Article ITT I attempt to review every movie I've seen.

Mr. Monday said:
To be honest, I wasn't a big fan of Shadow Over Innsmouth. The storyline was interesting, but the way he wrote it... it dragged in places.

Not to mention that CoC: Dark Corners of the Earth is technically based on the Shadow Over Innsmouth.

It'd be interesting to see a short on the Statement of Randolph Carter, though. They could show both Randolph's PoV along with the Professor's. I think it could work, potentially.
Click to expand...

I loved the Statement of Randolph Carter, and there have actually been a few short done on the story. I actually looked it up after I read it because it seemed like something that would make a great short film

Anyway Shadow Over Innsmouth just seems to have a perfect narrative arch for a film...the ending could be changed though, I found it to be a little contrived. I know that CoC: Dark Corners of the Earth was basically an adaptation of the story, it would still make a fun horror film.

A quality adaptation of The Colour Out of Space would be nice too...also The Rats in the Walls.
 
Well, I was aware of the shorts on Randolph Carter. I was more referring to a triple A title (I might not have much faith in Hollywood at the moment, but they have the money to get it done).

And Rats in the Walls would just be freaky, especially considering the end.
 
Sherlock_Holmes2Poster.jpg


Title: Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
Year: 2011
Country of Origin: UK/US
Director: Guy Ritchie

Plot: Sherlock Holmes tackles his greatest challenge yet...the obligatory sequel.

Review: This is "The Sequel", its basically a natural law in Hollywood. Its almost as fundamental as the Law of Gravity. If you have one successful film you're going to get a sequel. Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, is that kind of film. Now there are a few rules for "The sequel":

1. It must be like the first film, people like things that are familiar.

2. While being like the first film, it must be bigger in both scope and budget. Also a different setting is needed. Now this rule doesn't interfere with Rule #1 since the plot structure and characters are still very much like the first film.

3. Add a new character or two. They're usually relegated to the position of side kick and they don't really interfere with the chemistry of the original cast.

4. Now this rule is the most important since it effects almost all sequels equally. The sequel is never as good as the original.*

So yeah, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is a lot like the original, but not as good. They change up the setting a bit and added a few new characters into the mix. There's a bigger budget and the action scenes are bigger in scope, but it doesn't add up to much. So if you're a fan of the first film...then you'll think this one is alright. Honestly you should skip this and check out the BBC show Sherlock or even CBS' Elementary. They have more substance than the Ritchie films.

[5/10]

...actually I find it interesting that both the Ritchie and the Steven Moffat decided to go with
The Final Problem
in the second iteration on their adaptation. I wonder if Elementary will go the same route.


* There are some rare exceptions; Aliens, Godfather II, Crank 2, Evil Dead 2...etc
 
Hey Sexy, noticed that you havent reviewed the movie Ted yet. Just watched it last nite & would like your permission to review it.
 
Sorry I didnt notice your approval of the Premium Rush review from earlier, so that was my bad.
 
DoomGeneration_zps5e1136af.jpg



Title: The Doom Generation
Year: 1995
Country of Origin: US
Director: Gregg Araki

Plot: This is a heterosexual film, or so the title sequence tells me.

Review: Hey, how about them 90s? I mean like they were crazy right? Bill Clinton was President, rock was still something that people listened to, and...wait that's right I'm reviewing a movie. This movie is a little like TV series Skins crossed with Oliver Stone's movie Natural Born Killers, which pretty much means the film about a hellish road trip filled with violence and a ton of teenage angst. This is not a good film, in fact some would call it terrible. Still there is some sort of trashy redeeming quality to the thing.

[6/10]
 
Last edited:
Have you seen Stalag 17?
If not, great movie. Dark comedy about american POWs. Highly recommend it.
 
My first action film which I've watched was Mr. & Mrs. Smith
Don't know if you've heard of it or know it
 
Boys_from_brazil.jpg


Title: The Boys from Brazil
Year: 1978
Country of Origin: UK/US
Director: Franklin J. Schaffner

Plot: A harrowing coming of age tale about a young group of boys growing up in the slums of...actually no. Its a film about Nazis.

Review: In the magical time of the 1970s there were still Nazis in hiding, many of whom hid in South America. This is a film about those Nazis and a crazy scheme they have bring them back into the world domination business. The Boys from Brazil is both well made and enjoyable, but very hokey at the same time. The acting is on the mark, which isn't all the surprising given that the film features the talent of Gregory Peck and Laurence Olivier. The thing that kills me though is that I sort of knew the plot going into the film...mainly thanks to The Venture Bros. and Archer. The film is way more fun if you go in without knowing anything about the film. This film is a flawed classic, it gets a lot right, but its kind falls apart at the end.

[8/10]
 
Last edited:
Mr_and_mrs_smith_poster.jpg


Title: Mr. & Mrs. Smith
Year: 2005
Country of Origin: US
Director: Doug Liman

Plot: Two super spies, unaware of each others professions, marry in order to cover their clandestine career choices. If that makes any sense...

Review: This is a slickly produced action comedy shoves two likable actors into a somewhat uneven plot...oh and into marriage, they totally got married after this film. It's good, but not great. The action is decent enough and it's all effectively directed Liman, whose previous films include The Bourne Identity. I guess my main issue is that the humor is kind of meh and the plot is kinda meh as well. I mean it is a perfectly serviceable action film and it is fun to watch...its just that the film doesn't do anything particularly new or interesting. I guess that what asking of action movies these day, just give me something new.

[7/10]
 
Last edited:
Limitless_Poster.jpg


Title: Limitless
Year: 2011
Country of Origin: US
Director: Neil Burger

Plot: A struggling author happens across a pill that makes him smart...I mean like Sherlock Holmes smart.

Review: This is the perfect "what if" movie. What if you had that magical pill that made you super smart? What would you do with it? How would you change your life? It's escapism that you can day dream about, you could almost consider this a super hero movie since this pill puts the protagonist just that much ahead of everyone else. The plot itself is alright and for the most part doesn't do anything that surprising...though at times it hits a high note. What makes the film though is Neil Berger's direction, he has made a visually impressive film that is fun to watch simply from a technical level. The acting is on par with a movie of this caliber. Bradley Cooper is entertaining in his role and as the narrator. For the most part its a film that manages to overcome the weakness of its own script. Its not perfect, nor is it all that clever, but at times its pretty smart and for the most part entertaining.

[7.5/10]
 
Last edited:
Could you do Mr.Smith goes to Washington? At first, I thought this movie was going to be boring but as the movie when on it just kept grabbing my attention and when I finished the movie it just left me wanting for more. Sadly, There isn't any sequels. I think this shows the way old movies use to grab peoples hearts and attention. It had that movie magic in my opinion. I don't have many favorite actors but after watching this, James Stewart is now on it.
 
Last edited:
Smith_goes.jpg


Title: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Year: 1939
Country of Origin: US
Director: Frank Capra

Plot: Well...you know, its about some guy named Smith...and well...he goes to Washington.

Review: This film was pretty controversial when it came out. Apparently back in the 30s it was considered un-American to portray congress in a negative light. Today, regardless of your political affiliation, its almost un-American not to lambaste congress.

Anyway, lets get on subject. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, is a legitimate classic. Its the tale of one man and his battle against a powerful political machine. There is a certain amount quaint idealism going on with this film. The kind that might have been prevalent in pre-Nixon pre-Vietnam America. At first, the almost saccharine nature of Jimmy Stewart's character can be a little off putting for a modern audience. Though as the film goes on you begin to find yourself drawn in by the characters and plot and by the end your rooting for Mr. Smith. This film is a monument on the American pop cultural landscape and its definitely something that you should pick up and watch.

[10/10]
 
Last edited:
Oh, and post 2000. What what.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IUjtHf76wM[/ame]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top