Author Topic: RossRoy's Random Viewings  (Read 164228 times)

RossRoy

  • Guest
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #165 on: October 08, 2008, 03:18:13 AM »
Blade: Trinity
 
Original Title: Blade: Trinity
Year: 2004
Country: United States
Director: David S. Goyer
Rating: R
Length: 122 Min.
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen 2.35:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Surround EX, English: DTS ES (Matrixed), French: Dolby Digital 5.1, Commentary: Dolby Digital Stereo, Commentary: Dolby Digital Stereo
Subtitles: English, Spanish

What they say
Blade (Wesley Snipes) returns as the ultimate vampire hunter in the explosive third and final film, Blade: Trinity. For years, Blade has fought against the vampires in the cover of the night. But now, after falling into the crosshairs of the FBI, he is forced out into the daylight, where he is driven to join forces with a clan of human vampire hunters he never knew existed - The Nightstalkers. Together with Abigail (Jessica Biel) and Hannibal (Ryan Reynolds), two deftly trained Nightstalkers, Blade follows a trail of blood to the ancient creature that is also hunting him, the original vampire, Dracula.

My Thoughts
And this is the conclusion to the trilogy. Again, they play on the superhero side of Blade, which I already I like. Having Dracula in there as the first pureblood was a nice touch, and I like his true form! Kind of explaining the mutations seen in Blade 2.

As usual, it's a rather simple story, and they don't try to overdo it. It's an Action-Horror movie, and they stick to it. They're not trying to get a big emotional response (well, a little with Zoe (the little girl), but nothing too serious), it's just action for the sake of action. And I like it like that.

I found Ryan Reynolds a little annoying as Hannibal King, but I'm guessing it's the way the character is written that I don't like, more than him in particular. Jessica Biel is, as always, her incredibly sexy self as Abigail Whistler.

Rating:
« Last Edit: October 08, 2008, 04:33:20 PM by RossRoy »

RossRoy

  • Guest
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #166 on: October 08, 2008, 03:20:53 AM »
Ugh! At that rhythm, I'm not going to meet my goal of 1 movie a day for October... But at least, I've watched more movies in the last 7 days than I have in the last 2 months! ;)

RossRoy

  • Guest
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #167 on: October 08, 2008, 03:19:42 PM »
Eternelle
 
Original Title: Eternal
Year: 2004
Country: Canada
Director:
Rating: 18+
Length: 107 Min.
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen 1.85:1
Audio:
Subtitles:

What they say
Detective Raymond Pope is a detective of questionable morals, searching for his missing wife. His investigation leads him to the wealthy estate of the enigmatic Elizabeth Kane and her young maid Irina. Under Elizabeth's fascinating looks and aristocratic manners hides a terrifying secret,shared by her companion Irina. Irina believes that her mistress is a supernatural being, perhaps the real-life 16th Century Blood Countess Elizabeth Bathory, who bathed in the blood of over 650 women in a misguided quest for eternal life. As Detective Pope finds himself perversely drawn to the powerful Elizabeth, bodies begin to surface, his inquiries only deepening the mystery surrounding Elizabeth's past. Pope's obsession grows so intense that he completely fails to anticipate Elizabeth's reaction to his intrusion into her dark world, a fatal mistake that might cost him his life and the lives of those close to him.

My Thoughts
This movie is odd. It is definitely about vampires, but they're fang-less. The main vamp's aid even puts on fake fangs to hunt. It's a bit odd. But at the same time, it makes it that much more scary, because you wouldn't know if she's human or vampire.

We also have a case where they say "Inspired by true events". Well. It may have been inspired by this story, but it has been very lightly inspired. It's not even the main story. For one, it takes place in today's Montreal, which is explainable, seeing as she's a Vampire and immortal, but during the movie, they never really mention that. You end up guessing it by some dialog, but it's far from obvious that she is an immortal vampire, she could just as well be a serial killing mad women who kills, drinks blood and bathes in it.

The main story is about the policeman looking for his lost wife, and it's decent at best. The whole thing feels like an excuse for some softcore porn (very very softcore, mostly just kissing and fondling, you don't really see anything). But there's a lot of it. Almost all killings by the Countess are preceded by some girl on girl action (she kills only pure, virgin young girls).

But the girls in the movie are all really beautiful. Starting with the Countess, played by Caroline Neron, one of the most beautiful actress from Quebec (IMO). Even the nerdy babysitter Lisa with her big black glasses is sexy as hell.

I do have mixed feelings about this movie though. One the one hand, it is enjoyable, but I feel like it is lacking something as a movie. It's like the authors/directors couldn't find what they were really trying to do. Were they telling the story of the Countess? Doing a cop movie? A softcore porn? A horror vampire based movie? As a viewer, you don't know, and they probably didn't know themselves. Or, they may have just tried to tackle too much at once and couldn't render it the way they wanted it to be. Who knows.

Rating:
« Last Edit: October 08, 2008, 04:33:06 PM by RossRoy »

Offline Jimmy

  • Mega Heavy Poster
  • *******
  • Posts: 6754
  • Yes this is me...
    • View Profile
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #168 on: October 08, 2008, 05:30:28 PM »
The big problem with this movie is the fact that it's a copy of the Jean Rollin's vampire movie. The Rollin's movies were made in the seventies and are quite enjoyable, but remade those movies in 2004 isn't the best idea. Another problem : Caroline Neron maybe she's good looking (and it's a real maybe since I don't find her attractive one second), but she have no talent at all. She can't act and she can't sing this is not for nothing if she didn't find a lot of works here...

RossRoy

  • Guest
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #169 on: October 08, 2008, 06:00:28 PM »
she have no talent at all. She can't act and she can't sing this is not for nothing if she didn't find a lot of works here...

Yeah, acting wise, she doesn't fly all that high. It's like she's always playing Caroline Neron. No nuance, no nothing.


And your right also, I wouldn't be attracted to her, yet, I still find her beautiful and incredibly sexy.

Offline goodguy

  • Heavy Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1464
  • Colleen West never liked the first light of day.
    • View Profile
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #170 on: October 08, 2008, 07:31:57 PM »
Blade: Trinity
...
Jessica Biel is, as always, her incredibly sexy self as Abigail Whistler.

I don't care much for the Blade movies, but this one I found kinda amusing. Plus: Parker Posey!

Did you watch the bloopers where she outs herself as a Buffy fan by paraphrasing the Woodstock/crucification scene from S2 before breaking down giggling?
Matthias

RossRoy

  • Guest
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #171 on: October 08, 2008, 07:50:30 PM »
I don't care much for the Blade movies, but this one I found kinda amusing. Plus: Parker Posey!

Yeah, I forgot about her!  ;D

Did you watch the bloopers where she outs herself as a Buffy fan by paraphrasing the Woodstock/crucification scene from S2 before breaking down giggling?

I haven't watched the extras. But I'll have to check them out now! Thanks! ;D

RossRoy

  • Guest
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #172 on: October 09, 2008, 03:39:24 PM »
Man with the Screaming Brain
 
Original Title: Man with the Screaming Brain
Year: 2005
Country: United States
Director: Bruce Campbell
Rating: NR
Length: 90 Min.
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen 1.78:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital 5.1, English: Dolby Digital Stereo, Commentary: Dolby Digital Stereo
Subtitles:

What they say
Somewhere in Bulgaria, sleazy American industrialist William Cole (Bruce Campbell) is finalizing a tax scam that will earn him millions. Meanwhile, mad scientist Dr. Ivan Ivanov (Stacy Keach) and his demented henchmen Pavel (Ted Raimi of Xena) have created a drug that can connect human brains like Lincoln Logs. But when an illicit tryst with a sultry hotel maid leads to Cole's murder, Dr. Ivanov reanimates him by transplanting the half-brain of a former KGB operative into Cole's skull. Now, the capitalist and the communist must reconcile their differences to hunt down the beautiful gypsy freak who killed them both.

My Thoughts
I bought this movie solely on the strength of Bruce Campbell being in it. I like his work in Evil Dead, and I had recently seen, and liked, Bubba Ho-Tep when I bought this. And I liked it, but I guess I just had high expectations. I was expecting it to be really funny, but it was lacking in that department. Actually, it was even all too serious at times. Although, the restaurant scene with William Cole and Yegor fighting over what to eat and drink is really funny. But once they make the pact to hunt down the gypsy girl, it becomes rather bland and it's just a man hunting a gypsy. The dual brain part doesn't really get into it.

I'm also still wondering what the heck it was with the robots and why they were even in there! I guess it's part of the twisted humour of Bruce Campbell as a writer. Though the robots do look really creepy, making them basically the scariest part of the movie!


Rating:

RossRoy

  • Guest
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #173 on: October 12, 2008, 02:28:38 PM »
The Monster Squad
 
Original Title: The Monster Squad
Year: 1987
Country: United States
Director: Fred Dekker
Rating: PG
Length: 82 Min.
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen 2.35:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital 5.1, English: Dolby Digital Stereo, Commentary: Dolby Digital Stereo
Subtitles: English, Spanish

What they say
You know who to call when you have ghosts, but who do you call about monsters? Whether it’s a bat in your belfry or a mummy in your microwave, THE MONSTER SQUAD ain’t afraid of no ghouls!
Count Dracula has until midnight to retrieve an ancient amulet that will give him final control over the delicate balance between good and evil in the world. To help him, the creepy count calls on some old friends: the weird Wolfman, grotesque Gill-Man, mildewed Mummy and freaky Frankenstein. As the ghoulish group gets closer to the amulet, it’s up to THE MONSTER SQUAD, headquartered in the local tree house, to pool its questionable resources and stop the monster mayhem!

My Thoughts
I actually liked this one! First time I've seen it (that I can remember). I found it quite reminiscent of The Goonies, which is good! I like that they stayed true to the original makeup design for all the monsters. The kids are great in this movie, they are believable, even the lead one. I also liked how they set the tone with the opening text scroll whihc ends with "They blew it." (speaking about Dr. Van Helsing messing up the banishment of Evil). All in all, that was quite an enjoyable, light hearted movie.

Rating:
« Last Edit: October 12, 2008, 04:15:03 PM by RossRoy »

Najemikon

  • Guest
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #174 on: October 12, 2008, 03:18:53 PM »
I actually liked this one! First time I've seen it (that I can remember). I found it quite reminiscent of The Goonies, which is good! I like that they stayed true to the original makeup design for all the monsters. The kids are great in this movie, they are believable, even the lead one. I also liked how they set the tone with the opening text scroll whihc ends with "They blew it." (speaking about Dr. Van Helsing messing up the banishment of Evil). All in all, that was quite an enjoyable, light hearted movie.

I finally saw this again after several years only a few weeks ago and loved it more than I remembered. I think cinema is desperate for something light and fun like this or Goonies these days.

I loved the sequences with the little girl! Fantastic delivery for a tot and her scenes with Frankenstein were wonderful:

"Don't be a chicken-shit!"  :laugh:

Offline addicted2dvd

  • Forum Inventory
  • ********
  • Posts: 17517
  • Country: us
    • View Profile
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #175 on: October 12, 2008, 03:20:43 PM »
It is definitely a fun one... Looking forward to watching it again sometime soon for the marathon myself. :)
Pete

RossRoy

  • Guest
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #176 on: October 12, 2008, 04:13:45 PM »
Dracula
 
Original Title: Dracula
Year: 1931
Country: United States
Director: Tod Browning
Rating: NR
Length: 398 Min.
Video: Full Frame 1.33:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Mono, English: Dolby Digital 5.1, Spanish: Dolby Digital Mono, Commentary: Dolby Digital Stereo
Subtitles: English, French, Spanish

What they say
For the first time ever, the original ‘Dracula’ film comes to DVD in this extraordinary Legacy Collection. Included in the collection is the original classic, starring the renowned Béla Lugosi, and three timeless sequels, featuring such legendary actors as Lon Chaney Jr, John Carradine and others. These are the landmark films that inspired an entire genre of movies and continue to be major influences on motion pictures to this day.

My Thoughts
Well, after Monster Squad, I felt the urge to revisit the classic monster movies. So I started with Dracula. Bela Lugosi in his classic performance. What more can be said? The set pieces, the lighting, the creepy atmosphere, even the silences without dialog or music all work together to form a great movie going experience. Oh sure, by today's standards it might be considered rather crude, but, personally, I marvel in its simplicity, suggesting instead of showing.

I made one mistake though: I watched it with the new Philip Glass score. It's not that the score by Glass is bad, it's actually good music (if a little repetitive), but, it's painfully obvious that it has been done years after the movie. For one thing, the music is nice and clean, I'd even say rich, which makes the sound effects and voice sound that much more thin and makes it show their age. Also, while Glass is obviously careful with his score to not overpower key dialog and sound effects, it actually makes it that much more obvious that the score isn't an integral part of the movie. The best example of that is when Renfield first arrives at Castle Dracula. When the door opens, there's a very distinct creaking sound. Well, at the very point, the Glass score becomes completely silent to emphasize the sound. Now that shows Glass wanted to preserve the sound and not affect its power in the context of the film, yet he only achieves making his score separate from the movie, because this would actually be a key moment for the music to change to convey an emotion. Same thing when Renfield cuts his finger with the letter opener. He cuts his finger and the music goes into a crescendo moments after, and it felt odd and out of place. I actually found the score to be detrimental to the movie, instead of supporting it.

I'll give this a , because of Glass' score, otherwise, it would've been a heartfelt

Rating:
« Last Edit: October 12, 2008, 04:18:33 PM by RossRoy »

RossRoy

  • Guest
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #177 on: October 13, 2008, 04:12:51 AM »
The Mummy
 
Original Title: The Mummy
Year: 1932
Country: United States
Director: Karl Freund
Rating: NR
Length: 75 Min.
Video: Full Frame 1.33:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Stereo, English: Dolby Digital Mono
Subtitles: English, French, Spanish

What they say
Boris Karloff's stellar performance as Im-Ho-Tep in the 1932 version of The Mummy is a landmark in screen history. A British archaeology team accidentally revives former high priest Im-Ho-Tep, nearly 4,000 years after he was embalmed alive. Finally free, he sets out to find his lost love, a vestal virgin sacrificed in a ritual. Powerful and mesmerizing, Im-Ho-Tep is unstoppable and terrifying in this brooding horror masterpiece. As The New York Times noted, "It begs description...One of the most unusual talkies ever produced."

My Thoughts
Continuing my Classic Monster theme. Again, this follows the same formula as Dracula. It establishes itself, and then ever so slowly builds up to the climax. The Mummy makeup is well done, but a little too soft IMO. I mean, Im-Ho-Tep had been rotting away for 3700 years, yet he looks like he is in his fifties at most. I'm not saying they shoud have shown rotting flesh and all, but they could've made him just a tad more wrinkly. But that very minor in the grand scheme of things in the movie. Karloff is effective portraying a menacing individual who will stop at nothing to gain what he wants.

One thing though, is it just me, or does it follow the exact same path as Dracula? Reveal the monster, move the story to a more modern setting, mind control the pretty lady, kill off whoever may get in the way, be killed by Dr Van Helsing...... oh sorry, I mean Dr. Muller (both are played by Edward Van Sloan)?

I still liked the movie, but something's missing. It's like the movie lacks that little spark that would've made it all tick. I don't know, the movie was enjoyable, but not quite as chilling as it could've been.


RossRoy

  • Guest
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #178 on: October 15, 2008, 05:09:07 AM »
The Wolf Man
 
Original Title: The Wolf Man
Year: 1941
Country: United States
Director: George Waggner
Rating: NR
Length: 281 Min.
Video: Full Frame 1.33:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Mono, Commentary: Dolby Digital Stereo
Subtitles: English, French, Spanish

What they say
The original horror classic that introduced one of the screen's most infamous monsters! Lon Chaney Jr. portrays Larry Talbot, who returns to his father's (Claude Rains) castle in Wales and meets a beautiful woman (Evelyn Ankers). One fateful night, Talbot escorts her to a local carnival where Jenny's fate is revealed by a mysterious gypsy fortune teller. The dreamlike atmosphere and elaborate settings combined with a chiling musical score make The Wolf Man a masterpiece not only of the genre, but for all time! 70 min.

My Thoughts
Pete, I finally understand why you had his picture as an avatar for so long. What a movie, and what a performance by Lon Chaney Jr.! His easy going demeanor, almost child like innocence in how he seduces Gwen, yet, he ends up having to live with such a terrible beast within, and with the guilt of what he knows he did. Again, like its predecessors, the atmosphere of the movie, the foggy forest and streets, the performance of the actors (Bela Lugosi as Bela the Gypsy - it's just sad it didn't last longer! Such an air of mystery about him). The Wolf makeup is extremely well done (although, I can't say the same about the transformation scene, though they probably did the best they could with the technology and techniques available at the time).

I loved every minute of that movie. I should've watched it long before today!



RossRoy

  • Guest
Re: My Random Viewings
« Reply #179 on: October 17, 2008, 04:28:58 AM »
Creature from the Black Lagoon
 
Original Title: Creature from the Black Lagoon
Year: 1954
Country: United States
Director: Jack Arnold
Rating: NR
Length: 241 Min.
Video: Full Frame 1.33:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Stereo, English: Dolby Digital Mono, Commentary: Dolby Digital Stereo
Subtitles: French, Spanish

What they say
Who knows what undiscovered life forms inhabit the bodies of water on our planet? When scientists exploring the Amazon River stumble on a "missing link" connecting humans an fish, they plan to capture it for later study. But the creature jhas plans of his own, inspired by the lead scientist's (Richard Carlson) beautiful fiancee, Kay (Julie Adams). This classic thriller is a genuine tribute to imaginative storytelling and an exceptional showcase for the legendary makeup artistry of Bud Westmore.

My Thoughts
Continuing on my journey through the classic monster movies. This time, is was Creature from the Black Lagoon. I enjoyed the film. I found it to have some nice underwater imagery. The gill man suit is well done. The story is kept interesting, with the discovery of a fossilized amphibian hand leading to the expedition to the black lagoon, but it's still a pretty standard monster story. It thrives on its imagery and atmosphere, though this movie is a lot less atmospheric than say Dracula or The Wolf Man. But they still manage to build some tension, especially during the underwater scenes.

I'll say this though. If you ever go through the classic monsters one after another, don't watch Creature from Black Lagoon right after The Wolf Man, Dracula or Frankenstein. On its own, it's a pretty good film, but when compared to the classic three, it pales in comparison and shows flaws you may not notice otherwise.

« Last Edit: October 17, 2008, 04:31:22 AM by RossRoy »