kokopelli Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 Today I did view the movie, The Grey, in Pattaya. A story of men vs wolves. Given the choice of being eaten alive by the wolves or viewing this movie, I suggest the wolves which would be a merciful death compared to the two hours of pure agony watching it. At least the dialogue was easy to follow since very other word was "fuck" or a variant thereof. Save your money and your sanity. Quote
KhorTose Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 Come on, tell us what you really thought about the movie. Quote
kokopelli Posted March 4, 2012 Author Posted March 4, 2012 5555 KT! After writing my review I did check the NYTimes review by their AO Scott the #1 movie critic @ NYT. He actually gave it a great review. I wonder who is paying him, the NYT or ??? At the exit to the theater at Central Festival there was a Vomitorium for those who were nauseated. It was overflowing. Quote
KhorTose Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 Are you sure the vomitorium wasn't for the terrible popcorn they serve. I've heard good things about the movie, but decided to pass as wolves aren't my thing,unless they do disco. Quote
kokopelli Posted March 4, 2012 Author Posted March 4, 2012 I did check out some reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and the majority of the reviews by the critics were positive which surprised me. Although a few did feel it was the worst movie ever filmed. So, maybe best to see for yourselves, but remember to bring a barf bag or empty your bag of popcorn and use that. I don't want to be a spoiler, but at the ending, Liam Neeson, our hero, taped some empty mini-liquor bottles between his fingers, broke the ends and greeted Mr. Grey. Too bad these mini-bottles are now plastic and not glass. Quote
Guest thaiworthy Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 Actually Koko, I thought you were pretty fond of coyote dancers and the coyote is also known as the prairie wolf. Weren't these wolves unclothed in this picture? Quote
kokopelli Posted March 5, 2012 Author Posted March 5, 2012 The wovles were wearing lovely grey fur coats with a splash of crimson around their pearly white teeth and a white jabot at their throat. Plus LEDs for eyes. Quote
KhorTose Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 While I am and will always be a admirer of the wisdom of KoKo, I just received this review from a friend of mine who used to be the movie critic for the Gaurdian. Also IMDB gives if a 7.7 which is fairly high. Different strokes for different folks, but now I have to go and see it myslef since I have such differences of opinions from two great people. ////////////////////quote///////////////////////////// Hi :"An odd mail perhaps but since there are SO few decent movies shown in Ch Mai (and generally) when something as remarkable as The Grey comes along ..well..go tell it to the mounatin. It is on (FOR NOW) at both Airport Major and Vista ..theatre 7.. In English with Thai st.. It is so far removed from the radar operated by the Oscar/Bafta lot as to inbit another stratoshere. It is devois of their chosen whimsicality, sentimenatlity, clever imperosnations and tv- fodder offerings in being provocative and daring that it must have shocked them..it si not a movie for middle America or supposters of the Vatican that it seems 'unique'... It owes some debt to Flaherty and Griffith in its landscapes..(the D o P is a near genius)., to Dreyer in its monumental central character and to Malick for its lyrical flashbacks. In fact it made me think of a work by Malick if he was suddenly possessed by demons and took against nature> It's the sort of film John Huston aimed at and always missed and has more in common with Greed than current cinema.. Sadly what it needed was an Ibsen or even just Pinter to elevate it to greatness.....but the director ( of NARC and A TEAM fame!!!?) has the potential for greatness..at least as a technician he already has it...Sadly a team of producers ..enough to form a football team ..including the Scott Brothers have probably made demands..and the presence of a second editor makes one suspicious. The director has been obliged to try and have his cake and eat it, blending a terrific and terrifying action movie with an examination of the paucity of man's endeavours when faced with elemental nature. It also.. and this is what is daring....meditates on death and what may lie beyond. It comes up with an optistic view of man's puny strengths...... but is deeply pessimistic about the likellihood of anything beyond that.. As noted the photography is awesomely harsh and beautiful and never 'pretty'. The soundtrack vibrant and the acting and casting immaculate. It keeps you on the edge of the seat and awake or dreaming frantically after that. I recommend seeing it during the day rather than late as I did if you like to sleep.. If ever they remade Red River or say Cape Fear or The Treasure of the Sierra MAdre they have a director waiting..The best U.S. movie since Tree of Life. Don't miss it.......///////////end of quote---name removed as it was a personal email but PM me if you must have his name, and yes he reviewed films for the Gaudian for years and still does thier obits on film stars-Directors////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Quote
kokopelli Posted March 6, 2012 Author Posted March 6, 2012 KhorTose, many of the other reviews I read were similar to the above and equally positive. For me the script read as if typed by a troupe of monkeys on yaba. The editor then pieced the phrases together to form the script. One monkey kept typing fuck, fuckin, fuck, fuckin ........ I suppose from the very beginning I had a bad feeling. Actually after I left the theater I did become quite sick in my stomach which I attributed to a bowl of soup I ate earlier but maybe......? Waiting for your review. Quote
Guest thaiworthy Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 So the actors were wolves and the writers were monkeys. What's this movie about-- a day at the zoo? Quote
KhorTose Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 It is not perfect, some small errors, and the reality of wolves and their actions around men are not quite real, but all this does not matter. It is a very well directed movie with a bunch of unknowns, with only Liam being a name, and they all perform in an outstanding manner. I too see the anti-christian theme in that we do not need God to help us, and life is a struggle in which we either meekly accept our fate or put our lives in some higher power, or we fight with our all to survive. We are our own destiny. I truly did love it and agree it borders on greatness. Nevertheless, I do admire Koko, we will just have to go to different movies. Quote
Bob Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 I saw the movie yesterday and I simply can't put it in the "love it" category. There certainly are a few startling and gnawing (pun intended) moments and I even recall one where popcorn flew onto me from the seat to my left (occupied by Koko's admirer). Decent acting by Liam, for sure, although I remarked that he somewhat always seems to be playing the same character (himself, a somewhat more sophisticated and laid-back version of Clint Eastwood, perhaps). And I'm not sure that the attention-getting moments are due more to directing or editing. It make take me a while to sort out how I feel about the movie. Presently (reserving the right to change my mind, expecially for cash in advance), I somewhat think that the whole plot/script was too "small" for a movie and, in a way, seemed more like a made-for-tv flick; on the other hand, a bit too intense/grizly for regular television. I'm still trying to figure out what it was all about...what was the point of the whole thing (it sure as hell wasn't "entertainment" in the traditional sense) and/or what the scriptwriter was or wasn't trying to say (if anything). [Why is Khun Khortose's print in places so dinky? Are you posting via that Blackberry thingie of yours?] Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 Decent acting by Liam, for sure, although I remarked that he somewhat always seems to be playing the same character Isn't that exactly the same with Harrison Ford? He just plays himself! Quote
kokopelli Posted March 7, 2012 Author Posted March 7, 2012 Eat Liam; not a Wolf. At least my post encouraged some of you to view the movie and share opinions. Quote
Bob Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 Isn't that exactly the same with Harrison Ford? He just plays himself! It seems so at least in the Star Wars trilogy and the swashbuckling (but still smart-assed) adventures of Indiana Jones; however, I'm still a big fan of his. His performance in Witness, I thought, was brilliant and I would have to say his performances as Jack Ryan (Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger) were a bit more nuanced. Quote
kokopelli Posted March 7, 2012 Author Posted March 7, 2012 Maybe I am not a Liam lover? I recall another dreadful film he starred in, "Taken". Awful script. But I did enjoy Les Miserables in which he did Star. Quote
KhorTose Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 [Why is Khun Khortose's print in places so dinky? Are you posting via that Blackberry thingie of yours?] You are reading a personal email from the ex movie critic of the UK newspaper "The Gaurdian", not my message/ Hmmm if you watch movies as well as you appear to read....ah well nevermind. I also deny any popcorn spillage, as I was to busy eating my wolf steak (sorry koko). Ten other movies that people and critics have either loved or hated. I think this film is in good company. 10. There Will Be Blood: Love: Blistering Daniel Day performance and a ferocious, meticulously crafted look at the dark side of the American dream. Hate: A tedious bore. I don’t get it. 9. The Social Network: Love: A beautifully scripted, witty and acerbic portrait of Mark Zuckerberg written with typical Sorkin bite. Hate: Unlikable characters, caustic, pretentious overrated hipster catnip. 8. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World: Love: Visually daring, furiously over-the-top, hilarious heartfelt ode to geekery. Hate: Blurry, noisy, slick and empty film made for the ADD generation. 7. Love, Actually: Love: Fun, entertaining, cheerful, and irresistibly charming. Hate: Redundant, agonizing, cloying, manipulative, and too sugary. 6. Juno: A sweet, quirky, hilarious, heartbreaking and wise coming of age story. Hate: Hipster bullshit. Tries too hard. Thinks it’s smarter than it is. And NOBODY TALKS LIKE THAT. 5. Napoleon Dynamite: Love: Offbeat, sweet and ultimately moving, with moments of painfully funny slapstick. Hate: An annoying, one-joke movie stretched out into 90 minutes, incredibly unfunny and mind-numbing Wes Anderson wannabe crap. 4. Boondock Saints: Love: Stylishly awesome, spectacularly violent revenge flick. You gotta see it. Hate: Hilariously awful, ridiculous, overblown, style over substance, Tarantino wannabe garbage. Stay away! 3. The Royal Tenenbaums: Love: Quirky, poetic, emotionally pulsating, imaginative, melancholic exploration of family dysfunction. Hate: Overrated, over-hyped, self-indulgent oh-so embarrassingly precious and twee. 2. Lost in Translation: Love: Quiet, perfectly acted, exquisite, sweet and romantic, subtle and transcendently profound. Hate: Nothing happens! It’s so boring and self-indulgent. Am I supposed to feel sorry for these people? Fuck you! 1. Avatar: Love: Genius! An epic fantasy epic, a landmark technical achievement, a spectacular visual achievement! I loved it! Hate: Clunky, overly simplistic moralizing seriously dull piece of garbage. Ferngully! Dances with Wolves! I hated it! Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 Ten other movies that people and critics have either loved or hated. Have only seen two from your list. The Social Network: Boring! Lost in Translation: Loved it! But then I had worked in Tokyo and the movie is very Japanese. I have also propped up that bar at the Park Hyatt more than once! Quote
Bob Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 Avatar - enjoyed it. Years back, I enjoyed a movie because of a great script, great acting, cinematography, etc.; however, there are times in the more recent past that I've just wanted to be entertained (please leave the thinking, moralizing, and whatever at the door). Avatar was just entertainment to me and so I enjoyed it.. Nevermind that it was pure fantasy. Juno - I also thought this film was just light entertainment. Nothing great about it but it was fine. There Will Be Blood. You know, a couple of us have made comments about actors who seem to play the same character (either themselves or some made-up screen persona). Well, now that I think of it, what's all that different between Daniel Day Lewis' character in this movie and his performance in Gangs of New York? The Gangs movie may or may not have been an accurate portrayal of the absolute worst parts of the Irish gangs of New York City but that movie was simply bloodletting after bloodletting for simply the sake of gore. Somebody involved in that movie must have had a blood fetish or something. And, to some degree, There Will Be Blood was the plains' version of that movie......and, for the moment, the only difference in the Lewis characters is that the character in There Will Be Blood actually acted like a human being on rare occasion (the New York dude never did). Anyway, both are very good period pieces if you don't mind a whole lot of blood and gratuitous violence. Social Network. Have the DVD and didn't even bother watching the whole thing, How fucking boring and silly (thought I was watching a Seinfeld rerun or something). Napoleon Dynamite. As noted, mind-numbing juvenile stuff that, to me, wasn't funny at all. Sorta like watching Jerry Seinfeld. Guess I've picked on Seinfeld twice here. Was he the illegitimate son of Jerry Lewis or something? Quote
kokopelli Posted March 7, 2012 Author Posted March 7, 2012 ! Dances with Wolves! I hated it! Dances with Wolves was one great flick! Guess you and I can't go on any more dates at the movies. Quote
KhorTose Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 Dances with Wolves was one great flick! Guess you and I can't go on any more dates at the movies. Aaahhh, I am going to miss those back row sessions. Okay only dinner and drinks from now on. That is when you finally drag your butt up here and see what a decent Thai city looks like. Quote
Bob Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 Khun Khortose, you didn't like Dancing with Wolves?!? Wow. But I bet you loved Waterworld....hehehehe. Quote
KhorTose Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 Khun Khortose, you didn't like Dancing with Wolves?!? Wow. But I bet you loved Waterworld....hehehehe. Bob what are you reading? These arn't on the list. My list is from the internet of the 10 most loved/hated movies of the 21st Century (that is the one we have been in for the last 11 years). For the record I loved Dancing with Wolves, but hated waterworld. Quote
