Jump to content

The Creator

Creator's Corner (Year 3 Reviews)


7 members have voted

  1. 1. Will your film be number one on my list?

    • Yes
    • No
    • Numbers' will, of course!

Recommended Posts

I'm in the mood for zany over the top reviews, like the good old times. So request however many movies you want, and I'll review them if I want to. If I don't want to review them, I'll skip them, save them for later, or just beat the shit out of them with profanity-laced reviews.I kinda want to do my Special this year, but no, I'll wait till Year 5 if I'm still around then and we have enough involvement. Those take a lot of time to do, plus this being my first year back I don't have enough energy or knowledge of current players/films/styles to do that just yet. But be looking forward to that. I promise to make it as entertaining as the Oscars here.So request away!

And don't worry about the Numbers thing in the poll. I don't even know what films he has this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three things here.

1) Why do I have to download something to read Divergent? Can it not be posted? I don't like downloading things if I don't know what they are.

2) Why does it feel like The Coming Storm cuts off midway through? The film ends with an armada coming and the Prince and King riding out, but it seems like the main action that was promised doesn't happen. In fact, it just ends right there. Why is this?

3) My review for Thane of the Flies:

Thane of the Flies

At first as I came upon "Thane of the Flies" I was---perplexed---yes, that's the word to use, perplexed. Here I come upon a scene of the witches from "Macbeth" in cohorts with the Lord of the Flies---an odd thing that, considering in William Golding's 1950s classic "The Lord of the Flies", the character is really an idea of sorts, a figment of the imagination. But here he is given bodily form. However, I was more alarmed by the odd mixing here: here we have "Macbeth" --- seventeenth century Shakespearian play of intrigue and corruption amidst a scandalous murder and succession to kingship --- joining forces with Golding's "The Lord of the Flies" --- an unlikely match, peculiar and perplexing indeed, as the two sources are quite unalike in many ways --- although one could argue that the political underpinnings of each, that of corruption and the madness associated with wielding too much power and authority, do make for a similar matching.

But is this a matching equal to chocolate and peanutbutter, or is it liking pouring water into acid...an epic fail?

Well I was able to overcome my baffled sense of self at this scene, and decided to see where thing progressed. We embark upon a most peculiar little film that combines the main storyline of "Macbeth" with elements of "The Lord of the Flies" on...a spaceship? Well that was some most unexpected twist yet again, and I must say that as the film went on, I was ocassionally baffled by this strange concoction. But then again, I'm sure the man (or woman) who first mixed chocolate and peanutbutter must have thought it an odd concoction too, and we all know how popular that is now. "Thane of the Flies" follows very truly to the story of "Macbeth" for the most part, omitting bits and pieces at its will, and it adds important elements of "Lord of the Flies" to convey the equal amount of madness, guilt, and arrogance associated with a succession to power and dominance, as seen here through both Macbeth and Jack --- good ol' Jack from the story, you know, the one who went all savage-native-wielding-a-spear on Ralph's ass back in "Lord of the Flies" --- yeah, that Jack was there. And Piggy too. Offered up as a delicious bacon meal for all the little kiddies trapped on the spaceship. The power struggles displayed are intriguing and good to the film, and we get little insides into the motives of the witches and their fly-lord companion.

By the end of it, though, the film is still a bit strange. I do admire me strange films; love them usually. Most of my favorites are questionable films, quirky and often unheard of little films that mainstream society tosses aside like an aborted fetus. I think "Thane of the Flies" does have promise to be a quirky tossed aside fetus also, but it won't be peanutbutter and chocolate...if not quite water into acid either. It's a mid-level film I suppose on my rankings. I do like the originality of it, yet I question how original it is for it pretty much takes "Macbeth" and throws it on a spaceship with the "Lord of the Flies" added, and I don't really know why? But maybe that makes it better, not knowing why? In the end Macbeth is slain, and all the kiddies sit around with the rest of the cast of "Macbeth" on the floor; we peel over to a scene of the three witches plotting more with lovely Christian Bale, I mean fly-lord.

Oh yeah, and I wanted to mention the cast. Really startling too. Lots of big names in a small little picture, kind of odd given the small budget also. We have Gary Oldman, Guy Pearce (yay), Tilda Swinton (double yay), Meryl Streep (triple yay), Collin Firth, Viggo Mortenson, Daniel Day Lewis (the frak? --- he plays a porter, The Porter), Bellatrix--I mean Helena Bonham Carter *cough*, Maggie Smith (did I say quadruple yay yet?), Christian Bale (as the Lord of the Flies nonetheless), and so many others. Wow, what an ensemble, but I can't help but feel that some are terribly miscast as we have some of Hollywood's finest actors here placed into tiny roles ... again, Day Lewis as The Porter? Questionable indeed.

A very strange, quirky, littlish film. If my review is ambiguous in any way, it's cause you leave me to write one that is vague. Also, no rating to be assigned. No A, no F, no 1 star or 5 stars, no one thumb down or three thumbs up, no numerical grade based on some bullshit scale supposedly designed to rate a film based on its excellency in categories like acting, storytelling, directing, screenplay, orginality, etc. Oh no, no rating's allowed here. Not even a "pass" or a "fail". Not a "like", "dislike", "hate", "love", or "fucking-shoot-me-in-the-head-this-film-is-terrible". None of that. It's just a review without an end result. The only sort of rating I will give will be a ranking, that of the 24 best films of the year (did I just say 24?). Hell I have no idea how many films will be on the list. 25 tops of course, but that's if there are 25 worthy films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry about that, not sure why no one could see what I could see. If you check the main thread, now the plot should now be up for both films. Sorry again. Edited by riczhang
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Coming Storm is too long to have in the spoiler tag. And sorry Divergent is not a plot. Again just edit your main post.

I took both plots out of the spoiler tags. Hopefully it works now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alfred smash...wait, I haven't read Planeswalkers yet, so just these two for now (and I'll go over the others later):

The Last Projectionist

I decided I would start with the lesser of the two...but when I say that, it doesn't necessarily mean the worse of the two, just the one on which I have less to say.* "The Last Projectionist" is a fine horror movie for the most part, but beyond a few scares and some intrigue, it never gets the viewer involved like it promises, what with Tarantino heading the directing for the film. I had higher expectations seeing that he was behind it, although I can't say most horror movies ever live up to expectations anyways. I don't even have much to say on it to tell the truth. It was a decent film, had some good jumpy scenes and what not, and for a time it started to seem like it might become an intriguing mystery, but it didn't really because not much thought was poured into the non-murder scenes. The ending was no shocker to me; assuming Harold to be the killer was just too obvious, although in a way maybe it would have been more original to have no twist ending like that. Overall just a decent horror thriller, but forgetable.


The title is catchy.

That's all I wish to say.

For now.

*I lied

Edited by The Creator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New guy's stuff:


A middle-of-the-way film in my book, “Leitmotif” is of a caliber with potential to be a bit more than it was. Before I write up my review, I wish to register a serious complaint: what up with the cast? This is the second movie I have reviewed that has taken its cast not seriously enough. Here Tom Cruise joins with Sandra Bullock, Leonardo DiCaprio, Guy Pearce (again, and yay here also, because it's Guy Pearce), Elizabeth Banks, and

Michael Fassbender. All are fine actors, but they aren't given the roles they deserve, with too many big name stars tossed into a smallish pic of this caliber.

Now don't get me wrong, “Leitmotif” is well acted, probably thanks in some part to the caliber of the cast we have been presented. If the story had a bit more substance and the characters were given more development and were fleshed out into more intriguing and even human characters rather than mostly undeveloped bums, I would certainly push “Leitmotif” for Best Ensemble at this year's Oscars. However, as it stands, while the cast is full of exceptional names, the way the film handles them isn't so impressive, and at times it falls flat when you see Sandra Bullock reduced to an unclassy whore...oh wait, that might be a plus actually. Hell yeah, now if only she and Elizabeth Banks would have been the ones to have the affair; that would've been something. Basically, what it boils down to here, is the cast is miscasted. And that's a problem.

But for a first timer's venture into Oscar grounds, as I assume that's the intention of a film like “Leitmotif”, it is a good start. A bit more substance, more development, and a spicy sex scene with the two female leads would have boosted the film substantially, but as it stands where it does, it is a decent, if forgettable, drama that will probably not earn much notice at the Oscar (sorry to say that, but it might be true) but which is a fresh start for a beginning player. With some improvements, it could definitely register higher in my mind.

Chuch Norris and Liam Neeson vs. the Loch Ness Monster

Yeah, ok, whatever. Loch and loaded indeed. My biggest complaint: I was looking for a fun time film, not a biopic about Norris and Neeson. Ah well, better luck next time.

Consciousness Slip

Yes well, “Consciousness Slip” is not exactly the high stakes sci-fi blockbuster it's meant to be. The premise was initially intriguing, but with improper execution, it really drags on into a lackluster film of failed expectations, unoriginal and banal storytelling, and mediocre acting. The whole “escape from the moon” thing is far-fetched and not handled properly, plus the location of the clones on the moon drew too much to my mind of the much superior sci-fi “Moon”, although “Consciousness Slip” is definitely no “Moon”...but it has a moon. Yep, the film has a moon, so that's cool I guess. Um seriously, clones again; maybe with some more intriguing outcome, or some better execution styles, the concept of clones coming from the moon would have been better and more unique, but as it was, it definitely fell flat here. I don't get what was up with the rape scene either. Emotional disturbance aimed to make the film feel more developed and relevant? Eh, not really. It felt awkwardly inserted into the film. I mean clones are like sheep, you know, so basically it's like fucking a really good, human-like sheep, and well...the moon ain't Kentucky. Although you can see the moon from Kentucky. Well, bottom line, it could have been better and more original with more work and less poo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dead in the House

Now here's a nice, sweet little indie...except for the part about being sweet. But I really did enjoy “The Dead in the House”, one of those bitter indie movies about domestic issues ripping apart ordinary family life. When Arnold learns he has cardiac sarcoma, he has to come to grips with the fact that he has only a brief time left to live. Arnold quicky decays into a shattered shell of his former self (and we see this through his family's eyes, especially in one bitter scene where wife Karen looks at pictures of Arnold in his younger glory days). Now Arnold is passing on, leaving his family a wreck. Karen especially struggles as a soon-to-be single mother, assuming two jobs to support her family. Jack, eldest son I presume, takes to drug abuse (which is a bit banal for a film of this type, but was still handled appropriately if not totally originally). Here, the acting actually feels very real and human, but that's usually easy to convey in small films of this type, with a small cast and plenty of room to explore human emotions in the midst of a family crisis. The ending is good and well-executed, and like any good indie film that's meant to really get under your skin and stay there like a festering fungus, “The Dead in the House” latches onto your memory with a somber conclusion that doesn't actually really solve anything: Arnold is suffocated by Jack, who then ODs and winds up hospitalized under arrest, and the rest of the family still seems to be worse off. So fortunately the film doesn't try to resolve issues; it ends at the right spot.

Blue Heart

Before watching “Blue Heart”, I was told I would not like the film for whatever reason. Now this is not true, because I do like the film. I do not love it, and in fact I probably prefer the above film I just reviewed, but “Blue Heart” is still a solid film. The thing that kind of irks me is that it's animated (for the most part) and it just doesn't feel like it should be animated. Now obviously this isn't going for blockbuster numbers, but I don't expect anything substantial for it period, box-office wise, and critically I do expect it to be mostly overlooked. It doesn't entirely deserve to be overlooked, but I confess that in a year or so I will surely have forgotten it myself.

However, “Blue Heart” is a good film, it certainly is. My favorite part is everything that happens in the end. The outcome of the Iowan primary is fascinating and definitely unexpected; Wyatt's win and the governor's withdrawal is fantastically handled, but it's what happens in the final few seconds of the film that I really like: the Senator who we have followed from the start of the film still pushes forward to win the election in the hopes that it will rekindle his family, but his Chief of Staff resigns, knowing it is a failure before the race is even over. The Senator, previously the favorite to win, has been reduced to a statusless man without any potential to win the race, or so the film suggests in its closing minutes. “Blue Heart” is politically savvy and intellectual, and there are some side scenes and plotlines that are very surprisingly forward; I'm sure you know which one in particular. That is certainly unique for an animated film, but then so is the whole story itself as this definitely feels like a live action film. Honestly, I feel I would have enjoyed it more if it were live action.

I have no reason to review the other film Bottle requested. It's too average for me to waste time writing a review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


A middle-of-the-way film in my book, “Leitmotif” is of a caliber with potential to be a bit more than it was. Before I write up my review, I wish to register a serious complaint: what up with the cast? This is the second movie I have reviewed that has taken its cast not seriously enough. Here Tom Cruise joins with Sandra Bullock, Leonardo DiCaprio, Guy Pearce (again, and yay here also, because it's Guy Pearce), Elizabeth Banks, and Michael Fassbender. All are fine actors, but they aren't given the roles they deserve, with too many big name stars tossed into a smallish pic of this caliber.

I expected some of this, but I'd just like to point out Contagion, by the same director. Gwyneth Paltrow is in the movie for, what, five minutes? Along with Bryan Cranston, Jude Law and Kate Winslet having minor roles. That was my point of reference in casting this movie.

But for a first timer's venture into Oscar grounds, as I assume that's the intention of a film like “Leitmotif”, it is a good start. A bit more substance, more development, and a spicy sex scene with the two female leads would have boosted the film substantially, but as it stands where it does, it is a decent, if forgettable, drama that will probably not earn much notice at the Oscar (sorry to say that, but it might be true) but which is a fresh start for a beginning player. With some improvements, it could definitely register higher in my mind.

This is around what I was expecting. Thanks! :D

Chuch Norris and Liam Neeson vs. the Loch Ness Monster

Yeah, ok, whatever. Loch and loaded indeed. My biggest complaint: I was looking for a fun time film, not a biopic about Norris and Neeson. Ah well, better luck next time.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now for a real movie. I thought about saving it, but I'll go ahead and review it while it's fresh on my mind, having just finished it.

Here is a movie that surprised me greatly. I have already read some rave reviews; in fact, no review so far has been negative. I'm surprised to find a movie like this in a summer month; it definitely feels like a winter release, something that would blaze through the Holidays and still be fresh on everyone's mind come Oscar season. I for one shall not forget it by the time the Oscars roll around. I may be speaking prematurely though for I still have many movies left to see, but from what I have seen so far, this is certainly a top caliber film, and one that had me surprised by the quality, technical beauty, adept storytelling, moving characterization, and powerful acting. The movie is finger-lickin'-good, well it would be if it was chicken. It's definitely worthy of consideration for a solid placement on my list (but again, let's not be premature here...you don't want to ejaculate before you've felt all the right spots).

So I will not go all "glory review" on this movie. In fact, there are flaws and I think I should point some of those out in addition to reviewing the positives. My theory is to get the bad out of the way first, so let us first look over the few, but still existing, flaws in this film.

Firstly, I do like the ending. It was great and unexpected. There was a twist a few minutes before the end that I didn't see coming, and that really upped my appreciation of the film. Now obviously that was about as negative a point as a positive google, but it's something about the ending that I have to negatively highlight. The thing is, it felt more abrupt than I was expecting. Sure the film was long, but it felt shorter than most films of this type. It clocks in at just over two hours, and while we get good development there, I was a bit put off by the suddenness of the ending. Shortly after he is taken captive, the story's main character encounters the real traitor, someone he presumed dead (and this is a great twist), but the confrontation is much shorter than the build-up led me to expect. Within the same scene, the main character escapes, and then dies in a bitter but emotionally satisfying yet wrenching ending. That was a great ending, yet the abruptness of it still irks me a bit. I think the film could have been aided by about an extra ten or twenty minutes of substance, especially in that all so important final confrontation (well there was one other final confrontation, the one between two brothers, and that was probably the best scene of the movie...how they couldn't even finish their sentences. Emotional indeed).

Secondly, in continuance with that, I should mention that Demi Moore was just not used to the fullest of her potential. In this gripping (or should-be-gripping) scene, she appears for all of maybe five minutes (if that) in what was supposed to be a grand and emotional and bitter confrontation with her husband, yet Moore's character is quickly tossed aside just as abruptly as she is introduced. I do wish that more substance had been added to that.

Thirldy, and while this isn't really a complaint because I do not mind this, I should mention that as far as box-office potential goes, I'm not expecting a huge opening upwards of 70 million as I've seen others predict simply because this doesn't feel like the "epic" the producers were aiming it to be. I do see a great run (I will predict later, but know I expect good numbers for this) but that will come from the legs from its WOM and good reviews, not from a good opening (well it should be good, but not as good as expected). This is all my opinion, of course, but I should say that the film was making out to focus on the action, based on title and the footage I saw beforehand (e.g. trailers). This is again not really a complaint because while the action scenes are spectacular, they are nothing in comparison to the character moments that make up the main gist of the film. It's not really the definition of a summer blockbuster, which is why I'm just warning in advance that if it opens below what has been predicted for it, I don't think one should fret. This film is meant for legs.

Now I'll review some of the positives.

1) Paul Bettany. Great lead. Here we get a protagonist who is totally flawed. It's like a noir-esque hero, for while in the end he is the hero, for the gist of the film he comes off as antagonistic toward the causes of his king, his brother. The deception and intrigue portrayed by Bettany's character oozes awesomeness and comes across as powerful. Indeed, I would definitely push Bettany for a Best Actor nomination...but again, that's a premature ejaculation on my part (or maybe just a claim).

2) The character development. Very good. It progresses smoothly over the film and the little moments we get with characters interacting just brings out the power conveyed by most of the actors on screen. Bettany dominates his scenes, but let's not forget the great performances by Hugh Grant and Ben Barnes. All around, exceptional performances and great character development.

3) The story itself. Wow, that is a wave of fresh air. It doesn't focus on the impending invasion of an encroaching army on a seaside nation like many films of this type would. Indeed, while the battle scenes are cool and effects-heavy, it is the many other character moments and the bits of political intrigue and sabotage that make the film. Those compose more than 80% of the film and make it the gem it really is. The story is refreshing and invigorating with a solid pay-out and a surprise ending that, while again abrupt in my mind, is tense and emotional. The final scene is probably the best of the film.

4) The technical aspects. Beautiful art work. It's definitely a greatly designed film, with technical wonders that awe the eye and are pleasurable to behold. Alberto Iglesias sets a moving and rivetting score that adds a fitting backdrop to the world of political manuevering and military action. The cinematography is also dazzling, and set pieces are grand to behold. It looks like it was filmed somewhere in the British Isles, with beautiful scenery resembling the Scottish highlands, although some of the coastal scenes look Scandinavian in appearance and are beautiful to behold.

Ok, I'll stop rambling on because I do not wish to dote to much on any film. And besides, while I do admire the film, I will not say it is the best and adding more positives will seem to suggest that. It is flawed, yes, but it is definitely a great film, and from what I've seen so far, it's one of the best of the year. Let's see if that may change with future viewings of upcoming releases.

And in case you didn't know, I'm talking of course about


  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two more, each from a different player.

First up, Electric's Legend of the Red Dragon

I'm not sure if I've ever been a fan of dragon movies, but I know for certain going into, and coming out of, this film, that hadn't changed. I expect the primary aim of the movie is to attract younger audiences, family audiences, and especially young teen boys. I'm not smitten with it, nor would I even consider ever rewatching it, but for a fun day out at the movies with your family, this could be a pick. Of course, I would recommend something else, but "Legend of the Red Dragon" is always there if you want to waste your money. It's not that it's an atrocious film; it's just...average. And not even that really. It doesn't do anything, add anything new to the genre; it's another very banal dragon slayer movie, and at that it's very unremarkable. Plus the leads were annoying to me; Hutcherson was too Hutcherson here, not anything new, trying to be a macho teen boy whose angst against the dragon encourages him to train to slay it. And Ellen Page is unremarkable and flat as sister Alyssa, who accompanies her brother in the dull training sessions. That's what bothers me most about the film: a lot of it was just training. And films like that just drag on endlessly to me. Indeed, "Legend of the Red Dragon" is a very lackluster and forgetabble, unremarkable dragon fantasy, which barely even features the dragon, and which can definitely be skipped. Not bad, not good, not really much of anything.

And one of Silvershark's requests:

Red Skin

When it started, "Red Skin" screamed Clint Eastwood to me. And it was Eastwood. Of course, the 80-year-old cowboy returns to his roots as western settler Michael Hammer, who ventures into the Dakota territory during the time of the Plains Wars of the mid-to-late nineteenth century. It's very Eastwood; it just radiates Eastwood-ness. And while I admire Eastwood greatly as both a director and an actor, I couldn't help but be slightly bored by the film if only because it was just too Eastwood and didn't seem new in any way. It felt like another "cowboy and Indian" film, with the "redskin" portrayed as an inferior and some cowboy sticking up for him. It's not bad by any means; in fact it's very satisfying and quite good, but it's just so tiring to see films like this. That said, I did enjoy it and I respect it for what it was, but it could have deviated more from the norm of the western genre, and I think that would have saved it a lot.

As it was, though, "Red Skin" is what it is. It's not a western I will particularly remember, but it's also not one I wouldn't mind seeing again at some point in the future, but that may be a while. Eastwood is stellar as always; he resumes his classic gruff cowboy self, lone straggler on the Dakota plains. The directing is also great, as Eastwood always is. The rest of the cast deliver decent performances; none really stand out, but none are bland either. Emma Stone is solid as Lilly Hammer, and Liam Cunningham is the annoying prick he was meant to be in the film. The ending is very good, if a bit overly thematic and symbolic, but it is handled well and the sacrifice is saddening if you can get emotionally invested in the characters and the plot. Unfortunately for me, I didn't really get that invested, so it wasn't as satisfying or swaying as it could have and should have been.

Overall, a decent but not totally original western about the tough times on the plains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.