I liked it for its cinematography and music. Nino Rota (the composer for Godfather) does an excellent job here.

Read the subtitles.

I did, but when they're talking so fast and throw the subtitles on for 3 seconds and then move on AND have multiple speakers going at the same time, it just makes it hard

Suck it up. I like to throw my necessary glasses across the room, throw in Fellini flicks, set the playback speed to three times the original, and take a shot of hard liqour between each line of dialouge and see if I can understand what's going on. For each line I miss, I pause the film, and do a handstand across a bed of nails that has been convieniently wrapped in barbed wire and sprinkled with burning coals. Why? Because I'm a fucking film-buff, bitch-man. GRRRR, I'M GONNA' MESS YOU UP, MOFO!

I just watched The Fountain. Fantastic.

Heathers ** 1/2
(First Viewing)

Veronica mingles with Heather I, II and III to be as popular as them, even though she hates them. She hates them enough to wish they were dead, but she would never want to be their cause of death though. When she starts dating Jason Dean, however, she finds herself involved in the murdering of most of her enemies, covered up as suicides.

A very interesting film looking at teenage suicide that can be quite disturbing at times. Some dark comedy as well as great performances by young Winona Ryder, Christian Slater, and Shannen Doherty.

When I can be bothered, I'm going to post my thoughts (written the last time I saw it) on every film reviewed in this thread... as long as I've seen it, of course.

My thoughts on Heathers:

The American high school as a metaphor for society itself, as Christian Slater points out towards the end; a clever subversion of teen flick conventions, highly original and with a macabre humour reminiscent of Ealing's The Ladykillers. The end seems strangely tame.

Following ***
(First Viewing)

The protagonist of Following is Bill (Jeremy Theobald). Bill is an unemployed aspiring writer who lives a solitary and boring life in London, England. Bill has a fascination with people, and with hopes of finding material to write about, begins to pick individuals out of a crowd, and to follow them. Bill establishes rules to keep him out of trouble and to keep his 'following' random, but soon enough he breaks one of his rules by following someone more than once. The character he follows on numerous occasions first is Cobb (Alex Haw). Cobb a confident and intelligent burglar catches Bill spying on him and soon involves Bill in his peculiar burglaries. Similar to Bill's interest in following, Cobb has a great interest in the individuals he is stealing from. During the robbery of a residence Bill becomes interested in the woman (Lucy Russell) who owns the flat, so he begins to follow her. Eventually he decides to meet her and they begin seeing each other. This upsets Cobb as he also learns the woman has asked Bill to do a job for her. But things are not as they seem, and soon Bill will find out why.

I liked the way the movie jumped from the end to the begining and wasn't straight forward. Nolan begins his film career with a wonderful story. The directing was a little amateur in some parts but the story made up for it. This film seemed to remind me very much of Nolan's second work, Memento. Also, why was the film shot in black and white? Was it all he could afford a la Kevin Smith and Clerks?

I just re-watched "The China Syndrome" for about the tenth time but the first viewing in a long time. I'm still impressed by the movie and its cast.

It stars Jack Lemmon as a shift supervisor at a new nuclear power plant, Jane Fonda as a tv newswoman and Michael Douglas as her cameraman. An accident at the plant causes the shutdown of the facility and its subsequent re-opening is highlighted by Jack Lemmon taking a drastic step (to prevent the re-opening).

To the youngins out there who don't remember when the movie was first released - it came out in mid-March, 1979. Two weeks later the nuclear power plant at Three Mile Island (Pennsylvania) had an emergency in which the state came close to being a nuclear disaster. The movie enjoyed great box office after that (and mostly BECAUSE of that) but regardless its still a good movie and I'd recommend it to those of you whom haven't seen it.

The Warriors *** 1/2
(First Viewing)

Cyrus, the messianic leader of the largest gang in New York, declares a truce and calls a summit with all the major gangs in attendance. During the meeting, he expresses his wish to unify all the gangs into one large super-gang. During the summit, Cyrus is assasinated and the murder is pinned on a member of a gang known as the Warriors. Now, all the other gangs are hunting the Warriors down before they can prove their innocence. "CAN YOU DIG IT?"

Well ronnie, you were right for a change, I REALLY did dig The Warriors. I watched the Director's Cut so I don't know how much was added back to the film, but whatever the case maybe, this was a pretty darn good movie. The story was just so fascinating and kept me glued to the screen. I also loved the comic book style panel between scenes. A good cast with James Remar as Ajax being the most recognizeable to me. I'm looking forward to Tony Scott's remake, although I do question what he can improve on? My biggest beef with the potential remake is the fact that it'll take place in L.A. and not New York

It sounds as though you enjoyed it.... I did, too. Part of the fun (for me) was seeing parts of the City that I know. You may want to check out another "gang" movie from that period - "The Wanderers", a Bronx based Italian gang starring a very young Ken Wahl.

Escape From New York * 1/2
(First Viewing)

The year is 1997. Due to huge crime rates, the United States turns its once great city of New York into a maximum security prison where hardcore criminals are put for life. All the bridges leading into the city are mined, a large wall is built along the shoreline and a large police force army is based there to stop or kill any attempted escapees. En route to a conference, the President, on board Air Force One, is forced to eject in a pod when a female terrorist takes over the controls and crashes the plane into a building. A new prisoner, ex-soldier Snake Plissken is offered his freedom if he goes in, frees the President and finds a tape with important information for the conference. Snake agrees but to ensure his co-operation he is injected with a small but powerful explosive that will only be destroyed if his mission isn't successful. Snake must set out into the decaying city, filled with immoral criminals, and he must succeed - for his own life.

I just don't see Kurt Russell as an action star. I like some of his work but he just doesn't do good action movies IMO (from what I've seen thus far). I thought the idea was good but poorly executed on screen. Very cheesy with some bad costumes, sets, etc. And as much as this may pain our own Snake member, I found the character to be rather dry. I would say this deserves a remake more than The Warriors. Maybe Tony Scott will change his mind although I doubt it. I personally would rather see a remake of this than The Warriors.

Again, that's what's going to tick me off the most about the remake is that it'll be set in L.A. and not the Big City

Well I TOLD YOU that THE WARRIORS rules. But Irish, try if possible to watch the superior theatrical edit. I believe its still in circulation.

What was superior about it to the "Director's Cut" is the fact that with the DC, Walter Hill wanted to insist in the comic book idea of THE WARRIORS.

Which is fine, except its not needed. The story and the masculine action pulp narrative itself is comic bookish enough as it is. Its like squirting chocolate syrup over chocolate ice cream. It's not needed.

Plus, the DC to me did a weak job in the introduction of the Furies. In the DC, its some cutesy "Holyshit, its the Furies!" or whatever nonsense.

But in the theatrical edit, its just so cooler. When we first see the Furies arming themselves with their baseball bats, they're laughable. I mean, guys dressed up as Yankee/Mets rejects in full face paint. How could you take THAT seriously?

Then when the Warriors break through the subway, they are silently confronted by the Furies, and we realize it. The Furies are bastard stalkers that don't need to waste energy talking threats in order to intimidate you. It's something when the big mouth fight-all-the-time Ajax even agreees that fleeing is a good option.

Anyway Irish, play the really fun as hell video game from Rockstar Games as well.

Latino Review had gotten a script draft of THE WARRIORS remake that Tony Scott is supposed to helm...

...and I tell ya, it sounds fucking retarded.

Certainly there are some silly things in the original THE WARRIORS. Multi-ethnic gangs with comic bookish banners and gimmicks. But you know what? Within Walter Hill's serious macho-street western, it makes sense. You accept the idea of flashy gang apparel.

But the remake....oh God, let me recount the retarded ideas that the remake wants to do:

*The Rogues? Well guess what? They're the Rogues because they are "rogue" LA policemen. Yikes.

*The Furies are now a Mexican gang that carries baseball bats, called "El Furies".

Maybe its just me, but I miss the crazy bastardized KISS/Yankees hybrid that was The Furies...

I've seen it once, too, a long time ago:

An inventive film in which all of the characters are expendably uninteresting; as a comment on privacy invasion and social identity, it outweighs its thriller narrative far more.

Irish, whatdo you mean by "amateurish" direction?

And I'm not sure about the black and white, but it's probably ecomonical reasons; Nolan shot it over weekends on a shoestring budget.

I almost forgot about the movie "The Wanderers". That movie is unique because there is a scene where the gang members are riding in a car and the setting suddenly shifts from day to night while there is no apparent change in the characters. While I haven't seen the movie in almst 20 years, I remember how gripping the sudden shift immediately changed the whole mood of the movie.

And who can forget the football field climax?

"Don't fuck with the Wongs"

The Departed (Scorsese, 2006) ****

A true return to form for good ol' Marty, and definitely deserving of the "Best Director" and "Best Picture" Oscars that it received. I don't know if it was the best film of 2006, as I didn't see many films from last year. But standing on it's own, it was definitely good enough to win those Academy Awards.

Leo turned in an all-star performance...but the biggest surprise to me was Matt Damon. It was fantastic. And Jack Nicholson was great, as always.

I'm not gonna go on about "lighting" and "camera work", as I'm not really well-versed in that area. All I can say is it felt like a true Scorsese epic...and Marty's knack for story-telling is unparalleled.

Congratulations on the Oscar, Marty! You deserved it!

Really!? I've always been told the opposite a la Legend and others.




Sure the face paint makes them look silly but I started to take them more so when I saw them swinging those bats

Irish, sometimes although rare, the theatrical edit in my opinion is much better than the "director's cut".

This is the case for me with THE WARRIORS at least.

Another problem I had with THE WARRIORS Director's Cut was the title-card early in the movie that Walter Hill insisted:

"Sometime in the Future..."

Thing is, watch the movie again and watch the subway walls. Would the future have theatrical re-releases of Warren Beatty's very forgotten HEAVEN CAN WAIT? Nah!

If anything, I always loved the notion that THE WARRIORS either took place in a crazy alternative reality where gangs across ethnic lines in New York City, inspired by the Black Panthers' regalia and militant organization, went nuts with uniforms and colors and such.

Then again, maybe my biggest problem with Walter Hill's Director's Cut is the fact that the theatrical edit was a very masculine, straight-forward western with a colorful comic book punch of potentcy to it.

The comic book panel editing breaks up this very forceful narrative.

Blade ** 1/2
(Second Vieiwng)

Blade, along with his life-long friend Whistler battle vampires. Blade was born of a mother bitten by a vampire, he possesses all their strengths and none of their weaknesses. He is known as the day walker because sunlight does not affect him. With the addition of a new ally, Dr. Karen Jenson, Blade endeavors to prevent the evil Frost from unleashing the blood god, La Magra, upon the world.

This movie kicked a lot more a$$ with a second viewing. This really surprised me as a good comic book movie because the first time around I wasn't really impressed. Also, I think of comic book movies in 2 ages, pre-2000 and post-2000. Why is 2000 the magic year you may be asking yourself? Because that's when X-Men came out and REALLY started this whole "comic book movie phenomenon" in my mind. Plus the FX in the movies just got better and some shots in Blade and even other movies such as The Crow and Spawn were cheesy. Now don't get me wrong, their were plenty of good comic book movies made prior to 2000, such as the Supreman franchise, the Batman franchise, and Blade. However, I think most of the comic book movies since 2000 have been better like the X-Men franchise, the Spider-Man franchise, Sin City, V for Vendetta, The Punisher, The Fantastic Four, From Hell, Hulk, Daredevil, Ghost Rider and the list goes on and on.

One final note about the movie, Wesley Snipes was bad a$$ as Blade, as was Stephen Dorff as Deacon Frost, Arly Jover as Mercury, and finally Kris Kristofferson as Abraham Whistler.

Harsh Times * 1/2
(First Viewing)

Jim Davis is an ex-Army Ranger who finds himself slipping back into his old life of petty crime after a job offer from the LAPD evaporates. His best friend is pressured by his girlfriend Sylvia to find a job, but Jim is more interested in hanging out and making cash from small heists, while trying to get a law enforcement job so he can marry his Mexican girlfriend.

I'm still trying to figure out why Christian Bale stared in this film? He did American Psycho, Batman Begins, The Prestige and now this L.A. wanna be ganster? I thought it was a bad idea from the previews and it's a worse idea when you actually sit through the movie.

Blade II ***
(Third Viewing)

A rare mutation has occurred within the vampire community. The Reaper. A vampire so consumed with an insatiable bloodlust that they prey on vampires as well as humans, transforming victims who are unlucky enough to survive into Reapers themselves. Now their quickly expanding population threatens the existence of vampires, and soon there won't be enough humans in the world to satisfy their bloodlust. Blade, Whistler (Yes, he's back) and an armory expert named Scud are curiously summoned by the Shadow Council. The council reluctantly admits that they are in a dire situation and they require Blade's assistance. Blade then tenuously enters into an alliance with The Bloodpack, an elite team of vampires trained in all modes of combat to defeat the Reaper threat. Blade's team and the Bloodpack are the only line of defense which can prevent the Reaper population from wiping out the vampire and human populations.

Wesley Snipes does it again as the half-human, half-vampire superhero Blade. I've really grown to appreicate these movies so much more with just a recent viewing. Leonor Varela was also great as Nyssa. I'll probably finish off the trilogy sometime this weekend. It's been great thus far and I remember Blade: Trinity being my favorite during the last go round.

That's how I felt about Donnie Darko. The Director's Cut just explains things way too much, and the viewer loses alot of room to interpret.

Zodiac (2007) *** 1/2
(First Vieiwng)

A serial killer in the San Francisco Bay Area taunts police with his letters and cryptic messages. We follow the investigators and reporters in this lightly fictionalized account of the true 1970's case as they search for the murderer, becoming obsessed with the case. Based on Robert Graysmith's book, the movie's focus is the lives and careers of the detectives and newspaper people.

Again props are directed towards ronnie for first directing this movie to my attention I believe. It was a little long but a great investigation into the Zodiac killer. Jake Gyllenhaal, Anthony Edwards, Robert Downey Jr., and Mark Ruffalo (yes, romantic comedy "superstar" Mark Ruffalo) were all enjoyable. I'm really happy for Robert Downey Jr. as he's been in some pretty decent movies in the past couple of years including: Gothika, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Good Night and Good Luck, A Scanner Darkly, Zodiac and next year's Iron Man. As for Mr. Fincher, I'd rank this as my third favorite film of his behind Fight Club and Se7en.

I really need to get out and see Zodiac as soon as humanly possible.

Here's some fun trivia for you: Robert Downey Jr. was actually just playing himself in A Scanner Darkly. They just told him the cameras were off, and that's what they ended up with.

Really? Then I think a case could be made for him in Zodiac in certain scenes

I don't know, I don't think that he can hit any closer to home than a character who teaches the audience how to make home-made cocaine in his first two minutes on screen.

I'll have to check it out.