Post by: snowcat on October 06, 2009, 06:26:52 PM
Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story
Anchorman
The Cable Guy
Talladega Nights
Post by: snowcat on October 06, 2009, 06:28:16 PM
Director - Jake Kasden
Running time 90 min / 120 min (extended DVD cut)
Stars: John C Reilly, Jenna Fischer
Biopic films are a great way of remembering a legend, and in mocking those biopic films a new legend has been born.
Walk Hard is the story of Dewey Cox (John C Reilly), a Johnny Cash-esque singer who after accidentally killing his brother has to prove his greatness by being doubly great for himself and his brother. After playing “the devils” music a 14-year-old Dewey leaves home with his 12-year-old girlfriend Edith. Only to get a house and a job, and shortly a record deal from a group of jewish men. shortly after becoming famous Dewey meets Darlene (Jenna Fischer) , in which can only be described as a blatant plot rip from Walk the Line, purposely of course. through out the film Dewey Cox has numerous children, wears two wedding rings, tries his hand at sexual carpentry, takes all manner of drugs and goes to rehab twice, all the makings of a perfect biopic.
Towards the end of the film Dewey realises he should be spending more time with his children and so decides to play catch with them all one by one, to get to know them better, he buys a large farm and the all live happily, Although incomplete until Darlene returns. fast forward a few years and a now 75-year-old Dewey listens to the rap remix of his song Walk Hard and is told he is in line for an special achievement evening, but will he agree to doit?
There are a lot of cameos in this film Johan Hill plays Deweys older brothers ghost, Jack White as Elvis Presley, Frankie Muniz as Buddy Holly, Jack Black, Paul Rudd, Justin Long and Jason Schwatzman as the Beatles. as well as GhostFace Killah, Lyle Lovett, Jewel and Jackson Brown as themselves perform a Walk Hard tribute.
The film was written by comedy legend Judd Apatow, and Orange County director Jake Kasden, who also directed Walk hard. It should have been a sure fire hit, Unfortunately due to low box office sales the film is not seen for the comedic masterpiece it is.
The last thing im going to say in this review is I love Cox, why? Because its true, Walk Hard straight away jumped in to my top 25 films of all time with no competition. The story is great, John C Reilly is great and the soundtrack is my all time favourite movie soundtrack, which knocked the Lion King off of its 14 year reign. Id love to hear the other songs recorded for this movie, as I hear that there where a few that did not make it onto even the extended soundtrack. maybe one day there will be an extended, extended cut for that purpose.
Post by: Najemikon on October 06, 2009, 07:12:11 PM
Post by: snowcat on October 06, 2009, 10:16:07 PM
:p Im tanking through these Movies, and here is second review from the second Apatow film I have watched!
Post by: snowcat on October 06, 2009, 10:16:24 PM
Director - Adam Mckay
Running time - 94 minutes / 98 minutes (Unrated)
Stars: Will Ferrell, Christina Applegate, Paul Rudd, David Koechner, Steve Carell
Anchormen are supposed to be serious, They have an image to up keep, a tough exterior, and must not be emotionally effected by the material they broadcast and they must always follow that tele prompter.
And following a tele prompter is something Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) has down to a tee, or so it seems. Anchorman is the story of Ron Burgundy an anchorman who's dream is to become the number one network anchor in all of America.
The opening introduces the all star channel 4 news team, there’s Champ Kind (David Koechner) The sport commentator known for his catch phrase “Whammy”, Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd) in the field reporter and owner of a vast array of different Cologne’s, Brick Tamland (Steve Carell) who with an IQ of just 84 could rival many a weathermen today and finally there is Ron Burgundy San Diego’s top news anchor and jazz flute playing extraordinaire. All is perfect, Channel 4 news is the highest rated in San Diego, but news director Ed Harkin (Fred Willard) decides they need a bit more diversity on the team. Cue Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) an ambitious woman who shares Ron’s dream to be a top network anchor. Confused and “in love” the male members of the team try to come to terms with the dramatic change to there line up.
We follow Ron's downfall through out the film as he dramticlly says the wrong thing, looses his best friend and gets his “guns” out. Leading up to the final climax of the film, with a story that could make Ron Americas next top network anchor, but will he be able to leave his “glass case of emotion” behind in time to read the news?
Jam packed with guest stars including several members of the Hollywood “Frat Pack” Jack Black, Luke Willson and Ben Stiller as well as Frat pack pledge Seth Rogen, Anchorman proves that any news story can be hilariously funny.
Just as people still quote Some like it Hot and Monty Python Anchorman's huge bank of one liners is sure to have fans quoting for years to come, and with a huge cult following its no surprise that this film is so widely regarded.
Anchorman is Will Ferrell's defining role and will definitely be hard for Farrell to top, the line “I’m kinda a big deal” surely applies to him now and with talks of Anchorman 2 on the way its true that “60% of the time it works every time”
Post by: Critter on October 06, 2009, 11:33:55 PM
Quote
Just as people still quote Some like it Hot and Monty Python Anchorman's huge bank of one liners is sure to have fans quoting for years to come, and with a huge cult following its no surprise that this film is so widely regarded.
This could not be more correct! My friends and I still quote Anchorman constantly. I think Anchorman and Mean Girls are the two most quoted films by our generation.
Post by: Najemikon on October 07, 2009, 12:39:21 AM
Post by: snowcat on October 07, 2009, 10:31:45 PM
Director - Ben Stiller
Running Time - 96 min
Stars: Jim Carrey, Matthew Broderick, Leslie Mann
Usually a story about stalking would be the stuff of horror films, think Halloween, Scary images of people running for there lives, screaming as they are finally caught by the villain. But that seems to be a world away from this comedic take on something that doesn’t feel like a laughing matter.
The Cable Guy, is the story of a TV obsessed “cable guy” Ernie “chip” Douglas (Jim Carey), who meets Steven Kovac (Matthew Broderick) after he arrives to install Steven’s cable. Steven who is recently separated from girlfriend Robin Harris (Leslie Mann) was given advice from friend Rick (Jack Black) to slip the cable guy $50 to get all the movie channels for free. After fixing Steven up with the channel’s Chip, takes Steven out to see the Satellite transmitter, that send television signals to the whole city, whilst discussing the role of television in their youths, Chip tells Steven how to win Robin back, by using advice he heard on Jerry Springer and telling him to invite her over to watch Sleepless in Seattle.
After becoming Chips new “best friend” Steven gets home to find 11 messages on his answer phone from Chip, fairly confused Steven receives a knock at the door, It is Robin who has arrived to watch the film. Strangely, Steven’s cable shuts down, and like clock work, he picks up the phone to hear a knock at the door, chip has arrived to save the day, or has he?
After a strange few days with Chip, Steven finally tells him to leave him alone, big mistake. Hell hath no fury like a cable guy scorned as we soon find out with the events that start unfurl, unfortunately for Steven, Robin and his family cannot see what Steven can’t see in Chip.
Of course this all comes to a climatic end upon the massive TV satellite transmitter, but will chip get his comeuppance? Or will the world go on thinking Steven is crazy?
Written by Judd Apatow, the Cable Guy is a strange directorial début for Ben Stiller, featuring a cameo of Ben Stillers friend Owen Wilson, the film is not stuck for big names, Jack Black, who was little known then is a star in his own right, and Jim Carey and Matthew Broderick, were both big names at the time of production, maybe purposefully they had a strange chemistry. the film has some great camera shots, especially during Chips party at Steven’s and during Steven’s dream. Overall, I have conflicting opinions, Whilst I think the film was creative and had a great story idea, I don’t think it reached its potential, maybe if it had it wouldn’t receive so much negative criticism in popular culture.
Post by: Najemikon on October 08, 2009, 12:52:33 PM
Post by: snowcat on October 08, 2009, 10:55:11 PM
I think Cable Guy did achieve what it set out to do, but is therefore inherently flawed. It's a brave film, because it's slightly disturbing and uncomfortable, but they need an audience to trust them and when the film is sold on good old goofy Jim Carrey, they end up feeling deceived. I get the feeling that Observe and Report tried something similar? I haven't seen it, but I know it crashed and burned, possibly for the same reason.
Yes, unfortunately for Observe and Report it did try to hard to be different, and with the whole Paul Blart, Mall Cop thing it kinda forced them both into a category of "bad mall cop movies"
I think Ben Stiller tried to hard to cast well knowns, and that was also part of the films problem :/
Post by: snowcat on October 13, 2009, 08:26:10 PM
Director - Adam Mckay
Running Time - 108 min / 122 min (Unrated)
Stars - Will Ferrell, John C. Reilly, Sacha Baron Cohen.
Normally I would avoid a film about NASCAR like the plague, Im not a fan of Cars, Days of Thunder or Herbie. But when I saw the trailer for Talladega Nights, the actors drew me in.
Yes unfortunately im a sucker for Will Ferrell films, even the terrible ones like Men Seeking Women and so it was for this reason I bought the movie, I did not know at the time John C. Reilly was in it (I don't know why) If had known this before hand I would have bought this film along time ago.
Talladega Nights is the story of Ricky Bobby (Will Ferrell). Ricky Bobby works as a pitman for Dennit Racing, ever since he was a child its been his dream to “go fast” and he gets this chance,after after a uninterested team mate leaves the track. Despite starting in last place and part way through the race Ricky wins, propelling him self in to the top of NASCAR. its throughout his time in the Dennit Racing team he meets his future wife Carley and arranges for his best friend Cal Norton (John C. Reilly) to get a place on the team.
Fast forward a few years Ricky is still at the top and whilst on a night out with Cal he is challenged by a gay french Formula One turned NASCAR driver Jean Girard. (Sacha Baron Cohen) Girard slowly reaches the top of the racing world, whilst Ricky nurses a broken arm, nevertheless Ricky rushes himself back to the race track, and after pushing himself too hard ends up flipping his car.
After waking up in hospital, with a case of psychosomatic paralysis, (no that doesn't mean he can start fires with his mind.) Cal and team member Lucius Washington (Michael Clarke Duncan) visit him to try to explain that his paralysis is in his head, after a rather disturbing point proving exercise Ricky realises he is fine and must return to the race track. Of course he is seen as unfit and consequently is dropped from the team.
After being fired Ricky goes home to find Cal has taken his place in the family home, an extremely hurt Ricky and his children move out to live Lucy, Ricky's mother. During this time Ricky sees his father after 25 years, gets in to a car with a cougar and is chased by the police. After escaping the police and discovering a bag of Lucky Charms taped to his car Ricky visits a bar, here he meets his former assistant Susan, who tells Ricky he should return to what he loves, but can he shake off his demons in time?
Talladega Nights has its funny parts, its the type of film that is brillaint if you understand the subject matter, but its still enjoyable to those who don't. The first time I watched Talladega Nights, I didn't find it very funny. I don't think I “got it” watching it for a second time I see the funny side, although its far from Adam McKay's best film, its still pretty funny, of course, the best part of this film is the chemistry between Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly, which of course spawned the hilarious Step Brothers.
Post by: Najemikon on October 14, 2009, 08:19:55 AM
...the hilarious Step Brothers.
I haven't seen that version. :devil:
Post by: snowcat on October 14, 2009, 08:27:15 AM
...the hilarious Step Brothers.
I haven't seen that version. :devil:
Haha, really? I loved it, again, thats possible my thing about Will Ferrell and john c. Reilly films, or maybe its because I know men in there 30s exactly like those guys.
Post by: Najemikon on October 14, 2009, 11:52:02 AM
...the hilarious Step Brothers.
I haven't seen that version. :devil:
Haha, really? I loved it, again, thats possible my thing about Will Ferrell and john c. Reilly films, or maybe its because I know men in there 30s exactly like those guys.
I particularly had a problem with the younger brother (Step Brothers (http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,5216.msg88451.html#msg88451)) and much as I like Ferrel, I thought it was lazy. I think it would have been better with unknown actors, and in fact, I enjoyed Hot Rod much more and there are vague similarities... :D
Post by: richierich on October 14, 2009, 01:08:02 PM
...the hilarious Step Brothers.
I haven't seen that version. :devil:
Haha, really? I loved it, again, thats possible my thing about Will Ferrell and john c. Reilly films, or maybe its because I know men in there 30s exactly like those guys.
I particularly had a problem with the younger brother (Step Brothers (http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,5216.msg88451.html#msg88451)) and much as I like Ferrel, I thought it was lazy. I think it would have been better with unknown actors, and in fact, I enjoyed Hot Rod much more and there are vague similarities... :D
I've been watching this thread with interest, as I absolutely hate Will Ferrell. I thought only an American could like him, but Snowcat dispels that theory.
I am not sure if it was bewitched, boat trip, anchorman or elf, that developed my dislike, but I have never enjoyed any of his parts and very rarely any films he has been in.
Just proves we are all different. ;D
Post by: Najemikon on October 14, 2009, 05:29:29 PM
...I have never enjoyed any of his parts...
:-X
Couldn't let that past! :tease:
I find when he's on form, I enjoy his stuff, especially Anchorman. And I think I already proved you wrong discussed Elf. ;) Step Brothers for me was an example of a film being about 25% too much Ferrell. "Over-Ferrelled", if you will! Stick another, younger actor in and it would have been instantly better. Get Tom Cruise to play the younger brother? Modern classic. But hey, I digress.
As with Carrey and The Truman Show, have you seen Stranger Than Fiction, he's proper acting job? Really nice film...
Post by: goodguy on October 14, 2009, 06:08:35 PM
... have you seen Stranger Than Fiction, he's proper acting job? ...
Can't let this pass either. I'm with Rich regarding Will Ferrell most of the time, but as I mentioned once or twice, he did an excellent job in Winter Passing (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0380817/). Together with Zooey Deschanel btw, but it is nothing like the annoying Elf. For Stranger Than Fiction, I've only seen the trailer and let's just say I certainly won't sit through the movie.
Post by: Tom on October 14, 2009, 06:28:07 PM
For Stranger Than Fiction, I've only seen the trailer and let's just say I certainly won't sit through the movie.
For what it's worth: I recently watched this movie with seven of my collegues and all of them did enjoy this movie very much. Even those who where skeptical in the beginning of the movie.
Post by: Najemikon on October 14, 2009, 06:43:14 PM
Post by: goodguy on October 14, 2009, 06:47:03 PM
And Winter Passing has Zooey in, who I can't take seriously since Mark Kermode ripped her to pieces in his 500 Days of Summer review! Every time I see her picture I think of his impression... :laugh:
Link? BTW, I'm looking forward to 500 Days of Summer. :P
Post by: Najemikon on October 14, 2009, 07:33:19 PM
And Winter Passing has Zooey in, who I can't take seriously since Mark Kermode ripped her to pieces in his 500 Days of Summer review! Every time I see her picture I think of his impression... :laugh:
Link? BTW, I'm looking forward to 500 Days of Summer. :P
Well I get it on a podcast and it was the one dated the 4th September. Unfortunately, I can't find a copy of it, despite multiple websites offering links. This may be because the BBC are about to trial letting you download old podcasts from the Friday. (Oh, the timing!) :slaphead:
I'm not sure if you're aware of Mark Kermode. He's a very good critic, who is also very adept at presentation and his weekly movie review on Simon Mayo's show is well worth a listen. Even if you don't agree, it's fun listening to someone passionate. For instance, I did find his legendary Transformers 2 review on YouTube... :laugh:
Post by: snowcat on October 14, 2009, 08:26:12 PM
Even if you hate Will Ferrell, Stranger the Fiction shows him in a new light.... think Adam Sandler in Punch-Drunk Love or as Jon said Jim Carey in the Truman Show.
I am yet to see Winters passing (unfortunately.) But I cant wait to get around to buying it!
Post by: DJ Doena on October 14, 2009, 09:03:55 PM
I honestly understand why people don't like Will Ferrell
As far as I can tell I only know him as Wild-Life Marshall Willenholly or whatever in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back and as Wedding/Funeral Crasher in Wedding Crashers and I din't care for him in either role. I just don't find him funny.
Post by: snowcat on October 14, 2009, 09:43:48 PM
I honestly understand why people don't like Will Ferrell
As far as I can tell I only know him as Wild-Life Marshall Willenholly or whatever in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back and as Wedding/Funeral Crasher in Wedding Crashers and I din't care for him in either role. I just don't find him funny.
I can see that, those are not his best performances, (regardless of if I thought he was the best part of Wedding Crashers :tease:)
...I think his role in Zoolander is possibly one of his best supporting roles... so if you ever wanted to try and see what people see in him... id start there!
Post by: DJ Doena on October 14, 2009, 11:53:26 PM
Post by: Dragonfire on October 15, 2009, 03:46:16 AM
Post by: snowcat on October 15, 2009, 08:33:27 AM
But Zoolander has the problem of starring Ben Stiller in the leading role...
...Then there is no pleasing you :tease:
Stranger the Fiction has Emma Thompson in.... is that better?
Post by: DJ Doena on October 15, 2009, 08:40:20 AM
Stranger the Fiction has Emma Thompson in.... is that better?
Actually, that's better.
Post by: snowcat on October 15, 2009, 11:19:34 AM
Stranger the Fiction has Emma Thompson in.... is that better?
Actually, that's better.
Good :)
Stranger then fiction is a better film hes more serious then funny. and so im sure you will enjoy it more.
Post by: snowcat on October 18, 2009, 06:57:56 PM
:bat:
Post by: snowcat on October 18, 2009, 07:00:13 PM
Director - Jaume Collet-Serra
Running Time - 113 min.
Stars - Elisha Cuthbert, Chad Michael Murray and Paris Hilton
Generally, im not a huge fan of wax models, not because im scared of them but because I find them boring. Being a huge critic of horror remakes I had to see House of Wax.
When I tell people about this film they seem uninterested, when I tell them part of the promotion for the film was the phrase “See Paris Hilton Die” they snap the DVD out of my hands.
Directed by Spanish/American director Jaume Collet-Serra, director of Orphan and Goal 2 House of Wax is the story of 6 friends who are on the way to a (American) football game. On the way there they stop in a field, yes they stop in an unknown field, how cliché. They camp for the night but are disturbed by a truck that drives into their site and blares its head lights at them. After being told to “turn of the lights” and not doing it angry teen heart-throb Nick (Chad Michael Murray) throws a bottle smashing one of his headlights. The car swiftly drives away.
The next day Paige (Paris Hilton) and Carly (Elisha Cuthbert) are in a secluded part of the woods alone, when they smell something terrible. No, it's not the fact they have just relieved themselves, it smells like death. And whats the best thing to do when you smell something terrible and you are alone in a strange place? Thats right my friends, follow it. Follow that smell. So after falling into a what can only be described as a roadkill pit, Carly is finally rescued by her friends, who seem to be crawling to her, the amount of time it takes. Here they meet Lester, who after hearing the plight of poor Carly's boyfriend Wade, who's fan belt has magically broken on his car. Offers to take them to a nearby village to get a new one. What are the chances a small town with a Church, a Wax museum and oh wait a garage!
As this is a horror film I wont go any further into it, thankfully the plot seems to start fairly late on. House of Wax is a strange attempt at remaking a film that was a remake in the first place. House of Wax 3D was made in 1953 which in its self was a loose remake of Mystery of the Wax Museum 1933.
House of Wax is a strange film, I enjoyed it more as it went on, the beginning is boring and tedious and for how much build up there is, there doesn't seem to be much character development. Around forty minutes of this film is filler and wasn't really needed. But the I really enjoyed the ending, Maybe be it was the impending credit roll, and the though id be able to watch something else, or maybe it was the strangely impressive House of Wax, who knows.
Post by: snowcat on October 20, 2009, 06:13:17 PM
Director - James Wan
Running Time - 103 minutes
Stars - Leigh Whannell, Cary Elwes, Danny Glover
Knowing the name and genre of this film makes it fairly obvious what this film will be about, you don't go see a film called Saw and expect to see happy little carpenters making Santa a new workbench and if that's film is a horror film then you expect to see blood.
Directed by Australian producer/screenwriter/director James Wan. Saw is the first of a long line of grotesque horror films which have gradually got more violent and less story focused as they have gone on.
Saw is a story about two men Adam Faulkner and Dr Lawrence Gordon who have been trapped in a disused bathroom by serial killer Jigsaw. Both Adam and Lawrence discover tapes that say play me, and after listening to them discover that Adam must escape the room but Lawrence must kill Adam by 6 o'clock. After a montage of gruesome death scenes we are back in the disused bathroom, but will Adam escape? Or will Lawrence kill him?
As with all horror films, its far to easy to give away the ending so I won't go any further into the plot.
Saw is the first in 6 film series, as with a collection of popular horror films the sequels gradually get worse. Saw is a good solid film with a clever story, unfairly criticised by haters of the “Gore” genre who lump all the saw films into one plot-less arc. Saw stands out as something that should have ended there and then with one film much like Halloween and Nightmare on Elm Street. Unfortunately its a format that makes money and so will be milked for all it has. Personally I feel Saw defines the “gore” genre,
I enjoyed this film but I do have to criticise certain points, firstly a lot of the victim's in the film seem to suffer from Stupid Victim Syndrome meaning they were in a situation where they could have triumphed but chose not to. Unfortunately the other points contain spoilers and so I will not write them on here. But all in all, Saw is a good film with an interesting story just stay away from the sequels.
(Should have posted this yesterday, but I was unwell, so here's Mondays review, Tuesdays to follow)
Post by: snowcat on October 20, 2009, 06:38:53 PM
Director - Stanley Kubrick
Running time - Original cut 46 min. /Cut version 142 min.
Stars - Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall
The Shining to me sounds like some religious film about god, obviously this films reputation precedes it and most people know it is not a film about god shining down upon us.
Think Carrie or Misery and you can see that Stephen King is a great horror writer, and with a director like Stanley Kubrick this film was destined for greatness.
Starring Jack Nicholson straight from his role as McMurphy in One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest and Shelley Duvall who seemed to disappear from acting in the late 80s. The Shining tells the story of writer Jack Torrance who excepts a job as winter caretaker at a hotel that often gets snowed in. So Jack his wife Wendy and Son Danny all visit the hotel as the staff are packing up to leave whilst hear a chef discovers Danny's psychic powers or “Shining.” The shining being the ability to see events happening in the future or past such as ghosts.
And so with any psychological horror some strange things happen in this hotel which build up to what is in one of my opinions the scariest scene in a film. Upon release the film the film received mixed review, possibly based on the amount of psychological material used, Stephen King also had very conflicted feelings towards the film which undoubtedly formed opinions in some peoples minds.
The Shining is a horror film which has withstood the test of time, highly regarded by many a horror film. Its a film that everyone should see if not for the film itself, then to get the ridiculous amount of pop culture references to it over the last 30 years.
To me the Shining is a film that has not weathered overtime, I first saw parts of the film aged 10, watching it now aged 20 the same parts of the film unnerve me, the use of strange images and uneasiness add to the tension, making the shinning one of my top Halloween films
Post by: Kathy on October 20, 2009, 07:05:06 PM
Post by: snowcat on October 22, 2009, 09:06:46 AM
(I was away last night directing the filming of a local choirs practice for there final children in need performance, and unfortunately ill be away tonight! I have been watching horror movies and will post 3 on Friday. :)
Post by: Achim on October 22, 2009, 10:43:56 AM
I enjoyed this film but I do have to criticise certain points, firstly a lot of the victim's in the film seem to suffer from Stupid Victim Syndrome meaning they were in a situation where they could have triumphed but chose not to. Unfortunately the other points contain spoilers and so I will not write them on here.This forum has spoiler tags. So, if you want to write something that potentially spoils the movie for the uninitiated then use those tags; that will allow people who saw the film to read your opinion also on those issues.
The spoiler tag can be used from the tool bar (button is b&w and labeled SP) or by manually enclosing the critical text with {spoiler}{/spoiler} (using the square brackets of course). Those tags will create this:
(click to show/hide)
You may be able to read between the lines that I am interested to hear about your spoilerific complains :D
Post by: snowcat on October 22, 2009, 12:09:07 PM
I enjoyed this film but I do have to criticise certain points, firstly a lot of the victim's in the film seem to suffer from Stupid Victim Syndrome meaning they were in a situation where they could have triumphed but chose not to. Unfortunately the other points contain spoilers and so I will not write them on here.This forum has spoiler tags. So, if you want to write something that potentially spoils the movie for the uninitiated then use those tags; that will allow people who saw the film to read your opinion also on those issues.
The spoiler tag can be used from the tool bar (button is b&w and labeled SP) or by manually enclosing the critical text with {spoiler}{/spoiler} (using the square brackets of course). Those tags will create this:(click to show/hide)
You may be able to read between the lines that I am interested to hear about your spoilerific complains :D
Haha, well... I try to write my reviews for here and my blog simultaneously ;) so I don't like to edit them... but Ill spoiler them away for you Achim.
(click to show/hide)
Post by: DJ Doena on October 22, 2009, 12:14:40 PM
Edith says you're using wordpress hosted by wordpress. I'm not sure you even can install plugins.
Post by: Kathy on October 22, 2009, 01:57:02 PM
Emma, if you like King's books, I recommend you read "Intensity" by Dean Koontz . It was made into a movie which wasn't nearly as good as the book.
Post by: snowcat on October 22, 2009, 02:11:31 PM
And that sounds like an interesting book Kathy, i may have to take a look at it.
Post by: Tom on October 22, 2009, 06:15:17 PM
Post by: Achim on October 22, 2009, 08:35:48 PM
Haha, well... I try to write my reviews for here and my blog simultaneously ;) so I don't like to edit them... but Ill spoiler them away for you Achim.Those are all good points, although I must admit I hadn't been bothered by them myself.(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Jimmy on October 22, 2009, 09:17:36 PM
I read the Shining a while back, I should read it again its a very good book. My favourite Stephen King book is Misery though :pIt was a time where I was buying all his book, so I own a lot of his works untill Desesperation who was the last one I've bought. My favorites were always The Stand and It (can't decide wich one I like the most), but I hate the tv adaptation of them (for The Stand it's more than hate). For Misery, Dolores Claiborne and Rose Madder I've always got the feeling that they were not written by him but his wife. Of course it's certainly untrue, but they doesn't feel like a King's story... For his short story my favorite are Stand by Me and The Library Policeman.
I recommend you read "Intensity" by Dean Koontz .I like Koontz also, but not as much. I don't know the english title but my favorite of him are the one with the time travel theme (I know it's almost a woman story) and the one with the "goblins" who live with the human to torture them.
Post by: Dragonfire on October 22, 2009, 09:46:12 PM
I've read a lot of his books and I tend to enjoy most of them. Though some of his newer stuff isn't as..strong as some of his earlier books.
Post by: Jimmy on October 22, 2009, 10:49:20 PM
Post by: Dragonfire on October 22, 2009, 10:53:26 PM
You're right on the first one, but the other is Twilight Eyes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_Eyes). I've always think that the last one would made a very terryfiying horror movie if made by a competent director and without tv actors of the week.
It has been so long since I read it that I forgot about Twilight Eyes. I did really like that one too. That one could make a good movie if done properly. Unfortunately, the track record for turning his books into movies isn't that great.
Post by: snowcat on October 23, 2009, 10:27:39 PM
Director - Bong Joon-ho
Running Time - 119 minutes
Stars - Song Kang-ho
The idea of dumping 100 bottles of Formaldehyde down a drain may seem slightly dangerous, however eastern monster films are no stranger to radioactive monsters.
Starring leading Korean actor Song Kang-ho, The host is a strange mix of horror and comedy, whilst most would class this as a monster movie, the events that take place make me think horror, and so I added it to my list for this marathon. The Host is the story of Park Gang-du (Kang-ho) a slow witted man who lives with his father and daughter and owns a snack bar. Park's sister is a famous Olympic archery medal winner and his brother is an alcoholic who has not really done anything since graduating university.
Whilst serving some people, Park sees a group of people gathering at the side of a river, he goes to join them to see what's happening, after seeing a large creature in the water he throws in a beer can, shortly the rest of the crowd throw food in, much to there disappointment the creature disappears, and catching the crowd of there guard appears on the shore. The monster chases and devours members of the public and manages to capture Park's daughter, and so the story begins.
As a fan of monster movies, The Host was high on a list of “to buy” that I often add things to, I was slightly disappointed by the beginning I felt it was slow, but when the monster appeared the film became very fast paced, which suited it perfectly, surprisingly I enjoyed the end immensely, I'm the type of person that is easily annoyed by the end of a movie, but this seemed to work.
I can't say I have watched many Korean films, in fact I believe this is my first, I really enjoyed it and Ill have to look a little deeper into Korean cinema now, I guess my love of monster films could make that relativity easy.
Post by: snowcat on October 23, 2009, 10:55:36 PM
Director - Eli Roth
Running Time - 94 minutes
Starring - Jay Hernandez, Derek Richardson
I knew what to expect when I bought Hostel, I knew it would be gory, and as I expected it the exact amount of character development I expected, none.
Hostel is a horror film of the gore variety, the story follows three male backpackers (Paxton, Oli and Josh) in Amsterdam. After being shown to there room Paxton, Oli and Josh find they are sharing with two “attractive” single women who seduce them and split them up.
The next morning Josh and Paxton find that Oli is missing and after asking around about him they discover that a Japanese female backpacker has also gone missing. After receiving a picture message they discover the two of them are at an abandoned factory.
What follows is a lot of extremely gory scenes, some of which just seemed wrong or over the top. Of course with any film in this genre naturally id expect a lot of blood and guts, but certain parts of this film were very hard to watch.
Story wise, Hostel could have been a good short film, the subject matter was definitely worthy. Taken is a great example of how a film about backpackers in danger could be great. I am unsure what it is about Hostel that I did not enjoy, I think maybe the fact it reminded me of a poor sex comedy was to blame, the beginning opens with a large amount of naked ladies, and three guys who like sex and getting high. Something id expect from the American Pie Series squeals.
As a film I did not enjoy Hostel, not because of the gore, but because it felt like it was purposely was trying to appeal to a teenage male market, which it probably was.
Post by: snowcat on October 23, 2009, 11:18:55 PM
Director - Wes Craven
Running Time - 113 minutes
Stars - David Arquette, Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, Matthew Lillard, Rose McGowan, Skeet Ulrich and
Drew Barrymore
Wes Craven is such a renowned Horror director it was inevitable that a film of his would appear in this marathon soon.
Scream is probably one of Mr Craven's most mainstream films, of course as per usual its also know for its horrible sequels, strangely there is a possibility of a Scream 4 coming out, directed by no other then Wes Craven! After the fiasco of Scream 3 I did not think he would return.
Scream is the story Sidney, a teenage girl who is trying to come to terms with the anniversary of her mothers rape and death, not only that but two of her class mates are brutally murdered, to top it off the next day the killer rings her to tell her shes next! Suffering tabloid attacks and her classmates reaction to the situation. But who is this killer, and will she be killed?
Scream is surprisingly fun for a horror movie, Its one of the films I always watch in the build up to Halloween. Unlike its sequels, Scream has a solid story and clever killer, anyone who has seen Scary Movie, can see that the format was not only perfect for a horror but for a comedy, Personally I found a lot of comedy in the film regardless.
Revitalising the slasher genre, Scream not only bought back the cliché slasher film conventions, but introduced some new ones.
All in all, Scream is a film that has withstood the test of time, much like Wes Cravens other films the first is generally best, that holds true for this film. This film takes on the “teen comedy” genre but strangely merges them very well.
Post by: Najemikon on October 24, 2009, 02:16:06 AM
Just ignore me. Craven annoys me as other members of this forum will verify! ;) Last House On The Left? Worst film ever made. Nightmare On Elm St.? Clumsy hack-job. As you can see I really sit on the fence when it comes to this guy. I'm probably the only person looking forward to the remake of Elm St. in case it's done properly this time! :laugh:
Mind you, I did finally see the original The Hills Have Eyes recently and thought that very good.
Anyway, onto Hostel, I pretty much agree, though I did... enjoy it. Is "enjoy" the right word? One for my psychiatrist, I think! :-[ I reviewed Hostel Part II a while back here (http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,513.msg66213.html#msg66213) and I'd be interested in your thoughts, should you ever get around to it. Overall I don't think it was as successful, but it was trying for a little more substance.
Post by: snowcat on October 24, 2009, 11:25:29 AM
As for Hostel Part II, ive not seen it yet, but I am planning on buying it just to see if they tried to improve it at all. Your review has inspired me to watch it!
Post by: Jimmy on October 24, 2009, 12:17:12 PM
Revitalising the slasher genre, Scream not only bought back the cliché slasher film conventions, but introduced some new ones.:whistle: Are you serious? This film is responsible for the death of the slasher film genre and the birth of the annoying PG-13 kiddie horror lost of time that we have now...
Post by: snowcat on October 24, 2009, 12:18:51 PM
Revitalising the slasher genre, Scream not only bought back the cliché slasher film conventions, but introduced some new ones.:whistle: Are you serious? This film is responsible for the death of the slasher film genre and the birth of the annoying PG-13 kiddie horror lost of time that we have now...
:tease: thus revitalising the slasher genre!
Post by: Najemikon on October 24, 2009, 02:25:42 PM
And Winter Passing has Zooey in, who I can't take seriously since Mark Kermode ripped her to pieces in his 500 Days of Summer review! Every time I see her picture I think of his impression... :laugh:
Link? BTW, I'm looking forward to 500 Days of Summer. :P
Just linked one for Jimmy and I've now found the one for 500 Days of Summer (second one down): http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mf3b0 ;)
Post by: goodguy on October 24, 2009, 06:57:39 PM
Link? BTW, I'm looking forward to 500 Days of Summer. :P
Just linked one for Jimmy and I've now found the one for 500 Days of Summer (second one down): http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mf3b0 ;)
Thanks, but for some reason I'm too lazy to figure out it refuses to play. What's wrong with written reviews anyway?
Post by: Najemikon on October 24, 2009, 07:12:02 PM
Post by: goodguy on October 24, 2009, 07:53:07 PM
I wonder if you're restricted if you aren't in the UK? :hmmmm: I'm sure Kermode has a written version, but you can't hear his impressions of Zooey ("big wide eyes, fringe...") and the line "goes through the stargate of kook" loses something when you can't hear him grimacing! :laugh:
It doesn't say anything about a restrictions, it just loads endlessly. Anyway, I like kooky Zooey - she was absolutely hilarious in Weeds S2, for example. Plus, 500 Days also stars Jason Gordon-Levitt (have you seen Brick yet?). As for Winter Passing, there she plays a non-kooky role and is predictably great as well.
... the death of the slasher film genre and the birth of the annoying PG-13 kiddie horror...
Ah, come on. Just a few months ago, Charlotte Gainsbourg won Best Actress in Cannes for LvT's Antichrist. Seems the slasher film is alive and well.
Post by: snowcat on October 24, 2009, 08:24:00 PM
Director - Rob Zombie
Running Time - 109 minutes
Stars - Malcolm McDowell, Sheri Moon Zombie, Tyler Mane
Halloween, the perfect name for a horror film why? because Halloween is when a lot of people watch horror. The original Halloween is a great film, it holds up well against a lot in the slasher genre. Rob Zombies Halloween is what I prefer to call a re imagining, a film that takes a story but plays it in a different way.
Halloween starts off with a young Michael Myers who after a run in with his Sister, his mothers boyfriend and some bullies at school. The schools principle takes Michael to his office where he calls his mother. The principal horrifies Michaels mother with some graphic photos and tells her he has psychopathic tendencies. An angry Michael goes on to kill the bully, his mothers boyfriend, his sister and sisters boyfriend. After this horrific event Michael is sent to a sanatorium where his only visitors are his mother and Doctor.
Although some scenes seem fairly violent, I think they were in context, I've watched horror films and felt the gore was out of place but this film had a good ratio of gore to story.
I really enjoyed this re imaging of Halloween, I felt Michael Myers needed more of an explanation on why he was so "messed up". By going back further then the original to the home and School life of the character it made you empathise with him. it felt as though Myers was human, psychotic yes, but he had also been picked on and anyone who experienced that knows how horrible it makes you feel. I felt sympathy for Myers all the way through this film, I did not feel this way during the original, needless to say the original is still a brilliant film. This version of the film is definitely worthy of a watch, nothing like some of the terrible horror remakes out there.
Post by: Najemikon on October 24, 2009, 08:36:22 PM
You see, I can't trust it. The last time film-makers thought we should see how a great villain became the fiend we know and love, we got The Phantom Menace. 'Nuff said. :laugh:
Post by: Jimmy on October 24, 2009, 09:29:28 PM
The idea of showing anything of Michael's past defeats the point of the story.:thumbup:
I hate this new way to do horror movie. Sorry but I don't want to know that Michael Myers, Leatherface, Jason, Torgo or Jaws were bullied when they were young. Nobody need a motivation to be bad, most of the time a psychopath is a psychopath because he like that... This is just a lazy way to do film because the public isn't able to do 1 plus 1 equals 2 anymore since the youngest generation is more and more dumb.
Post by: snowcat on October 24, 2009, 09:58:21 PM
The idea of showing anything of Michael's past defeats the point of the story.:thumbup:
I hate this new way to do horror movie. Sorry but I don't want to know that Michael Myers, Leatherface, Jason, Torgo or Jaws were bullied when they were young. Nobody need a motivation to be bad, most of the time a psychopath is a psychopath because he like that... This is just a lazy way to do film because the public isn't able to do 1 plus 1 equals 2 anymore since the youngest generation is more and more dumb.
Hmm, I think its nice to see another side of a killer, we have all seen these psychopaths now! lets see some sociopathic killers!
I don't think its being lazy, I think its trying to appeal to a wider audience, a drama fan is more likely to watch a horror film if there's a deep story behind it. Horror is reaching a wider audience then it ever has, and that's due to the wider appeal of the new films! there are still hundreds of horror movies coming out that don't take on these new cliches.
The thing about horror is, there are certain formats that always work, and why make a new film when you can take an already established character and develop it? After all.... Rob Zombie did exactly what John Carpenter told him too! make the film his own, thus making a prequel/remake/re imaging.
Post by: Jimmy on October 24, 2009, 10:22:32 PM
I think its trying to appeal to a wider audience, a drama fan is more likely to watch a horror film if there's a deep story behind it.And this is exactly the reason why most of the new USians horror film aren't mind challenging or interesting anymore. Wider audience equals PG-13 boringfest fill with untalented TV young flavor of the month "actor", but on the other side we had crap like Hostel and Saw that aren't really better. Horror doesn't have to please the "drama fan", do we ask to see vampire in The Young and the Restless? No since those show are suppose to be boring and we understand that
Horror is reaching a wider audience then it ever has.Certainly not... The horror genre was more popular from the sixties to the eighties. Most of the new movies openned at the #1 spot on the US box-office (because of the marketing), disapear 1 or 2 week later and they are forgotten like they deserve to be a couple of month after their release.
Of course we must thank the rest of the world and the independant for giving us real movie now ;D
Post by: Najemikon on October 24, 2009, 10:36:33 PM
I like the irony of Hostel, but otherwise I agree with him. Asian and now Swedish (Let the Right One In, recently reviewed in a thread near you! :laugh:) is light years ahead of the US. I haven't seen much since The Mist to demonstrate the average film-maker (and Zombie is definitely that) in America knows how to handle drama and horror together.
When a Terminator film can be released as a PG, you know something is very wrong and it's indicative of their whole philosophy. Maybe I'm wrong about Halloween, but he doesn't make it easy doing a remake to cash-in on the name and getting released between Saw movies. :shrug:
Post by: snowcat on October 24, 2009, 10:49:41 PM
Horror is reaching a wider audience then it ever has.Certainly not... The horror genre was more popular from the sixties to the eighties. Most of the new movies openned at the #1 spot on the US box-office (because of the marketing), disapear 1 or 2 week later and they are forgotten like they deserve to be a couple of month after their release.
Of course we must thank the rest of the world and the independant for giving us real movie now ;D
Pretty much the same for all films regardless of genre :p unless your a Disney movie.
You see what you've done, Emma? We'd just managed to calm Jimmy down and now you've poked him with a stick! ::) :P
;P im sorry! ..I just found this pointy stick.
When a Terminator film can be released as a PG, you know something is very wrong and it's indicative of their whole philosophy. Maybe I'm wrong about Halloween, but he doesn't make it easy doing a remake to cash-in on the name and getting released between Saw movies. :shrug:
Unfortunately, things like Terminator and the soon to be made Robocop remake are made so people will take there kids! I watched both Robocop and Terminator very young... And I mean very young... maybe 5 or so :S I loved them! I got Terminator and Robocop figures for my birthday one year. anyway.... these remakes are an easy way to make money as.... well, If I had kids im sure id have taken them too see Terminator Salvation! (Which I thought was appaling, Although I did find Christian Bale saying "Tell them Ill be back" quite funny, I was the only one in the cinema who laughed at that :/) Of course they are also banking on the whole revival of nostalgia ;P
Post by: goodguy on October 24, 2009, 11:07:14 PM
When a Terminator film can be released as a PG, you know something is very wrong...
As a network show, the Fox series is more or less PG (at least IMDb says so), and there is nothing wrong with it. ;) Haven't seen the new movie, though.
Post by: Jimmy on October 25, 2009, 01:10:27 AM
;P im sorry! ..I just found this pointy stick.:laugh:
It's not that pointy, but it's true that I don't really like most of what is called movie actually in the mainstream US industry. Maybe it's because of my age since I was there when horror movies were horror movies and not pointless remakes or kiddie stuff or no meaning violence like the Saw franchise.
BTW, I have a real touchy subject button that can be push and start my angry mode. But it was never push here and I doubt it will be ;D
and no Jon it isn't Tarantino :P
Post by: snowcat on October 25, 2009, 08:55:17 AM
;P im sorry! ..I just found this pointy stick.:laugh:
It's not that pointy, but it's true that I don't really like most of what is called movie actually in the mainstream US industry. Maybe it's because of my age since I was there when horror movies were horror movies and not pointless remakes or kiddie stuff or no meaning violence like the Saw franchise.
BTW, I have a real touchy subject button that can be push and start my angry mode. But it was never push here and I doubt it will be ;D
and no Jon it isn't Tarantino :P
Haha, Its cool XD I have a similar argumentative side, generally when it comes to Disney, Ive spent along time researching Disney XD
:p Watching horror at 8am in the morning! (very dedicated.)
Post by: snowcat on October 27, 2009, 09:48:03 AM
Director - Tyler Tharpe
Running Time - 75 minutes
Stars - Amy Paliganoff, Travis Patton
When I see a DVD that costs a pound, I am forced to buy it. Something in my head screams BUY IT! Quite often, its a silly thing to because the film is terrible, however a few occasions have brought up some surprising films.
And so here we have Freak, a 1999 film which doesn't seem to have had a major release, during my research I found it had won two awards at small film festivals, I was in shock for a couple of minutes upon reading that. Freak is like a watered down version of the Halloween story.
The film follows a boy who walks to a house, inside his mother shouts at him and hits him, hes wearing a leather mask. Screaming at him to get to his room the boy goes and is subsequently chained to the floor. The mother collapses in pain and goes to bed, minutes later we see her carrying a bundle to a bonfire. The camera slowly pans up to the camp fire for crying to be heard and a baby is fished out of the bon fire, the masked boy was the one who rescued the baby, shortly goes to confront his mother.
The story cuts to the future, with a story about a young woman and her younger adopted sister, they are moving house due to there parents death, we also see a young man who works in “mental institute” he is on probation, and must work here to allowed bail I guess. Its never actually explained. So the young man listens to a tape of the patients case and is told he will be transporting the patient to another hospital.
This film is only 75 minutes, but feels longer there are scenes that have no dialogue and I found myself bored by some of the actual dialogue in the film. It could have been a short 30 minute movie and have the same impact, in fact I'm sure id have preferred it as would the people who watched it with me. Not only was I bored, but I had this annoying feeling id seen this story before. I praise the film maker for not remaking Halloween, but taking a story and changing a few small facts is like re imagining a film and changing the name. If you like B movies, take a look if you don't stay away!
Post by: snowcat on October 27, 2009, 10:13:29 AM
Director - M Night Shyamalan
Running Time - 90 minutes
Stars - Mark Wahlberg, Zooey Deschanel, John Leguizamo
When I heard about the happening, I thought “A new film with Marky mark? Perfect” I loved Boogie Nights and a few of his other films so I bought it.
The Happening is one of the weirdest films I have seen on mainstream release, especially as it was recommended to me by two people who don't watch a lot of films, there recommendation was based upon “It really makes you think, its quite scary”. Especially people who don't watch what I would class as a B movie. M Night Shyamalan actually said he wanted to make a B movie, and that he did.
The Happening follows science teacher Elliot Moore (Mark Whalberg), His wife Alma (Zooey Daschanel) his teacher friend Julian (John Leguizamo) and Julian's 8 year old daughter Jess. After an explained phenomenon causes people to commit suicide, a small group of people decide to find out what is causing this natural disaster.
Its hard to write the plot of this without giving away everything so I wont go to deep. I liked the film even though I found it strange its fairly enjoyable, well as enjoyable as watching mass suicide can be. The Happening is a B movie but was it supposed to be? I think Mr Shyamalan saw how bad it came out and then decided it was his intention.
Whilst id recommended this film, its purely for the opposite reason that it was recommended to me.
Its weird, its fun and if you can look past the strangeness of the idea, you can enjoy it.
Post by: Achim on October 27, 2009, 10:44:32 AM
(click to show/hide)
The Sixth Sense is great, Unbreakable underrated and I thought Signs was quite alright. After that he seems to have lost his touch.
Post by: snowcat on October 27, 2009, 10:51:14 AM
I watched The Happening at the cinema after I had skipped M. Night's Lady in the Water. I found the concept appealing and the first 30 minutes seemed to take off quite well. Well, after that it well went downhill in my opinion. The movie got weirder by the minute and the final solution was so laughablethat I have lost interest in any future M. Night film.(click to show/hide)
The Sixth Sense is great, Unbreakable underrated and I thought Signs was quite alright. After that he seems to have lost his touch.
(click to show/hide)
I think M Night has the same problem as Quentin Tarrantino and Kevin Smith (sadly) they all made brilliant directorial débuts, and have spent there career trying to re capture the originality of those films.
Post by: Tom on October 27, 2009, 10:59:37 AM
I think M Night has the same problem as Quentin Tarrantino and Kevin Smith (sadly) they all made brilliant directorial débuts, and have spent there career trying to re capture the originality of those films.
The problem that M Night has is, that everyone expects a surprise twist ending in his movies and he feels that he has to abide to that. I really liked Sixth Sense and Unbreakable but after those it is going downhill. The last movie I have seen of him was The Village. In this one I guessed the twist a few minutes into the movie. This fact combined with mostly negative reviews of his movies after The Village didn't really make me want to watch anything of him again.
Post by: Jimmy on October 27, 2009, 04:50:11 PM
Quentin Tarrantino (...) originality:hysterical:
Post by: snowcat on October 27, 2009, 06:32:05 PM
Quentin Tarrantino (...) originality:hysterical:
:S you think Reservoir Dogs was unoriginal?
*sigh* I spend far too much time in college analysing movies :tease:
Post by: Najemikon on October 27, 2009, 08:23:56 PM
Quentin Tarrantino (...) originality:hysterical:
Don't bloody start him off again! Jimmy is delusional and blinkered when it comes to Tarantino... :dance:
How you can lump him in with Shyamalan? He's completely lost it and these days I'm not convinced he ever had it. Last seen quickly disappearing up his own rectum!
Sixth Sense and Unbreakable were amazing. Signs showed weaknesses, mainly in directing action (i.e., he can't) and that made me reconsider Unbreakable. Is it slow and ponderous because it's supposed to be, or is it because Night doesn't know how to do anything else?
Post by: snowcat on October 29, 2009, 11:15:07 AM
Sixth Sense and Unbreakable were amazing. Signs showed weaknesses, mainly in directing action (i.e., he can't) and that made me reconsider Unbreakable. Is it slow and ponderous because it's supposed to be, or is it because Night doesn't know how to do anything else?
I think, he's worried that he's found a format that makes money and if he changes it... he will either become a bad director or loose money.
Post by: snowcat on October 29, 2009, 11:16:57 AM
Director - Victor Salva
Running Time - 91 minutes
Stars - Gina Philips, Justin Long
Many people have heard the song “Jeepers Creepers” it is a song that would not make me think “Horror movie” But it fits perfectly in this film.
The film follows Trish (Gina Phillips) Darry Jenner (Justin Long) as they drive through Florida home to there parents house, after letting a van pass them, they drive past a house where the same van is parked and a man looks to be throwing bodies down a pit.
After the driver tries to ram them off the roadside, Darry decides the best thing would be to go back and check these bodies, Yep you guessed it another character with SVS “Stupid Victim Syndrome” Trish holds Darrys feet as he lowers himself into the pit, but as some rats appear and scare Trish she drops her brother down the hole, Oh dear.
Victor Salva is such an interesting story teller and Jeepers Creepers is possibly one of the scariest films ive seen in a long time, it actually unnerved me, which is quite an effort. The opening is similar in style to a Romero film, but the often the film leaves a lot to be desired as its plot is very uneven, much like his previous film Clownhouse, Sadly it shows Mr Salva has not learnt from his mistakes. Victor Salva's well publicised past can only help in making this film scarier.
I think overall Jeepers Creepers is a good movie, visually its a very well made horror film, the walls of the pit combined with the noises and darkness make this part extremely spooky, combined with a new horror monster make this film a perfect Halloween night film.
Post by: snowcat on October 30, 2009, 02:19:29 PM
Director - Victor Salva
Running Time - 104 minutes
Stars - Ray Wise, Eric Nenninger
Did Jeepers Creepers warrant a sequel? Yes I think it did, Jeepers Creepers 2 is set a few days after the original film, during the 23 days “it” gets to eat.
A farmer living alone with his two sons is tending the fields when suddenly hears the cries of his youngest son Billy, who has been grabbed by a scarecrow which has come to life sprouting wings, father and son stand there in shock.
Cut to a school bus, inside are the championship basketball team, some cheerleaders and coaches. Suddenly a tyre explodes, caught in the tyre is what looks like a hand made shuriken made of bone. Trying to keep calm, they crawl on when yet again another tyre explodes, with the same weapon sticking out of it... this time, it contains a familiar belly button, that of Darry from the first film.
Re-watching both of Jeepers Creepers and Jeepers Creepers 2 I don't understand why people dislike them so much, Yes the ending is disappointing in the original but surly that was purposefull to make sure the sequel wasn't set to far in the future? And yes Victor Salva is a controversial person on the film world, but he knows how to create a suspenseful situation.
Jeepers Creeepers 2 is a great film sequel, something that is not often seen in the horror world, there are talks of a Jeepers Creepers 3 set 23 years in the future, with Victor Salva set to write and direct again, I'm sure this will be just as good as the previous incarnations.
Post by: Jimmy on October 30, 2009, 05:12:16 PM
Salva had sexually molested Nathan Forrest Winters the principal actors of Clownhouse who was 14 years old at the time. He isn't cure and he is always a risk for the society.
If I want to watch a movie full of bare chested young men, I will watch a David DeCoteau's movie at least he isn't a criminal.
Post by: snowcat on October 30, 2009, 06:03:11 PM
Why?
Salva had sexually molested Nathan Forrest Winters the principal actors of Clownhouse who was 14 years old at the time. He isn't cure and he is always a risk for the society.
If I want to watch a movie full of bare chested young men, I will watch a David DeCoteau's movie at least he isn't a criminal.
hmm, I didn't say he was cured, I think the fact he has many scantly clad young men in his movies makes them scarier, but I think even with everything in his past, there is no denying he is a good writer.
*heeds Jon's warning and puts the stick away*
Post by: Najemikon on October 30, 2009, 07:32:06 PM
At least we can agree on the film. Oh, hang on... :hmmmm:
Jeepers Creepers started well, but I thought the last third or so was dreadful. It was the bit where she runs it over with the car and then reverses over it again. It was that very moment it went down hill for me. The sequence in the police station was a joke. I would have liked the ending if they could have kept up the suspense of the first act. Didn't bother with the second one. :shrug:
Post by: snowcat on October 30, 2009, 07:59:29 PM
:laugh:
At least we can agree on the film. Oh, hang on... :hmmmm:
Jeepers Creepers started well, but I thought the last third or so was dreadful. It was the bit where she runs it over with the car and then reverses over it again. It was that very moment it went down hill for me. The sequence in the police station was a joke. I would have liked the ending if they could have kept up the suspense of the first act. Didn't bother with the second one. :shrug:
I agree! the ending was terrible, but id recommend the second one, and its relativity cheap now so even if you hate it XD its ok!
Post by: Achim on October 30, 2009, 08:52:19 PM
The second one felt a bit like a cash in to me; although, considering, it was decent. Somehow I like that ending...
Post by: Najemikon on October 30, 2009, 09:19:19 PM
Post by: snowcat on October 30, 2009, 10:15:12 PM
It was good but it could have been great!
... Although Justin Long has always felt wrong in the role of Darry... more so after seeing him in Walk Hard as George Harrisson.
Post by: goodguy on October 30, 2009, 11:01:05 PM
As I've said elsewhere, American horror is frankly a bit shit for the last few years and this could have been a serious exception, but no, they blew it, like they always do.
As I've repeatedly said I'm not a horror fan or expert, but your recent talk about "authentic horror" made me think of Friedkin's Bug (2006). That to me was an exceptional movie. So "they" don't always blow it, just most of the time. And you know the saying about 90% of everything...
Post by: Najemikon on October 30, 2009, 11:08:25 PM
As I've said elsewhere, American horror is frankly a bit shit for the last few years and this could have been a serious exception, but no, they blew it, like they always do.
As I've repeatedly said I'm not a horror fan or expert, but your recent talk about "authentic horror" made me think of Friedkin's Bug (2006). That to me was an exceptional movie. So "they" don't always blow it, just most of the time. And you know the saying about 90% of everything...
True, there are always exceptions, but it's the mainstream I mean. The stuff everyone hears about and gets promoted is all the same boring pap. Back in the 70s, you could see a link between all the releases. Anger and irony mostly, possibly because of Vietnam. But now the only link is identikit teens and money. I haven't seen Bug, but know enough of it to know you're right. Cronenberg's Spider might be the same. The thing is I like to be entertained and my horror have a sense of fun and accessibility, but the big studios think that means it has to be generic.
It's like with Vantage Point. I'm not exaggerating when I say it could have been a modern classic and a worthy update of Rashomon. But do you know what's more important that such endeavours? Car Chase! Yeah! :shrug:
Post by: goodguy on October 30, 2009, 11:44:31 PM
True, there are always exceptions, but it's the mainstream I mean.
Hm, I would have thought of Bug being almost mainstream. Unlike Spider (which I haven't seen), it got a wide release in the US. And if there is any name that (for me) links back to a classic 70s horror movie, it would be Friedkin.
Post by: Najemikon on October 30, 2009, 11:59:49 PM
True, there are always exceptions, but it's the mainstream I mean.
Hm, I would have thought of Bug being almost mainstream. Unlike Spider (which I haven't seen), it got a wide release in the US. And if there is any name that (for me) links back to a classic 70s horror movie, it would be Friedkin.
Absolutely and The Exorcist is one of my favourites, so I don't really know why I've let this pass me by. I was going by the fact it got a very limited run in the UK. The movie industry can be very odd! If the creator of The Exorcist can't get decent press, who can?
Post by: snowcat on November 01, 2009, 11:06:51 AM
Director - Matt Reeves
Running Time - 84 minutes
Stars - Michael Stahl-David, T. J. Miller, Jessica Lucas, Odette Yustman
As a big fan of monster movies, I was pretty excited about Cloverfield, when it was released there were reports of motion sickness due to the handheld camera technique used in the film, obviously these people nicer watched “Dragon Wars” at the cinema I admit the first couple of minutes made my head spin, but I got used to it.
The film is presented to look like a video file from a digital camera, it starts with a title “the following footage about to be viewed is of a case designated "Cloverfield" and was found in the area that was formerly known as Central Park" it starts off with a Rob and Beth, waking up. Previously best friends it seems they have ruined it by sleeping together, typical movie cliché style.they talk about the day they are about to have. This day is intercut into the film occasionally.
The film cuts to the Robs brother Jason borrowing the camera to record a going away party whilst recording his girlfriend Lily we here many a story about Rob and Beth etc cut to the party and the camera is handed to friend of Robs Hud who records for the rest of the film, he was supposed to be getting goodbye messages for Rob at the party, as Rob is moving to Japan (home of giant monsters) and a video is been made so he can remember the night and his friends. It seems the plot has thickend between Beth and Rob, Rob did not call Beth back and she is so angry she bought another date, after an argument she runs off home just before...
An earthquake hits, the power is knocked out and everybody runs to the roof, Now I don't live in a country where earthquakes happen, but surly running around is not the best idea? Anyway. On the roof a large explosion is heard, with that the party goers all run downstairs spilling onto the street In time for the Statue of Liberty's head to roll on past them. But what is attacking them? How will they escape? Watch it and find out.
I enjoy Cloverfield, when I first watched it I thought “I could watch this again I bought the special edition DVD on release day and have tried to watch it again 3 times, I find myself getting bored with it now. What id have like to have seen is where the hell the monster came from, obviously whilst watching the film its intentionally left out. The characters are well developed and there idea to “Go save Beth” is probably stupid considering the ending. Anyway, all in all a good movie, but I have increasing worries that it is metaphor for something else.
Post by: snowcat on November 01, 2009, 11:24:09 AM
Director - Joe Dante
Running Time - 106 minutes
Stars - Zach Galligan, Phoebe Cates
Gremlins is a movie I remember being scared to watch at a very young age, although I always though Gizmo was cute and had one of those interchangeable Gizmo toys. Gremlins seems to have had a revival in recent years, thankfully nobody has cashed in for a third film.
Randall Peltzer is an inventor, whilst not the best or most successful he travels around trying to sell his, uhh... Gizmo's (see what I did there?) to people. Whilst traveling through China Town he is taken to to a dark dingy shop, by a young boy. Inside he meets the boys father, and talks about buying his son a present. Randall offers £200 for a Mogwai in a cage, he is abruptly refused and leaves, secretly the grandson arrives and sells the Mogwai to Randall, but he warns him it must not see the light, bright sunlight can kill it and water must never touch it. What does it drink?, what does it eat?, these questions are not asked. Randall names the Mogwai Gizmo and takes it home to his son Billy, Billy has recently started working in a bank to help his parents out, with his dog Barney always causing mischief (He takes the dog to work) he is often in trouble.
Upon receiving Gizmo Billy is amused by its humming of the same song over and over, whilst his friend accidentally spills water on him, causing him to convulse and spit fur from his back which turn into tiny little Gremlins. None of which are as well behaved as Gizmo. So more and more Mogwai appear, getting more and more violent as they go, of course its Billy and would be girlfriend Kate to stop the Mogwai!
I could not decide whether Gremlins was a Christmas film or a horror film, I like to think its both which is perfect for my two favourite time to watch seasonal movies “Halloween and Christmas” Now I can sit through it without crying I love Gremlins, Its one of those films that you can't stop watching, its always on at Christmas, obviously because its set at Christmas, but what I love is that the TV version has a certain microwave scene cut out, I admit that was one of the scenes that upset me as a child, but I'm glad I have the DVD version of this film.
Gremlins is a great movie, its funny and not so scary now, it was made during a time when Ghostbusters and Beetlejuice were being released, its a great mix, I don't think the film has aged badly, the Mogwai certainly have not. If this film had been made now CGI would have ruined its cuteness and outdated the film greatly. Gremlins is a great movie, one I will be watching again at Christmas and next Halloween.
Post by: snowcat on November 01, 2009, 06:22:45 PM
Post by: snowcat on November 02, 2009, 12:25:54 PM
Director - Terrence Malick
Running Time - 170 minutes
Stars - James Caviezel, Sean Penn, Adrien Brody, Ben Chaplin, George Clooney, John Cusack, Woody Harrelson, Elias Koteas, Nick Nolte, John C. Reilly
OK so, I'm not a major fan of war films, but I bought this for the sole purpose of it had John C Reilly in, the film has been in my watch film for a few weeks, not as long as some in my collection, today I watched it.
War films make you think of death and murder, most follow the same format, soldiers get killed, general feels to blame, general has conflicting feelings about the war. This film is no exception.
The Thin Red Line is a story of the men in C Company although it has a wide cast and some pretty famous actors, it mainly follows three characters Private Witt (Jim Cavizel) and his conflicted feelings about fighting, Colonel Tall (Nick Nolte) and his longing to win the current battle at any cost finally there is Private Bell (Ben Chaplin) Private Bells story is mainly of him remembering things about his wife and there relationship sometimes it seems disillusioned.
The men have been bought to Guadalcanal there job is to take the island from the Japanese, whilst waiting to be deployed they contemplate what might happen to them. Finally they reach the island of Guadalcanal, they start to hike a hill and a shell attack starts to hit, they see a Japanese machine gun and realise any attempt to climb this hill will be futile.
Colonel Tall orders his field captain Captain Staros (Elias Koteas) to attack, disregarding the colonels orders, Staros disagrees and say he will not send his men to be killed. Colonel Tall decides to join him on the field. Finally they agree to send a small party of men to take the bunker.
The Thin Red Line is not a film I would usually go out of my to watch, as I said before I bought it for one actor, who only has roughly 5 or 6 lines in the film. I liked the film, but it was very long, and as I'm not used to the subject material I guess it felt longer to me. Over all I think its a good film, with an intresting story and an intresting set of characters, but I doubt ill watch it again.
Post by: snowcat on November 02, 2009, 02:35:21 PM
Director - Danny Boyle
Running Time - 113 minutes
Stars - Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris, Noah Huntley, Christopher Eccleston
When I think of zombie films, I don't really think of Britain, I think of American or Spanish films. 28 Days Later is set in London, and surprisingly enough the Zombie idea fits really well.
28 days later is a zombie film, and much like most zombie films it starts with a few people getting infected, who go on to infect a mass amount of people.
The story starts in a lab, where some activists have broken in to free some “test subject” monkey's whilst inside a scientist, (who those of you who have children or have catched CBBC in Britain will know as Uncle Max) so the scientist tells the activists that the monkey's have been infected with rage, and not to release them, of course the are released by the activists and one is promptly bitten.
Fast forward 28 days and bicycle courier Jim (Cillian Murphy) wakes up in hospital after being knocked off his bicycle. Waking up suddenly Jim runs out of the hospital completely confused when he is rescued by Selena (Naomie Harris) and Mark (Noah Huntley) upon discovering the truth they decide to seek out Jims parents, upon arriving at the house they find his parents have killed themselves thinking there son was dead. Of course all manor of problems happen at the house including a zombie attack.
28 Days Later surprised me, not one for English horror films I'm used to seeing English films that are comedies or dramas, 28 Days Later surprised me in that it was more sophisticated then your general zombie film, it had a good story and some strong actors, not the B movie I imagined it would be.
28 Days later was enjoyable, but I doubt ill go out of my way to watch it again, I also own the sequel, 28 weeks later, but I think that's enough Zombie films for today.
Post by: snowcat on November 02, 2009, 06:38:11 PM
Director - Woody Allen
Running time - 93 minutes
Stars - Woody Allen, Diane Keaton
The title Annie Hall has always made me think of a bit stately home, probably due to the hall part of the title, obviously this film has nothing to do with stately homes, it follows Woody Allens character Alvy as he tries to discover where his relationship went wrong.
I can't say Ive seen Woody Allen in much, I must broaden my horizons and look in to his work, because I find him funny, I find his deadpan variety of humour genius, and as a fan of ridiculous sex comedies I find myself owning a few of his films, but not getting around to watching them.
Annie Hall starts with Alvy (Woody Allen) addressing the audience, explaining that he has broken up with Annie, he goes on to recount his past and chronicle the events of there relationship.
During the film the two make various imaginary trips to watch other past, Annie seeing Alvy's childhood and Alvy seeing Annie past relationships, The film chronicles there many arguments and reconciliations. Until finally they have “the talk” on an aeroplane and decide the future of there relationsip.
I was pleasantly surprised by the Annie Hall, I found myself wanting to watch it again as soon as it had finished, that's a rare thing for me to experience, I found that sadly some of the things said by Alvy reflected relationships in my past, and allowed me to get a better understanding of things, his quote from Groucho Marx, which in turn was from somewhere else “I wouldn't want to join a club, who would have me as a member” is true, many people feel that way about relationships, I see this film as less of a comedy and more of a character study.
Annie Hall, is a very good film one I will be returning to again. I guess this means I should watch the other Woody Allen films I own.
Post by: snowcat on November 02, 2009, 08:12:50 PM
Director – Frank Oz
Running Time – 97 minutes
Stars - Steve Martin, Eddie Murphy, Heather Graham
I remember seeing parts of Bowfinger when it was on Sky movies a few years ago, my parents were watching it, in hopes of seeing another great Steve Martin films, they were not impressed with the film and there opinion rubbed off on me, I did not go back and watch it.
Sometime last year I bought an “Eddie Murphy” collection one of the films inside was Bowfinger, I decided to take a look at it today, and have to say I was not surprised.
Bowfinger is the story of film producer Bobby Bowfinger (Steve Martin) who has saved up all his life to make a film and now with the grand total of $2,184 has decided its time. With a screenplay by his accountant, a a camera operator with access to high class equipment and a few work hungry actors at his disposal all Bowinger needs is a studio to distribute his work.
He meets film studio executive (Robert Downey-Jr) who tells Bowfinger that his studio will distribute the film as long as hollywood action star Kit Ramsey (Eddie Murphy) is lead roll. As Ramsey refuses Bowfinger goes on a wild goose chase filming scenes in any order possible, without Kit knowing he is in the film.
Bowfinger is a strange film and I can't decide whether I liked it or not, some parts felt over acted, but that could have been intentional, obviously it was not supposed to be realistic, but it felt wrong, almost false. Eddie Murphy, Steve Martin and Heather Graham all played good parts in the movie, all of which were acted well, and portrayed the stereotypes, that would make any film about making a film a comedy.
And so, I think I liked the movie, but ill have to watch it again to get a better opinion, this has been a strange one.
Post by: snowcat on November 04, 2009, 10:42:17 PM
Director – Mel Brooks
Running Time – 106 minutes
Stars - Gene Wilder, Peter Boyle, Marty Feldman, Teri Garr
Films about Frankenstein have been around for years, as have comedies about Frankenstein, and with a comedy legends like Gene Wilder in the lead role, the film Young Frankenstein had to be pure comedic genius, right?
Young Frankenstein is the story of Dr Fredrick Frankenstein (Gene Wilder) grandson of the infamous Frankenstein, Fredrick is rather embarrassed by this insisting his name is "Fronk'-en-steen". And that his grandfather was crazy. Fredrick is a lecturer in an American medical school when he receives a telegram about his grandfathers will.
Traveling to his inherited estate in Transylvania meets his hunch backed new house assistant Igor (Marty Feldman), his new lab assistant Inga (Terri Garr) and a another house assistant, who seems to have the strangest effect on horses Frau Blücher. (Cloris Leachman) upon discovering his grandfathers research young Frankenstein decides to continue with his grandfathers work, but will he be able to reanimate a body?
I enjoyed this film as much as I imagined I would, as with Blazing Saddles and The Producers I found it hilarious, I laughed out loud numerous times. Mel Brooks is a great director and writer, and this proves how funny he is.
I am yet to see Gene Wilder in a role I have not liked him in (and hope I don't) This is probably my favourite Mel Brooks, but not my favourite Wilder movie.
Overall I really enjoyed the film, I liked the stylised black and white and the references to old Frankenstein movies, I love how it parody's early horror movies, and love the style of humor used, a great film that I will definitely watch again.
Post by: Kathy on November 04, 2009, 11:35:35 PM
Post by: snowcat on November 04, 2009, 11:45:03 PM
Its a great film! im surprised its not on television as often as Blazing Saddles :S im also surprised its a PG over here.
Post by: Najemikon on November 05, 2009, 12:36:26 AM
Post by: snowcat on November 05, 2009, 08:18:42 AM
Post by: snowcat on November 08, 2009, 11:10:40 AM
Post by: snowcat on November 08, 2009, 08:36:05 PM
Director – John Landis
Running Time – 109 minutes
Stars - John Belushi, Tim Matheson, John Vernon, Verna Bloom
As a fan of gross out sex comedies, I bought Animal House with upon recommendation, I was told I would laugh out loud, Id love it more the American Pie or Not Another Teen Movie, I think I was watching a different movie.
After being rejected from the Omega fraternity, Larry and Kent try their luck in the Delta Fraternity, after a strange evening the two are accepted in to Delta house.
Delta House is currently on “Double Secret probation” after repeatedly breaking conduct violations. And Dean Vernon Wormer makes it his goal to destroy them. After a run in with a cadet commander Kent is forced to clean out the horse stables, after being talked into removing the animal and putting it in the Dean’s office, by two other Delta boys, Kent accidentally kills the horse, the next day Bluto (John Belushi) causes a food fight in the cafeteria, by pretending he is a zit and spitting food all over a few Omega members.
Shortly after this Bluto and another Delta member D-Day steel results for an upcoming Psychology test, if the members pass it will up there grade point average and take them out of the probation zone, but will they be able to pass the test?
The plot is so random that I can honestly say I had a hard time writing a synopsis for it, it reminded me of Old School, in content and the fact I did not find it that funny, as with that film I think it's because I just don't get the “frat brother hood thing”
I laughed at a film a few times, but it looks dated now, of course it's a classic, and the film birthed the “gross-out genre” and for that I am thankful, but the film is severely dated. I felt as though the film was better suited to a sketch show format. John Belushi’s talents as a comedic actor seemed wasted here, Early casting ideas included Chevy Chase, Bill Murray, Brian Doyle-Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and John Belushi I think that cast would have made the film better, but at the same time, I doubt these actors would have suited the roles.
Post by: venomsinner on November 08, 2009, 08:45:30 PM
Post by: Najemikon on November 08, 2009, 08:47:10 PM
I can understand someone finding American Pie more relevant, but NATM is the work of an idiot!
In general, I sort of agree with you as I didn't get Animal House the first time I saw it, but it grew on me and I enjoy it a lot now. Have you seen Porky's?
Post by: snowcat on November 08, 2009, 09:01:41 PM
I think American Pie surpasses it story wise and humour wise... maybe I need to watch it again.
I have not seen Porky's the only other National Lampoon branded films I have seen are Van Wilder and TV the Movie.
Post by: Najemikon on November 08, 2009, 09:04:37 PM
Not Another Teen Movie was probably not the best example, but its a great parody :p
Now you should always respect other peoples opinions, but... well I can't. Because you're wrong. And possibly on heavy medication.
:tease:
Post by: snowcat on November 08, 2009, 09:14:15 PM
Not Another Teen Movie was probably not the best example, but its a great parody :p
Now you should always respect other peoples opinions, but... well I can't. Because you're wrong. And possibly on heavy medication.
:tease:
..I was once told a writer would believe they were right no matter what, and as a writer im sorry but im going to have to say ;) your wrong.
Post by: Dragonfire on November 08, 2009, 11:08:51 PM
Post by: Jimmy on November 08, 2009, 11:49:35 PM
Post by: snowcat on November 09, 2009, 12:00:01 AM
Marie try to watch it after Date Movie, Epic Movie, Meet The Spartans, Disaster Movie and The Underground Comedy Movie like I've done in april... You will find that Not Another Teen Movie is a comedic masterpiece :laugh:
I have to agree ;p Not Another Teen Movie, is a thousand times better then Meet the Spartans (which I only just got through watching) Epic Movie and Date Movie.
Post by: snowcat on November 09, 2009, 11:37:56 AM
Director – Wes Anderson
Running Time – 92 minutes
stars - Luke Wilson, Owen Wilson, James Caan
I bought Bottle Rocket blindly, I love the Royal Tenenbaums and I wanted to see more of Wes Anderson’s film before I went to see Fantastic Mr Fox.
The film opens with Dignan (Owen Wilson) and his attempt to “rescue” his friend Anthony (Luke Wilson) from a voluntary mental hospital, where he has been staying for what he describes as “exhaustion” upon “escape” Anthony finds Dignan has a “75 year plan” that he describes on the bus back home, the idea is to pull off a small number of heists and to meet up with Mr Henry a small time criminal that Dignan once worked for.
Upon arrival home the two waste no time breaking into a house, stealing everything from a specific list, during Dignan’s critique of the robbery he mentions that he stole a pair of diamond earrings that were not on the list, Anthony is annoyed at this because they have just robbed his parents house, and the earrings were taken without his permission.
Anthony visits his sister at school to asks her to return the earrings, she asks when he is coming home and he avoids the question, saying He's a grown up. Dignan has also recruited Bob as a getaway driver (the only person he knows with a car) the three buy some guns and go back to Bob's to plan the heist, but will they go through with it?
Bottle Rocket is a film that I started out not enjoying, as it went on I enjoyed it more, it started out as a short, and I think it should have remained that way, it felt like two films had been merged into one, the middle seemed wrongly placed, I think it could have easily have been two short films.
Bottle Rocket is Wes Anderson's directorial debut, it's also the Wilson brothers acting debuts, whilst this is a great debut for the three of them, the film was lacking in strength, Scorsese put this film in his top 10 of the 90S, I would not, but I would put the Royal Tenenbaums in my top 10 of the 00S Wes Anderson's directing has improved a lot of the years, I can't wait to see Fantastic Mr Fox.
Post by: Najemikon on November 09, 2009, 12:02:34 PM
I haven't seen Mr. Fox, but I'm actually not that interested. The animation looks dreadful. Additionally, Mark Kermode said it was an odd film. Much as he normally likes Anderson, he found this to be smug and as if it was trying to be clever for adults. He used another stop-motion film, Curse of the Were-Rabbit, as an example of how it should be done.
Maybe he wasn't trying to appeal to kids at all! Someone said that to Kermode, but he felt that Roald Dahl's superb book, like many of his, was supposed to be for kids with a lot for adults to enjoy. Not the other way around.
But I look forward to your review. If I can get past the weird look of the film, maybe Kermode is wrong and it works really well.
Post by: Achim on November 09, 2009, 02:44:00 PM
But I look forward to your review. If I can get past the weird look of the film, maybe Kermode is wrong and it works really well.Well, he said also, IIRC, that for people who like Anderson's smug films Mr. Fox should be just fine. He mainly kept pointing out that he thought it failed at being what it should be, which is a fillm for children made from a book for children. However, for the subsequent show several listeners had written in to confirm that their children had liked the film...
Post by: snowcat on November 09, 2009, 08:56:50 PM
I think he deliberately made it for adults.
Jon, I think the large cast thing is also possibly something I did not like about Bottle Rocket, now that I think about it, I love the large cast aspect of the RT
Post by: Najemikon on November 09, 2009, 09:19:13 PM
the thing is regardless of if the book was written at the time for kids, times have changed, the main character is a thief ;P not exactly top of parents role model lists these days.
And that's what's wrong with kids stories today. :shrug: It's that sort of thinking that has done for Tom & Jerry. Go back much further and read Aesop and you'll find all sorts of vulgarity. Dahl just continued the tradition and kids loved it. I know I did. I grew up with his books and I can't imagine being without them. Sod the parents! I ever have kids, the little buggers will get Bugs Bunny every damn day! :dance:
Post by: snowcat on November 09, 2009, 09:57:23 PM
the new release has got a little disclaimer on the back "not suitable for children"
Post by: Najemikon on November 10, 2009, 12:03:39 AM
I agree! I think people are over protective XD Id let my kids watch Tom and Jerry!!
the new release has got a little disclaimer on the back "not suitable for children"
Oh, what? :slaphead:
Post by: Dragonfire on November 10, 2009, 02:46:22 AM
I agree! I think people are over protective XD Id let my kids watch Tom and Jerry!!
the new release has got a little disclaimer on the back "not suitable for children"
Wait a minute...Tom and Jerry isn't suitable for children now?
Good grief. Now I admit there are things children shouldn't see - and that includes some animated movies - but Tom and Jerry?? Sheesh. Give me a break.
Post by: Jimmy on November 10, 2009, 02:55:14 AM
Wait a minute...Tom and Jerry isn't suitable for children now?Good thing that we are the one who decide for our children (or our hypothetical one in my case) and not the "think at the children" religious nut...
I've watched all those cartoons when I was a kid and I've relatively well turn...
I've even watched this one (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073691/) at 10 years old with my dad :laugh:
Post by: Achim on November 10, 2009, 05:14:19 AM
I remember when I was younger there was two sets of Tom and Jerry. The "regular" ones which played around 6pm (I suppose this is what most of us remember) and then different ones that would only play at 9pm! The latter ones were indeed more violent than the other ones and not entirely suitable for the younger ones.
The US release I own comes in three volumes. I forgot about the 3rd one, but volume 1 is for kids and volume 2 is labeled as not suitable for kids!
I daresay there is even a third level of Tom & Jerry, which are the overly soft ones where they actually team up rather than fight each other :yucky:
Post by: snowcat on November 10, 2009, 10:16:32 AM
my favourite episode of Tom and Jerry
(click to show/hide)
Post by: snowcat on November 10, 2009, 07:11:59 PM
Director – Shane Black
Running Time – 103 minutes
Stars - Robert Downey, Jr., Val Kilmer, Michelle Monaghan
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, sounds like
1. A strange porn film
2. A cheesy 70’s cop show.
Thankfully it’s none of the two. Although considering its a dark comedy with some classic film noir tendencies, following a private detective and in theory his partner maybe it’s closer to cheesy cop show they I originally though.
Narrated by small time criminal Harry Lockhart (Robert Downey-Jr) Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, is the story of how a botched heist turns Harry in to a film actor, after accidently setting off an alarm Harry and his accomplice escape, only to be targeted with a gun, as the police arrive Harry’s accomplice is shot, Harry runs into a late night audition for a movie, with a strangely coincidental script Harry is offered the part.
Arriving at a Hollywood Party Harry is introduced to gay private investigator Perry (Val Kilmer) Perry is brought in to teach the ways of a private detective, at the party Harry bumps in to his dream girl, Harmony (Michelle Monaghan) although there is something familiar about her.
I really enjoyed this film, I love the fact that Harry breaks the fourth wall to explain what’s happening, I loved the story and it has made me want to read the book, ill be hunting that out later.
As Val Kilmer’s character says “This is not good cop bad cop, this is fag and New Yorker” the chemistry between, Robert Downey - JR and Val Kilmer is perfect, this is by far the funniest role I’ve seen Kilmer in and my favourite Downey – Jr role.
A sequel is in the works and proposed release is 2010, both Kilmer and Downey – Jr are set to come back, I hope it’s as good as the original, and I hope it gets a wider release.
Post by: Najemikon on November 10, 2009, 07:14:47 PM
A sequel is in the works and proposed release is 2010, both Kilmer and Downey – Jr are set to come back, I hope it’s as good as the original, and I hope it gets a wider release.
Excellent news. :dance:
There's a lot of love on this forum for Kiss Kiss Bang Bang...
Post by: Dragonfire on November 11, 2009, 07:35:04 AM
Post by: snowcat on November 11, 2009, 08:17:51 AM
thats all I could fine about the sequel.
Post by: Dragonfire on November 11, 2009, 08:51:17 AM
Post by: goodguy on November 11, 2009, 07:03:52 PM
There's a lot of love on this forum for Kiss Kiss Bang Bang...
Although the manly people here also think that there should be a few more words about Michelle Monaghan in a KKBB review. ;)
As for the sequel: the only thing I've found except Emma's link is an unsourced note in the Wikipedia entry for KKBB - which in an earlier version also claimed that MM already has turned down an offer to take part in it.
Personally, I think they should leave it alone. KKBB is a perfect little movie, no need to go Lethal Weapon on it.
Post by: Najemikon on November 11, 2009, 08:26:57 PM
I remember you chastising me for calling Michelle "gorgeous" as it was too small a word. I called her gorgeous in my Gone Baby Gone review too, in which she was superb. Have you seen it yet?
Post by: addicted2dvd on November 11, 2009, 08:31:44 PM
Post by: snowcat on November 11, 2009, 08:41:00 PM
Although the manly people here also think that there should be a few more words about Michelle Monaghan in a KKBB review. ;)
Gonna be honest :P I was to busy seeing how awesome Val Kilmer and Robert Downey Jr were to notice her XD
Post by: goodguy on November 11, 2009, 08:49:50 PM
I remember you chastising me for calling Michelle "gorgeous" as it was too small a word. I called her gorgeous in my Gone Baby Gone review too, in which she was superb. Have you seen it yet?
No, I haven't. I remember dismissing it, because the kid²napping story had no appeal to me. But as you noted, I even got Eagle Eye now, so I may still change my mind.
Post by: Najemikon on November 11, 2009, 11:21:47 PM
I remember you chastising me for calling Michelle "gorgeous" as it was too small a word. I called her gorgeous in my Gone Baby Gone review too, in which she was superb. Have you seen it yet?
No, I haven't. I remember dismissing it, because the kid²napping story had no appeal to me. But as you noted, I even got Eagle Eye now, so I may still change my mind.
Well, I can see why you'd be wary, and the kidnapping story is the weaker side, but it's worth bearing in mind that it's based on a book by Dennis Lehane who also did Mystic River and the forthcoming Shutter Island. Conventional, he is not. Gone Baby Gone takes a complicated turn I think you'd find intriguing.
Post by: Dragonfire on November 12, 2009, 01:05:35 AM
Post by: snowcat on November 13, 2009, 09:05:24 PM
Post by: snowcat on November 13, 2009, 09:06:36 PM
Director – Jody Hill
Running Time – 81 minutes
Stars: Danny R. McBride, Ben Best, Mary Jane Bostic
The foot fist way sounds like a cheesy martial arts movie, whilst it is about Taekwondo, it's far from your average martial arts movie, it's a comedy, relatively funny and Jody Hill of Observe and Report fame's directorial debut.
Starring new Frat Pack collaborator Danny McBride (Heartbreak Kid, Tropic Thunder) The Foot Fist way is the story of Taekwondo instructor Fred Simmons, a 4Th degree black belt who thinks He's a big shot, driving a Ferrari and promoting the ways of Taekwondo to potential students.
Fred loses confidence in himself after he finds out his wife has cheated on him, out to get revenge he beats up the child of the man his wife has an affair with only to find he has gotten the wrong child. To gain more confidence Fred two students and his best friend from high school go on a trip to meet Fred's idol, action movie star Chuck "the Truck" Wallace, Fred manages to talk to Chuck, he is invited to a party and even manages to convince the star to come and visit his Dojo, but will this really solve his problem?
Danny Mcbride's acting is good, his character is convincing yet, after watching the series Eastbound and Down, which he plays the main character, I can’t help but see similarities between his character in the show and his character in this film. Of course there is also the fact the lead character in Eastbound is called Kenny Powers and a character in the film is called Roy Powers. The film seems like a springboard for the TV show, although there are some loose similarities, the series was made by the same team behind this film.
Overall the film is slow and some scenes last too long, saying that I feel the ending was far too abrupt, it felt as though it ended part way through a scene. The Foot Fist way was a low budget film that just happened to be picked up by Will Ferrell's production company two years after it was made. This film could have been great, all it needed was a stronger cast and a script rewrite.
Post by: snowcat on November 14, 2009, 08:39:12 PM
Director – Orson Wells
Running Time – 119 minutes
Stars: Orson Wells
Most people have heard of Citizen Kane, mainly because its often voted “Greatest Film Ever Made” but, is this film over hyped? Or is it really that good?
The film begins with the death of Charles Kane, his dying words “Rosebud” confused, and who wouldn't be by the meaning of this? Media Mogul Kane is well known in New York, head of Newspaper the Inquirer.
Following Kane's death reporter Jerry Thompson decides to find out just exactly what Kane meant by “Rosebud” he visits Kane's second ex wife, his business manager and best friend. But will Jerry ever be able to find the meaning of Rosebud?
The film shows a series of flashbacks of the life of Kane, told by the people Jerry meets, its an intresting story and Orson Wells does a great job of directing and acting. But I think more could have been done to make the film intresting, some scenes seemed to carry on too long.
I think this film is massively over hyped, I really enjoyed it but it just isn't the greatest film of all time, now I can get in to arguments about time etc, but what about The Wizard of Oz? Gone With the Wind? Wuthering Heights? Maybe I'm missing something, I guess its subjective its one of those things I think people agree with just to agree, of course “the greatest movie of all time” is entirely subjective, I just wish I wouldn't read countless publications with the same top 5. Of course I'm sure I've opened a giant can of worms.
Post by: Najemikon on November 14, 2009, 09:24:40 PM
I think this film is massively over hyped, I really enjoyed it but it just isn't the greatest film of all time, now I can get in to arguments about time etc, but what about The Wizard of Oz? Gone With the Wind? Wuthering Heights? Maybe I'm missing something, I guess its subjective its one of those things I think people agree with just to agree, of course “the greatest movie of all time” is entirely subjective, I just wish I wouldn't read countless publications with the same top 5. Of course I'm sure I've opened a giant can of worms.
Oooh, Emma! Where's my tin opener? :P
Now you've said in the past that you're doing some sort of film studies, aren't you? So I hope you'll understand that I'm only pushing this point because you've expressed such serious interest in the past. If you're taking it that seriously, please find out why Citizen Kane is considered as important as it is. You may still come to the conclusion that it is over-hyped and not worthy of such attention, but at least you won't lump it in with Gone With The Wind or Wuthering Heights! They are both very good, but are merely studio melodramas. The Wizard of Oz is fairer, but actually, I consider it exempt to some degree because it's very genre specific. Although wonderful and of course, colourful, it didn't advance film-making as much as Orson Welles with Citizen Kane.
You're right, that labelling films "the greatest" is subjective, but there are genuine fundamental reasons why Welles was years ahead of his time. When I did Film Studies, I had seen it a couple of times and enjoyed it, but I ended up seeing it three times in one week for an essay on narrative and in particular, mise en scene. It should have been a bore, but instead it clicked and I've loved it since.
Post by: snowcat on November 14, 2009, 09:58:31 PM
Kevin Smith said in one of his Smodcast that Citizen Kane should be removed from those lists to give other films a chance. I agree, there should be some variety in these lists :p not everyone has the same opinions!
I remember being told that Citizen Kane was amazing because they showed ceilings in the shots.... I laughed, I don't think the average cinema goer of 1941 walked out of a film saying "that's so unrealistic, where are the ceilings in the shots?"
Citizen Kane revolutionary? ;P yes, best movie of all time? NO NO NO!
Post by: Najemikon on November 15, 2009, 12:06:39 AM
Look, I don't even like these "top fives" "top tens" crap that critics put out. We're dealing with art and to say one is absolutely better than all is ridiculous. That's why I stressed the word "importance". Also, whatever I'm about to say is not unique to Welles. He was a genius like Hitchcock, because he could bend the technique to his will. Others are just as brilliant for doing the exact opposite and working miracles with what they have.
If you had watched Kane and come on here and said it was better than anything ever, I'd still be here suggesting you look up Ikiru or something. I completely agree with Kevin Smith because Kane has received too much attention. It doesn't come down to opinion, but context. Kevin Smith is a walking encyclopaedia and he wants people to understand the stuff they've never heard of, not because Kane isn't important.
But I'm still arguing the point because you said...
I remember being told that Citizen Kane was amazing because they showed ceilings in the shots.... I laughed, I don't think the average cinema goer of 1941 walked out of a film saying "that's so unrealistic, where are the ceilings in the shots?"
Ok, whoever made that statement was being foolish and working with absolutes. "Oooooh, a ceiling!". You really think that's why critics wet themselves over this film?
Consider several points: in any well constructed film, nothing is an accident (that's a fundamental of Mise En Scene); also, in any well constructed film, the technique never outbalances the narrative. In other words, everything is constructed for a reason to elicit a reaction from the audience... most of whom have no idea about the techniques and wouldn't have noticed the ceiling until it caved in. Still, they react anyway because Welles made the film for them, not film nerds.
A lot of those nerds go in to Kane, especially when they think they have to agree with the herd, and so they talk about the ceilings, the depth of field, the fluid camera, the set design and... the bloody ceilings. All very observant, but no-one ever thinks... "why?".
So, if Welles did nothing by accident, and everything for a fundamental reason (not just because he could), what do you think he is trying to do by showing the ceiling?
Post by: DJ Doena on November 15, 2009, 12:15:37 AM
what do you think he is trying to do by showing the ceiling?
Hide the studio floor?
:bag:
Post by: Najemikon on November 15, 2009, 12:39:30 AM
But actually you're on the right track. You could say he was pointing the cameras at the ceiling because there was no floor. He'd dug it up. Why had he gone to the trouble of digging up the floor? So the cameras could look up at the ceiling! :yahoo:
Oh, I love this shit! We have a chicken and the egg situation. But why? Goddamn it! Why?
:-X
Post by: snowcat on November 15, 2009, 09:28:52 AM
He used long shots instead of short, catching peoples reactions in one shot instead of having to edit reactions in, his ability to keep background and foreground in focus was pretty amazing (back then) as the film goes on Kane stops being the main figure in the shots to a lesser one, more so when he is exiled to Xanadu with Susan.
:p im gonna be honest Jon, I have no idea what you want me to say about the film, technically this film was great, its withstood the test of time, but I feel it now has no place on one of those lists, firstly because I don't want people to tell me what the best films are, and secondly, because why do those lists all have to be the same? the top 5 is almost identical every time, for something that's subjective publications seem to go with the same things ¬_¬
Post by: richierich on November 15, 2009, 11:15:18 AM
I say it as I see it, and even when I can respect certain films (seven samurai jumps to mind) it doesn't mean I have to enjoy it.
I've had some good debates with jon over time and he has helped my overall film education. But he would never influence my opinion (nor I'm sure would he want to), enjoying a film is purely down to personal taste.
Sadly there are a lot of people beyond these forums who are influenced by these lists, they feel they should say some 'classics' in their top ten, even if they would never be in their top ten desert island discs.
For Citizen Kane, I actually enjoyed the film, and clearly understand why it is historically significant in terms of movie-making, but it would never be in my top ten.
Post by: Achim on November 15, 2009, 11:28:13 AM
Oh, I love this shit! We have a chicken and the egg situation. But why? Goddamn it! Why?You have me curious now... So, why did he show the ceiling?
I realise the film is a masterpiece. The use of non linear flashbacks, combined with Kane's fascinating character make this a great story, leaving the ending open for interpretation was also a big thing then.It's been a while since I last saw it, but I don't remember be overly open at the end. After all, the reference to Rosebud is revealed... Or am I missing something?
Post by: Najemikon on November 15, 2009, 12:40:53 PM
You either liked it or didn't, thats what having a personal choice is for.
I say it as I see it, and even when I can respect certain films (seven samurai jumps to mind) it doesn't mean I have to enjoy it.
I've had some good debates with jon over time and he has helped my overall film education. But he would never influence my opinion (nor I'm sure would he want to), enjoying a film is purely down to personal taste.
Sadly there are a lot of people beyond these forums who are influenced by these lists, they feel they should say some 'classics' in their top ten, even if they would never be in their top ten desert island discs.
For Citizen Kane, I actually enjoyed the film, and clearly understand why it is historically significant in terms of movie-making, but it would never be in my top ten.
Thank you, Rich. You summed it up perfectly. The reason I've pushed this with you, Emma, is because you made a fateful comment when you first joined us, that you were in some sort of film education and importantly, the amount you write shows you take it seriously. For me, that means you can't get away with a mere statement! If you're going to say you disagree with something like Kane being so revered, I need to know why. :tease:
Rich alluded to an important thing in studying art of any sort. Personal opinion informs understanding, but you don't have to like it to understand it. In my Film Studies exam I had to write about My Beautiful Laundrette, a film I detest as being subversive and basically shit. I got a mark for explaining that, but it was taken away again because I couldn't separate my opinion from putting it in context. The exam importantly didn't ask, "did you like it"? It asked me to understand it and I couldn't. Mainly because I didn't want to.
Good for you that you don't want to be told what the greatest films are. I'm proud to say I do include Kane in my top ten (perhaps not personal 10), but I do so because I've seen others and have been able to put it in context. You just demonstrated the same; you do understand Kane and that's why it isn't in your top films. You asked what I expected you to say? Just that. Thank you! :yahoo:
That said, you started this ceiling crap and you only skirted around it... :devil:
You have me curious now... So, why did he show the ceiling?I realise the film is a masterpiece. The use of non linear flashbacks, combined with Kane's fascinating character make this a great story, leaving the ending open for interpretation was also a big thing then.It's been a while since I last saw it, but I don't remember be overly open at the end. After all, the reference to Rosebud is revealed... Or am I missing something?
He shows the ceiling not because he wants to, but because it's a side effect of looking up and therefore he had to have a roof. It is technically important because it meant the set couldn't be lit in traditional ways.
As everyone already knows, a basic rule of photography says how you compose the subject suggests how you want the viewer to feel about it; Villains tower above you, cute little dogs look up at you. Be careful when you take a snap of your partner! Do you worship them, own them, or consider them equal? ;) Welles took this to a new level in film that is rarely used even now.
Emma mentioned the depth of field, keeping characters in focus (no-one is more important than the other so far as the camera is concerned). Additionally, there were often three characters in any one scene, forming a triangle, and his camera angles allowed them to walk around so their size would change in relation to one another. Who is emotionally stronger? The biggest one. There's a key scene where Kane is pacing toward the camera and his emotions match his size in the frame. Often the sets are impossibly large; cold, empty Xanadu matches his mind.
This is also why he had to make a set that could let the camera move fluidly because a normal edit would ruin this. Remember when we discussed Rope and how the set could split open? Welles did that and so much more in the flashback. The camera goes right through a wall and the furniture! But this meant he had a beautiful composition between Kanes mother (most important), Thatcher (the instigator, trying to get custody of Kane, frustrated by the mother) and Kanes father (currently not important at all, but his motion to hit Kane reveals why his mother has to send him away). Best of all, while Kane is outside unaware his life is being decided, he is framed by the window, so he is also in the scene. Welles broke the triangle rule for the most important scene.
The reason it's most important is because it breaks all the rules of the film, which is built of scenes with a reporter interviewing people who knew Kane. We never see the reporters face because he is us, but actually, he can't possibly understand what we now know because the flashback was just for us, the viewer, and Charles Kane. It's a special moment for us and him, which is why he kept it in a snowglobe. ;) You're right, the ending isn't really open...
(click to show/hide)
For me, Kane will always be one of the greatest because the technique was always extreme, only to match the narrative. Even more than Hitchcock (he did a very similar flashback structure in I Confess), though his output has far more range than Welles. David Fincher of all people used the fluid camera as recently as Panic Room, but really only because it looked good and could be done in CGI now. Emotionally, few scripts are as strong as Kane.
As I mentioned before though, Ikiru is worth seeing... :D
Post by: Kathy on November 15, 2009, 02:20:27 PM
Post by: snowcat on November 15, 2009, 05:58:11 PM
As for the ending being subjective, whilst we know what Rosebud is, its left open as to why he said it, what does it mean to him? what did it symbolise? why was it so important to him that it was his dying word! and why does that snowglobe remind him of it? if you see the film again you instantly remember the sled and its importance. on a one time viewing, you could forget that!;P thats what I ment by open.
Post by: Najemikon on November 15, 2009, 06:18:47 PM
I agree with everything you say about it being technically a great film how ever ;P as an extremley amature film maker and writer I like to think the story is more important then the techniques, I make a film for an audiance not change the way films are made. ;)
I agree. I love Citizen Kane because the story is more important than the technique. He built the technique so he could tell the story in the best way possible. Bear in mind Orson Welles was a story-teller first and his films are never outweighed by technique. And films are first and foremost visual storytelling. Around the time of Kane, Hollywood was taking a lot of influence from German Expressionism and developing the thriller into ways we take for granted now. Otherwise you might as well just film a play. :shrug:
As for the ending being subjective, whilst we know what Rosebud is, its left open as to why he said it, what does it mean to him? what did it symbolise? why was it so important to him that it was his dying word! and why does that snowglobe remind him of it? if you see the film again you instantly remember the sled and its importance. on a one time viewing, you could forget that!;P thats what I ment by open.
Sorry, Emma, you're confusing me! :bag: Are you saying that at the end, we don't understand what Rosebud means to Kane? Because we certainly do. Or do you simply mean the ending is open while we're watching it? That's kind of the point... :hmmmm:
Post by: snowcat on November 15, 2009, 06:34:27 PM
yep, true true. and this film was good at visualising, but there is no way it will ever be my favourite film XD
Post by: addicted2dvd on November 15, 2009, 11:53:13 PM
Post by: Najemikon on November 16, 2009, 12:22:09 AM
Actually, see if they have The Third Man. It's more accessible, as it is a thriller, a natural progression from your Val Lewtons and can act as a springboard to Citizen Kane. Still, though, I would love to hear what you think of Kane! Especially if it's free. :thumbup:
Sorry, Emma, I don't mean to jump in on your thread again! It's just I recently twisted Pete's arm into a Val Lewton boxset, so he's just getting into more classics. ;)
Post by: addicted2dvd on November 16, 2009, 12:35:43 AM
Post by: addicted2dvd on November 16, 2009, 12:37:53 AM
Post by: Achim on November 16, 2009, 05:47:46 AM
I always thought that it's mainly because he seemed to have been robbed of an "innocent" youth, turning to business too early, and he missed that and wished it had been otherwise. Hence Xanadu with all the toys...
Post by: snowcat on November 16, 2009, 06:41:17 PM
:p Thats cool Achim! glad somebody understands me :hysterical:
Post by: Najemikon on November 16, 2009, 08:29:23 PM
But stop referencing it as "greatest film ever made" as way of criticising it! I never call it that and I adore it. It instantly holds it up for judgement, especially by yourself, when it should be taken on its own terms. The next time you see it (all great films should be seen multiple times ;)) give it a chance to impress you just because it is what it is.
I only say that because it's always been a fault of mine to react badly to hype. If someone tells me "this is the best thing ever in whole world!", I instantly mistrust it. I tend to have to ignore things until the hype (or extreme opposite) dies down and then I can enjoy it.
Ironically, in the case of Citizen Kane, people like Sight And Sound who pushed the idea it was the finest film ever made, may have been over-compensating because of how Welles was treated. He made a fool of the studios making that film and they never let him have full control again. Before home video, people needed more persuasion to venture out to the cinema to see re-screened oldies.
Post by: snowcat on November 17, 2009, 11:22:39 AM
I will try my best though :p even if im still writing reviews in December! ;P good job ive written notes!
Post by: snowcat on November 19, 2009, 05:08:02 PM
Ironman
The 3 Musketeers (Mickey Donald and Goofy)
Cheeper by the Dozen
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
American Werewolf in London
(and If I finish watching it tonight Lost Boys.)
Post by: snowcat on November 20, 2009, 09:58:08 PM
Director – Shawn Levy
Running Time – 98 minutes
Stars: Steve Martin, Bonnie Hunt, Hilary Duff, Tom Welling, Ashton Kutcher
To me having 12 children sounds like an insurance scam, long since are the times when people in the western world have needed big families to provide for them.
Cheaper by the Dozen follows Tom and Kate Baker (Steve Martin and Bonnie Hunt) Tom grew up on a farm with a large family whilst Kate had a lonely childhood, the two meet in college and fall in love, shortly after they are married Kate finds she is pregnant, this child is followed by 11 more, including two sets of twins.
So back to the present and 11 of the kids are still living at home, they all seem to be working together as a team except one small ginger boy who wears glasses, his appearance is different to the other kids and they have nicknamed him “Fed Ex” because “The Fed Ex man must have dropped him off” we shortly find out that Tom has been offered his dream job, whilst Kate's book has found a publisher. They move from there country house to a town where they don't seem to fit in. Upon arrival Kate finds she will be going on a book tour and will be leaving Tom alone with the kids, but will he be able to juggle his new job and 11 kids?
I was very surprised by this film, I watched the sequel in the cinema before I had seen this one, I didn't really enjoy it I found it boring and un-funny. But this was brilliant, a great family film with a few laughs added in, Ashton Kutcher seems to be mocking himself which was quite funny, and the interaction between the children is great. Cheaper by the Dozen is a film I will definitely watch again, and for those who haven't seen it id recommend it.
Post by: snowcat on November 20, 2009, 10:00:58 PM
Director – Frank Oz
Running Time – 110 Minutes
Stars: Steve Martin, Michael Caine, Glenne Headly, Ian McDiarmid, Dana Ivey
Con artists are often the targets of films, however men who target wealthy women are not... Well, unless you look at Bedtime Story, which I hear Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is a slight remake of.
Lawrence Jamieson (Michael Caine) is a sophisticated master con artist targeting women on the french riviera. Watched carefully by his police inspector friend Inspector Andre, who naturally expects a small percentage of his earnings. Lawrence's only problem seems to be a new threat, a mysterious con artist named “The Jackal”
Lawrence bumps into Freddie Benson (Steve Martin) on a train, upon over hearing a conversation he has with a woman, he discovers that Freddie is in the same game, annoyed by the competition, Lawrence sets a trap, which backfires, Freddie later turns up on Lawrence's doorstep. Requesting that Lawrence show him his ways Freddie stays, Lawrence agrees and Freddie becomes part of Lawrence's act, used only to scare women away from marriage. In a hotel the two discover Janet a wealthy American heiress, and so Freddy sets a challenge who ever can get $50,000 first is allowed to stay in the wealthy Beaumont-sur-Me
I laughed so much through this film I had tears in my eyes, I love Steve Martin and Michael Caine and this film showed their comic talents brilliantly. The comedy is only surpassed by its story although a based on another film, I did not predict the ending, maybe I was being naive? Maybe I was laughing too much to notice.
Post by: snowcat on November 20, 2009, 10:13:29 PM
Director – Jon Faveru
Running Time – 126 minutes
Stars: Robert Downey Jr., Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges, Gwyneth Paltrow
“I am Ironman” sing a Paranoid Black Sabbath in the 1970’s just 7 years after the creation of Marvel Superhero Iron Man in Tales of Suspense #39. As a kid I loved the Iron Man cartoon (Marvel Power Hour, anyone?) and the comic, Iron Man was one of my favourite superheroes because he was vulnerable, he wasn’t Invincible like Batman or Superman, contrary to what his comic title suggested “Invincible Iron Man” Iron Man battled with alcoholism and other personal difficulties, which made him seem more real. I stopped reading Iron man in the late 90's after the collapse of Marvel. Although Iron Man had featured greatly in the Avengers comics I was never a fan and so fell out of touch with him, but with the release of the Iron Man movie the series was rebooted and a new Invincible Iron Man comic released, I picked this up before seeing the film, I was impressed, Iron Man was finally back on form.
Iron Man is just one in a line of superheroes who have received the movie treatment over the last few years although like any superhero franchise that has been around for 40 years naturally there are many origins and stories surrounding the character, in the comic world reboots are natural, it’s a way to draw new blood in, I didn’t read Ultimate Iron Man until after I watched the film but I can see that it was the Ultimate’s origin that the story got its main idea.
The Iron Man film starts in regular 12A fashion Tony Stark who should be attending an awards ceremony is out on an evening of debauchery whilst his late father’s business partner Obadiah Stane accepts the award on his behalf, Stark is are to Stark Industries a large multinational weapons manufacturer.
Tony is sent to Afghanistan, here he tries to liaise with the officers but is caught in an explosion, he wakes up to find he has been captured and is attached to a car battery, the battery is plugged into an electro magnet which is keeping shards of metal from reaching his heart. He is told by Dr Yinsen a fellow captive that the device is keeping him alive. Tony Stark is then ordered to create a weapon of mass destruction for his captives, who show him plans for a Stark industries weapon and give him Stark Industry supplies, it seems Stark Industries have been double dealing, oh dear.
Stark decides instead to create his Iron Man costume, but will he be able to escape the Taliban and save both himself and Dr Yinsen? Of course he will, this is a superhero movie.
I was surprised by this film, I thought I would dislike it because it strayed from the origin I knew so well, but as with most of the superhero movies I enjoyed it regardless, I was surprised by the story, I did not imagine id see an appearance from the Ironmonger, but then I was expecting War Machine until Terrence Howard said “maybe next time” although it seems there will not be a next time for Howard as Don Cheadle is set to take his place in the sequel, I personally see this as a casting decision in the right direction I didn’t feel Howard was right for the character, although the strongest image of Terrence Howard for me is his character in Crash. I love Robert Downey Jr and I think this is one of his defining roles, one he will definitely be remembered for. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang changed my perception of his acting skills and this changed my perception of him being a one trick comedic pony.
Post by: addicted2dvd on November 20, 2009, 11:18:18 PM
Post by: snowcat on November 20, 2009, 11:32:01 PM
I really liked the Iron Man movie too! Unlike you I didn't know too much about the character before the movie though. BTW... did you stick with it and see the scene after the credits? I made that mistake the first time I watched it. I had to go back to see the final scene! And it is worth it too! :)
Yeah! id been warned in advance about that one :p it made me laugh so much though!
(click to show/hide)
Have you seen the Hulk movie? (new one) I hear there is a similar scene at the end of that too!
Post by: addicted2dvd on November 20, 2009, 11:44:52 PM
And yeah I seen the new Hulk movie... yeah there is a similar scene at the end of that one too. I liked it a lot as well. Definitely better then the first attempt. :thumbup:
Post by: Jimmy on November 21, 2009, 01:06:10 AM
Post by: Najemikon on November 21, 2009, 02:01:18 AM
:laugh:
And yeah I seen the new Hulk movie... yeah there is a similar scene at the end of that one too. I liked it a lot as well. Definitely better then the first attempt. :thumbup:
Nah, can't agree. The first Hulk was fundamentally flawed, but brilliant and ambitious. The Incredible Hulk was just an action movie and although it had some great points, the mistakes it made were stupid and unforgivable.
Post by: addicted2dvd on November 21, 2009, 02:03:46 AM
Post by: Najemikon on November 21, 2009, 02:24:15 AM
I think we probably disagree because of the Hulk that I watched growing up... I think the new movie appeals more to the people that watched the old TV series then the comics or toons.
Actually, that's why I was annoyed! Though I read comics, Hulk passed me by except for guest spots in Spider-Man, etc. No, I grew up with Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno too. The film had a golden opportunity to really tap into that charm and they blew it because they were scared of losing the teenage audience.
I still liked it. It was lot of fun, but it could have been so much more. That's what you get for hiring the Transporter guy, I suppose. I actually really like the Transporter films, but Louis Letterier was too much action for what is ultimately a very sad character. I missed that sadness that used to come from the TV show. The theme was wonderful...
Post by: snowcat on November 23, 2009, 10:52:56 PM
Post by: snowcat on November 23, 2009, 11:09:07 PM
Director - John Landis
Running Time - 97 minutes
Stars: David Naughton, Griffin Dunne, Jenny Agutter
When you think of Werewolves you think the moon, silver bullets and Europe? Well, two out of three ain't bad sings a hairy wolf like Meat Loaf, but that has nothing to do what so ever with this film.
Yes, as the title suggests American Werewolf in London is in fact set in the Yorkshire Moores, well... It later goes on to be set in London, But I like to be chronological so let's start at the beginning. So in typical British country bumpkin style David and Jack two back packing Americans find themselves in the back of some type of animal transportation vehicle, sitting in the back with “the girls” or sheep as we British folk would call them, the teenagers discuss where there journey will take them next. Upon arriving at the top of the moores the boys evacuate the vehicle to discover, dun, dun, dun! They have sheep poo on their packs. It could have been worse, Had they been in New Zealand they would have had to contend with zombie sheep A la "Black Sheep" possibly eating there packs and the two of them...Of course this film would have had to be called American Weresheep in New Zealand then.
“American Werewolf” is visually impressive, the makeup is amazing, and in my opinion it bypasses those CGI "Twilight" werewolves, but then that's the thing with CG, "Jurassic Park" dinosaurs looks a thousand times better the Land of the Lost dinosaur. Although something I've found with a few werewolf movies is it turns the character into a flat out wolf, and not a werewolf. I always pictured Werewolves to be half man, standing on two legs and having some human like qualities, OK I guess he does show his human side towards the end, was that a spoiler?
But don't let my love of the visual side fool you, I love the story too. So David and Jack spot a good ol’ English pub “the slaughtered lamb” and stop by, of course upon arriving they are stared down by the locals who could easily be mistaken for the cast of the British remake of "Deliverance" the boys abruptly leave after asking about the five pointer star painted on the wall, only to hear the deathly cries of some kind of animal, Manbearpig? No, of course it's a werewolf Just as the title suggests.
Written and directed by John Landis of Animal House fame, I was sceptical Ive said before I didn't really “get” Animal House and I was worried about “getting” this film to, well I did get it, I loved it. American Werewolf is my favourite werewolf film, even if it does not fit my werewolf stereotype. The dream sequences are perfect, the humour is brilliant, my favourite part being the victim discussion of how the uhh werewolf should kill himself.
Post by: Najemikon on November 24, 2009, 12:39:11 AM
Post by: richierich on November 24, 2009, 12:54:36 AM
Nice. :D I love An American Werewolf in London too! It's become a site fave. Check out Jimmy's index above and you'll find one from him, me and Pete. In fact, at the time, Pete didn't like giving out 5 stars, but he did do for this... :thumbup:
Talking of that, it owuld be great if you could rate your reviews Emma, so we knew at a glance what you thought of it. :2cents:
Post by: Jimmy on November 24, 2009, 05:41:11 AM
Check out Jimmy's index above and you'll find one from him, me and Pete.Just got a look and the follow up movie (since it was for the 2008 horror marathon) was Wolf Creek... It's sure a bad memory :laugh:
Post by: Achim on November 24, 2009, 05:55:08 AM
. I think it may have been one of the first movies to introduce me to gore (there is only little though). My favorite bit must be that little bit of loose flesh that dangles below Jack's cheek when he visits David the first time. Instant classic; Rick Baker by the way.For the hi-def crowd: the recent Blu-ray looks quite good, considering the problems the source material seems to have. Brighter scenes are less sharp and display loads of grain, but darker and the night scenes are very crisp. The Full Moon Edition also has more special features (especially a 90-minute making-of) than the older 2003 release.
Post by: snowcat on November 24, 2009, 09:19:58 AM
Nice. :D I love An American Werewolf in London too! It's become a site fave. Check out Jimmy's index above and you'll find one from him, me and Pete. In fact, at the time, Pete didn't like giving out 5 stars, but he did do for this... :thumbup:
Talking of that, it owuld be great if you could rate your reviews Emma, so we knew at a glance what you thought of it. :2cents:
Haha, uhh sorry to be a pain in the arse Rich XD I don't like rating things, one because Im a pretentious writer, :P two because sometimes I don't now how I would rate them :S I really like some things but don't want to rate them highly.... and im annoying :p
...I should also Mention, I watched the HD version of the film, I didn't think it looked that impressive :S maybe they up scaled again for the Blu-ray.
Post by: snowcat on November 24, 2009, 09:37:49 PM
8 Simple Rules season 1
Heartbreak Kid
Lost Boys
Mickey, Donald and Goofy The Three Musketeers
Fargo
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
Vantage Point
The Xfiles Movie
...Hope to review these soon!
Post by: Achim on November 25, 2009, 05:44:47 AM
...I should also Mention, I watched the HD version of the film, I didn't think it looked that impressive :S maybe they up scaled again for the Blu-ray.Well, yeah, it's not stunning like, let's say, Blade Runner. I was factoring in an interview I read where John Landis discussed the bad shape of the original negative; considering that I thought that those darker moments where real amzing. Besides, in many dark scenes you now can actually see some details...
Post by: Najemikon on November 25, 2009, 08:04:53 PM
Haha, uhh sorry to be a pain in the arse Rich XD I don't like rating things, one because Im a pretentious writer, :P two because sometimes I don't now how I would rate them :S I really like some things but don't want to rate them highly.... and im annoying :p
I know what you mean. And one of Empire's writers did an article on the dreaded star rating because a lot don't see the point. I wouldn't mind seeing them drop it actually, because it's a red rag to a bull to the really stupid on the Internet. Next time a hyped film comes out, just pop over to their website and read the comments. I guarantee the idiots will be out in force.
I think they're fun though, so I'll always use them. Can't you even compromise and use the official forum ones? Like ":yucky:" or ":thumbup:"
Post by: snowcat on November 25, 2009, 11:43:15 PM
Ok Lol... just for you guys ('cos I am nice like that :D) I will but a :yucky: If I dont like it or a :thumbup: If I do :tease:
;)
Post by: Najemikon on November 25, 2009, 11:59:00 PM
I forget the others, but I think ;D and :-\ get used too. So go nuts!
Post by: Jimmy on November 26, 2009, 01:17:29 AM
and the original was :
;D = perfect
:D = Not so bad
:hmmmm: = Not bad but not good either
:yawn: = Boring
:yucky: = A waste of time
Of course in those 2 years the original system had evolved for the better.
Post by: richierich on November 26, 2009, 09:00:58 AM
:thumbup: = Excellent
;D = now that was quite good
:D = I enjoyed it
:-\ = not really bad, but not good either
:yawn: = boring
:yucky: = bad or worse
Post by: snowcat on November 26, 2009, 10:15:07 AM
Post by: Tom on November 26, 2009, 07:05:35 PM
haha, ok then ill adopt those to future reviews :P
FYI, there is a icon when you post, which has the tooltip "Encore rating" (it's left to the many DVD "WhatYaGot" icons). This icon inserts a tag. The value between the open and close tag will result in the correct smiley icon. The values are from 0 ("bad or worse") to 5 ("Excellent").
Post by: snowcat on November 27, 2009, 09:13:37 AM
Post by: snowcat on December 01, 2009, 10:40:13 PM
I won't be doing a proper Christmas marathon but I have a list of films and TV eps id like to watch this month (Christmas related, or a Christmas scene... Ive probably left some out)
(I doubt ill review them all but here's the list)
Film
scrooged
santa clause
santa clause 2
santa clause 3
home alone
muppets christmas carol
the holiday
elf
fred claus
Mickeys Once upon a Christmas
gremlins
batman returns
black xmas
kiss kiss bang bang
bridget jones diary
mean girls
annie hall
babe
toy story
about a boy
trading places
tenchi muyo movie 2
TV
south park season 1 ep 9
south park season 2 ep 16
south park season 3 ep 15
south park season 4 ep 17
South Park season 6 ep17
south park season 7 ep 15
South Park season 8 ep 14
8 simple rules ep 12
xfiles season 1 ep 6
scrubs season 1 ep 11
scrubs season 4 ep 12
friends season 9 ep 10
friends season 4 ep 10
friends season 8 ep 11
friends season 1 ep 17
that 70s show season 1 ep 12
The Royal Family Season 2 ep 7
The Royal Family Season 3 ep 7
Post by: Antares on December 09, 2009, 02:10:30 AM
As everyone already knows, a basic rule of photography says how you compose the subject suggests how you want the viewer to feel about it; Villains tower above you, cute little dogs look up at you. Be careful when you take a snap of your partner! Do you worship them, own them, or consider them equal? ;) Welles took this to a new level in film that is rarely used even now.
One thing that has always bothered me about the critics who lavish the praise upon Welles for his direction and groundbreaking camera work, is the fact that most of these conceived shots were, in fact, created by Gregg Toland. They never seem to mention this little tidbit. For this reason, I give Welles the utmost respect for the fact that he constantly throughout his life, shared the accolades with Toland for teaching him how to shoot the film. I found this little quote over at IMDB...
Orson Welles once said that everything he knew about the art of photography a great cameraman - Greg Toland - taught him in half an hour. In truth, before the filming of "Citizen Kane" Toland invited Welles to his house and spent a weekend teaching Welles everything about lens and camera positions that he thought his novice director should know. For the remainder of his life Welles always payed Toland the ultimate compliment. "Not only was he the greatest cameraman I ever worked with," Welles often said,"he was also the fastest.".
You're right, the ending isn't really open...(click to show/hide)
There are so many layers to the screenplay that there are also many themes to that ending too...
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Najemikon on December 09, 2009, 02:26:08 AM
Thank you though, because you're right and more effort should be made to remember people like Toland. It was Welles' charisma and vision that got Kane made, but you have to remember, he came from radio. You don't just pick things up like that. I've wondered before that although Citizen Kane seems technically perfect, much of it smacks of Orson refusing to follow the accepted rules. I bet when he laid out what he wanted, he'd have been told to stop being silly because they can't dig up the studio floor and how can the camera possibly move through a solid set? ;)
There are so many layers to the screenplay that there are also many themes to that ending too...(click to show/hide)
That's nice, I like that... :thumbup:
Sorry to be quoting such an old response, but I love talking about great old films, and I just stumbled upon this review.
Don't be sorry. In fact, catch up with our Hitchcock marathon. Plenty of reading in there and it continues for a few weeks yet!
Post by: Antares on December 09, 2009, 02:48:12 AM
Oh no! He's resurrected the Kane debate! :laugh:
Thank you though, because you're right and more effort should be made to remember people like Toland. It was Welles' charisma and vision that got Kane made, but you have to remember, he came from radio. You don't just pick things up like that. I've wondered before that although Citizen Kane seems technically perfect, much of it smacks of Orson refusing to follow the accepted rules. I bet when he laid out what he wanted, he'd have been told to stop being silly because they can't dig up the studio floor and how can the camera possibly move through a solid set? ;)There are so many layers to the screenplay that there are also many themes to that ending too...(click to show/hide)
That's nice, I like that... :thumbup:Sorry to be quoting such an old response, but I love talking about great old films, and I just stumbled upon this review.
Don't be sorry. In fact, catch up with our Hitchcock marathon. Plenty of reading in there and it continues for a few weeks yet!
I also failed to mention that I was glad to see you use Ikiru in your argument as well. A seldom seen film that it is every bit as good as Kane.
You know, for years I've been searching for a forum where film appreciation is discussed from a viewers, not film students point of view. I sometimes venture onto the Criterion forum, but they can be so pompous it drives me away. How many times can you belt out platitudes about Eisenstein and Godard before the dung's waist deep.
I think I've found my Film Valhalla. :dance: :thumbup:
Post by: Najemikon on December 09, 2009, 03:03:19 AM
I also failed to mention that I was glad to see you use Ikiru in your argument as well. A seldom seen film that it is every bit as good as Kane.
You know, for years I've been searching for a forum where film appreciation is discussed from a viewers, not film students point of view. I sometimes venture onto the Criterion forum, but they can be so pompous it drives me away. How many times can you belt out platitudes about Eisenstein and Godard before the dung's waist deep.
I think I've found my Film Valhalla. :dance: :thumbup:
I'm really glad you said that because that's exactly why I like it here too. We've got a really good bunch of people and some of us drone on for hours and others just say whether they liked it or not, and we all gel pretty well, keeping each other balanced.
Post by: richierich on December 09, 2009, 03:33:17 AM
I think I've found my Film Valhalla. :dance: :thumbup:
We are glad to have you here, and a welcome addition to see such informed reviews of some older films that I for one was not too aware of.
Maybe you could think of joining our marathons at some point??
Post by: richierich on December 09, 2009, 03:36:47 AM
I also failed to mention that I was glad to see you use Ikiru in your argument as well. A seldom seen film that it is every bit as good as Kane.
You know, for years I've been searching for a forum where film appreciation is discussed from a viewers, not film students point of view. I sometimes venture onto the Criterion forum, but they can be so pompous it drives me away. How many times can you belt out platitudes about Eisenstein and Godard before the dung's waist deep.
I think I've found my Film Valhalla. :dance: :thumbup:
I'm really glad you said that because that's exactly why I like it here too. We've got a really good bunch of people and some of us drone on for hours (JON) and others (ME) just say whether they liked it or not, and we all gel pretty well, keeping each other balanced.
:devil:
Seriously though, I've learnt a great deal here, not that I will ever be swayed whether I like a film or not, but i am better informed of why I should have liked them :hysterical:
And probably the best part of what I have taken from the reviews is having my eyes opened to different genres than I tended to opt for, ie Petes influence compelled me to watch a month of horror films, Rogers influence is leading me towards a Western marathon, and I am now seriously considering stocking up on some Bollywood films
Post by: Antares on December 09, 2009, 03:46:47 AM
I think I've found my Film Valhalla. :dance: :thumbup:
We are glad to have you here, and a welcome addition to see such informed reviews of some older films that I for one was not too aware of.
Maybe you could think of joining our marathons at some point??
I'm definitely thinking about it. Just the other day I was thinking of starting one in January with the theme being Japanese films for January. Kurosawa, Mizoguchi, Naruse and Kobayashi are four of my favorite directors. And after that, Film Noir February, War films in "March", ooh, I know that's bad, but I couldn't come up with anything different.
Post by: Jimmy on December 09, 2009, 09:43:43 AM
And probably the best part of what I have taken from the reviews is having my eyes opened to different genres than I tended to opt for, ie Petes influence compelled me to watch a month of horror films, Rogers influence is leading me towards a Western marathon, and I am now seriously considering stocking up on some Bollywood filmsSo I haven't open your eyes with my adult movie reviews Rich...
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq198/dianaraz75/SadSmiley.png)
Post by: snowcat on December 09, 2009, 10:11:07 AM
Directed by – Richard Donner
Running Time – 101 Minutes
Stars: Bill Murray, Karen Allen, John Forsythe, Bobcat Goldthwait, Carol Kane
Throughout history there has been many a “scrooge” in the work place, not allowing the poor book mice to have coal for their fire, not giving to the poor as it would stop them from being poor and finally not allowing his poor assistant a bonus so she can buy a real Christmas tree and Whilst the latter is original to this film, the story behind it is not.
“Acid rain, Drug addiction, International terrorism, Freeway killers. Now, more than ever we must remember the true meaning of Christmas. Don't miss Charles Dickens' immortal classic, "Scrooge. Your life might just depend on it!"
This image is brought to you by cynical, arrogant television programming exec Frank Cross (Bill Murray) He has become successful due to his cold heart and cruel techniques. The film opens on a board room, a room bordered by a sign that reads “Cross: A thing they nail people to." In the room sit a group of employees looking nervously at Frank who is watching the Christmas television promos for his channel. After seeing their “poor attempt” at a scrooge promo, Frank shows his, cue the season shattering quote which as it turns out, has killed an old lady. But Frank takes no prisoners when staff member Eliot Loudermilk confronts Frank about the advert, it takes him just 4 minutes to call security and get Eliot fired. He is reminded that it is Christmas Eve to which Frank replies “Thank you! Call Accounting, stop his bonus.”
Franks quest to become top exec has caused many a problem. His relationship with his brother James is strained, and set to be made worse when he orders his Assistant Grace to give him a bath towel for Christmas. This is just one of the few horrible things Frank has forced Grace to do, overworking her so that she has no time for her family or to take her mute son Calvin to the doctor. Finally we discover that Frank was one in a loving relationship when he was younger with a woman named Claire, although he put his career first and neglected their relationship causing her drift away.
Frank arrives back at his office after an award ceremony and is visited by his long dead boss Lew Hayward who warns him that three ghosts will appear, well if you have seen any form of the scrooge story you will know what happens next.
Directed by Richard Donner of Superman fame Scrooged is one of my favourite adaptions of the scrooge story due to its comedy, Bill Murray is hilarious as usual, and he makes this film. The three ghosts are genius and the idea that Frank Cross makes a list of those he needs to send presents too and decides whether they should receive a Towel or a VCR to me is hilarious. Ive heard people call this film lazy, but surely any adaption of Scrooged is going to be lazy? I feel this is one of the most original re-imaginings of the story I have seen and for that, I give it a thumbs up!
Or for everyone else ;D
Post by: richierich on December 09, 2009, 05:36:12 PM
And probably the best part of what I have taken from the reviews is having my eyes opened to different genres than I tended to opt for, ie Petes influence compelled me to watch a month of horror films, Rogers influence is leading me towards a Western marathon, and I am now seriously considering stocking up on some Bollywood filmsSo I haven't open your eyes with my adult movie reviews Rich...
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq198/dianaraz75/SadSmiley.png)
Of course Jimmy, I'd never considered such titles as 'films' before I came here and learnt from your reviews.
Personally I don't have enough interest to invest in this specialist genre - yet :P
Post by: DJ Doena on December 09, 2009, 06:00:24 PM
Scrooged – 1988
Directed by – Richard Donner
Running Time – 101 Minutes
Stars: Bill Murray, Karen Allen, John Forsythe, Bobcat Goldthwait, Carol Kane
"Can't you staple the antlers onto the mice?" :thumbup:
Post by: Tom on December 09, 2009, 06:04:59 PM
and I am now seriously considering stocking up on some Bollywood films
:bag:
;D
Post by: snowcat on December 09, 2009, 06:14:33 PM
Scrooged – 1988
Directed by – Richard Donner
Running Time – 101 Minutes
Stars: Bill Murray, Karen Allen, John Forsythe, Bobcat Goldthwait, Carol Kane
"Can't you staple the antlers onto the mice?" :thumbup:
"Don't you dare! If you staple that mouse, I'll call the Humane Society." ;)
Post by: Jimmy on December 09, 2009, 06:28:46 PM
Personally I don't have enough interest to invest in this specialist genre - yet :PTry The Opening of Misty Bethoven, I don't know one person who haven't appreciated it following my recommandation. You can even watch it with your wife since it's a great couple movie.
If you buy it and don't like it (even if I know that you are difficult), I'll send you an Amazon.uk gift certificate to compensate. So it isn't a big risk :whistle:
Of course the offer is only for Rich :P
Post by: Kathy on December 09, 2009, 06:34:06 PM
Personally I don't have enough interest to invest in this specialist genre - yet :PTry The Opening of Misty Bethoven, I don't know one person who haven't appreciated it following my recommandation. You can even watch it with your wife since it's a great couple movie.
If you buy it and don't like it (even if I know that you are difficult), I'll send you an Amazon.uk gift certificate to compensate. So it isn't a big risk :whistle:
Of course the offer is only for Rich :P
I can vouch for this adult film also - it is more than just porn.
Post by: richierich on December 10, 2009, 11:02:08 AM
Personally I don't have enough interest to invest in this specialist genre - yet :PTry The Opening of Misty Bethoven, I don't know one person who haven't appreciated it following my recommandation. You can even watch it with your wife since it's a great couple movie.
Feck me, must be a brilliant film if I can watch with wife, we have been divorced 5 years :hysterical: :laugh: :hysterical:
Seriously, where can this title be purchased?
Post by: Jimmy on December 10, 2009, 11:49:21 AM
I was sure that you had posted a picture of her maybe a year ago
Just here (http://www.adultdvdpacific.com/products/62358/dvd/opening-of-misty-beethoven) and you are lucky I've paid four times that price when I've bought it originally :(
BTW the description of the film on the website is one of the stupidest I've ever read, it isn't surprising that so few respect those films when even a distributor doesn't respect them ::)
Let me know what you think of the movie when you will watch it ;D
Post by: snowcat on December 14, 2009, 10:58:02 AM
40 Year Old Virgin
Knocked up
Funny People
Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie
Kicking & Screaming
Superbad
Drillbit Taylor
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Step Brothers
Pineapple Express
Fun with Dick and Jane
You Don't Mess with the Zohan
...Reviews to follow!
Post by: Critter on December 14, 2009, 12:24:04 PM
Quote
Going back to my Judd Apatow marathon I have the following films to watch and review.
Looking at your list there I realise I have extremely mixed views on Judd Apatow. On one hand many of those films I absolutley despise, (Fun with Dick and Jane, You Don't Mess with the Zohan etc) and on the other hand there are even more that I love (Kocked Up, Pineapple Express). In fact I think it's almost about half half when it comes to Apatow. I find this interesting as I find if I usually love one film of a director or producer then I often love them all. This case however there is a very distinct line down the middle.
Post by: DJ Doena on December 14, 2009, 04:05:07 PM
Am I wrong?
Post by: Achim on December 14, 2009, 04:28:32 PM
Am I wrong?That's a rhetorical question, right?
Besides, I believe Apatow didn't direct all of those films listed above, he is the producer and only director on some.
Post by: Najemikon on December 14, 2009, 06:46:51 PM
Having not much clue about filmmaking but I would think that a good movie is much more dependant in the actual story than the direction. Surely a bad director can destroy a good script but I don't think that a bad script gets noticably better with another director.
Am I wrong?
Well, there's no straight answer. Too many factors involved. I think a good actor can make a poor script amazing and a director and especially the editor can make that performance astonishing, so one poor script becomes superb.
A more obvious example would be action films. Being "set-piece" cinema, you could broadly say the average action film is the worst of scripts. Remove all the set-pieces from the last action film you saw and what're you left with? Cardboard cliches spouting crap half the time. But get a larger than life star like Arnie to deliver the cheesy lines you're halfway there and then if the director reads the line 'Insert Car Chase' and produces something like The French Connection, you've got a classic.
I know you don't consider old movies, but I think directors producing something great from utter tripe happened a lot within the studio system. A producer would employ a director-for-hire to make a film from a script often rehashed from last years movies and designed to use what the studio thought it's best tools or stars. Hitchcock was under such conditions and while it's true he'd have made them better with total freedom, he still produced some absolute gold. And Casablanca didn't even have a script completed while that was being made!
Final example: James Cameron. Terminator 2 as a script developed very little from the first; Titanic had how many Oscar nominations? Yet none for screenplay, which is telling; and now Avatar is going to "revolutionise cinema" yet with a script clearly ripping off a dozen other films.
Post by: snowcat on December 14, 2009, 07:42:27 PM
I find I tend to love those he directed, (Funny People, Knocked Up, 40 Year Old Virgin)
and be mixed on the others... I love some of the films he co-wrote and love some of the films he produced... but I feel that way with many a director... I hate some of Spielberg's work but I love Jaws and JP
Alot of people don't like Apatow humor or the people he works with... I tend to not like his work with Jim Carey and I didn't like his work with Adam Sandler until Funny People.
on the subject of directing... I think a bad director can make a good story suck, ive seen it happen on my course. and in films alike.
I also think a good director can make a bad story good.
of course ;P good and bad are all subjective.
Post by: snowcat on December 14, 2009, 11:13:32 PM
Directed by: Adam McKay
Running Time: Theatrical Cut 98 mins / Uncut 105 mins
Stars: Will Ferrell, John C. Reilly, Richard Jenkins, Mary Steenburgen
According to statistics, %0.74 of the population gets divorced every year, so naturally it is a subject ever present in films. Generally, divorce is not something you laugh it is the stuff of Christmas films and dramas about children. It's not often you see the effects of divorce on an older child, but why is that? just because somebody is 30 doesn't stop them being your child... right?
Step Brothers reunites the writing tag team of Adam McKay and Will Ferrell, it also brings back third time producer Judd Apatow and second time comedy partner John C Reilly. It's been said that after making Taladega Nights the guys enjoyed working together so much they wanted to make a new film.
For anyone who has not seen a Ferrel/McKay production id recommend the US sight “Funnyordie” the site houses a few short the guys made for the internet the Landlord has quickly become and internet sensation, and the follow up video Good Cop Bad Cop is just as funny. Of course, Apatow is also now a part of Funny or Die so there are also a few videos from him.
Long before his Apatow days John C Reilly was one of my favourite actors, his roles in the Good Girl and Chicago are some of my favourites, of course I also loved Anchorman. I was so excited to see them team up in Taladeaga Nights but alas I did not like the film, why? Because I didn't think Will Ferrel could carry it alone, in Anchorman he had a team to fall back on, for most of Taladega he had no one. Step Brothers changed that. Having another character to bounce off of reinforced the comedy of the film, Ferrel and Reilly make a brilliant comedy duo.
The film Step Brothers starts in the kitchen of Will Ferrel's character Brennan Huff, he is watching the microwave plate spin as a woman speaks to him, the film cuts to Brennan sitting on a sofa, we discover this woman is his mother she tells him she's leaving and he barely takes notice hes too busy watching television. The film cuts to another house John C Reilly's character Dale Doback is playing guitar hero whilst his dad tells him he has left money for Dale to order a pizza, Dale argues that he may need more money and his dad leaves. We can see from the outset that both Brennan and Dale are like over grown teenagers. At a medical convention the parents meet, they fall in love and quickly announce they marriage, they move in together as the opening title roles.
As with any McKay/Apatow comedy, childish jokes, shouting and gross out humour are a staple, if you like Taladega Nights then I think you will like this as well, Step Brothers helped reinforce Will Ferrel and John C Reilly as a comedy duo, I hope they work together more often, and not just on the proposed sequel to this film., it would be a shame for them to stop now.
--- ;D
Post by: Najemikon on December 14, 2009, 11:23:40 PM
Step Brothers helped reinforce Will Ferrel and John C Reilly as a comedy duo, I hope they work together more often, and not just on the proposed sequel to this film., it would be a shame for them to stop now.
That partnership is good and I agree that I hope they do more, but good grief, Step Brothers was awful. :-X
Post by: snowcat on December 15, 2009, 10:04:10 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5JAPkvnyso (wouldn't embed)
John C Reilly, Jack Black and Will Ferrel performed at the Oscars a few years back. I think its quite funny :)
Post by: Critter on December 15, 2009, 11:19:56 AM
Post by: Najemikon on December 15, 2009, 12:41:48 PM
Jon, have you seen this video before?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5JAPkvnyso (wouldn't embed)
John C Reilly, Jack Black and Will Ferrel performed at the Oscars a few years back. I think its quite funny :)
I do remember that! It's great. :thumbup:
Emma I have the same problem you do. Everytime I try and embed a youtube video on this site, I use the Youtube ID and do it properly but it only ever comes up with the link, not the actual video.
Let me have a crack...
Yup, that worked. The tag should be used as (minus spaces): [ youtube]o5JAPkvnyso[ /youtube] So not even "v=o5JAPkvnyso"
Post by: venomsinner on December 16, 2009, 07:31:38 PM
Post by: snowcat on December 16, 2009, 07:39:39 PM
:K now get out of my house!
Post by: venomsinner on December 16, 2009, 07:40:19 PM
Post by: snowcat on December 22, 2009, 12:09:15 AM
Post by: snowcat on December 30, 2009, 02:10:49 PM
Directed by: David Frankel
Running Time: 115 minutes.
Stars: Owen Wilson, Jennifer Aniston
Currently there are around 8 million Dogs and 8 million cats kept as pets in the UK, there are also 50 million fish but well that's another story. This story is about a pet and the relationship a family can have with said pet.
Marley and Me stars Jennifer Aniston and Owen Wilson two actors known for their comedy, I was honestly worried about how well they could pull of the “dramedy” needed for this film.
Marley and Me is the autobiographical story of journalist John Grogan. (Played by Owen Wilson in the film) the film starts as John and his new wife Jenny move to Florida to start a new warmer life, as journalists they both apply for jobs at competing news papers, John getting his upon recommendation from his friend Sebastian. When John sense Jenny is thinking about becoming a mother, he discusses with Sebastian how he doesn't know if they are ready to which he friends responds by telling him they should adopt a puppy. John takes Jenny to see a Labrador rescue centre where Jenny instantly falls in love with the dogs, they are told the prices of the males and females but are told the runt of the litter is discounted. They decide to get the runt and call him Clearance Puppy. Of course the film now follows the course of Marley's life with John and Jenny. Marley is a fairly disobedient dog, causing trouble and eating things. John gets a job as columnist where he starts to write about Marley, the column becomes a success, John and Jenny have children and they move to the country.
The last 30 or so minutes of this film are often unbearably sad, you know what's coming but you hope it's not going to happen, the actors emotional performances only strengthen the sadness. this film is so simple, so authentic that I challenge anyone who has ever been a dog (or cat) owner not to feel something by the end of this film.
Any film about a family pet makes you think of you own pet, often people who don't or have never had pets cannot understand how much a person can love a cat or dog but I think this film sums up the relationship between a pet and its family amazingly well, although I have never owned a dog, I can relate Marley's final years to that of my own cat. He too is having trouble getting around and is getting fairly old now. I really enjoyed how real this film felt, of course that is probably because it is in fact based on John Grogan’s autobiography. I have ordered the book and am waiting for it to arrive.
Post by: snowcat on January 11, 2010, 01:54:24 PM
Directed By – Ralph Bakashi
Running Time – 78 minutes
Stars: Skip Hinnant (as the voice of Fritz)
When you think of an animated anthropomorphic cat you think Garfield or Top Cat, but another cat is long deserving of being remembered, and that cat is Fritz. “we are not X rated for nothing” the cover of my DVD copy bares proudly, how right it is. To watch this film blindly would be a mistake, it was made to shock, or was it?
Fritz is your regular 60’s hippie Caucasian college student, convinced he must find something better then college to save the world whilst at the same time taking drugs and finding girls. In a park he manages to pick up three girls, he takes them back to his Friend's apartment and Fritz the three girls and later on some more of his friends have an orgy in a bath tub. This help Fritz come to the realisation that he must try to fit in with the disadvantaged, he visits a club that contains only crows, Crows represent African Americans, they have a stereotypical 60’s jive way of talking, but this is in no way racist, it merely represents the time it was set with caricatures of history.
Fritz the Cat follows Fritz loosely linked adventure across a manor of different places, his friends party, a “Crow club”, “a Crow revolution” and finally to the underground hideout of a group of revolutionaries who plan to blow up a power station, to prove a point to America.
At its release Fritz was nothing like any other animated film of its time, it became the first animated movie to receive an X rating in America, although only rated 18 in Britain. It is something I can see easily put people of this film. The way Fritz is portrayed it looks to be a film of specialist interest, and often people watch it and are disgusted by its gross out nature, but if this was a live action film I doubt it would have received such criticism. I have seen this film in the Children's section of a few shops id say the big 18 in the left corner gives a way this is not a children's film, whilst I agree it's not a children's film I think it is an important film. A film not only important to animation, but a film important to society, Fritz broke boundaries, I think it paved the way for gross out cartoons a la Bevies and Butthead etc, whilst Fritz is not considered anime, without it I doubt anime would be as mainstream in the western world without it opening doors.
All in all, I enjoyed Fritz, but I only started to enjoy it when I looked past the graphic scenes of sex and drug taking, something that I can see a lot of people can't, sometimes we must look behind the visuals and concentrate on the story to get a better understanding of what a film is trying to be. I don't think Fritz was purposely trying to be an “X rated movie” it's something it played upon during release. Although for all of its provocations I believe the film ended up being creative and interesting and not failure its often portrayed as.
Post by: Jimmy on January 11, 2010, 02:11:44 PM
X just means no one under 17 is admited just like the R rating in Canada.
By the way, I will have to get this film one day since it's on my Amazon wishlist since more than 3 years.
Post by: snowcat on January 11, 2010, 02:18:35 PM
...Jimmy, I believe amazon.co.uk has it fairly cheap right now
Post by: Kathy on January 11, 2010, 02:28:23 PM
Post by: Jimmy on January 11, 2010, 02:35:48 PM
Interesting, I always thought the X rating was after NC-17....It is, while taking my shower I realized my error but I didn't had the time to edit it before you read it :-[
and I thought children could go to an NC-17 if accompanied by an adultNo it's possible with the US R rating, but sadly no theater enforce any rules anymore in North America.
I believe amazon.co.uk has it fairly cheap right nowMy film budget is already spent this month. I've 2 order in the mail for more than 100 $US who will arrive here sooner or later.
Post by: snowcat on January 11, 2010, 02:37:47 PM
:p haha, that's cool Jimmy. I hopy you manage to find a copy of Fritz though, Its a really good film!
Post by: snowcat on January 11, 2010, 11:10:29 PM
Director – Alexandre Aja
Running Time – 91 minutes
Stars: Cécile de France, Maïwenn Le Besco
The name Switchblade Romance sounds like a graphic horror movie masked with an undertone of un-returned love to backup the story. In naming this film the English translator did a very good job of telling a fairly basic outline of a story, However that does not mean the story is in anyway predictable.
The film starts with college friends Alex and Marie on their way to visit the latter’s parents, in typical road trip fashion the two girls seem to not wear seatbelts, play loud music and change seats whilst the car is moving, all things most people would not dream of doing, but alas this is a horror movie and so expecting these people to behave regularly is ridiculous. Upon arriving at Marie's house Alex is introduced to her father, we also see Marie's dramatically younger brother and hear Marie's mother shout hello as she is already in bed. Marie shows Alex to her room, which is in the attic of the house. Something I failed to mention earlier was that early on in the film the scene cuts to a man who throws a severed head from a window, as per any horror this is important, right before we see this we see Marie's brother and mother in the garden. I mentioned it non-chronologically as to not give away too much of the story.
Of course going to deep into the plot of any horror film is a bad move, it gives away the end generally, but not this film, it's not that easy to read.
This is not your average horror movie, its deeper, clever almost rare to see a horror film in this vain made in the last decade. This is a film that Wes Craven would be proud of, a film that M Night Shyamalan should be quaking in his boots at. But I just felt there was something missing, maybe it could have been longer, maybe the relationship between Alex and Marie could have been explored more where, how good a friend is Alex to Marie. I also felt Marie's brother needed a little more explanation, he is obviously a lot younger than her and he obviously loves her a lot, but if she was at college how well does he know her? Maybe I'm looking to deeply into what should be a simple horror movie, maybe I should stop dissecting these characters? Pun unintentional there, but I digress.
This film was recommended to me by a friend, I thank her for that recommendation and id recommend Switchblade Romance to both fans of horror and those of psychological thrillers, heck id recommend it to anyone who wants to see a very strange movie. Now whilst I will say I doubt I will watch it again I can also say that it was a good film, it kept me watching and it shocked me, and not in a gross out way. Switchblade Romance is a very interesting movie that is fairly underrated.
Post by: Jimmy on January 11, 2010, 11:39:35 PM
This film is so overated and the story is completly unoriginal (to not add rush and boring). Try to watch it again and you will see that the end make no sense at all and is logically impossible. This isn't for nothing if Alexandre Aja only do remake since this film :laugh:
Post by: snowcat on January 11, 2010, 11:49:38 PM
(click to show/hide)
whilst I though it was quite original, I also felt it was typical to certain directing styles like they purposley made it to resembel an M Night Shyamalan, I think it just needed more development, maybe another script re-write.
Post by: Najemikon on January 11, 2010, 11:58:38 PM
This is a film that Wes Craven would be proud of...
Not a difficult thing to achieve for Wes. He'd be proud if he directed a Coco-Pops advert! :devil:
Actually though, thank you for the review because I've always been in two minds about this and it does sound interesting. I take Jimmy's point that Aja has only directed remakes since, but hey, I thought his version of The Hills Have Eyes was pretty good. Not as good as the original (officially Wes Craven's only interesting film! ;)), but still good enough...
Post by: snowcat on January 12, 2010, 12:02:59 AM
Post by: Jimmy on January 12, 2010, 12:13:31 AM
Too bad our rating system wasn't in place in october 2007 (I wasn't here yet to create it :laugh:) since it isn't rated, but it looks by his toughts like a
to me.
Post by: addicted2dvd on January 12, 2010, 12:19:44 AM
Post by: Achim on January 12, 2010, 05:27:58 AM
I think if a film like this can have us make enough fun to not recognise those problems on first viewing, then that is quite a feat already ;) I'll admit, I watched it twice and still didn't really care for the faults on second view. I may have to watch it again paying close attention to the logic... :shrug:
Post by: snowcat on January 12, 2010, 10:02:14 AM
Post by: venomsinner on January 12, 2010, 11:03:29 AM
Post by: Achim on January 12, 2010, 06:12:22 PM
Lol, I have to say, whilst I liked the way it was made I don't think I will ever watch it again because of the faultsReading your review I had thought you liked it more than that... :hmmmm:
Post by: snowcat on January 12, 2010, 06:31:56 PM
Post by: snowcat on January 18, 2010, 07:30:34 PM
Director - Kenny Ortega
Running Time – 97 minutes
Stars: Zac Efron, Vanessa Hudgens, Ashley Tisdale, Lucas Grabeel, Corbin Bleu, Monique Coleman
When you think Disney films you think of the great stories, nice clean animation and the songs. For most Disney films take them back to their childhood, Disney are known for their timeless classics that to this day still stand strong next to modern day animation. However Disney are also known for their poor live action films. Although maybe it was time to mix there award winning animated film abilities with Live action, I'm not talking about an animation/live action cross over a la Pete's Dragon I mean a Live Action film full of cheesy Disney songs, about winning and finding your true love.
Before I start this review I'll admit musicals are a guilty pleasure of mine, I hate to admit it but I love the cheesy songs and poor acting. Now High School Musical is exactly what it says on the case a musical about a High School.
The story starts as Troy (Zac Efron) meets Gabriella whilst on holiday, the scene cuts to after the holiday where it seems Gabriella has moved to Troy's city and is the new kid at the school.
Troy is captain of the Basketball team and there for it is frowned upon for any members of the team to take part in singing, acting or baking etc. Gabriella is the smart kid, the one who should be shy and reserved not dancing around on stage that should be left to extroverted twins Ryan and Sharpay. Of course when Troy and Gabriella let their latent singing abilities out so do the rest of the school, who also admit to their secret hobbies that if this was a regular High School movie they would be removed from their respective cliques for having.
I have to admit I was surprised by this film, when it was released I jumped on the “It sucks” bandwagon, I did not give it a chance. And to this day I have never prejudged a film in the same way again. I see this as the new generation version of Grease, I mean at least these kids look 17.
So what did I like about this movie you ask? Well I'll tell you, It was nice, it was corny and unrealistic just what I expect from a Disney film, after all you don't watch Tarzan and expect to see a Ape-man in the zoo with the gorillas. The music was catchy and the characters were your typical stereotypes however those stereotypes had something behind them, they all had hidden talents. The films message is that you should be yourself, a message which is littered throughout every scene in the film.
Ive heard this film called the worst musical, obviously those people have never seen that awful American Idol winner's film, From Justin to Kelly (I believe that's the name)
To anyone who prejudges this film leave your preconceptions at the door and give it a chance.
Post by: Najemikon on January 18, 2010, 07:47:50 PM
To anyone who prejudges this film leave your preconceptions at the door and give it a chance.
Good grief, no.
:hysterical:
Nothing against your very good review, Emma, but I just find this side of Disney to be soulless. Not to mention I don't like musicals at the best of times. :shrug:
Post by: snowcat on January 18, 2010, 07:52:40 PM
Post by: Antares on January 18, 2010, 07:57:53 PM
To anyone who prejudges this film leave your preconceptions at the door and give it a chance.
Good grief, no.
:hysterical:
Nothing against your very good review, Emma, but I just find this side of Disney to be soulless. Not to mention I don't like musicals at the best of times. :shrug:
I have to agree, I'd rather have bamboo splints rammed beneath my fingernails than sit through a musical. :bag: :laugh:
Post by: Najemikon on January 18, 2010, 08:01:29 PM
Lol... Jon, fair enough if you don't like musicals... However I personally think its wrong to hate a film without seeing it regardless of genre. :tease:
I've seen enough of it thank you! If I see that sodding "We're fly-iiiing!" clip one more time, I think I will scream!
I have to agree, I'd rather have bamboo splints rammed beneath my fingernails than sit through a musical. :bag: :laugh:
Bamboo splints sounds far more interesting!
Post by: snowcat on January 18, 2010, 08:04:32 PM
Although I would class most Disney films as musicals.... anything against regular 'ol Disney films? :P
Post by: Jimmy on January 18, 2010, 08:05:44 PM
Bamboo splints sounds far more interesting!It depends of the musical.... I like those 2
Post by: Antares on January 18, 2010, 08:06:47 PM
Bamboo splints sounds far more interesting!
But then again, I'd watch a musical before a Tarantino film. :tease: :hysterical: :tomato:
Post by: Najemikon on January 18, 2010, 08:23:02 PM
But then again, I'd watch a musical before a Tarantino film. :tease: :hysterical: :tomato:
See, now you're just limiting yourself! :laugh:
Although I would class most Disney films as musicals.... anything against regular 'ol Disney films? :P
Disney animation pre-1980, I enjoy. Aristocats, Jungle Book, Snow White, etc. The songs felt more organic and the characters more true. But I can't understand the obsession with The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast or Aladdin.
Post by: snowcat on January 18, 2010, 08:45:22 PM
Scar is a great villain... in fact Scar and Clayton (from Tarzan) are tied for my two favourite Disney villains... even there deaths are terrifying.
I think there is alot to learn about pride and how it cane be a bad thing from this film... but maybe its a childhood thing? The Lion King was the first Disney film I saw at the cinema, It is one of the most vivd memoreis I have of my childhood... when children get to a certain age they see Disney as being to young for them... at that point in my life The Lion King was one of the few disney films I remember the story of... the other were Aladdin and Jungle Book... of course now I have re watched them all a few times and things have changed I appreciate Sleeping Beauty alot more then I did.. but anyway back on track..
It seems you did not enjoy anything from the Disney Renaissance then Jon?
Post by: snowcat on January 18, 2010, 09:09:20 PM
Director – Dean Parisot
Running Time – 87 minutes
Stars: Jim Carrey, Téa Leoni, Alec Baldwin, Richard Jenkins
Often I have no problem with remakes, after all Ive not even seen the 70’s version of Fun with Dick and Jane. This is a Jim Carey film and so I was sceptical, I find Jim very hit and miss I either hate his films or love them, this one had the added factor of being written by Judd Apatow.
As I said before I have not seen the original, but this modern day version which I'm guessing is very much in the same vain is still very appropriate now, with all the financial problems we are facing I was surprised by its realism especially as it stared Jim Carey. Now let me go back to that word realism, some of you will have seen this film and think I'm crazy however, the realism part comes in the middle as the family start to loose possessions the sons reaction as the television is taken is supposed to be funny. But I think shows the reality of parents losing their jobs.
I felt this film did not get entertaining until about 50 minutes in, this is the point where the film becomes unrealistic and alot funnier. So back to the plot, the story follows Dick (Jim Carey) as he gets a promotion at Globodyne a company much like Enron in its failings. Dick is chosen to go on to a program called Money Talk it is here he is caught unawares and causes the secrets of Globodyne to be revealed causing all manner of problems, which climax with robberies and scams.
Fun with Dick and Jane is not a great film, it's a fun film, but even the fun for me didn't start until 50 minutes or so into the film, however I did very much enjoy the last half, I tend to be dissatisfied with endings a lot of the time, I was surprised at how satisfying this ending was. Something else I liked about this film was the performances by Alec Baldwin and Richard Jenkins two actors I always love in there film roles.
Whilst I probably would not recommend this film to just anyone, fans of Jim Carey, and those looking for an average comedy film should go ahead and watch it. Another plus side to the film is its very family friendly for a film in this category there is little swearing and barley any sexual references. And of course the physical comedy Carey is known for is ever present something kids and adults alike can enjoy. So overall, a good family film but not one ill watch again... well, maybe ill just skip to the second half.
Post by: Najemikon on January 18, 2010, 10:12:57 PM
It seems you did not enjoy anything from the Disney Renaissance then Jon?
Not really, unless you're counting Pixar! ;)
Post by: Achim on January 19, 2010, 05:32:22 AM
:hmmmm: ...now what if Tarantino made a Musical? :headscratch:But then again, I'd watch a musical before a Tarantino film. :tease: :hysterical: :tomato:
See, now you're just limiting yourself! :laugh:
Post by: Najemikon on January 19, 2010, 08:37:40 PM
:hmmmm: ...now what if Tarantino made a Musical? :headscratch:But then again, I'd watch a musical before a Tarantino film. :tease: :hysterical: :tomato:
See, now you're just limiting yourself! :laugh:
I'd be very unlikely to like it! Unless he had someone :whistle: massacre the performers...
Post by: Antares on January 19, 2010, 09:07:19 PM
:hmmmm: ...now what if Tarantino made a Musical? :headscratch:But then again, I'd watch a musical before a Tarantino film. :tease: :hysterical: :tomato:
See, now you're just limiting yourself! :laugh:
I'd be very unlikely to like it! Unless he had someone :whistle: massacre the performers...
No, it would be more like...
Quote
TWINKLETOES!
A Musical by Quentin Tarantino
Noriko has always wanted to be a DANCER!
But life has not been kind to the nubile nymph...
Sold into sexual slavery at the age of seven...
To keep her sanity she practiced!, practiced!, practiced!...
The dance steps that set her dreams free...
All the while honing the techniques of a deadly ninja assassin...
Biding her time, waiting for the time to strike...
...back at those who cast her away...
...back at those who used her for so long...
and all who stood in her way!...
Now they'll pay the price as she dances...
...on their graves!!!!!!
What do you think, Jon?
He could steal from All That Jazz, I Spit on Your Grave! and Pretty Woman. :tease: :hysterical: :cheers:
Post by: Najemikon on January 19, 2010, 09:13:22 PM
How silly! Tarantino is true to whichever genre he picks and so it would obviously be an absolutely genuine typical show, but with an irreverent twist. Blimey, he could remake The Sound of Music... I might like that! :laugh:
Post by: Antares on January 19, 2010, 09:22:57 PM
Post by: snowcat on January 19, 2010, 09:33:38 PM
Post by: Jimmy on January 19, 2010, 09:34:53 PM
Post by: Antares on January 19, 2010, 09:46:03 PM
No it won't work the movies are too known to be stolen. But Catalina Caper, The Apple, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band or Sextette could be used for an homage ;D
:laugh:
Post by: snowcat on January 19, 2010, 09:58:18 PM
This... is starting to worry me. ;)
Post by: snowcat on March 06, 2010, 09:23:20 AM
Ive spent the last two weeks getting stuff published, creating a show reel and taking print screens of my work on the net 0_0 Its been driving me mad... but hopefully by the end of the day I will have my place.
As I was silly and messed up two yeas of my life, I will be going to university at the nice old age of 21 0_0 ...scary thought...
Tonight! I will write at least one review... hopefully more :/ but I also have to attend my grandmas Pizza party (shes 80)
Post by: snowcat on March 08, 2010, 12:53:46 PM
Directed by: Judd Apatow
Running Time: Theatrical Cut: 116 minutes / Uncut version: 133 minutes
Stars: Steve Carell, Paul Rudd, Romany Malco, Seth Rogen
It seems to have become socially unacceptable to be a virgin past a certain age, statistics show that in America half of high school students and one in five middle school students said they have had sexual intercourse. Steve Carell finds himself aged 40 and a virgin, but to quote the film “How did this happen?”
The 40 Year Old Virgin stars Steve Carell in what I would describe as his first lead roll, here he plays Smart Tech stock supervisor Andy, hobbyist and virgin. Seen as the nice guy, who's possibly a murderer by his colleagues, out of desperation David (Paul Rudd), Jay (Romany Malco) and Cal (Seth Rogen) invite Andy to a poker game.
It is here as the guys discuss there weirdest sexual experiences, that Andy nervousness and description of a woman's breasts quickly cast realisations in the guys brains that Andy is in fact a virgin.
The next day David, Jay and Cal make it their job to get Andy “laid” but will love find him in time? Or will he just “run through a few of those hoodrats”
The 40 Year Old Virgin, is the type of film that will never win an Oscar or BAFTA, It will not be praised by critics or those who “know film” It needs to be treated as a brainless comedy, turn of your brain, don't analyse it and enjoy.
I'm a big fan of Judd Apatow, and this directorial debut is as just as funny as his other films. Whilst it can be argued that films directed by Judd are longer than most comedies, and whilst I can see that parts of this film could have been cut for time, they are nowhere near as long as the parts id have cut from Knocked Up or Funny People.
When this film was released it stared a little known cast and a first time director, I think it was probably passed by because of this, over in England Steve Carell was known for his roles in Anchorman and Bruce Almighty, and Judd Apatow was unheard of. I think this film put them both on the “comedy” map.
What makes this film funny is not just Carell’s performance but that of his colleagues who all seem to have their own relationship problems take David who is still in love with his ex girlfriend even though they broke up two years earlier, or Jay a womanizer who is scared of his woman. Full of belly laughs, I challenge any comedy fan to get through this film with a straight face.
Post by: snowcat on March 11, 2010, 11:24:04 PM
Post by: snowcat on March 11, 2010, 11:49:05 PM
Barenaked Ladies are my favourite band and have been for a while. And Whilst most of you will know them for singing the Big Bang Theory theme, I Found accidently when I was looking for the song “One Week” made famous by many a high school movie soundtrack, I found there greatest hits. I had their greatest hits for a long time before I finally listened to them. One upon recommendation from a friend I listened to the song “Pinch Me” I loved it, it was perfect, it summed up how I felt about those mundane lonely evenings, the lyrics “On an evening such as this, it’s hard to tell if I exist” stuck in my head, I ended up listening to the entire greatest hits, i instantly fell in love with the band and acquired the rest of their albums, I slowly fell in love with those too and bought everyone of their albums. Currently I have all of their albums (bar the new one I have pre-ordered) Some I have 2 or even 3 copies of, I have EP’s, Singles and there demo tape (on cassette) I am still desperately trying to get some singles on CD, 7inch and Cassette but finding it harder and harder to acquire them.
It’s scary to find a band with 20 years of music experience and 15 or so albums and not find one song you don’t like. Every one of their songs means something different to me, some make me laugh, and some make me cry, but everyone is special to me.
The DVD’s take me back to a point in my life where I imagined I would be somewhere different right now, the lead singer was still with the band and my relationships with people were alot different, so much has changed since I watched these DVD’s that certain songs became unbearable to watch, All will be revealed as I go on.
So sit back and wait a few days and enjoy my trip back to my early “teenage” years (not that they are very far behind me) Although I listen to these songs all the time on my Ipod, the feeling of watching the performances and music videos is dramatically different and as I said raises completely different meanings, at times when I could not sleep I would sit and watch these DVDs until the early hours of the morning often falling asleep with them on in the background.
As weird and clichéd as it sounds, this band helped me through some rough points and continues to do so. I have not watched these DVDs for a few years and I have only watched one video on one DVD so far but already The only way I can describe the feeling I get when I watch these DVDs is to say I feel depressingly nostalgic, but with a deep sense of calm.
And so, reviews to follow.
Post by: Tom on March 12, 2010, 06:32:10 PM
Edit: I just noticed. I have two DVDs. "The Barelaked Nadies" and "The Barenaked Truth".
Do you know Weird Al Yankovic's song "Jerry Springer", which is based on "One Week"? I love this parody song.
Post by: RossRoy on March 12, 2010, 06:43:01 PM
Do you know Weird Al Yankovic's song "Jerry Springer", which is based on "One Week"? I love this parody song.
Quote
It's been one week since we got to see
cheatin' lovers and cousins that marry
five days since they had the show
with the hermaphrodite the slut and the crack ho
three days since we heard the tale
about the guy who learned his woman was a she-male
yesterday it occurred to me
that I've been watchin' a bit too much Jerry Springer
Never thought I'd remember that first verse so vividly...
Today, it occured to me, I've been listening to a bit much to Weird Al Yankovic :-[
Post by: snowcat on March 12, 2010, 09:07:01 PM
Lol, I do love Weird Al, the first song I heard of his was Smells like Nirvana, my favourite song by has to be Cavity Search... although I really love Jurassic Park and all of the Polkas
Post by: Rogmeister on March 12, 2010, 09:52:36 PM
Post by: RossRoy on March 13, 2010, 02:30:00 AM
With solid gold humbee and diamond laced swimming pools hahaha
Post by: snowcat on March 15, 2010, 12:03:43 PM
Barenaked In America
Directed by: Jason Priestley
Running time: Barenaked In America: 92 Minutes/Stunt Tour: 46 minutes
Stars: Jim Creeggan, Kevin Hearn, Ed Robertson, Tyler Stewart, Steven Page, Chris Brown
I honestly had a hard time starting this review, I was worried my writing would not do it justice, something I always feel when I review films I love.
Barenaked in America is a part documentary part live performance that follows the band “Barenaked Ladies” Funny, emotional and now very nostalgic, the documentary follows the band as they prepare for their 1998 “Stunt tour” The film is a behind the scenes look at the band, there hopes, fears and wants for the future.
As I have said before, the band is very important to me, they are my favourite band, and since January according to my Last.fm Itunes scribbler (which doesn’t always work) I have listened to their songs over 600 times. Often over listening to a song stops you from liking it, it’s the complete opposite with these guys... the more I listen, the more I love them.
Beginning in 1988, the band released their first demo tape in 1989, it was called Buck Naked and contained just 4 tracks. Sadly I don’t own it, but if I ever found it, and had enough money I would buy it straight off. However in 1991, there demo tape known as “The Yellow Tape” probably there easiest to find demo tape, which I do own, gave them the press they needed to get a record deal.
From this point until there 98 Stunt tour, the band lost a member and gained another. It is during this documentary that the band explain that their newest member Kevin Hearn, who joined just as they recorded the Stunt album, became ill towards the end of the recording, only to find he had leukaemia and would not be able to be on the tour.
The documentary looks inside a band that is just about to hit mainstream America, after their release of number one single “One Week” the film deals with the bands reaction to Kevin Hearn’s cancer as well as how much has changed for them recently.
The film has a sombre mood, maybe a reflection of the way the guys felt during filming, humbled by the sudden surge in popularity but worried for their friend who should have been sharing this experience with them. Starting at the bands roots when they were unable to even make a music video until a friend recorded them playing in what looks like a photo booth then band shows how pure determination and musical ability can take you far.
I think with this type of documentary people think, “it’s for the fans” I couldn’t agree less with this one, I think it’s an interesting, insightful documentary not just into the band, but into what it’s like to be in a band that’s about to hit it big. I recommend this documentary, I’m sure this documentary create new fans.
What makes this documentary so sad now is the togetherness of the band, they joke together, they look so happy, they discuss how they met Ed Robertson when talking about the bands future even says “I can see another 10 or another 20 years easily as long as it continues to be a good environment.” Sadly in 2009 Steven Page left the band, but the others continue on, releasing a new album on March 29th. I hope the band do last another 10 or 20 years, and I hope that maybe when it’s not so raw, if you have heard there new song you will see how raw the feelings still are I hope that one day Steve can return and play with the band on occasion.
Post by: venomsinner on March 16, 2010, 09:06:35 AM
Post by: snowcat on March 16, 2010, 09:30:26 AM
:P you missed half the DVD off!
That half is coming later!
:redcard: