Irish, the one thing thats keeping you back is the fact that you use people's opinions for judging movie.

Its like if Capo praised, say, WEEKEND(not that I would, but whatever), and I then hated it because it wasn't great like Capo said.

Retarded, isn't it?

Hell Irish, thats like pissing on some Dali surrealist painting because its not as "mind-tripping" as some dude tells you that it is.

Dear God man, you know better.
You seriously need to quit "Cockbuster" or something.
You're better than such nonsense.

External factors, i.e. other people's opinions, being your sole criteria for grading a film's internal quality....what do you think this website is, IMDB?

Now SWINGERS, lets review what you wrote critically:

"This came recommened from a friend (same with Vulgar) and I'm really starting to question his taste in movies. Jon Favreau and Vince Vaughn worked well together but this movie was hardly a comedy (a few funny moments but nothing extraordinary). Also, this film was anything but great, which is all I heard about it before viewing it."

Points I want to comment on:

(1) Well, I don't blame you about your friend. I've only known nimrods that liked VULGAR. Really, I use that as my dividing movie between the decent-taste folks and the retarded masses that need to be herded and locked away at IMDB. If you think VULGAR is a total piece of dogshit, then you're cool with me. If Hitler hated VULGAR, he would be my dawg.

If someone I knew liked VULGAR, they're dead to me. To the showers they go!

(2) Otherwise, SWINGERS is not a comedy. Well, its a comedy like ALIENS is an "action" movie(despite those memorable action sequences being what, only 20-30 minutes out of a 137 minute picture? Besides, ALIENS is a sci-fi drama with action.).

If anything, as I mentioned in my RRA'S CULT MOVIE REVIEW from eons back, SWINGERS isn't a comedy, its really a pop culture hipster drama time capsule of a movie of Generation X, at the Los Angeles nightscene.

Put it another way, Liman & Favreau's SWINGERS is to the west coast of California that Kevin Smith's CLERKS was for the East Coast of New Jersey. Sure one is about guys that crash parties nightly and quoting how cool Tarantino and Scorsese(notice the RESERVOIR DOGS and GOODFELLAS homage shots?) are, and the other is a black & white flick about slacker workers talking about contractor workers on the Death Star.

But CLERKS and SWINGERS are both dramas, with humorous scenes intercut within those well-written screenplays, of a generation that basically compared and interacted with the world based on what they had been exposed to with pop culture in movies, TV, etc.

When Vaughn and Favreau enter the Las Vegas Casino, they act like(with Liman shooting as such) being "cool cats" in Sin City like Frank Sinatra and the Rat Pack were. Then they go inside, and the mundane reality contrasting what they expected, is funny in a honest way. They aren't high-rollers, but forced to play cheap poker card tables with senior citizens.

Now, what "funny" is for one individual, is completely different for another person. MONTY PYTHON are humorous because of their dry humour laced with irony and intelligent jokes at assumptions and expectations. THREE STOOGES are funny because they beat the hell out of each other. That movie COMMANDO is hilarious because its so completely stupid in an incredible way. I mean, a villain that basically is Freddie Mercury with steroids. Dear Lord!

SWINGERS' humor is more about the awkwardness of reality, whatever obvious or keeps to itself. A great scene is when Vince Vaughn breaks into a monologue at a cafe. Notice that Favreau is embarrased with Vaughn's actions, and the rest of the customers think Vaughn is an asshole. However, Vaughn's character is the sort of friend that that we've had before. That is, the likeable bastard that'll go to the bat for you.

Then again, SWINGERS could simply be summed up as about a guy who doesn't get over his big "love" in life, and seems doomed to repeat his dead-end existence with the rest of his screwed-friends. But by the end, with Favreau hooking up with a new relationship that may or may not hash out(it doesn't matter). Point is, he's gotten over his depression, and seems to have evolved. His pal Vaughn....nope.

Now Irish, you're right on some points. Favreau and Vaughn always have great chemistry. SWINGERS, the decent MADE, even BREAK-UP(which otherwise was a horrid cowflop). Also, its not a great movie. Its a really good "small" film thats relevant to people in their 20s and 30s. Which is why your rating for SWINGERS surprised me.

The reason why I'm busting your balls Irish is that, you have potential to be a very good critic. Hell, you've penned some decent quick-blurb reviews that are pretty fine. You've heavily improved once you started actually explaining your score-verdicts. But quit grading movies based on what people have said.

I didn't hate DA VINCI CODE because Ebert or BB.Net's mrsoprano liked it. I just hated DA VINCI CODE because it was an expensive reved-up muscle car that someone never bothered to fuel it with the gasoline to start the momentum up. REally, a flatliner if I've ever seen one.

The U.S. vs. John Lennon (2006)

The US v John Lennon

Has anybody seen this yet,out in the Uk December 8th

I'll get a chance at seeing it in February, De Niro.

I love Swingers, btw. In my opinion, its better precisely because it doesn't go for the obvious humor. Vaughn's more recent movies, from Wedding Crashers to Anchorman to whatever else, have all been good but there's no real basis in everyday reality, they're kind of just stories set up to tell jokes. Swingers is more than that to me, kind of, like Ronnie said, just a showcase of a cultural group that emerged in the mid 90's, the retro-swinging late 20's/ealy 30's LA struggling actors. And it's just the fact that the members of this group, or at least the ones that we're focusing on, HAPPEN to be funny, that makes this film a comedy.

You're so money and you don't even know it.

THANK YOU Hagen.

My favorite quote from SWINGERS?

"Look, I made Gretzky's head bleed!"

Mel Gibson's 'Apocalypto'....... (Greatest movie ever? )

The movie analogizes the ancient-tribal practice of human sacrifice to today's modern wars. Ancient societies in all corners of the globe sacrificed their citizens to the Gods, Gibson believes current day war is another form of human sacrifice. Gibson says in September of 2006: [wikipedia] "The precursors to a civilization that’s going under are the same, time and time again... What’s human sacrifice if not sending guys off to Iraq for no reason?"[/wikipedia]

Here is a review from one of the 'conspicracy' websites. If you click on the link you can see a piece of the movie. I hope you read it and go see this movie. I don't see a lot of movies on the big screen but this is a big screen must. The cinematography is some of the best ever.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.infowars.com/articles/media/apocalypto_most_powerful_film_of_all_time.htm

Mel Gibson's Apocalypto is the most powerful film of all time, it is packed with strong positive messages and it is the most polished, iconic and awe-inspiring allegorical warning against the unrestrained power and abuse of government that cinema has ever seen.

The plot of the film depicts Aztec warrior armies being sent on missions to capture and enslave neighboring tribes and bring them back to be used as fodder for human sacrifice. Set in Mesoamerica just before Spanish contact, it depicts the decline of the Maya civilization.

Gibson again sets the tyrannical power of the state against the family and the rag-tag bands, it's what we witnessed in The Patriot and Braveheart but the message is driven home even more authoritatively in Apocalypto. In almost every case throughout history, the state is brutal, murdering and oppressive and it is out to dominate and enslave the only people you can trust, your family, your brethren, your tribe.

The film details the horrors of unrestrained government and how tyrants always seize the reigns of control, press on the nerve of power and abuse, dominate and terrorize populations. This is the norm of human history.

Apocalypto highlights the process of targeting the leading warriors of the enemy tribe, the tallest, toughest, meanest, would be the prime candidates for sacrifice and torture. This was done in an attempt to please the gods with the most coveted sacrifice and is the reason why indigenous populations in the region today are little over 5 foot tall on average.

Human sacrifice is a fundamental tenet of all historical dictatorships. It was practiced in ancient Germany, Greece, Asia and across the planet. The Mayans saw it as a normal function of society and would consider anyone who dissented as insane. Just as today, the police state, the surveillance state, torture and numerous other bizarre and abusive actions of the state are being normalized.

A telling moment in the film serves as commentary for the foreknowledge and exploitation of astronomical occurrences throughout history, where elite guilds versed in the secret wisdom of astronomy would anticipate solar and lunar eclipses and use them to hoodwink their populations into believing they held divine power, thus enlisting their enslavement and obedience under the threat that sun and moon would not return unless the people displayed total submission.

Parallels can be drawn to modern times where a population paranoid, fearful and uneducated can be brought to heel by manufactured monsters and imagined foreboding disasters in the name of the war on terror.

The film also illustrates how elites throughout history push bread and circuses, sporting and gladiatorial events, to distract the public from real issues and create false heroes to dislodge the natural mooring of man's moral compass and create a vacuum of good examples of how humans should function in a free society.

The Britney Spears of yesteryear, the adulated ones with their robes, bobbles and trinkets are exalted above all others and worshipped as gods on earth.

The film also has a message of rejecting fear as a sickness, again alluding to today's society where fear is used as a method of brainwashing and control by the state.

Watching the film evokes a total immersion in the atmosphere of the experience. You are able to suspend disbelief and really imagine you are there in Mesoamerica. You feel the ancestral memories of the elders around the camp fire, it stirs the instinctive echoes of time that we as humanity all share.

There are very few films that have the impact of leaving you uplifted and enlightened as you leave the cinema, and for those impressions to stick. Apocalypto achieves this and teaches a philosophy of perseverance and courage that maintains an indelible mark on the viewer.

Mel Gibson is already being subjected to ridiculous hit pieces which attack him for depicting the real nature of the brutal Mayan culture.

An Austin-American Statesman article written by Chris Garcia features an interview with assistant professor in the Department of Art and Art History at the University of Texas, Julia Guernsey.

The arguments used to bash Apocalypto are nitpicking jabs at minutia which are then exploited to demonize the message of the entire film, such as claimed minor inaccuracies in cave drawings and outright false assertions such as the notion that women were not involved in the sacrificial rituals.

The sacrifices themselves are not denied and in fact are exalted as nothing more than a cultural tendency. Guernsey even has the temerity at one point to spew that human sacrifice and sacrifice of babies was a "pious act" done "with solemnity." Guernsey recoils and sneers at the very notion that human sacrifice should be condemned.

Slamming a precise portrayal of Mayan culture as offensive and racist is to be expected from moral relativists who are completely absent any factual evidence to counter Gibson's depiction. The Nazi culture was barbarous, genocidal and a disgrace to humanity - is it racist towards German people to suggest this was the case?

Bounding babies and small children every morning and sacrificing them to the water gods and the fertility gods is wrong. It was wrong then and it would be wrong now.

Cutting someone's heart out at sunrise and sunset is wrong. It is not racist or offensive to judge a culture if it is clearly distasteful. It is not unacceptable to discern what is right according to our innate moral compass. In fact, any attempt at removing the boundaries and definition of evil is simply evil itself trying to erase our frame of reference to characterize it.

Mel Gibson is Stanley Kubrick on steroids and Apocalypto elevates him to the position of the greatest living director in the world today. He is the standard of casting, cinematography and research. Apocalypto is avant garde, state of the art and evergreen at every step of the way.

The world is not a safe place and history shows that the most dangerous force is always government and the crime syndicates that grow up around it. The same high priesthood that manipulated and controlled the Mayan tribes of thousands of years ago were beholden to the same statecraft of tyranny that is embraced by our rulers today. Apocalypto is the very definition of this message and its power obtains it the accolade of the most important film of our generation - and possibly of all time.

Yeah I did catch that and enjoyed them very much



It could just be my "expectations" that get in the way again. For me, if I haven't seen a movie yet and someone recommends one (and I get a couple of opinions) and if they all say it's "great" or "really good" then I expect (there's that word again) a decent flick. This guy who recommended this movie to me knows me and should know my taste in movies. So for him to say, hey watch this, (and again, if everyone has nothing but positive things to say about it) it better be worth my time (because I have never had the desire to see it myself without them recommending it to me). I don't go in with the expectation that I'll love the movie, but I do expect to enjoy it (which I did with Swingers) but again, I never saw what so many people LOVED about this film and Borat. As I said in my review of Borat, I just don't see what all the hysteria was about. Maybe I'm just too against the "norm"? I expected to see a similar following to movies such as Sin City or V for Vendetta (my favorite movies the past 2 years) and Kill Bill had a similar following for a brief period of time. But sometimes, when everyone says I LOVED that movie, it's great; I for some reason usually don't agree with them. For example (and I've used these before) but I enjoyed Superman Returns more than Batman Begins and I liked Nacho Libre more than Napoleon Dynamite.

I saw Birth yesterday.It was well,um...interesting.

Jackass 2 ***
(First Viewing)

Chris Pontius, Johnny Knoxville, Steve-O, Bam Margera, and the whole crew return to the screen to raise the stakes higher than ever before.

Just as good if not superior to the first Jackass movie. More of the boys finding new ways to punish their bodies and each other

So what crazy stunts do they do this time?

Many.

But the stunt that shocked me the most was probably Steve-O placing a blood leech on his eyeball.

Yeah, that screwed with me.

Ive seen the trailer and it looks crazy,those guys have got balls.

The JACKASS both have balls, and lack of brains.

Really, I think even the crew knows that one of them will eventually meet their demise from these stunts.

My money is on Steve-O.

P.S. - On second thought DeNiro, Steve-O jabbing a fish hook THROUGH his cheek, and then swimming in a sea full of sharks....jesus christ.

Walk The Line 2005

Talents Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon, are absolutely amazing as June and Johnny

Story goes…Johnny Cash (Phoenix) is about to play his now-famous Folsom Prison live concert. It's 1968. He's sweating and fondling the dangerous edge of a table saw in his "dressing room," as the crowd of inmates, the "audience" awaiting, is erupting.

Wearing his now signature black on black with black attire, Johnny stops for a moment to drink in his surroundings and we are all whisked back to the events that brought this man into the forefront of American musical history.

John, J.R. Cash was born in poverty and had it tough. Though this seems to be some sort of perquisite for legendary talents-to-be, Cash's story isn't all post crop farm fanfare glitter and fine buffets. During his early years, Cash some how starts to write deep poetry - for himself. Cash somehow picks up a guitar and teaches himself. And, Cash somehow manages to find himself at Sun Records (the pinnacle of the birth of American Rock and Roll really).

At his big audition, the Hymn song he and his band have prepared doesn't impress the producer at all. But, Cash somehow remembers a poem, err, song he strummed about back in the service…

Enter that voice; that deep different desiring near desperate perhaps from a far away once-descended, but made-it-out, storytelling voice.

Cash is immediately signed, cuts a record, and heads out on a whirlwind tour of musical historical proportions. This little "jig-o-talents" that was to cross a few state lines, included a list of "about-to-bes" that would ultimately produce the Holy Grail of Rock Show Posters for some squiling present-day person found featured on the Antique Road Show. It had a group of names unequalled in R&R Fables; Cash of course, Elvis Presley, Roy Orbison, Jerry Lee Lewis, Carl Perkins…and, along for the ride is the beautiful and famous-since-diapers, June Carter (Reese Witherspoon)…

June's a good girl and Cash is a bad boy - it's the grand ol' story, an opera in the making - 'nough said? But, this is no regular love story.

One of my fav films of the last 10 years 5/5

Just watched Mobsters for the first time. I actually kind of enjoyed it. It wasn't exactly historically accurate, and Luciano (Christian Slater) and Co. looked like a bunch of pretty boys who don't look like they could fire a gun...but it was a decent film nonetheless.

Slater playing "Lucky", though...was just weird.

Not the greatest film I've ever seen, but still entertaining.

Edward Scissorhands
Tim Burton 1990 US Nth time, 1st in years; DVD
A boy with artificial hands upsets his new community.
Catch this in the right mood at the right time and it might just hit all the right notes too. Because Burton likes to present his worlds as if they were cartoons, his films often lack any kind of plausibility; this seems an inane criticism of a work clearly grounded in fantasy, but the problem here is Burton doesn't quite know what he wishes to do - he seems to be caught between going all out on the contemporary 'Phantom of the Opera' route, and being a loveable favourite for the kids. It looks lovely, and Elfman's score is as helpful as ever, and the ending is sour enough to be fresh, but the modern-day coda is misjudged, both in terms of delivery and the fact that it lends a distinct period to the elongated flashback narrative.

Starsky & Hutch
Todd Phillips 2004 US 1st time; DVD
Two cops, both clumsy for different reasons, are teamed together and take on a drugs bust.
A pleasant surprise indeed: it not only looks good, but it has a wonderful rhythm, which stems from good timing in a lot (not all) of the gags and a great chemistry between Stiller and Wilson, who shine at the centre of a close-knit supporting cast. The soundtrack's cool, the humour isn't too overbearing, and there seems a genuine sense of control to the whole thing. Many of the things don't work, however, and it probably won't repay a rewatch; the nod to the original actors at the end is clever, but then run into the ground with obvious, obvious winks to the viewer.

Apocalypto *** 1/2
(First Viewing)

As the Maya kingdom faces its decline, the rulers insist the key to prosperity is to build more temples and offer human sacrifices. Jaguar Paw, a young man chosen for sacrifice, flees the kingdom to avoid his fate.

A fantastic and brutal story told by a man who is quickly becoming one of my favorite directors, Mel Gibson. Mel has brought us Braveheart, The Passion of the Christ and now Apocalypto. What I love about Mel's style probably the most is he constantly keeps the camera moving (a lot of pan shots). For some reason, that just attracts me to him that he doesn't keep the camera in one place for very long. Another element of this film that I wasn't expecting to see that much was the brutality (some of the characters in this film had quite the taste for blood and death). Definitely a movie that if not viewed in theaters, should be a rental, if not a purchase.

Bloodsport ***
(First Viewing)

Frank Dux has entered the "kumite", an illegal underground martial-arts competition where serious injury and even death are not unknown. In town for the fight are a number of fighters (all with different styles), as well as a journalist determined to get her story. Chong Li, a particularly ruthless and vicious fighter is the favorite, but then again Dux has never fought him before.

I had seen parts of this before but never from beginning to end. Jean-Claude Van Damme's best movie along with Kickboxer. Forest Whitaker was enjoyable as Rawlins (i.e. "bad cop"). A nice montage before the final day of the tournament and even Bolo Yeung was quite intimidating as Chong Li.

Groundhog Day.

Irish, is this the movie where the opponent throws some chemical powder into the eyes of van damme while fighting and then he fights without looking at the opponent?

What about it?

Yes it is


Death Warrant * 1/2
(First Viewing)

Detective Louis Burke joins a task force put together by the governor to investigate a series of unexplained deaths in the Harrison Penitentiary. While Burke poses as an inmate, attorney Amanda Beckett acts the role of his wife. Burke does succeed in befriending a few of the inmates who help him with the investigation. Inmates are mysteriously being murdered and it turns out, they are being murdered for their body organs. Burke begins an escape from the penitentiary, pursued by hundreds of angry inmates who have been set free and armed with the knowledge that Burke is a cop.

A pretty action-less movie that had a good concept on paper, but wasn't able to deliver on film. Jean-Claude Van Damme was horriablly average as detective Louis Burke and Patrick Kilpatrick was VERY lackluster as the villian, The Sandman. His character was just too unrealistic/unbelivable for me at times and interferred with the movie. The only positive to come out of this movie was Cynthia Gibb who played the attorney/detective Burke's "wife," who I felt was the only one who put forth the effort to do the best with what they were given.

I just watched Reservoir Dogs again, and Walk the Line, I think both are very good.

Nixon - (Oliver Stone;1995;USA)
The life and downfall of President Richard Nixon.
Stone's best film mainly because it succeeds in depicting a generally disliked president as a generally good person who was deeply flawed and at times close-minded. Nixon appears to be a man rather then an evil caricature while not making him seem like a great person like a recent 9/11 docu-drama about the Bush administration. It doesn't hide the dirty side of politics while at the same time not being a politcally biased film. Stone's direction is great while not too intense like U-Turn. Hopkins' performance is very good, while at times comes close to being too much. The best however, is an unrecognizable Paul Sorvino as Henry Kissinger.

The Departed - (Martin Scorsese;2005;USA)
Two moles on opposite sides of the law are pitted against each other.
Scorsese's best film since Casino. The story, backed by great performances and directing manages to be very engaging and effective even on the second viewing. As always Scorsese provides great direction, cinematography, and music as well. "Shipping off the Boston" by Dropkicking Murphys, "Comfortably Numb" by Roger Waters and Van Morison, and of course "Gimme Shelter" by The Rolling Stones. It may also be Dicaprio's best performance. Jack Nicholson shines the most however with his great adlibbing and of course Ray Whinstone is wonderful. The second best of 2006.

Double Impact **
(First Viewing)

Jean Claude Van Damme plays a dual role as Alex and Chad, twins separated at the death of their parents. Chad is raised by a family retainer in Paris, Alex becomes a petty crook in Hong Kong. Seeing a picture of Alex, Chad rejoins him and convinces him that his rival in Hong Kong is also the man who killed their parents.

Another subpar Van Damme movie and another fight with Bolo Yeung towards the end of the film.

What's with this van-damme marathon, Irish ?

A friend of mine has them and he's a HUGE Van Damme fan. I've never seen most of these before and have plenty of free time on my hands so I figured, why not?

Hard Target **
(First Viewing)

Natasha Binder comes to New Orleans looking for her father, who has gone missing. In doing so, she meets a very hard man called Chance. He helps her find out that her father was killed by an organisation who sell the opportunity to hunt human prey. They are taking advantage of a police strike in New Orleans.

Another bad Jean-Claude Van Damme movie, hardly any martial arts/kickboxing in this film. It's a Jean-Claude Van Damme movie and he hardly fights. FIGHT MOTHERF*CKER! It'd be like penning Schwarzenegger for a film and not giving him any one liners (it's their trademarks). And I have to ask, what's with all the doves in John Woo movies? I've seen a couple of his movies now and they all have doves in them. What's the deal?

Actually I12, that's my favorite Van Dam movie. I am not a big fan of his, nor do I think he's necessarily a good actor, but I like that one. When he was kicking ass protecting the girl (outside by the car). The guy has some moves that's for sure.

TIS

I love that movie!!
Van DAMN Jean Claud is HOT!!!
The part with the car is awsome.

Wow, I didn't realize there were so many Hard Target fans out there No one wants to take up Bloodsport, Kickboxer, Death Warrant, Double Impact, etc?