Jayne said:

My only complaint is that the series ended much like a BBC documentary (no offense, Plopper, Vince  )– it just… ended.

---

None taken, the only times I watch the BBC is for F1.  It used to be the home of Red Dwarf aswell, but that's gone downhill and doesn't get many new episodes now, and the latest episodes were financed by another channel.

 

Recently I've watched:

The Naked Gun Trilogy.  I forgot how good those were.

Police Squad.  Only watched the first episode so far but I loved it, just keep getting sidetracked with other things.

Flavia The Heretic.  I'm surprised this wasn't a Nastie, it was made in 1974 and it had a bit graphic female torture.  Then again, The Devils wasn't a Nastie either and there were a lot of inconsistencies in the list.

Video Nasties (3 disc docu set).  I possibly mentioned this before while I was still working through the set.  Pretty good.  Okay so most of it was filled with trailers and random critics/publishers/etc waffling on a bit about the films on discs 2 and 3, but I was impressed by the actual documentary on the first disc.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose.  This was on tv last week and I watched it in segments.  I'm glad I knew before what it was going to be like, I'd heard a lot of criticisms about it not being a horror film but a court room drama with possession elements chucked in in flashbacks.  I actually liked it.  But I couldn't help feeling that Scarecrow was going to turn up in the jail next to Marconi .  The only film that has successfully scared me is the Exorcist.  It still gets me paranoid, even the "origins" ones scared me even though they were crap really.  There's just something about possessions done well that give me the heebie jeebies so I was expecting this to be the same, thankfully it wasn't scary but it was really well done.

Collateral Damage.  Again, it was on the telly and I'm watching it segmented which is probably the only way I'll get through it without falling asleep.  This reminds me a lot like Arnie's Commando.  In that his daughter gets kidnapped and he goes off to rescue her.  In Collateral Damage his wife and kid get killed in a terrorist explosion and he goes off to get revenge.  I'm hoping that Turturro appears again later on in the film.  For a biggish name like him to get a reasonably high place on the bill he isn't in it much.  Maybe 10 minutes?  Leguizamo is the same.  Shame they're both wasted.

It's been a while since I've popped by so I have a few comments to make going back on this page:

Dan – You should rewatch the original Machete trailer because you're wrong. I'd say about 98% of the trailer is in the film. I went back and watched it after the film, baring the main plot change to De Niro's character which applies to 2 shots in the fake (the JFKesq president and the couple in the limo) and the main henchman getting killed in the chop shop (which I don't recall), every shot from the trailer appears in the film. I've seen regular films released with trailers that had more changes.

I don't also know why you seem so harsh about it, aside from when the wheels really fall off in the final act with it's slapdash finish – it's pure over the top extention to what you'd expect in the exploitation reimaginings that have been produced in recent years. Maybe my mindset was better the day I watched it (having also watched Piranha 3D the same day which I enjoyed more) but I honestly got what I expected from it.

Plopper – If I can confirm the release over here in NZ of Casino Royale is uncut, then I'll happily send you a copy from here in return for the TMNT you sent me. I guess I should check running times and websites; anything specific I should look for? On the otherhand too, while I concur. Casino = awesome, Quantum = bleh, seeing them in reverse order may not help.

Zombie – I don't want to say it, but you maybe one of those people who need to rewatch Inception. Because you've missed the explained reason for the required kick and limbo.

In the beginning, the standard job, Cobb is kicked because he wouldn't leave without Saito's secrets but they needed him out. Otherwise, as you said, people can wake themselves up. However there are two reasons explained in the film as to why someone would get stuck;

firstly as what happened with Mal and Cobb – they just didn't want to leave and put themselves into a limbo entirely constructed by their thoughts; but more importantly than this is the fact they went under with heavy sedation. Which is why they see Yusuf, who in the scene he's introduced explains the heavy sedation, however one this time that is required needs to be strong enough for 3 levels. This is also the main reason why they need the kicks to wake everyone up, setting up the requirement. And thus also explaining how they get stuck when they die in the dream but then can't wake themselves up either.

I disagree with you on the character arc, mostly because Cobb still goes though one – it's just very difficult for it to be clear, because much like a dream it has no beginning and the resolve is up to you to decide as a viewer. The key componant of it which is resolved is that it seems he finally lets Mal go, but outside of that it is very vague. I think this is intentional because it's supposed to mimic a dream in and of itself. As for the rest, well I guess it's personal prefs. Cotillard has split a lot of people, so I can understand that and a lot of people, myself included, think a lot of it is made needlessly complicated for the purpose of adding further weight to a lot more simple concepts. Nolan himself continues to be very unopen in discussing what he understands as the truth about every scene which makes seperating whats important from what isn't more diffiicult. Personally it's not my fav movie of his either but I still think it's better than most of what I saw last year, simularly to what you said.

On the movie side, I tried making a list of what I've seen of late but I forget to add to it so I forget entirely all I've seen recently. Mostly though I've rewatched old films on my shelf in recent times, National Lampoon's Vacation (after the kick I got from Hughes' other stuff of late), Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey, and the 2005 film version of Hitchhikers Guide. The only other recent film I saw was Up In The Air, which was good, but not as great as Juno or Thank You For Smoking (the latter of which is one of fav films of the last decade).

I wasn't explaining it to make the movie clearer, I was explaining something you said was essentually a plot hole that wasn't. For a movie full of ambuiguious comment, the heavy sedation and limbo are some of the more clearly explained things in the entire film, because they are the crux of the second half of the film mostly (well obviously outside of the title concept).

As for the rest, I do agree that none of the characters are in a general sense of real danger if you discount an entire lifetime in limbo as an issue. But that's not the point either I guess, the drama of the film is if Cobb will succeed and make it back to his family or not (and within the sub point, if this isn't all just a dream in of itself)… and in that I guess the ending either has a pay off or not depending on what you think the ending is. In this I still disagree with the character arc issue, but as I said it's all your opinion. I'm not here to change it, just explaining why I disagree with you. On everything else I otherwise agree.

I should have taken in account for the occassional reshoots and of course the various drop in drop out celeb stars in the film, you're right about that, but on a general basis the shots themselves are all woven into the film on a script that really should be a lot worse than it is I think. However the more you explain it, the more I get what you mean. And much the same, honestly I liked Planet Terror more much as well for the reasons you outlined. I perhaps didn't think Machete was as big of a disapointment, but the more I think about what you've said... the more I do kinda agree.  

BTW, not start another debate... but while I really enjoyed The Social Network - as I mentioned a couple of pages back - and while the dialogue was great, exceptionally paced, and very well acted... the film also has a lot of Oscar buzz I think it's also not worthy of. There are better films out there, more consistant visions, and ones that tell better convincing lies too.

Yeah generally the Aussie releases are the same here in NZ too, unless one of the OFLC in either country has issues… then sometimes they're cut. Royale didn't have anything here I'm certain as I'm certain it walked away with an Ozzy M, which means NZ just slaps it with an equvilent sticker and doesn't even spend the time reviewing the content. We don't cut here in NZ, we just moderate excess. 

Shame the description on the website, which says it's not cut, doesn't give a DVD run time for the PAL version in AU. I have the 3 disc collectors edition which came out more recently but I'm fairly confident that disc 1 is just a reprint of the original release. The movie has been released several times here on DVD (1 disc, 2 disc CE, 3 disc SE, 1 disc with talking key ring, as part of a complete Bond series box sets, etc.). I'll check my set and let you know.

Edit - Using the length I couldn't tell, because the PAL timing length is different but thanks to this which was linked in the item you linked above:

http://www.movie-censorship.co.....hp?ID=4008

Which compares the DVD in the UK with the Australian one... I can confirm that the items cut from the UK are definently in the AU edition and the one sold here too (by the fact we have the AU version and that I double checked on my copy). Let me know if you want a copy

^ Aha, I watch that too recently (I think I mentioned it, maybe not). I too thought the house fell down in the scene where Hanks causes chaos on the building site, but then I realised I was confusing it with The 'Burbs.

Speaking of which, I found out what "The 'Burbs Uncut" is - it's the standard original feature released back into the UK. The original cuts to the film were actually of other films in it that the BBFC didn't want (in a scene where Hanks is watching horror movies on a TV). It has the same runtime as my standard AU release, also released the on DVD same year (2004). Both now sit on my shelf, but the Uncut one only cost me $1 so I can't complain that much.

The only movie I've seen recently was Dinner For Schmucks which, surprisingly to me, was decent enough and had good laughs. Considering the more or less one location set of the French original, The Dinner Game, it actually manages to use all the plot beats of the original while surrounding it with very little different until of course the end where they show the actual dinner (which isn't in the original). Rudd's strength in characters is this type of person (as seen in Role Models and the like) so it wasn't a stretch, but Carrell is one of a few comedic actors who can pull off stupid while also being still human which makes him perfect for the role. Also surprisingly strong international cast (David Walliams, Chris O'Dowd, and Lucy Punch from the UK, Stephanie Szostak from France, and Jemaine Clement from here in NZ) and very decent US supporting including Zach Galifianakis, Bruce Greenwood, Ron Livingston, and Kristen Schaal.

Ironically as this was one of the first films mentioned in this thread, I only just saw The Lovely Bones (on BD) a couple of days ago. I couldn't agree more with Dan's original comments either... the film stretched itself across a narrative that struggle to find a correct cord of balance. The book also apparently spends more focus on the murder mystery itself which seems greatly under done in the film, instead indeed focusing far too much on "the inbetween" parts. Acting was fine from everyone in general, even MarkyMark who I've never really liked, and the setting felt authentic to the mid-70's (and I'm glad Jackson actually shot in the US for this, it just wouldn't have worked if he'd shot it here - Like when Lyttleton stood in for a US port town in The Frighteners) but the movie felt far too long and unfocused.

By comparison I then watched Public Enemies (also now almost 2 yrs old, also on BD) which I enjoyed far more than I expected I would. I'd wanted to see it for quite some time but thought that the action was up played in the trailers and expected a far more dramatic and slower burning film from Mann, but I didn't get that either. The pacing was good, the story telling decent, and the plot stayed surprisingly quite faithful to the history. I don't think I need to comment on the acting much, you get anything you want from Depp, but I think Cotillard showed a better work than in Inception, thus proving that it was just the role and not the cross to large US films that have left people scratching their heads at her being chosen. I think the thing overall that got me, and much one of the things I did like about Bones as well, was the decent period setting which felt authentic to me. I didn't once question the time period (even if I'm sure I check the goofs on the IMDb for both films someone will have found numerous anachronisms).

Finally I saw Armored (also BD), which was Nimrod Antol's film he did before and I believe got him the job of Predators, which I enjoyed less than this surprisingly. Predictable, silly, but yeah, enjoyable. Famous cast grouping that played off each other helped. Problem I think was more in the original promotion of the film which gave away what was going to happen. Had I not seen it, then I think it would have been a bit more fresh as I wouldn't have exactly known further plot points.