Whoops! There's no way I'd have guessed this one
I actually haven't seen this movie yet. Will try and get it this week.
Thanks for a great game, Vinay! :clapping:
The Movies I Liked
- Thread starter vinay
- Start date
Whoops! There's no way I'd have guessed this one
I actually haven't seen this movie yet. Will try and get it this week.
Thanks for a great game, Vinay! :clapping:
svenkateshsmart
Well-Known Member
Hi,
Yesterday watched this movies starring, the Titanic Dude Leonardo and the Gladiator Man Russell Crowe. This movie has a good mixture of action, tries to keep you on edge in a few scenes and love.
Russell Crowe acting is cool, as I liked his in The Beautiful Mind, and Leonardo has done a good job as well, especially his Arabian dialects, very sweet!
Apart from the above, there is nothing in particular. The movie is definitely watchable and you wont be disappointed!
Cheers!
esanthosh
Well-Known Member
Thanks in part to Vinay for his riddle and to Avijeet for posting about iCheckMovies, I caught up on 2 films after a month+ of no movies
Spoorloos aka The Vanishing (1988)
Rex and Saskia go on vacation and Saskia gets abducted at a service station. Three years on, with no clues about her whereabouts, Rex has not given up on his search. He starts getting letters from the abductor, but he never shows up when Rex visits to the places mentioned. Finally, they meet and the abductor tells Rex that the only way he will reveal what happened to Saskia is if Rex agrees to go through the same.
This is a very plain dutch (+ french?) film without any of the Hollywood stereotypes. We get to see the abductors' obsession with perfection - he works very hard in an orderly manner to get every step right. He meets with several failures, but tastes success when "fate" intervenes. We also see a similar obsession on Rex's side - never giving up the search and in the process straining his new relationship. This is not a must see if you are seeking thrills. There are no over the top characters, just the prospect that an otherwise ordinary normal man could be capable of committing crime without a trace.
Same director + same story + Hollywood production == disaster, so they say.
M (1931)
Of late, I am fascinated by old movies that even after 60-70 years manage to hold still and be called among the best works of cinema. I am also skeptical of such claims.
M is one among Fritz Lang's classics. The film is about a pedophile. However, the film somehow manages to capture all sides - The cops, the mother losing the girl, the prostitutes and gamblers who find it difficult to work because of the police crackdown, a family which goes through police check-up and fears losing face, the pedophile and the mob of criminals who capture him to give swift justice.
The original 117 minutes was lost. But this Criterion collection DVD has the 110 minute restored version, the closest to it. The supplements also contain Nazi propaganda, which misuses Peter Lorre's performance as an example of Jewish 'criminal mind'. BTW, the French version has different camera angle and dialogue (a bit more lengthy) of Peter Lorre's performance. So, in all, I can see why "M" is revered. But is it great? For 1931, by all means. By today's standards, it still does hold it's own.
Would be interesting to catch Metropolis (1927) too. Is the (almost fully restored) 2010 version (145 mins) available on DVD?
Spoorloos aka The Vanishing (1988)
Rex and Saskia go on vacation and Saskia gets abducted at a service station. Three years on, with no clues about her whereabouts, Rex has not given up on his search. He starts getting letters from the abductor, but he never shows up when Rex visits to the places mentioned. Finally, they meet and the abductor tells Rex that the only way he will reveal what happened to Saskia is if Rex agrees to go through the same.
This is a very plain dutch (+ french?) film without any of the Hollywood stereotypes. We get to see the abductors' obsession with perfection - he works very hard in an orderly manner to get every step right. He meets with several failures, but tastes success when "fate" intervenes. We also see a similar obsession on Rex's side - never giving up the search and in the process straining his new relationship. This is not a must see if you are seeking thrills. There are no over the top characters, just the prospect that an otherwise ordinary normal man could be capable of committing crime without a trace.
Same director + same story + Hollywood production == disaster, so they say.
M (1931)
Of late, I am fascinated by old movies that even after 60-70 years manage to hold still and be called among the best works of cinema. I am also skeptical of such claims.
M is one among Fritz Lang's classics. The film is about a pedophile. However, the film somehow manages to capture all sides - The cops, the mother losing the girl, the prostitutes and gamblers who find it difficult to work because of the police crackdown, a family which goes through police check-up and fears losing face, the pedophile and the mob of criminals who capture him to give swift justice.
The original 117 minutes was lost. But this Criterion collection DVD has the 110 minute restored version, the closest to it. The supplements also contain Nazi propaganda, which misuses Peter Lorre's performance as an example of Jewish 'criminal mind'. BTW, the French version has different camera angle and dialogue (a bit more lengthy) of Peter Lorre's performance. So, in all, I can see why "M" is revered. But is it great? For 1931, by all means. By today's standards, it still does hold it's own.
Would be interesting to catch Metropolis (1927) too. Is the (almost fully restored) 2010 version (145 mins) available on DVD?
Santhosh - I saw 'The Vanishing' (Hollywood edition) first and have saved 'Spoorloos' for later viewing. Initial thoughts - not bad really. I know a lot of people write it off for a disaster. That is precisely why I saw this first.
Only after seeing the Dutch original will I be able to compare. On its own, it is not too bad. I just thought that it was not very spooky as it was made out to be.
Only after seeing the Dutch original will I be able to compare. On its own, it is not too bad. I just thought that it was not very spooky as it was made out to be.
esanthosh
Well-Known Member
^ Bala,
I won't classify Spoorloos as spooky either. The only thing it does is it gives you the feeling that it could happen for real. The characters are normal persons you might actually meet without ever coming to know of their other side. I don't know what the buzz is about it being "too hard to see". Do watch "Spoorloos" when you have time - I'm eager to know why many consider the hollywood version a disaster.
I won't classify Spoorloos as spooky either. The only thing it does is it gives you the feeling that it could happen for real. The characters are normal persons you might actually meet without ever coming to know of their other side. I don't know what the buzz is about it being "too hard to see". Do watch "Spoorloos" when you have time - I'm eager to know why many consider the hollywood version a disaster.
esanthosh
Well-Known Member
King Kong (1933)
After watching many versions over the years, the 1976 version, it's 1986 sequel and the 2005 Peter Jackson version, I made a "bold" decision to step back from CG and other effects into a 77 year old movie with stop motion animation.
The differences:
After watching many versions over the years, the 1976 version, it's 1986 sequel and the 2005 Peter Jackson version, I made a "bold" decision to step back from CG and other effects into a 77 year old movie with stop motion animation.
The differences:
- The later versions make Kong a "human" and the poor heroine a "lover". One is made to feel for Kong. In this original, Kong is a beast. He does not stop to 'think', there are no niceties about him and he IS destructive. You do not want a happy ending, instead you perfectly understand why the Ann Darrow would want to escape from this monster. Towards the end, Kong picks up a girl from the apartment mistaking her for Ann and what does he do when he realizes that she is not what he's after? Simply throws her off.
- The island in this movie is more "monstrous". There are 3-4 fights that Kong has to do with other monsters. The place is portrayed as totally unsafe, where you do not know what creature would strike next. Of course, it might be boring to see four fights in a row.
- There is an element of rawness in this movie and it also is faster in it's narrative. Peter Jackson made this into an "epic" with respect to length and the feel.
- It's a 1933 film - so be prepared for monsters that would not even scare a 2 year old. Kong in close-up, even while biting men is like "Hey! how's my teeth?"
- Even with the limited technology they had, they tried to make it realistic. Towards the end when Kong is atop the Empire State building, one can observe that his hair is moving due to the wind.
- Dialogues are corny/over the top, characters are stereotypes (a chinese cook, superior white men, damsel in distress, brave hero etc., etc.,).
Last edited:
J.S.A.: Joint Security Area
A korean movie about soldiers on North/south korea border.
I am a big fan of korean cinema & this movie does not disappoint.They really know how make human interest stories.
I wonder if our soldiers go through something similar on Indo-pak border.
A korean movie about soldiers on North/south korea border.
I am a big fan of korean cinema & this movie does not disappoint.They really know how make human interest stories.
I wonder if our soldiers go through something similar on Indo-pak border.
Santhosh - you must be lauded for having the patience to discount all the corniness (special effects and dialogue et al) in this movie from another age!
I personally really liked the 2005 Peter Jackson version. And as Anne Darrow, Naomi Watts was simple, appealing and very very pretty.
esanthosh
Well-Known Member
Say, behind all that aged effects were some thinking film makers who wanted to make a swell picture
Peter Jackson's version was really good. I too liked it when I watched it last year. But, it never gave me the feeling that Kong was a terrifying monster as in this original.
May be due to the speed of the original, the (film + ship) crew are not shown to be villains, instead they are acting on command of the opportunistic and crazy director, Carl Denham. In the 1976 version, the journey from Skull Island to NY along with the efforts to keep Kong controlled is shown. In the 2005 version, the efforts to capture Kong are much longer than in the original. In the original, the movie cuts immediately to NY on the show date after Carl Denham proposes to take Kong (who's down due to smoke bombs) to NY. We are left to our imagination when he addresses a disturbed Ann Darrow (who attends with her future husband, Driscoll for the money she'd get) by saying "Don't worry! We have taken out some of the fight out of him since you last saw" (or something like that).
The first shot in which Fry Wray was introduced sort of reminded me of Naomi Watts, so good casting decision. The 1976 one, in hindsight, seems like an aberration between these two Kong movies.
Say, behind all that aged effects were some thinking film makers who wanted to make a swell picture
You have been watching a lot of 30's movies recently, haven't you.
I watched Mr. Deeds Goes To Town recently & that was a swell movie too.
Nothing much happens in this movie but it does have a good grip through out, Milla jovovich as the troubled Abbey taylor is great
The Fourth Kind (2009)
The Fourth Kind (2009)
Last edited:
sud98
Well-Known Member
Eagerly awaiting to see this movie, planning to see it on Sunday in a multiplex nearby. The trailer seems suitably intriguing. I am a big Christopher Nolan fan and have loved his movies like Memento, Prestige, Dark Knight. Hope this lives up to the hype.
Reading all the reviews was tempted to catch up with this movie on the very first day of release. Its been a while i Last visited a theater and that was for Avataar so it took me a lot of effort which i had to as i too have loved all of christopher noolan movies
Inception= Dream + Dreams within Dreams-------> finally reality or is it again a Dream????
The story goes like-- MR cobbs (leonardo) can enter ones mind and steal an idea (information hacker) but hes hired not to steal but to implant an idea into a business tycoons(MR fischer) mind which cud be beneficial to another tycoon (Saito) and this idea to be implanted is Inception
To do this Mr cobbs has to get together a specialist team which includes an Organiser, Forger . sedative specialist, and an architect ,the rest of the movie is how they go about it
The special effects are good ,there are countless explosions and bullets flying all over ,technically very good in all departments
This may be a masterpiece as most of the reviews go by but i wud say that this is a kind of movie that may have to be viewed multiple times to understand and may not appeal to the masses
I wouldnt rate this movie till i watch it again , would like to hear comments from people who have watched INCEPTION
This is one of the first movies i have watched with english subtitles in a theater , the reason i suppose cud be that if you miss out on the dialogues you loose track of whats going on
Inception= Dream + Dreams within Dreams-------> finally reality or is it again a Dream????
The story goes like-- MR cobbs (leonardo) can enter ones mind and steal an idea (information hacker) but hes hired not to steal but to implant an idea into a business tycoons(MR fischer) mind which cud be beneficial to another tycoon (Saito) and this idea to be implanted is Inception
To do this Mr cobbs has to get together a specialist team which includes an Organiser, Forger . sedative specialist, and an architect ,the rest of the movie is how they go about it
The special effects are good ,there are countless explosions and bullets flying all over ,technically very good in all departments
This may be a masterpiece as most of the reviews go by but i wud say that this is a kind of movie that may have to be viewed multiple times to understand and may not appeal to the masses
I wouldnt rate this movie till i watch it again , would like to hear comments from people who have watched INCEPTION
This is one of the first movies i have watched with english subtitles in a theater , the reason i suppose cud be that if you miss out on the dialogues you loose track of whats going on
Last edited:
Inception (2010)
I just finished watching INCEPTION in Prasads IMAX Hyderabad.
In my opinion INCEPTION = Cinematic geniusness.
Its a kind of movie that will blow you away in first viewing and that feeling improves for each repetition ala..Memento and prestige... ofcourse from the same director.
Its a must watch not just for Nolan's fans for any Hollywood movie fan for that matter for those who complains Hollywood mainstream becoming monotonous.
Rating 4.5/5.
I just finished watching INCEPTION in Prasads IMAX Hyderabad.
In my opinion INCEPTION = Cinematic geniusness.
Its a kind of movie that will blow you away in first viewing and that feeling improves for each repetition ala..Memento and prestige... ofcourse from the same director.
Its a must watch not just for Nolan's fans for any Hollywood movie fan for that matter for those who complains Hollywood mainstream becoming monotonous.
Rating 4.5/5.
Striker
Striker is the story of Mumbai's ghetto life told to us by Surya (Siddharth) the youngest of three kids from a lower income family. It shows his childhood, the way he grew up surrounded by crime always, both literally and figuratively. When Surya misses school due to illness for as long as five months, they refuse to take him back in. So to beat the boredom he fiddles with the carom board. Elder brother Chandrakant (Anup Soni) helps him learn the game finely. Surya goes on to win the junior carom championship but that's the highest accomplishment he makes in this sport. He gives up the game to be a serious earning member of the family. However, things change for bad when Surya loses all his money to a bogus agent who'd promised to get him a Dubai job!
This is what takes Surya back to the carom board, but this time for gambling. He is only egged on by his hare-brained cocaine sniffing best buddy Zaid(Ankur Vikal). The pressure of making money so he can contribute to his sister's wedding makes the hustling scene more appealing to Surya. This brings Surya to face the dreadful gangster Jaleel (Aditya Panscholi) who he was careful to keep his distance from, after he had witnessed his wickedness once. This is what the story basically is about. However, what becomes a part of this is the '92 riots and what it did to a Hindu guy with a Muslim best friend.
Striker - Movie Review
V.
Striker is the story of Mumbai's ghetto life told to us by Surya (Siddharth) the youngest of three kids from a lower income family. It shows his childhood, the way he grew up surrounded by crime always, both literally and figuratively. When Surya misses school due to illness for as long as five months, they refuse to take him back in. So to beat the boredom he fiddles with the carom board. Elder brother Chandrakant (Anup Soni) helps him learn the game finely. Surya goes on to win the junior carom championship but that's the highest accomplishment he makes in this sport. He gives up the game to be a serious earning member of the family. However, things change for bad when Surya loses all his money to a bogus agent who'd promised to get him a Dubai job!
This is what takes Surya back to the carom board, but this time for gambling. He is only egged on by his hare-brained cocaine sniffing best buddy Zaid(Ankur Vikal). The pressure of making money so he can contribute to his sister's wedding makes the hustling scene more appealing to Surya. This brings Surya to face the dreadful gangster Jaleel (Aditya Panscholi) who he was careful to keep his distance from, after he had witnessed his wickedness once. This is what the story basically is about. However, what becomes a part of this is the '92 riots and what it did to a Hindu guy with a Muslim best friend.
Striker - Movie Review
V.
sud98
Well-Known Member
Loved Inception.
If I have one complaint is that the ending can lead to so many conclusions that it is giving me a headache. Already the various forums are buzzing with interpretations that are driving me crazy.
If I have one complaint is that the ending can lead to so many conclusions that it is giving me a headache. Already the various forums are buzzing with interpretations that are driving me crazy.
svenkateshsmart
Well-Known Member
Hi,
Saw "My Name is Khan" today with subtitles
hyeah: after my friend insisted that I take a chance.
I liked the movie in a broader sense and technically and glad that Sharukh didnt overdo his character as a person suffering from Asperger's syndrome most of the time, if any. Kajal who is known for doing bubbly roles has done a neat job. Each character in this movie carries its own weightage and importance.
But, at some point in time, I felt the movie was trying to force something inside my head again and again, which kept me away from getting involved with the movie. Also, I felt there is a slightest component of exaggeration in the theme.
Also, being in the US/UK healthcare industry for more than 8 years, I have known Asperger's syndrome as a psychological disorder seen in early childhood mostly arising out of social pressure and becomes better over time. Psychosocial therapy is the mainstay of treatment along with drugs to control behavior and mood swings. I have felt a bit of exaggeration here as well.
Otherwise, this movie is worth watching!
Cheers!
Saw "My Name is Khan" today with subtitles
hyeah: after my friend insisted that I take a chance.
I liked the movie in a broader sense and technically and glad that Sharukh didnt overdo his character as a person suffering from Asperger's syndrome most of the time, if any. Kajal who is known for doing bubbly roles has done a neat job. Each character in this movie carries its own weightage and importance.
But, at some point in time, I felt the movie was trying to force something inside my head again and again, which kept me away from getting involved with the movie. Also, I felt there is a slightest component of exaggeration in the theme.
Also, being in the US/UK healthcare industry for more than 8 years, I have known Asperger's syndrome as a psychological disorder seen in early childhood mostly arising out of social pressure and becomes better over time. Psychosocial therapy is the mainstay of treatment along with drugs to control behavior and mood swings. I have felt a bit of exaggeration here as well.
Otherwise, this movie is worth watching!
Cheers!
esanthosh
Well-Known Member
The Gold Rush (1925)
I've watched many Chaplin shorts when I was a kid, but not any of his full length features. The tramp here is a lonely gold prospector in Alaska. In a snow storm he finds a cabin, which is already occupied by a wanted Criminal, Black Larsen. Jim is another gold prospector who has just found a mountain of gold. The storm takes away his tent and lands Jim at the cabin. With storm still raging outside and without food, they decide that the one who draws the lowest card should venture out to get food. Black Larsen who sets out to get food ends up getting the "mountain of gold" Jim has found. Mean while, the two prospectors resort to eating shoes, surviving the storm somehow and part their own ways. Jim finds Black Larsen and Larsen hits him in the head, which makes Jim lose memory. The tramp wanders into one of the newly coming up city.
The tramp meets Georgia at the dance hall. A few moments I liked - Georgia says to her friend that she would like to meet somebody and she's bored of this town. She turns around, the tramp is right behind her, but she looks past him as if he is invisible. The blend of pathos and comedy is amazing - good enough for Kamalhassan to make a similar plot in "Apoorva Sagodarargal" years down the line. The last hilarious sequence where the storm lands the cabin at the edge of the mountain has found it's way into "Michael Madana Kama Rajan", another Kamal venture. BTW, I watched the fully restored 95 minute version.
City Lights (1931)
The introduction of the Tramp I suppose is the best of his movies. This was much light hearted compared to "Gold Rush". Some of the very hilarious sequences are when Chaplin and his rich "friend" (who is a very different person once sober) get drunk. Chaplin mixes it up with his love for a blind girl who believes that he is a rich man with a warm heart. The tramp's determination to help the girl leads him to many troubles (a recurring theme I guess, for Chaplin) including a boxing match at the end. The last scenes are a tear-jerker. So, in all == many Indian movies?
I also watched Modern Times (1936) which was more a mix of comedy skits joined by a non-existent plot. Of course, Chaplin portrays the depression era well. His difficulty in transforming a silent movie champion, The tramp into 'talkies' is apparent here. It's a talkie, but the dialogues are avoided mostly to make it a 'partial talkie'.
The Treasure of Sierra Madre (1948)
The film is all about greed. I think Humphrey Bogart and things like "shades of gray" comes to mind. To me, not as great as "Maltese Falcon", another Huston-Bogart film. However, it's a good film about gold prospectors who go through a transition from friends to greedy, suspicious characters. Bogart's voice once again plays it's role perfectly.
More movies lined up for this week - Murnau's "Sunrise: A song of two humans", Chaplin's "Great Dictator", "The Kid" and "Circus". Any other recommendations from 1920-40, especially the silent era movies?
I've watched many Chaplin shorts when I was a kid, but not any of his full length features. The tramp here is a lonely gold prospector in Alaska. In a snow storm he finds a cabin, which is already occupied by a wanted Criminal, Black Larsen. Jim is another gold prospector who has just found a mountain of gold. The storm takes away his tent and lands Jim at the cabin. With storm still raging outside and without food, they decide that the one who draws the lowest card should venture out to get food. Black Larsen who sets out to get food ends up getting the "mountain of gold" Jim has found. Mean while, the two prospectors resort to eating shoes, surviving the storm somehow and part their own ways. Jim finds Black Larsen and Larsen hits him in the head, which makes Jim lose memory. The tramp wanders into one of the newly coming up city.
The tramp meets Georgia at the dance hall. A few moments I liked - Georgia says to her friend that she would like to meet somebody and she's bored of this town. She turns around, the tramp is right behind her, but she looks past him as if he is invisible. The blend of pathos and comedy is amazing - good enough for Kamalhassan to make a similar plot in "Apoorva Sagodarargal" years down the line. The last hilarious sequence where the storm lands the cabin at the edge of the mountain has found it's way into "Michael Madana Kama Rajan", another Kamal venture. BTW, I watched the fully restored 95 minute version.
City Lights (1931)
The introduction of the Tramp I suppose is the best of his movies. This was much light hearted compared to "Gold Rush". Some of the very hilarious sequences are when Chaplin and his rich "friend" (who is a very different person once sober) get drunk. Chaplin mixes it up with his love for a blind girl who believes that he is a rich man with a warm heart. The tramp's determination to help the girl leads him to many troubles (a recurring theme I guess, for Chaplin) including a boxing match at the end. The last scenes are a tear-jerker. So, in all == many Indian movies?
I also watched Modern Times (1936) which was more a mix of comedy skits joined by a non-existent plot. Of course, Chaplin portrays the depression era well. His difficulty in transforming a silent movie champion, The tramp into 'talkies' is apparent here. It's a talkie, but the dialogues are avoided mostly to make it a 'partial talkie'.
The Treasure of Sierra Madre (1948)
The film is all about greed. I think Humphrey Bogart and things like "shades of gray" comes to mind. To me, not as great as "Maltese Falcon", another Huston-Bogart film. However, it's a good film about gold prospectors who go through a transition from friends to greedy, suspicious characters. Bogart's voice once again plays it's role perfectly.
More movies lined up for this week - Murnau's "Sunrise: A song of two humans", Chaplin's "Great Dictator", "The Kid" and "Circus". Any other recommendations from 1920-40, especially the silent era movies?
A beautiful, well-constructed speaker with class-leading soundstage, imaging and bass that is fast, deep, and precise.
Similar threads
