosmic philosophies of the movie are interesting, as are the colors and action scenes. 6/10
True Grit I'm not a huge Western genre lover, but this movie is tightly wound and Bridges is at his best playing an old curmudgeon. Damon is annoying and I don't like the violence. Its use of biblical quotes is empty and an attempt to placate and stimulate shallow thinkers who think that a Bible quote thrown into a movie is somehow profound. 7/10
Warrior Last month, and not by my choosing, I had a meal at Stella! in the French Quarter. It was a meal of highs and lows. One course would soar. The next would flat-line. I couldn't help but to think of this meal as I watched Warrior. Warrior is a movie of flashes of brilliance, but meanders through confused, sentimental story telling.
The director's main fault is trying to make a movie about the brokenness of a family of emotionally constipated individuals into a movie about ring fighting. Ring fighting may have been the vehicle through which the family is remedied, but in a movie as short as Warrior, there wasn't room enough for the two masters to be served with due time. So while one could argue that both parts of the movie were necessary, I don't think any reasonable person would deny that the story suffered from the fight scenes, which are long, riveting, and well-made. The fight scenes will please a certain subset looking only for entertainment from movies, but those who want a broader experience will find those scenes cumbersome.
What I would have liked to have seen more of was Nick Nolte's and Tom Hardy's characters. There were great moments of chemistry between the two of them, the type that wins critical awards, but the director would shift too quickly from the depth of their shared anger, tergiversation, regret, and love. The metaphor used throughout the story is that of Ahab, the inveterate symbol of obsession and hate conquering a life. Warrior would have been laudable had it stuck to this theme, but what we are left with are two commendable, if short, scenes where Ahab is constructed and repudiated. Nolte especially is fantastic in these scenes. The rest of the two hours is not much more than sappy, cheesy Hollywood underdog fluff. Those whose emotions are easily twisted by those saccharine, homogenous pre-game inspirational stories that are so common in sports today will probably enjoy the movie, but serious movie-goers will walk away yearning for more realism and character. Less starch and more Japanese Mero Sea Bass, please. 5/10
Water for Elephants - Having seen the trailer for this movie, I assumed it would be a fantasy movie based in a circus world. Boy was I wrong. This movie tries to be in less than two hours a documentary on the Great Depression and circus life, a story justifying adultery and breaking the law, and a cheap imitation of The Notebook. Fail. Fail. Fail. The only good performance in the movie is the ring master. He's an interesting, if violent, figure. Reese Witherspoon? Who has she slept with to get role after role? She's a TERRIBLE actress and not even very attractive. I don't see how she has done a single movie since Pretty In Pink. Every movie I've seen in which she has starred has been horrible. This movie is no exception. 2/10
True Grit I'm not a huge Western genre lover, but this movie is tightly wound and Bridges is at his best playing an old curmudgeon. Damon is annoying and I don't like the violence. Its use of biblical quotes is empty and an attempt to placate and stimulate shallow thinkers who think that a Bible quote thrown into a movie is somehow profound. 7/10
Warrior Last month, and not by my choosing, I had a meal at Stella! in the French Quarter. It was a meal of highs and lows. One course would soar. The next would flat-line. I couldn't help but to think of this meal as I watched Warrior. Warrior is a movie of flashes of brilliance, but meanders through confused, sentimental story telling.
The director's main fault is trying to make a movie about the brokenness of a family of emotionally constipated individuals into a movie about ring fighting. Ring fighting may have been the vehicle through which the family is remedied, but in a movie as short as Warrior, there wasn't room enough for the two masters to be served with due time. So while one could argue that both parts of the movie were necessary, I don't think any reasonable person would deny that the story suffered from the fight scenes, which are long, riveting, and well-made. The fight scenes will please a certain subset looking only for entertainment from movies, but those who want a broader experience will find those scenes cumbersome.
What I would have liked to have seen more of was Nick Nolte's and Tom Hardy's characters. There were great moments of chemistry between the two of them, the type that wins critical awards, but the director would shift too quickly from the depth of their shared anger, tergiversation, regret, and love. The metaphor used throughout the story is that of Ahab, the inveterate symbol of obsession and hate conquering a life. Warrior would have been laudable had it stuck to this theme, but what we are left with are two commendable, if short, scenes where Ahab is constructed and repudiated. Nolte especially is fantastic in these scenes. The rest of the two hours is not much more than sappy, cheesy Hollywood underdog fluff. Those whose emotions are easily twisted by those saccharine, homogenous pre-game inspirational stories that are so common in sports today will probably enjoy the movie, but serious movie-goers will walk away yearning for more realism and character. Less starch and more Japanese Mero Sea Bass, please. 5/10
Water for Elephants - Having seen the trailer for this movie, I assumed it would be a fantasy movie based in a circus world. Boy was I wrong. This movie tries to be in less than two hours a documentary on the Great Depression and circus life, a story justifying adultery and breaking the law, and a cheap imitation of The Notebook. Fail. Fail. Fail. The only good performance in the movie is the ring master. He's an interesting, if violent, figure. Reese Witherspoon? Who has she slept with to get role after role? She's a TERRIBLE actress and not even very attractive. I don't see how she has done a single movie since Pretty In Pink. Every movie I've seen in which she has starred has been horrible. This movie is no exception. 2/10
This post was edited on 11/16/11 at 7:35 am
Posted on 11/16/11 at 7:33 am to TulaneLSU
What's Your Number? When the revivalist preacher, Charles Finney, was in the midst of the Second Great Awakening, he preached these words: "Sin consists in a known and voluntary neglect to know and obey God, and to love our neighbor as ourselves...True confession implies that we cease from all known sin, of either omission, or commission. Also, that we cease from all excuses or apologies for sin." It wasn't unusual for Finney and other camp revivalists to preach for hours on the meaning of sin. Their practices helped form a lot of the sin-centric preaching of modern day revivalist preaching. Never before appreciated, however, is how Finney and his contemporaries have implicitly shaped a new genre of Hollywood movies: the Sinner morality play.
What I mean by Sinner morality play is that it focuses for the vast majority of its length on the sin of people and society. But unlike the revivalists, the movie almost promotes this lifestyle as normal. In What's Your Number? the sin is promiscuous sex. Gone are the mores of sex for marriage. In their places we learn that it's normal, even encouraged, for the unmarried to have sex, just so long as you don't have sex with more people than some imaginary moral number (10 is given in this movie). All the while, we are taught to believe in the movie that there's nothing wrong with unfettered sex, but at the very end, just as in Finney's preaching, there is a come to Jesus moment. There is a moment when the characters realize that sin is wrong, undesirable, and has caused all their hurt and dissatisfaction with life. Granted, there is no Jesus: the savior in this movie, like in much of American culture, even what passes as Christian culture, is self-realization. What causes conversion in this movie is the movement from pleasing others to pleasing the self. This, of course, does not fit into the Christian model, where we are to please God and it is God's grace that brings us to conversion, not self-realization.
There are many movies being made today that share this pattern of sin, sin, sin, sin, self-realization, conversion, rejection of sin. Sadly, a majority of the romantic comedies, movies like No Strings Attached and One Day, and even movies like The Hangover have a similar structure. Revel in the bad for the first 95 minutes. Then hit a moral point in the last five minutes of the movie. Personally, while I like ending on a positive note, I find it patronizing. Americans always want to end on a positive note, but the real take home message in such movies is the morality the movie implies for the majority of the movie, usually one of debauchery and devilishness. I'm not easily fooled.
There are several hilarious scenes; my favorite was the darts scene, and I like the final message of the film. However, I cannot give a high rating to a movie that plays in the mud all day long only to take a shower at midnight. 4/10
What I mean by Sinner morality play is that it focuses for the vast majority of its length on the sin of people and society. But unlike the revivalists, the movie almost promotes this lifestyle as normal. In What's Your Number? the sin is promiscuous sex. Gone are the mores of sex for marriage. In their places we learn that it's normal, even encouraged, for the unmarried to have sex, just so long as you don't have sex with more people than some imaginary moral number (10 is given in this movie). All the while, we are taught to believe in the movie that there's nothing wrong with unfettered sex, but at the very end, just as in Finney's preaching, there is a come to Jesus moment. There is a moment when the characters realize that sin is wrong, undesirable, and has caused all their hurt and dissatisfaction with life. Granted, there is no Jesus: the savior in this movie, like in much of American culture, even what passes as Christian culture, is self-realization. What causes conversion in this movie is the movement from pleasing others to pleasing the self. This, of course, does not fit into the Christian model, where we are to please God and it is God's grace that brings us to conversion, not self-realization.
There are many movies being made today that share this pattern of sin, sin, sin, sin, self-realization, conversion, rejection of sin. Sadly, a majority of the romantic comedies, movies like No Strings Attached and One Day, and even movies like The Hangover have a similar structure. Revel in the bad for the first 95 minutes. Then hit a moral point in the last five minutes of the movie. Personally, while I like ending on a positive note, I find it patronizing. Americans always want to end on a positive note, but the real take home message in such movies is the morality the movie implies for the majority of the movie, usually one of debauchery and devilishness. I'm not easily fooled.
There are several hilarious scenes; my favorite was the darts scene, and I like the final message of the film. However, I cannot give a high rating to a movie that plays in the mud all day long only to take a shower at midnight. 4/10
This post was edited on 11/16/11 at 7:35 am
Posted on 11/16/11 at 7:34 am to TulaneLSU
Winnie the Pooh Should I preface this by saying spoilers? Is it possible to spoil what is already spoiled? Let's start from the end and work forward. The credits said...."There were no stuffed animals harmed in the making of this movie".....O Bother. If only the movie had been about Winnie getting terminal cancer. Then I might have felt some emotion.
Instead, it was a stupid adventure story about misinterpretation. But Hermes' ruh-tarded dog could have given a better illustration of hermeneutics. A simple problem. A complex, at least for a five year old, adventure. A quick and clean solution. It's the stuff of twenty minute cartoons you see on the Disney channel. There was no business making this into a 60 minute film. Thank God it was only 60 minutes. I fell asleep in the theater for the first time in my life today. Right about the part where Winnie (who names their male bear Winnie? Isn't Winnie the girl in Wonder Years?) is swimming in the honey. STFU ABOUT HONEY, POOH! I DON'T GIVE A FLYING FRICK. I wanted to burn some Pooh stuffed animals after seeing this maudlin malady. Even the kids in the relatively full theater were whining and crying throughout. They could stand it as much as I could.
It was a cheap and poor product Disney threw at his fans, and I don't think such an abomination of film has been put out by Disney since The Hunchback of Notre Dame. No talent was needed or used in this film, and I would recommend Disney bury the WTP franchise forever or at least keep it confined to 20 minute shorts.
The best part of the experience was the trailer for Lion King, which by the way, will be re-released in 3D. On franchises, EVERY single one of the five movies advertised in the previews is a franchise. Why is the public putting up with Hollywood's insulting unoriginality? Recycling our garbage STOP! This is the worst movie I have ever seen. Ever. Do not see it. Your kids will forever hate you if you do. 0/10
Instead, it was a stupid adventure story about misinterpretation. But Hermes' ruh-tarded dog could have given a better illustration of hermeneutics. A simple problem. A complex, at least for a five year old, adventure. A quick and clean solution. It's the stuff of twenty minute cartoons you see on the Disney channel. There was no business making this into a 60 minute film. Thank God it was only 60 minutes. I fell asleep in the theater for the first time in my life today. Right about the part where Winnie (who names their male bear Winnie? Isn't Winnie the girl in Wonder Years?) is swimming in the honey. STFU ABOUT HONEY, POOH! I DON'T GIVE A FLYING FRICK. I wanted to burn some Pooh stuffed animals after seeing this maudlin malady. Even the kids in the relatively full theater were whining and crying throughout. They could stand it as much as I could.
It was a cheap and poor product Disney threw at his fans, and I don't think such an abomination of film has been put out by Disney since The Hunchback of Notre Dame. No talent was needed or used in this film, and I would recommend Disney bury the WTP franchise forever or at least keep it confined to 20 minute shorts.
The best part of the experience was the trailer for Lion King, which by the way, will be re-released in 3D. On franchises, EVERY single one of the five movies advertised in the previews is a franchise. Why is the public putting up with Hollywood's insulting unoriginality? Recycling our garbage STOP! This is the worst movie I have ever seen. Ever. Do not see it. Your kids will forever hate you if you do. 0/10
This post was edited on 11/16/11 at 7:35 am
Posted on 11/29/11 at 10:14 pm to TulaneLSU
Hugo The 19th century was perhaps the worst century for Christian theology in the Church's history. Where Kierkegaard was one of a few very bright lights, his light was not appreciated until Europe emerged from the ashes of a fallen civilization after the Great War. What led Europe to its own destruction? Natural theology. More precisely, the theology of both William Paley and Friedrich Schleiermacher. Paley believed that all we need to prove God's existence is order in the world. He therefore starts with his observation, his reason, and works his way backward, an Enlightenment's God of the gaps, if you will. In his monumentally poor Natural Theology he writes, "Suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given -- that, for anything I know, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone?...For this reason, and for no other when we come to inspect the watch we perceive that its several parts are famed put together for a purpose...This mechanism being observed... the inference, we think, is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker....who comprehended its construction, and designed its use."
Hugo is a delightful tale written by a person who likely does not realize he has adopted Paley's theology, but beneath the theological undertones of this movie is a distinctly Christian message. We are broken on the inside. Someone needs to fix us. This in itself is a good and natural realization. We do not need a revelation of any supernatural means to learn how broken we are. Just look at the world around us. If we were not broken, the structures of this world would not be so hopelessly broken and corrupt. Does anyone need to look further than the media, especially at ESPN, who campaign for Alabama's inclusion in the national championship game despite only playing four teams with a winning record and hanging its entire season on a loss at home? A just world would not allow such non-sense. A just world is filled with whole and healthy people. But the world is not just. It is broken, just as its inhabitants. The film does not have the courage to delve into the Watchmaker, but Scorsese has the sense, perhaps because he has the limited theological insight, to plant the story in the land of the temporal alone. While the movie is about the one who fixes others, even at the cost of his own safety, that character, so full of mystery is left as nothing more than a flat messiah. We learn so much about the dynamic character, the old man, and it is good. But the character I wanted to learn is left as little more than a tool. What makes his clock tick? Martin, tell me.
One thing slightly perturbing I see as I get older is the feeling among American directors that characters who are not American need to have British accents. The movie is set in Paris, but every single character has a British accent. Why? Apart from that annoyance that extends not just from this movie but nearly every Disney movie ever made to the council scenes in Star Wars, I liked the visuals of this movie. Set in the Gare Montparnasse, the famous Parisian train station, known in photographs for the train that could not stop and ended up shooting through the station's main window, the cinematography is beautifully done, making the viewer appreciate the cold. It's easy for your film to be beautiful when the setting is Paris, but even so, Hugo has something magical about it. One of its magic tricks is the use of cold. Cold can be a character of death and misery, but in this movie, the cold is used to show beauty and to bring us to a wonderland of mirth. It is, in that way, a quintessentially Christmasy movie.
The acting is rather ordinary, with no magical performances given. There is, however, one shockingly foreign performance. It took me a couple of scenes until I realized who played one of the characters. So unusual and divergent from his normal roles was this one. Hugo is one of those very warm family movies that will make a chummy memory in the minds of children. But for me, I felt like so much more was left on the table that could have been developed. 8/10
Hugo is a delightful tale written by a person who likely does not realize he has adopted Paley's theology, but beneath the theological undertones of this movie is a distinctly Christian message. We are broken on the inside. Someone needs to fix us. This in itself is a good and natural realization. We do not need a revelation of any supernatural means to learn how broken we are. Just look at the world around us. If we were not broken, the structures of this world would not be so hopelessly broken and corrupt. Does anyone need to look further than the media, especially at ESPN, who campaign for Alabama's inclusion in the national championship game despite only playing four teams with a winning record and hanging its entire season on a loss at home? A just world would not allow such non-sense. A just world is filled with whole and healthy people. But the world is not just. It is broken, just as its inhabitants. The film does not have the courage to delve into the Watchmaker, but Scorsese has the sense, perhaps because he has the limited theological insight, to plant the story in the land of the temporal alone. While the movie is about the one who fixes others, even at the cost of his own safety, that character, so full of mystery is left as nothing more than a flat messiah. We learn so much about the dynamic character, the old man, and it is good. But the character I wanted to learn is left as little more than a tool. What makes his clock tick? Martin, tell me.
One thing slightly perturbing I see as I get older is the feeling among American directors that characters who are not American need to have British accents. The movie is set in Paris, but every single character has a British accent. Why? Apart from that annoyance that extends not just from this movie but nearly every Disney movie ever made to the council scenes in Star Wars, I liked the visuals of this movie. Set in the Gare Montparnasse, the famous Parisian train station, known in photographs for the train that could not stop and ended up shooting through the station's main window, the cinematography is beautifully done, making the viewer appreciate the cold. It's easy for your film to be beautiful when the setting is Paris, but even so, Hugo has something magical about it. One of its magic tricks is the use of cold. Cold can be a character of death and misery, but in this movie, the cold is used to show beauty and to bring us to a wonderland of mirth. It is, in that way, a quintessentially Christmasy movie.
The acting is rather ordinary, with no magical performances given. There is, however, one shockingly foreign performance. It took me a couple of scenes until I realized who played one of the characters. So unusual and divergent from his normal roles was this one. Hugo is one of those very warm family movies that will make a chummy memory in the minds of children. But for me, I felt like so much more was left on the table that could have been developed. 8/10
This post was edited on 2/2/12 at 11:15 am
Posted on 12/8/11 at 3:57 pm to TulaneLSU
The Muppets - Another Hollywood attempt to make money off a franchise. It will work because, unlike most franchise movies, this movie is almost good. I had never seen The Muppets before this movie. I had heard of them, but only as a cultural reference. I knew there was a frog and a pig and some other things, quite uninteresting things, I must say. The movie didn't move me, but the score is good. The story is believable enough, but if they needed money, why didn't they just get the world's biggest plumber supply dealer, Gonzo, to spot them the $12 mil? The two complaints I have with this movie are it, like other franchises because they lack originality, has no staying power. The viewer has a few high emotive moments during the movie, but a day later, the movie is a blank memory. The other complaint is a poor use of Amy Adams. She has more talent than all the other characters, yet she had almost no screen time. 5/10
Posted on 12/8/11 at 4:10 pm to TulaneLSU
Did this really need a new thread? If anybody gave a shite they would have bumped your old thread.
@ landshark screwing up the post-space reserving
@ landshark screwing up the post-space reserving
Posted on 12/8/11 at 4:13 pm to TulaneLSU
quote:
Never Say Never Never would I think I'd say that spending $10 on my Never Say Never ticket was the best value for money of anything I bought this year, but here I am to say that. The movie itself is good. It's an interesting documentary on a kid who is trying to stay a kid in this big world. The music is great. The sequence and timing are superb. But what puts this movie over the top are the fans. That's right. By the end of the movie, 75% of the theater, consisting mostly of early and pre-teen girls were on the ground level with their hands up, screaming and touching the screen as if the movie were a concert. It was exhilarating to be in that number! I confess I too ran down to the floor and began dancing and screaming with the masses. What an awesome movie experience. Movie 6/10 Experience 10/10.
Holy shite I'd never seen this.
Awesome.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 4:15 pm to Josh Fenderman
This guy really likes talking to himself about movies.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 4:15 pm to TulaneLSU
I'm going to go ahead and say that you need therapy.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 4:16 pm to OBUDan
That's actually pretty fricking creepy if true.
ETA: I assume TulaneLSU is a grown arse man
ETA: I assume TulaneLSU is a grown arse man
This post was edited on 12/8/11 at 4:18 pm
Posted on 12/8/11 at 4:20 pm to Josh Fenderman
I enjoyed Charles Bronson's review better.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 4:21 pm to Ryne Sandberg
Posted on 12/8/11 at 4:24 pm to TulaneLSU
quote:
Reese Witherspoon? Who has she slept with to get role after role? She's a TERRIBLE actress and not even very attractive. I don't see how she has done a single movie since Pretty In Pink. Every movie I've seen in which she has starred has been horrible. This movie is no exception
You're kidding right?
Posted on 12/8/11 at 4:25 pm to Green Chili Tiger
No. He prefers preteen girls.
Page 2 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News