What Is The Last Film You Watched?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Not my point. Big Fish is considered the film where Tim Burton had matured, and Button could also be Fincher's attempt at a similar sort of direction in his career.

Fincher is a mature director. Just watch Seven, The Game, or Zodiac. And don't blame Fincher for the hummingbird Joey, he didn't write the script. You do realize it's the same writer as Forrest Gump, right? And I don't get all the comparisons between the two. The films are hardly similar.

[Henry B 50]

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

I don't get it. What did the clock have to do with it? Was it connected to Brad Pitt somehow?

Yeah, it makes no sense -- and that ain't what you want from a movie's closing shot.

The inventor who lost his son in the war built the clock to turn back time, and Benjamin was the result of that.

Time never actually went backwards, the clock was a symbol. Benjamin was just a freak accident of nature.

That's an example of why the movie -- as a whole, coherent, unified piece of art, that is -- does not work.

There are two possibilities here:

(1) The inventor's clock had the side effect of causing Benjamin's unusual birth.

(2) The inventor's clock had nothing to do with Benjamin's unusual birth.

Either way, the movie doesn't work. If the clock is related to Benjamin, then the fact that it is still running long after Benjamin's death is sending the wrong signals to the audience. If the clock isn't related to Benjmain, then the subplot of the clock is utterly irrelevant to the rest of the movie (except as a symbol; but even then, it's a symbol for something that has absolutely zero need for being symbolized, since we see Benjamin's aging process throughout the entirety of the movie).

There's a lot to be said for clarity in a movie. And unless the lack of clarity is somehow a part of the framework of the movie -- as in, say, 2001 -- then the lack of clarity is a big-time disadvantage to a film.

I'd say the lack of clarity works for this one too. I mean, are we really trying to logically analyze why a man ages in reverse? Come on. It's not clear what the clock's scientific connection to Benjamin's physical condition is... because there isn't one. It's not supposed to make sense, it's just supposed to draw you into the story and envelop you in imagery. Either it clicks for you or it doesn't. It clicked for me. I don't know what the image of an old man in a baby's body dying in the arms of his lover means, I just know that it triggered something in my brain and deeply affected me. This film was fundamentally a fantasy, and it did not play by the rules of logic.

It occurs to me that without the clock story, Benjamin's birth would have come across as incredibly gimmicky, an arbitrary element introduced without explanation to make a story more interesting. Kind of like Yes Man, except instead of saying "yes" he ages in reverse! No, it was treated more reverently than that.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Not my point. Big Fish is considered the film where Tim Burton had matured, and Button could also be Fincher's attempt at a similar sort of direction in his career.

Fincher is a mature director. Just watch Seven, The Game, or Zodiac.

Those movies all have a kind of machoism and dark edge to them that doesn't quite apply to Button. This is a film that's way outside his comfort zone.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Gran Torino (****)

I'm very glad I saw this film, it was superb. Now I understand why everyone has been praising Eastwood's acting. I'd say the trailer misrepresents the film, for those who don't want to see it. It does tell the overall plot of the film, but the tone it sets up is pretty off. You'll have a good time in the theater, especially if you like Eastwood.

[Bryant Burnette 658]

Gran Torino (****)

I'm very glad I saw this film, it was superb. Now I understand why everyone has been praising Eastwood's acting. I'd say the trailer misrepresents the film, for those who don't want to see it. It does tell the overall plot of the film, but the tone it sets up is pretty off. You'll have a good time in the theater, especially if you like Eastwood.

Agreed. Long-time Eastwood buffs will be in hog heaven, and rightly so. It makes me want to win the lottery so I can go out and buy every single movie the guy's ever made, set 'em all up on a shelf, and invite people over so I can point at the shelf and say, "How f---ing cool is that?" Cause it'd be pretty f---ing cool.

I'd say the lack of clarity works for this one too. I mean, are we really trying to logically analyze why a man ages in reverse? Come on. It's not clear what the clock's scientific connection to Benjamin's physical condition is... because there isn't one. It's not supposed to make sense, it's just supposed to draw you into the story and envelop you in imagery. Either it clicks for you or it doesn't. It clicked for me. I don't know what the image of an old man in a baby's body dying in the arms of his lover means, I just know that it triggered something in my brain and deeply affected me. This film was fundamentally a fantasy, and it did not play by the rules of logic.

It occurs to me that without the clock story, Benjamin's birth would have come across as incredibly gimmicky, an arbitrary element introduced without explanation to make a story more interesting. Kind of like Yes Man, except instead of saying "yes" he ages in reverse! No, it was treated more reverently than that.

I see what you're saying, and I agree in theory; I just don't think the movie itself pays off the concepts very well at all. Yes, the clock itself is a startlingly good idea, as is the notion of a dying little baby being in actuality a very old man who's come to the end of his life. I just don't think the screenplay executes those ideas to the full extent of their potential power.

[A24 4,371]

Not my point. Big Fish is considered the film where Tim Burton had matured, and Button could also be Fincher's attempt at a similar sort of direction in his career.

Oh? What was he when he made Ed Wood (10 years before Big Fish) or Charlie And The Chocolate Factory (2 years after Big Fish)??? The way I see it, Big Fish is just another Tim Burton movie.

[indy4 155]

About Benjamin Button:

Anybody else think the aging process was a bit inconsistent? He was supposed to start with the mind of a child and the body of an adult, and have the two switch in the end so that he had the body of a child and the mind of an adult. But at the end of the film, he was acting very childish. I'm not talking about the dementia (though, if I'm correct, that is a physical disease that happens to affect the mind, so technically he should have had that when he was young), but the way he talked and his general thought process was very childish.

[Bryant Burnette 658]

About Benjamin Button:

Anybody else think the aging process was a bit inconsistent? He was supposed to start with the mind of a child and the body of an adult, and have the two switch in the end so that he had the body of a child and the mind of an adult. But at the end of the film, he was acting very childish. I'm not talking about the dementia (though, if I'm correct, that is a physical disease that happens to affect the mind, so technically he should have had that when he was young), but the way he talked and his general thought process was very childish.

I see what they were going for, but I think they failed, and I also think

that once Brad Pitt exits the movie, it loses almost all of its interest. I'm not sure how it would have been possible to have him play Benjamin in his guise as an elderly man in the body of a pre-teen, then as a toddler, and finally as an infant -- but since they don't even try, I think the movie feels thoroughly unbalanced.

It's another reason why this movie simply is NOT the masterpiece some people are claiming it to be; there's just too much wrong with it. And boy, I really wanted to love it; I've been a Fincher fan since Alien 3 (since "Janie's Got a Gun," really), and I'd have loved to see him knock another one clean out of the park. It didn't happen.

I still like the movie, though; just because it disappointed me doesn't mean there isn't a lot to love within the disappointment. And I'm glad Fincher is getting some critical respect finally; even though I think it's partially undeserved for this particular movie, it's going to help his earlier films gain the critical acceptance they've been somewhat lacking in so far, and I'm glad for that. I'm also always glad to see Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett starring in hit movies.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Cate's been doing much better than Nicole.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

About Benjamin Button:

Anybody else think the aging process was a bit inconsistent? He was supposed to start with the mind of a child and the body of an adult, and have the two switch in the end so that he had the body of a child and the mind of an adult. But at the end of the film, he was acting very childish. I'm not talking about the dementia (though, if I'm correct, that is a physical disease that happens to affect the mind, so technically he should have had that when he was young), but the way he talked and his general thought process was very childish.

Elderly people are basically children, but slower.

[Kevin 22]

I watched a documentary by Sidney Pollack about Frank Gehry.

[Henry B 50]

About Benjamin Button:

Anybody else think the aging process was a bit inconsistent? He was supposed to start with the mind of a child and the body of an adult, and have the two switch in the end so that he had the body of a child and the mind of an adult. But at the end of the film, he was acting very childish. I'm not talking about the dementia (though, if I'm correct, that is a physical disease that happens to affect the mind, so technically he should have had that when he was young), but the way he talked and his general thought process was very childish.

Elderly people are basically children, but slower.

[Henry B 50]

Valkyrie. This movie sucks! Why did I let myself get dragged into it again? Damn socializing. This film is just a vapid star vehicle with lots of preening and posturing that indulges in every cliche in the book.

[indy4 155]

It was better than Benjamin Button.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Valkyrie. This movie sucks! Why did I let myself get dragged into it again? Damn socializing. This film is just a vapid star vehicle with lots of preening and posturing that indulges in every cliche in the book.

[Delorean90 42]

Valkyrie. This movie sucks! Why did I let myself get dragged into it again? Damn socializing. This film is just a vapid star vehicle with lots of preening and posturing that indulges in every cliche in the book.

What are you talking about? I thought it was quite good. The only thing that really bothered me was the fact that the accents were all over the place, but even that got less and less distracting as the movie went on.

[Bryant Burnette 658]

Like practically every movie Tom Cruise has ever been in, Valkyrie is a well-made, entertaining film.

[indy4 155]

[Bryant Burnette 658]

It was better than Benjamin Button.

I'm not sure which I prefer. Benjamin Button has more genuinely great elements, but Valkyrie is a much more consistent film.

I'd take Doubt and Gran Torino over both of them.

I did say "practically." And hell, even that one is entertaining.

[indy4 155]

I really expected to like BB much more, but there are too many flaws/weak points for me to consider it to be better than Valkyrie.

I did say "practically."

True.

[Henry B 50]

It was better than Benjamin Button.

At least Benjamin Button had a few novel ideas. What did Valkyrie bring to the table? Anything? Anything at all? The entire film was clouded with pretentiousness. I'm not sure if any character once smiled. Oh, except for Stauffenburg's wife, because all good wives smile. Absolutely cookie cutter in every way. Could a better score have helped it?

[Bryant Burnette 658]

It was better than Benjamin Button.

At least Benjamin Button had a few novel ideas. What did Valkyrie bring to the table? Anything? Anything at all? The entire film was clouded with pretentiousness. I'm not sure if any character once smiled. Oh, except for Stauffenburg's wife, because all good wives smile. Absolutely cookie cutter in every way. Could a better score have helped it?

You expect people who are risking their lives plotting to murder Adolf Hitler to stop and smile...? No wonder you didn't like the movie.

[Henry B 50]

Let me elaborate. Every little moment is treated as the most important one. The characters strut about with the greatest solemnity, and you constantly expect something Fateful and Significant to happen. It's as if the film is in slow motion. Yet I feel like Ottman's score is to blame for much of this. Imagine the scene in Hitler's private villa where Stauffenburg gets him to sign the revised Operation Valkyrie. That could have been an interesting scene if left unscored. But Ottman leaves nothing to the imagination: he tells you when to hold your breath, when to let it go, when to feel excited, when to feel sad... it's all made to be as obvious as possible.

[Delorean90 42]

It was better than Benjamin Button.

At least Benjamin Button had a few novel ideas. What did Valkyrie bring to the table? Anything? Anything at all? The entire film was clouded with pretentiousness. I'm not sure if any character once smiled. Oh, except for Stauffenburg's wife, because all good wives smile. Absolutely cookie cutter in every way. Could a better score have helped it?

Really, Henry? Are these really your freakin' complaints? For crying out loud.

Even if the whole characters-besides-the-wife-not-smiling thing was true (which I'm not so sure it is), it didn't grate on me here. I've seen movies where it gets obnoxious with shallow seriousness (The Day the Earth Stood Still remake), but that was not the case. If anything, the seriousness would have been at an appropriate level. And "Oh, except for Stauffenburg's wife, because all good wives smile." What? Did you want her to not smile just for the sake of being different or something?

It told an interesting facet of the period that doesn't get as much exposure. It's an entertaining film. It's got good suspense and is well-made. It brought these things to the table. I don't get the beef.

EDIT:

Let me elaborate. Every little moment is treated as the most important one. The characters strut about with the greatest solemnity, and you constantly expect something Fateful and Significant to happen. It's as if the film is in slow motion. Yet I feel like Ottman's score is to blame for much of this. Imagine the scene in Hitler's private villa where Stauffenburg gets him to sign the revised Operation Valkyrie. That could have been an interesting scene if left unscored. But Ottman leaves nothing to the imagination: he tells you when to hold your breath, when to let it go, when to feel excited, when to feel sad... it's all made to be as obvious as possible.

I'm sorry you felt this way. Again, I've seen movies where obnoxious self-seriousness is a problem, and it just wasn't here--not for me, anyway.

[Datameister 2,097]

The Pineapple Express on DVD last night. Pretty funny, I suppose, though not really the kind of thing I go totally crazy for.

[Henry B 50]

It was better than Benjamin Button.

At least Benjamin Button had a few novel ideas. What did Valkyrie bring to the table? Anything? Anything at all? The entire film was clouded with pretentiousness. I'm not sure if any character once smiled. Oh, except for Stauffenburg's wife, because all good wives smile. Absolutely cookie cutter in every way. Could a better score have helped it?

Really, Henry? Are these really your freakin' complaints? For crying out loud.

Even if the whole characters-besides-the-wife-not-smiling thing was true (which I'm not so sure it is), it didn't grate on me here. I've seen movies where it gets obnoxious with shallow seriousness (The Day the Earth Stood Still remake), but that was not the case. If anything, the seriousness would have been at an appropriate level. And "Oh, except for Stauffenburg's wife, because all good wives smile." What? Did you want her to not smile just for the sake of being different or something?

You're taking me far too literally... I was just making a jab at the extremely shallow and typical role Stauffenberg's wife and family play.

[Delorean90 42]

You may be taking me too literally; basically what I'm getting at is, "What role did you want them to play?" I don't see where the problem was. The focus was more on the assassination plot, not on the backstories of the people involved. Within that context, I think the role of the family was perfectly fine.

Basically, I don't understand what you wanted instead.

[Henry B 50]

Yes, the focus is on the assassination plot, which is why the family was altogether unnecessary. I guess it was just an attempt to humanize the character (goodness knows Tom Cruise needed some help). I mean, when he dies we literally flash back to his wife saying good-bye. Singer might as well have held up a sign saying "CRY NOW."

[Delorean90 42]

Yes, the focus is on the assassination plot, which is why the family was altogether unnecessary. I guess it was just an attempt to humanize the character (goodness knows Tom Cruise needed some help).

Okay, so is it a problem that these people aren't smiling, or not? Make up your mind. (Too literal again? )

What's wrong with humanizing the character? The backstories are not the focus, but the family is relevant. It has to do with Stauffenburg recognizing and dealing with the ramifications and possible consequences of what he's about to do.

I mean, when he dies we literally flash back to his wife saying good-bye. Singer might as well have held up a sign saying "CRY NOW."

Good lord, Henry. It's showing the man's dying thoughts. Could the film have ended without that? Sure. Did it NEED to end without it? No.

Again--what did you want them to do INSTEAD of these things?

[Henry B 50]

Yes, the focus is on the assassination plot, which is why the family was altogether unnecessary. I guess it was just an attempt to humanize the character (goodness knows Tom Cruise needed some help).

Okay, so is it a problem that these people aren't smiling, or not? Make up your mind. (Too literal again? )

What's wrong with humanizing the character? The backstories are not the focus, but the family is relevant. It has to do with Stauffenburg recognizing and dealing with the ramifications and possible consequences of what he's about to do.

What about the other conspirators' families? I understood Olbricht, I understood Tresckow, and when Beck said "I'm thinking of earlier times," it was unnecessary, because the look on Terence Stamp's face had already told me that. But Cruise? I just didn't get it. There's nothing bad about his performance exactly (except the whispering), he just had no identity. Stauffenberg never came into his own. Maybe that's a flaw with the screenplay, I don't know.

I mean, when he dies we literally flash back to his wife saying good-bye. Singer might as well have held up a sign saying "CRY NOW."

Good lord, Henry. It's showing the man's dying thoughts. Could the film have ended without that? Sure. Did it NEED to end without it? No.

Again--what did you want them to do INSTEAD of these things?

I would think his dying thoughts were "Long live sacred Germany," given that's what he said milliseconds before he was pumped full of bullets. The flashback to his wife was just a calculated tug at the heartstrings. "Remember Stauffenberg's wife?" says Singer. "Isn't that sad that he's dead? They were so in love! Look, I'll remind you, and in slow motion to boot!" It's like in Ninja Turtles 3 when April looks at the rat in the prison and says "You look familiar," and then there's actually a cutaway to Splinter just to clarify it for the audience.

[indy4 155]

It has to do with Stauffenburg recognizing and dealing with the ramifications and possible consequences of what he's about to do.

This is very true. The family never felt out of place or irrelevant to me.

[Delorean90 42]

Yes, the focus is on the assassination plot, which is why the family was altogether unnecessary. I guess it was just an attempt to humanize the character (goodness knows Tom Cruise needed some help).

Okay, so is it a problem that these people aren't smiling, or not? Make up your mind. (Too literal again? )

What's wrong with humanizing the character? The backstories are not the focus, but the family is relevant. It has to do with Stauffenburg recognizing and dealing with the ramifications and possible consequences of what he's about to do.

What about the other conspirators' families? I understood Olbricht, I understood Tresckow, and when Beck said "I'm thinking of earlier times," it was unnecessary, because the look on Terence Stamp's face had already told me that. But Cruise? I just didn't get it. There's nothing bad about his performance exactly (except the whispering), he just had no identity. Stauffenberg never came into his own. Maybe that's a flaw with the screenplay, I don't know.

Stauffenburg was the one who had to be convinced to join. The others had made their decisions and were established in the conspiracy. The family was still pertinent. If the film had begun after Stauffenburg had decided, I could see a stronger case for the family not being there, but as it stands, it does indeed serve a dual purpose of humanizing him and being a real concern as he makes this decision.

As far as him not coming into his own, I suppose I could kind of see that. I'd have to see the film again, but it wasn't something that irked me.

I mean, when he dies we literally flash back to his wife saying good-bye. Singer might as well have held up a sign saying "CRY NOW."

Good lord, Henry. It's showing the man's dying thoughts. Could the film have ended without that? Sure. Did it NEED to end without it? No.

Again--what did you want them to do INSTEAD of these things?

I would think his dying thoughts were "Long live sacred Germany," given that's what he said milliseconds before he was pumped full of bullets. The flashback to his wife was just a calculated tug at the heartstrings. "Remember Stauffenberg's wife?" says Singer. "Isn't that sad that he's dead? They were so in love! Look, I'll remind you, and in slow motion to boot!" It's like in Ninja Turtles 3 when April looks at the rat in the prison and says "You look familiar," and then there's actually a cutaway to Splinter just to clarify it for the audience.

I would imagine that both sacred Germany and his family were on his mind.

I think the real thing that we're disagreeing on is this: you think it's a blatantly repugnant example of sentimentalism that you wish hadn't been included. I don't think so--I'm not a huge ardent defender of it, but I think it's perfectly acceptable, and I think it was good that there was some kind of nod to his family (given their already being established in the film) beyond just the text at the end. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Now, even if I agreed with all of the points you've listed, I still don't see how they would make the film suck in the light of everything else that's good about it.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

It's like in Ninja Turtles 3 when April looks at the rat in the prison and says "You look familiar," and then there's actually a cutaway to Splinter just to clarify it for the audience.

They thought they made a funny! Hahaha!

[Bryant Burnette 658]

Frank and Ollie: Wonderful documentary about Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston. If you don't know who these fellows are, I encourage you to find out. This movie is a must-see for anyone who has even the slightest affection for the glory days of Disney animation.

The Pixar Story: Another excellent documentary about animation. A caveat: it's maybe a tad too self-congratulatory. However, when your feature films consist of Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Cars, Ratatouille, and WALL*E, (and many of your short films, even the older ones, are better than your competitor's features) I think you've earned the right to brag a little.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Revolutionary Road (****)

2008 was a rather weak year for worthy cinema, until December rolled in. This is by far my favorite film of the year. It is so good, that I want to reduce some of the higher ratings I gave to other films, such as Gran Torino and The Wrestler. I'll be highly anticipating anything Sam Mendes directs from now on, because he has proven that he is one of the absolute best directors working in Hollywood. Leonardo DiCaprio gives the best performance in his career, and probably even for Kate Winslet as well. The writing and direction is so top notch that it fuels their acting. I now value Newman's score much more by hearing it with the film. A true masterpiece, which deserves an Oscar nomination over WALL*E. Deakins continues do to amazing work as director of photography as well.

[indy4 155]

2008 was a rather weak year for worthy cinema, until December rolled in.

I'd say that summer 2008 was much better than December 2008 (though I've only seen 2 films from December).

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I haven't seen a Mendes picture since AMERICAN BEAUTY, which I hated. I do have a copy of ROAD TO PERDITION lying around, though.

[Bryant Burnette 658]

American Beauty is awesome; I've been blase about everything he's done since. I'll definitely watch Revolutionary Road, but I can't get excited about it.

[Morlock 11]

American Beauty is a bit too cool, both in attitude and emotion wise. Perdition is great, though, and Jarhead is an interesting film (especially if one has been in the military, I'm told).

Had an interesting experience a couple of days ago- I was at a friend's house, and someone put on The Love Guru, which is a movie I was convinced I would never, ever, see. I begged them to put on the terrible Zack and Miri make a porno (which jsut keeps getting worse the more I think about it) instead, to no avail. What was interesting about the experiece, was that I actually watched The Love Guru, and found out it was not as bad as it was cracked up to be. It is quite a bad movie, yes. I would not recommend it to anyone. But I did laugh a lot more than I expected to. I loved the book titles and acronyms. The jokes at Virn Troyer's expense were fairly disgusting and insulting. I lost what little respect I had for Ben Kingsely's ability to choose roles, even as jokes. I liked the Bollywood-ish stuff. DO NOT SEE THIS FILM. I was just surprised, 'is all.

I had another interesting experience, this time entirely positive. More than that, it was the best movie experience I've had in a few weeks (Since discovering Duck You Sucker is great movie). I saw the classic 1956 short The Red Balloon, followed by Hsiao-hsien Hou's recent The Flight of The Red Balloon. The former I must have seen before, since it was very familiar. Great short film abuot a French kid and a red balloon. Can't wait to show it to my niece. The latter I was far more hesitant about. Thaiwanese director, directing a film inspired by a French film, in French, with Julliette Binoch, who I'm generally not a fan of. But I was totally sucked in. 100%. One of the very best 2008 films I've seen. It's really one of the richest films I've seen in a long time. Both film have so much life going on in the edges, so many implications and possibilites, ones that are never spelled out.

The Red Balloon is recommended for everyone. The Flight of The Red Balloon is recommended at the very least to those who have any form of tolerance for art films. It is quite accessible (positively mainstream for a French/Thai production), and a beautiful film.

Beyond that, the big end of year releases are finally coming out here. I'll be seeing Frost/Nixon tonight, Doubt sometime soon, Valkyrie and Benjamin Button next week, Revolutionary Road and Slumdog Millionaire at the end of the month. Still don't know when Milk or Rachel Getting Married are coming, though.

[A24 4,371]

AB is much greater than TRTP.

[Morlock 11]

Nowhere near in my book. It's nihilism is so cool and smug and polished. Road to Perdition is heartfelt and cinematic in way not often seen. To me, it's iconic.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Nowhere near in my book. It's nihilism is so cool and smug and polished. Road to Perdition is heartfelt and cinematic in way not often seen. To me, it's iconic.

I agree. Revolutionary Road rivals American Beauty for the #2 spot. It's a stunning picture.

[indy4 155]

I saw The Dark Knight for a third time. It still holds up fantastically, I must say.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

In Bruges

Excellent film. Only reason I haven't seen it since theaters is because it wasn't released in Blu.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I saw The Dark Knight for a third time. It still holds up fantastically, I must say.

It's aged well for a 7-month-old movie.

[Red 75]

Nowhere near in my book. It's nihilism is so cool and smug and polished. Road to Perdition is heartfelt and cinematic in way not often seen. To me, it's iconic.

Probably one of the most underrated movies that I know of actually.

[indy4 155]

I saw The Dark Knight for a third time. It still holds up fantastically, I must say.

It's aged well for a 7-month-old movie.

I don't mean in terms of aging--obviously only time will tell for that. But some films are good the first time you see them, and they slowly diminish with each later viewing. This is not so for The Dark Knight.

[A24 4,371]

Nowhere near in my book. It's nihilism is so cool and smug and polished. Road to Perdition is heartfelt and cinematic in way not often seen. To me, it's iconic.

Probably one of the most underrated movies that I know of actually.

Why underrated? The press was quite positive and you, Morlock, KS and the Q-man all seem to think it's a masterpiece.

Personally, I'm bothered by its comic book shallowness. The characters in Road To Perdition have the depth of a hastily sketched storyboard. Also, and this annoys me, every fibre of the movie tries to be so damn sombre. Too much of one thing always cancels itself out. "Nihilism" can only be effective when juxtaposed with something else, something that puts it in perspective.

Alex

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

Speed Racer

Was this the most underrated film of 2008? I loved every minute of this movie. It was extremely well made and I got very into it, which rarely happens for me anymore. I think the last movie I enjoyed so much was WALL-E, a few months ago. The style was so unique and yet so reminiscent of early anime cartoons. I love that films like this can be made, even if they fail at the box office. It's called experimenting, and I'm glad it happened with this film. I simply have not seen anything like it before, and I can't wait to see more.

[A24 4,371]

How did Speedracer experiment? I thought I've seen it a thousand times before, certainly when you take away the anime embellishments.

Alex