Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base?

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Favourite Films >> RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? Page: <<   < prev  475 476 [477] 478 479   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 24/7/2012 11:47:04 AM   
Discodez

 

Posts: 799
Joined: 2/9/2010
If I was a lady I could quite easily fall in love with Evil Bill, just on the strength of the reviews in this thread.

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 14281
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 25/7/2012 8:11:35 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6725
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Discodez

If I was a lady I could quite easily fall in love with Evil Bill, just on the strength of the reviews in this thread.

 Cheers mate.

quote:


 

Wow, a stunningly good review there mate that hits the nail firmly on the head. It is definitely the most emotional entry and yes, that stunning opening sequence blew my socks off!

Having just watched it again last night well i'm still impressed,and on the biggest screen i could find in Belfast,it was even more awesome.Bad ponit's i did'nt get to see this on an IMAX screen,unlike some of the crew that vist here,(YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE???),and Bane is just no match for the Joker in sheer style and evil,also on the first showing on Friday afternoon,the picture was blurred a few times,the sound to loud in places,as i just could not make out some of what Bane was saying.But Tuesday was perfect even though i knew how it ended,it was stilla 10/10 but only just,and still mind blowing how he has made three films of the same source yet so different,but with that realism only he could do.
Now i hope most of now seen this,but what a super ending with a set up for a very different person to maybe follow on.NIGHTWING perhaps???

< Message edited by evil bill -- 25/7/2012 8:13:08 PM >


_____________________________

"You listen to me now,i will find you and i will kill you!"

(in reply to Discodez)
Post #: 14282
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 25/7/2012 9:12:10 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6725
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Platter

THE DARK HALF (1993)

The opening is authentically creepy and promising. Visually it recalls Silence of the Lambs and the eyeball in the brain moment has a lovely disturbing quality to it. Then from the first murder (of the photographer) it just becomes a series of mildly surreal killings. The potential for a chilling psychological story is squandered as it becomes a very so-so slasher film. The possibilities of his split personality and the writing process having an influence over what is happening is quickly abandoned. Basically it turns into a slightly unusual slasher with no real plot or story development.

The climax was rubbish. It was an overlong, boring piece of meaningless, logically shaky supernatural dribble.

The film started good, but it kept getting worse as it went on. To begin with I thought it was a 7, then a 6, then a 5 and by the end just a 4. It has an interesting premise but ultimately it's wasted.

4 out of 10

Now i disagree here,i know it's not the best of King movies but,i have a soft spot(maybe between my ears)for films based on his books,and as naff as some have been this was ok.Here's what i thought of it a while back.
The Dark Half (1993) 


Thad Beuamont (Timothy Hutton)  writes horror books under a different name, George Stark, while he writes other novels under his normal name. As his books become more savage, and the fact someone finds out who he actually is, Thad decides to put George Stark to rest. He decides to have a fake funeral and bury his nemesis for good, much to the joy of his family. Unfortunately Stark is not happy, and comes back and starts to take over Thds life and force him to start writing again. Along the way, he decides to start killing people as well. The local sheriff (Michael Rooker) is on the case, and being close Friends with Thad, he doesn't want to believe its him, even if the evidence points to him.

This is so Stephen King as it's based on his own writings,IE he writes under two names and seems like two different people,maybe with an evil doppelganger in another dimension.Now King is not known for good movie adaptations,and his scripting talents are not to good to be honest,but when he joins forces with George Romero like in Creepshow,they seem to make a decent movie together.And this is a decent if flawed horror film,with good acting and a story that keeps you glued to the screen,and delivers a great ending which reminded me of the Hitchcock's The Birds.The plot is a very dark tale of a normal, family man falling apart,as he struggles with his own inner demon?,and gives this film a dark, intense and moody feel with some great scenes of violence.Also some wonderfully powerful creepy uncomfortable dream sequence/vision's, which i just wish there had of been more of.

Director Romero gives us a zombie/doppelganger slasher to die for here,as the deaths are quite brutal and graphic,with victims beaten to death,(wooden leg beating being a classic),victims stabbed in the head and several graphic slit throats.Needles to say the gore effects are top notch,though not to bloody tospoil the chills,and the effects overall are near perfect,plus Romero seems on form with some chilling scenes to curl the toe's,and though not a great ending it is pretty nasty,with a house full of killer sparrows.Romero also has a good cast here,with Timothy Hutton surprisingly good in his duel roles??,and the great Michael Rooker who should get into bigger films,as he's up there with Ed Harris to me,in his acting skills.Thad's wife Liz played by Amy Madigan,keeps things well grounded and again great bit of acting,just wish she had more to do in this film.

Now this is a great Romero effort,that most of the time follows the book,but it just feels like it try's to hard to impress.With it's look at domestic violence,and deep meaning of life and death,it fires to high for it's own good,it works great when it goes for chills and spills,and then misfires on the deeper context.Still overall i did like it as a Romero/King film it's just above the average in this range of films,and for a night's entertainment with a few beers,it's great bit of slasher fare with out being blood soaked.6/10

_____________________________

"You listen to me now,i will find you and i will kill you!"

(in reply to Platter)
Post #: 14283
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 27/7/2012 12:37:38 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3984
Joined: 19/10/2005
Excellent review of DKR Bill, but I just cannot agree.

This review kind of turned into a critique of the whole trilogy, I doubt you or many will agree, but like LH I like to be different



THE DARK KNIGHT RISES and why such as a hit as the Nolan Batman trilogy is such such as miss for Dr Lenera



Eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, Commissioner James Gordon has nearly eradicated violent and organized crime from Gotham City, but feels guilty about the cover-up of Harvey Dent’s crimes. While following a lead in the abduction of a congressional representative, Gordon is badly wounded and his confessional speech falls into the hands of terrorist leader Bane, a powerful villain with a cruel plan. Batman seems to have disappeared and so has Bruce Wayne, living as a virtual recluse in Wayne Manor, though Wayne Enterprises is crumbling after he invested in a clean energy project but shut it down after learning that the fusion core at its heart could be modified to become a nuclear weapon. After Bane attacks the stock exchange and bankrupts him, Batman has to return, but he now also has Selina Kyle, a devious cat burglar, to deal with………..

It makes me feel like an outsider, it really does. It seems that if you are one of those people who thinks Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy is anything less than brilliant, you are considered a little odd. If , like me, you actually consider them very flawed and nothing special and, dare I say it, quite poor in places, than you are often considered an idiot who knows nothing about movies. I feel I have a reasonable knowledge of films and have developed reasonable critical faculties, but just cannot understand what the fuss is about with these three films. And frankly, it totally and utterly sickens me when I look at the IMDB and see that The Dark Knight is ranked the third best film ever and Batman Begins is ranked the eight. There are people, and lots of them, who are calling Batman Begins a ‘masterpiece of cinema’. I think this is a disgusting insult to creators of truly great films such as Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Akira Kurosawa, Steven Spielberg etc. But then we live in a world where fans of these films are willing to threaten critics who dare to give them bad reviews with death.

Batman Begins. Well, for a start I didn’t think that Batman And Robin was as bad as all thought, just a bright, silly children’s movie with a considerable amount of heart [you may have read my ‘Guilty Pleasures’ review on it]. Nonetheless, they decided to start all over again, and I distinctly remember how bored I was during the first half. Nothing wrong with build up, but Batman Begins’s was just so dull and tediously meticulous in explaining everything on Batman’s costume [yet still failed to convey to me why he dressed as a bat] that the result was just laborious in the extreme. But then Batman Begins is a dreary mess of a movie which half-heartedly tries to make a ‘comic book’ tale ‘realistic’ yet still fills it with conventional comic book movie and unbelievable aspects such as a secret society of ninjas and an immortal villain with a doomsday machine. The film just doesn’t gel, and it almost seems ashamed with having to put in action with its lame Spiderman 2 climax and its atrocious fight scenes where having a caption saying BATMAN WASTES FIVE VILLAINS would have been preferable to the incompetent stuff we get. There was one really good element though; Cillian Murphy’s scary the Scarecrow, who belonged in a different film and actually seemed to almost be in one, one that was far better than the film we got.

Joe Public seemed to respond positively though, so The Dark Knight was put into production, and this was a film people seemed to be raving about before they’d even seen it. The death of Heath Ledger seemed to make everyone praise his Joker to the skies, despite the fact that to my eyes he was ‘good’ rather than ‘great’, could have been played by several others and wasn’t a patch on Jack Nicholson. Then again, he wasn’t helped by a weak script which failed to give him, a character called the Joker remember, any actual jokes. In fact, his whole part of the film was botched, almost everything he does relying on the most ridiculous of coincidences [in fact he’s basically a fortune teller], but the film as a whole just repeated variations on the same situation and vastly preferred long sequences of people in rooms talking to actual action [of which there must have been about ten minutes]. Despite it pretending to be realistic, it was full of absurdities, from the bus scene near the beginning which defies all kinds of logic to that stupid ‘phone sonar’ moment where Batman can see everyone in Gotham. And then, just when you think the bloody thing has ended, it starts up again, to conclude with such hysterical melodramatics I alternated between laughing and saying to myself “is this is, is this what people are saying is so great”?

So we come on to The Dark Knight Rises, a film I was almost dreading to see because of all the arguments I would have about it. However, and I am happy to say this because I do prefer to find the positives in films rather than negatives, I do believe it is a better film than its predecessors. The first third is definitely slow but allows for some good performances especially from Christian Bale [funny Batman voice notwithstanding] and Michael Caine, who does well throughout, and the rest moves at a furious pace which makes the almost three hour running time fly be. There is a considerable epic feel to the film and Nolan is getting better with each film at shooting action, of which there is a huge amount in this movie, culminating in a climactic chase which really is very thrilling indeed. The sequence where the explosives are going off all over the city floored me with how well executed it was, and the timely commentary on the way certain things are going in the world today is also very good. As for the twists towards the end, they may not all make sense but they’re certainly fun, and for once Wayne’s latest girlfriend is not wasted!

Sadly though I still noticed a huge amount of flaws, far more than there should be. Bane is a boring villain saddled with a voice that sounds like a posh Darth Vader with a throat infection and is sometimes inaudible. Selina, who is never actually called Catwoman, is only slightly more interesting. She’s just a normal cat burglar who can fight well and undergoes unconvincing developments throughout. The script throughout is full of holes, and I’m not even going to get into the ridiculous airplane opening [remember folks, this is supposed to be a realistic movie]. Why does Bruce trust a certain person who he would surely have checked up on? How does he get from the Pit [with no money] to Gotham City when that is supposed to be impossible? What’s the deal with that stupid open-air prison anyway [yes I know it was explained but I didn’t ‘buy’ it one bit]? Is it really that easy to recover from a broken back? How on earth can people who are buried underground for three months emerge clean shaven and ready to fight? Wow, very realistic, ay? Some of this stuff would fit better into one of Joel Schumacher’s movies.

Some of this may just seem like nit-picking, and most films show flaws after you’ve seen them and had a think, but if I was too aware of all this during the film them it wasn’t doing its job properly. Batman is not in the film nearly enough and lazy scriptwriting has him saved by his new toy at least four times. The fights are often very lame, making it dreadfully obvious that punches are not connecting. Then the film seems to end, and seems to end well and even quite movingly too, until it adds on another few minutes which leave things open for another film. I thought this was supposed to be a trilogy? Why the hell can’t movies like this actually end anymore. It smacks of Nolan and his two co-writers being told what to do by Warners.

But in the end, there’s nothing about The Dark Knight Rises that is really awful…..except for its music, which is quite simply the worst film score in ages. Hans Zimmer, the third highest paid Hollywood film composer and on the evidence of this score the third least talented, seems to have written it in a couple of days, because quite simply three quarters of it is either the same string patterns or the same synthesised drum loops played over and over and over again with no variation. How the hell can this be considered good scoring? If this is what it has come to, than I fear for the art of film music, and no, I don’t require every film to be scored in the old-style Classical manner, nor do have a prejudice against electronic music; in fact, I love quite a lot of it, but this score is simply abysmal, brain numbing in its aggressive dumbness, and it never shuts up either, with droning notes playing under almost every dialogue scene. Zimmer, even though I find his way of scoring bizarre [record an archestra, than record a synthesiser over it to almost drown the orchestra out], detest his Media Ventures empire which is dominating and destroying film scoring, can sometimes write half-decent scores, so maybe the blame lies with Nolan, who has never had a good score yet in his films.

Now I’m not going to say they are awful films because they are not; far worse come out most weeks. However, to hold these up as the pinnacle of the ‘superhero’ flick just baffles me. It seems that anything realistic is automatically better than anything that isn’t, but, as I have already explained, they don’t even succeed in being that. Likewise, their supposed ‘darkness’. If a film is dark it’s considered better than a film that isn’t, but these films aren’t even that dark. Though both of them were in my opinion unsuitable for a 12A rating [a most pointless and dangerous rating], they tend to pussyfoot around ‘real’ darkness except for with their villains, and even then there is the feeling of holding something back. I would have actually loved to have seen Darren Aronovsky’s Batman film. Now that would have been truly realistic and truly dark!

Now I probably sound like I hate Nolan. I don’t. I think much of his non-Batman work is fairly good and actually I loved Inception…..well, except for its score. I respect him and actually agree with him on many things, from CGI [should not be overused] to 3D [is a pointless gimmick] to On Her Majesty’s Secret Service [the best James Bond film!]. But his Batman films just don’t do it for me. I have tried and tried to see what others see, and have failed. No amount of raving will convince me that these aren’t fairly ordinary and very flawed films which have been ludicrously blown up out of proportion. Nolan is producing the new Superman film, and Zimmer is doing the music. Sounds like they’ll royally screw up The Man Of Steel, which is a subject where a half-hearted realistic approach just wouldn’t work. Still, I expect everyone will say how brilliant it, and I’ll be crying “why” and trying to work out why such mediocrity is so loved.

Batman Begins 4/10

The Dark Knight 4/10

The Dark Knight Rises 6/10



_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 14284
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 27/7/2012 5:33:24 PM   
dannyfletch


Posts: 645
Joined: 25/5/2008
From: Bromley
Oh dear! I've got to dissagree with you big time! I absolutely love all of these 10/10 films and think Hans Zimmer's score is one of the best ever scores! Cool that you want to be different, just hope your not being different for the sake of being different
Personally I feel this is possibly The Best Trilogy Ever!!!
I also have a great feeling about The Man of Steel and just know I'm gonna love it. I love the realistic approach!

< Message edited by dannyfletch -- 27/7/2012 5:36:48 PM >

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14285
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 28/7/2012 10:48:47 AM   
HughesRoss


Posts: 5669
Joined: 19/12/2008
From: Merthyr
quote:

ORIGINAL: dannyfletch

Cool that you want to be different, just hope your not being different for the sake of being different
Personally I feel this is possibly The Best Trilogy Ever!!!


I admire the Doc for his unique taste and I can 100% sure you that the Doc is not being different for the sake of being different!....

He is not the only Bat Fan I know who does not like these films.....



_____________________________

Our first ever HCF MOVIE AWARDS

http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/2012/01/horrorcultfilms-movie-awards-of-2011-all-the-winners-right-here-of-our-first-ever-hcf-awards/

(in reply to dannyfletch)
Post #: 14286
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 28/7/2012 4:39:42 PM   
losthighway


Posts: 3248
Joined: 25/1/2006
From: Manchesterford
SPOILER FOR RISES!!!

DKR. It was a 3/5 movie for me. However I cannot agree regarding DK as that film is simply brilliant. I'm not a huge Batman fan and never have been but these films have certainly piqued my interest over the years. I presume we're going to get a Robin trilogy... hence why Nolan's work with Batman can be deemed over but his foray into its world I doubt is!

FYI... Fopp have got some great bargains on Arrow horror DVDs. I picked up PHENOMENA for £5. Plus, if it's your bag, HMV are selling Kevin Smith's CHASING AMY for £8 on BR (previously £20-30!!).

Oh and i've got THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2: FULL SEQUENCE - DIRECTOR'S CUT coming from the US. It's totally uncut and I could be making a massive mistake but like A SERBIAN FILM, if i'm going to watch filth i would at least like to watch uncut!!

< Message edited by losthighway -- 28/7/2012 4:47:52 PM >


_____________________________

The secret to becoming a star is knowing how to behave like one.

(in reply to HughesRoss)
Post #: 14287
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 29/7/2012 9:35:09 AM   
DONOVAN KURTWOOD


Posts: 9155
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera

Excellent review of DKR Bill, but I just cannot agree.

This review kind of turned into a critique of the whole trilogy, I doubt you or many will agree, but like LH I like to be different



THE DARK KNIGHT RISES and why such as a hit as the Nolan Batman trilogy is such such as miss for Dr Lenera



Eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, Commissioner James Gordon has nearly eradicated violent and organized crime from Gotham City, but feels guilty about the cover-up of Harvey Dent’s crimes. While following a lead in the abduction of a congressional representative, Gordon is badly wounded and his confessional speech falls into the hands of terrorist leader Bane, a powerful villain with a cruel plan. Batman seems to have disappeared and so has Bruce Wayne, living as a virtual recluse in Wayne Manor, though Wayne Enterprises is crumbling after he invested in a clean energy project but shut it down after learning that the fusion core at its heart could be modified to become a nuclear weapon. After Bane attacks the stock exchange and bankrupts him, Batman has to return, but he now also has Selina Kyle, a devious cat burglar, to deal with………..

It makes me feel like an outsider, it really does. It seems that if you are one of those people who thinks Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy is anything less than brilliant, you are considered a little odd. If , like me, you actually consider them very flawed and nothing special and, dare I say it, quite poor in places, than you are often considered an idiot who knows nothing about movies. I feel I have a reasonable knowledge of films and have developed reasonable critical faculties, but just cannot understand what the fuss is about with these three films. And frankly, it totally and utterly sickens me when I look at the IMDB and see that The Dark Knight is ranked the third best film ever and Batman Begins is ranked the eight. There are people, and lots of them, who are calling Batman Begins a ‘masterpiece of cinema’. I think this is a disgusting insult to creators of truly great films such as Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Akira Kurosawa, Steven Spielberg etc. But then we live in a world where fans of these films are willing to threaten critics who dare to give them bad reviews with death.

Batman Begins. Well, for a start I didn’t think that Batman And Robin was as bad as all thought, just a bright, silly children’s movie with a considerable amount of heart [you may have read my ‘Guilty Pleasures’ review on it]. Nonetheless, they decided to start all over again, and I distinctly remember how bored I was during the first half. Nothing wrong with build up, but Batman Begins’s was just so dull and tediously meticulous in explaining everything on Batman’s costume [yet still failed to convey to me why he dressed as a bat] that the result was just laborious in the extreme. But then Batman Begins is a dreary mess of a movie which half-heartedly tries to make a ‘comic book’ tale ‘realistic’ yet still fills it with conventional comic book movie and unbelievable aspects such as a secret society of ninjas and an immortal villain with a doomsday machine. The film just doesn’t gel, and it almost seems ashamed with having to put in action with its lame Spiderman 2 climax and its atrocious fight scenes where having a caption saying BATMAN WASTES FIVE VILLAINS would have been preferable to the incompetent stuff we get. There was one really good element though; Cillian Murphy’s scary the Scarecrow, who belonged in a different film and actually seemed to almost be in one, one that was far better than the film we got.

Joe Public seemed to respond positively though, so The Dark Knight was put into production, and this was a film people seemed to be raving about before they’d even seen it. The death of Heath Ledger seemed to make everyone praise his Joker to the skies, despite the fact that to my eyes he was ‘good’ rather than ‘great’, could have been played by several others and wasn’t a patch on Jack Nicholson. Then again, he wasn’t helped by a weak script which failed to give him, a character called the Joker remember, any actual jokes. In fact, his whole part of the film was botched, almost everything he does relying on the most ridiculous of coincidences [in fact he’s basically a fortune teller], but the film as a whole just repeated variations on the same situation and vastly preferred long sequences of people in rooms talking to actual action [of which there must have been about ten minutes]. Despite it pretending to be realistic, it was full of absurdities, from the bus scene near the beginning which defies all kinds of logic to that stupid ‘phone sonar’ moment where Batman can see everyone in Gotham. And then, just when you think the bloody thing has ended, it starts up again, to conclude with such hysterical melodramatics I alternated between laughing and saying to myself “is this is, is this what people are saying is so great”?

So we come on to The Dark Knight Rises, a film I was almost dreading to see because of all the arguments I would have about it. However, and I am happy to say this because I do prefer to find the positives in films rather than negatives, I do believe it is a better film than its predecessors. The first third is definitely slow but allows for some good performances especially from Christian Bale [funny Batman voice notwithstanding] and Michael Caine, who does well throughout, and the rest moves at a furious pace which makes the almost three hour running time fly be. There is a considerable epic feel to the film and Nolan is getting better with each film at shooting action, of which there is a huge amount in this movie, culminating in a climactic chase which really is very thrilling indeed. The sequence where the explosives are going off all over the city floored me with how well executed it was, and the timely commentary on the way certain things are going in the world today is also very good. As for the twists towards the end, they may not all make sense but they’re certainly fun, and for once Wayne’s latest girlfriend is not wasted!

Sadly though I still noticed a huge amount of flaws, far more than there should be. Bane is a boring villain saddled with a voice that sounds like a posh Darth Vader with a throat infection and is sometimes inaudible. Selina, who is never actually called Catwoman, is only slightly more interesting. She’s just a normal cat burglar who can fight well and undergoes unconvincing developments throughout. The script throughout is full of holes, and I’m not even going to get into the ridiculous airplane opening [remember folks, this is supposed to be a realistic movie]. Why does Bruce trust a certain person who he would surely have checked up on? How does he get from the Pit [with no money] to Gotham City when that is supposed to be impossible? What’s the deal with that stupid open-air prison anyway [yes I know it was explained but I didn’t ‘buy’ it one bit]? Is it really that easy to recover from a broken back? How on earth can people who are buried underground for three months emerge clean shaven and ready to fight? Wow, very realistic, ay? Some of this stuff would fit better into one of Joel Schumacher’s movies.

Some of this may just seem like nit-picking, and most films show flaws after you’ve seen them and had a think, but if I was too aware of all this during the film them it wasn’t doing its job properly. Batman is not in the film nearly enough and lazy scriptwriting has him saved by his new toy at least four times. The fights are often very lame, making it dreadfully obvious that punches are not connecting. Then the film seems to end, and seems to end well and even quite movingly too, until it adds on another few minutes which leave things open for another film. I thought this was supposed to be a trilogy? Why the hell can’t movies like this actually end anymore. It smacks of Nolan and his two co-writers being told what to do by Warners.

But in the end, there’s nothing about The Dark Knight Rises that is really awful…..except for its music, which is quite simply the worst film score in ages. Hans Zimmer, the third highest paid Hollywood film composer and on the evidence of this score the third least talented, seems to have written it in a couple of days, because quite simply three quarters of it is either the same string patterns or the same synthesised drum loops played over and over and over again with no variation. How the hell can this be considered good scoring? If this is what it has come to, than I fear for the art of film music, and no, I don’t require every film to be scored in the old-style Classical manner, nor do have a prejudice against electronic music; in fact, I love quite a lot of it, but this score is simply abysmal, brain numbing in its aggressive dumbness, and it never shuts up either, with droning notes playing under almost every dialogue scene. Zimmer, even though I find his way of scoring bizarre [record an archestra, than record a synthesiser over it to almost drown the orchestra out], detest his Media Ventures empire which is dominating and destroying film scoring, can sometimes write half-decent scores, so maybe the blame lies with Nolan, who has never had a good score yet in his films.

Now I’m not going to say they are awful films because they are not; far worse come out most weeks. However, to hold these up as the pinnacle of the ‘superhero’ flick just baffles me. It seems that anything realistic is automatically better than anything that isn’t, but, as I have already explained, they don’t even succeed in being that. Likewise, their supposed ‘darkness’. If a film is dark it’s considered better than a film that isn’t, but these films aren’t even that dark. Though both of them were in my opinion unsuitable for a 12A rating [a most pointless and dangerous rating], they tend to pussyfoot around ‘real’ darkness except for with their villains, and even then there is the feeling of holding something back. I would have actually loved to have seen Darren Aronovsky’s Batman film. Now that would have been truly realistic and truly dark!

Now I probably sound like I hate Nolan. I don’t. I think much of his non-Batman work is fairly good and actually I loved Inception…..well, except for its score. I respect him and actually agree with him on many things, from CGI [should not be overused] to 3D [is a pointless gimmick] to On Her Majesty’s Secret Service [the best James Bond film!]. But his Batman films just don’t do it for me. I have tried and tried to see what others see, and have failed. No amount of raving will convince me that these aren’t fairly ordinary and very flawed films which have been ludicrously blown up out of proportion. Nolan is producing the new Superman film, and Zimmer is doing the music. Sounds like they’ll royally screw up The Man Of Steel, which is a subject where a half-hearted realistic approach just wouldn’t work. Still, I expect everyone will say how brilliant it, and I’ll be crying “why” and trying to work out why such mediocrity is so loved.

Batman Begins 4/10

The Dark Knight 4/10

The Dark Knight Rises 6/10




Awesome stuff Dr Lenera! Completely agree with your assessment on Batman begins and TDK although i'd rate BB even lower than you. Havent seen TDKR but i know i wont like it. Thank god Nolan is moving away from Batman now.

_____________________________

Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14288
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 29/7/2012 6:29:47 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6725
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera

Excellent review of DKR Bill, but I just cannot agree.

This review kind of turned into a critique of the whole trilogy, I doubt you or many will agree, but like LH I like to be different



THE DARK KNIGHT RISES and why such as a hit as the Nolan Batman trilogy is such such as miss for Dr Lenera




Batman Begins 4/10

The Dark Knight 4/10

The Dark Knight Rises 6/10



Well no surprise there mate,i pretty much know your dislike of this set of films,though you might have hurt LH's feelings  by scoreing DKR higher than DK,but stick to view this was AWESOME!!! and i've seen it twice.
By the way i see DJ loved it too.

_____________________________

"You listen to me now,i will find you and i will kill you!"

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14289
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 29/7/2012 6:32:51 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6725
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: HughesRoss

quote:

ORIGINAL: dannyfletch

Cool that you want to be different, just hope your not being different for the sake of being different
Personally I feel this is possibly The Best Trilogy Ever!!!


I admire the Doc for his unique taste and I can 100% sure you that the Doc is not being different for the sake of being different!....

He is not the only Bat Fan I know who does not like these films.....



Long time no see.Nice to see you drop in from time to time,though i heard you have been AWOL on the other site too,hope all is well now.

_____________________________

"You listen to me now,i will find you and i will kill you!"

(in reply to HughesRoss)
Post #: 14290
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 30/7/2012 12:32:30 PM   
Platter

 

Posts: 113
Joined: 14/8/2010
quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

The Dark Half (1993) 

and delivers a great ending which reminded me of the Hitchcock's The Birds.



The ending was silly with weak special effects. And it was very, very reminiscent of The Birds. Especially with the shots of them flying into the camera.

This stretches the weird/strange movie eligibility:

IN THE CUT (2003)

As a thriller it's a failure, as art it's a failure and as a drama it's a failure
My expectations were very low. The director, Jane Campion, makes tasteful, respectable middle-brow art movies like The Piano and A Portrait of a Lady. The sort of films I go out my way not to watch. So her directing a thriller with a mainstream actress doing edgy makes me very cautious. And the movie's reputation is generally very low. The gist appears to be that it's a bit boring and doesn't really work.

And so it is.

It's an attempt at making a classy thriller. The problem is they appear to have selected poor source material that isn't up to the task of supporting any extra pretensions. I haven't read the novel, but judging from the film I assume it's a pulpy, generic airport best-seller that was written as just another book among many by a prolific author. There are no signs of depths to it. Everything suggests that the (not one hundred percent probable) plot is king, the characters shallow and the thematic stuff completely absent.

The film-makers have taken this trashy book and tried to make its plot, characters and sex scenes mean something. They failed. They have only succeeded in taking a pulpy, potentially enjoyable story and dragging it down into a lumpy, plodding, slow paced bore. So much effort is concentrated on making it deep that the standard mechanics of the thriller elements are mostly ignored. It wasn't until about an hour in, when Kevin Bacon turns up as a twitchy red-herring, that it even occurred to me that I'm supposed to be trying to guess who the killer is. The whole thriller side of the movie had passed me by until then.

The plot itself was rather bland and uninvolving. And very uneventful. It takes a long time for anything to really happen. No awards should be handed out for originality or cleverness. Everything the film has to offer you have already seen in many other places many times before. Probably done better as well. There is not one original idea or moment here.

As the director has good taste we never see any murders so everything is off screen. The arty distance that the film has from the pulpy elements really doesn't do anything to quicken the pulse of the viewer.

The characters are nothing of note. The actors bared a bit of flesh and obviously thought they were making an intense character piece. None of the characters had that much going for them. I wouldn't call them hollow, but then again I wouldn't call them rounded either.

The movie is oddly confusing to begin with as the passage of time is not clearly spelled out. It took a while for me to realise that what seemed like continuous scenes were actually set days apart.

***MILD SPOILER IN NEXT PARAGRAPH***
Eventually towards the end the movie remembered there was a murder mystery to be solved. So the unimaginative killer announces himself, doesn't explain in his own words why he did what he did and then dies as quickly as possible. Clearly no one involved in the film cared about this section. The audience shrugs with indifference.

There seems to be quite a bit of praise for its visuals. I didn't like the look of the movie. Almost every shot plays around with the focus. Background, foreground and corners of the screen are constantly blurred. There are even moments when everything wobbles out of focus. Almost every single shot limits what you can see as it funnels your attention to only small sections of the screen. Also there are curiously few wide shots. Ultimately it becomes claustrophobic and annoying. I just want to see what is going on. I hate this chintzy, over elaborate monkeying around. It sacrifices clarity to needless artiness.

The sex scenes are not particularly graphic beyond the opening. Which does not involve Meg Ryan. If you're only watching it for the dirty bits then you will be disappointed.

It's not a good movie, but it's not full-on bad as it was watchable enough for the first hour. Then from about the moment the detective makes a bath for Ryan I found my attention starting to wander. It did eventually become boring as it went on for almost two hours. The biggest problem is that it treats its trashy source material like art. They really should have picked a better book if they wanted to make art instead of pulp entertainment.

When I try to think of anything authentically positive I draw a blank. There really isn't anything to praise beyond that it was watchable.

(A generous) 4 out of 10


_____________________________

My novel:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/This-Cuckoo-Island-ebook/dp/B00EIP4ZVS/ref=sr_1_4?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1377097535&sr=1-4

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 14291
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 30/7/2012 6:52:53 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6725
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Platter

quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

The Dark Half (1993) 

and delivers a great ending which reminded me of the Hitchcock's The Birds.



The ending was silly with weak special effects. And it was very, very reminiscent of The Birds. Especially with the shots of them flying into the camera.

This stretches the weird/strange movie eligibility:

IN THE CUT (2003)

As a thriller it's a failure, as art it's a failure and as a drama it's a failure
My expectations were very low. The director, Jane Campion, makes tasteful, respectable middle-brow art movies like The Piano and A Portrait of a Lady.

They really should have picked a better book if they wanted to make art instead of pulp entertainment.

When I try to think of anything authentically positive I draw a blank. There really isn't anything to praise beyond that it was watchable.

(A generous) 4 out of 10


Now i watched this about a 3 years ago on some TV channel,and it bored me that much i fell asleep,though i do remember it was very much like the Sharon Stone film SLIVER.I watched it in full about a year ago,and don't know how i lasted the 2 hours,always hoping it would get better,and well it didn't,it's a bit overblown dud!!,by a director who should know better.More soft porn than Thriller,maybe Shades Of Grey should be filmed by Jane Campion,after all it's written by a woman,and Hollywood bought the rights to film,so we know it will be SOFT!!!.
Watched on Blu-Ray rental;
SAFE HOUSE (2012)

Denzel Washington plays Tobin Frost the most dangerous renegade from the CIA, who comes back onto the grid after a decade on the run. When the South African safe house he's remanded to is attacked by mercenaries, a rookie operative (Ryan Reynolds) escapes with him. Now, the unlikely allies must stay alive long enough to uncover who wants them dead.

Well first the good news,this is an exciting thriller shot in and around Cape Town,with some superb photography,great chases, brutal violence,bloody fights and unnerving shootouts,which looks so much like a Bourne film gone crazy.Well no wonder for director Daniel Espinosa has the wonderful cinematographer Oliver Wood of Bourne movie fame on board,and he knows how to make a film look good.Though at times the fast paced editing gets annoying,i think i've had my fill of rolling eye syndrome,as you find yourself struggling to keep up with the mayhem.

Denzel Washington once again playing the badass character? that we love to see him play,he is just one hell of an actor,and the main reasons i decided to give this film ago.Well Denzel as you expect rules the screen from the moment he appears to the not unexpected ending,with another great star turn up there with The Pelican Brief ,Man on Fire .His co star Ryan Reynolds (Buried, Smokin Aces,Green Lantern) runs a good second place,but only when there's plenty of action to take your action away from a lazy script.For the film is all about the rookie,not the master spy,but Ryan is only a good actor not a great actor,and with a weak script he struggles to take screen time away from the master.This i feel spoils a great film trying to get out,for it ends up in the comfort zone of popcorn action flick,yet it's trying to be another Bourne rip off.

The big problem with this film is direction and script,for at it's heart this could have been a great Spy/Psychological Thriller,instead of letting Densel and Ryan's duel of wits take center stage,it's the action.Now don't get me wrong this is one fast moving action/thriller,and that's when it's at it's best,just i felt it missed out on the tense, psychological duel of wits which bubbles to the surface from time to time,between the main leads and the villains.And it has great villains,and to give away to much about who the real villains are might spoil the ending,so yes give it a shot.There's enough bone crunching,blood letting to put this in an 18 Cert box,but it's a 15 cert,which delivers some stomach churing violence,and fantastic punch ups to keep you awake,while delivering a decent enough story of corruption,and double dealing,for me to give it a good score.6/10

< Message edited by evil bill -- 30/7/2012 7:45:30 PM >


_____________________________

"You listen to me now,i will find you and i will kill you!"

(in reply to Platter)
Post #: 14292
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 1/8/2012 8:22:18 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6725
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
Been flicking through a few web sites,and sadly i see The Shining,The Exorcist,Poltergeist and Creepshow would you belive are due to be remade in the new year with release peniciled in for 2014????Don't know about you but the first two make me fill up with rage,and the last well if it ant broke don't re boot the fucking thing.

_____________________________

"You listen to me now,i will find you and i will kill you!"

(in reply to DONOVAN KURTWOOD)
Post #: 14293
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 2/8/2012 7:22:34 PM   
paul.mccluskey


Posts: 5159
Joined: 15/4/2007
From: Port Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Arrow have announced that they will release two films by Massimo Dallamano on DVD on 29th October: Super Bitch and The Night Child.


Super Bitch Special Features

- New widescreen transfer in the original ratio
- Newly translated optional English subtitles
- Optional English and Italian audio tracks
- BULLETS, BABES AND BLOOD: THE HIGH OCTANE ACTION OF THE ITALIAN POLICE FILM - Legendary directors Ruggero Deodato, Sergio Martino and Brit filmmaker Darren Ward and critic Paolo Zelati, discuss the sex, style and shootouts that typified the Italian crime-caper
- RUGGERO DEODATO REMEMBERS IVAN RASSIMOV - An affectionate look back at the veteran Italian exploitation actor and SUPER BITCH leading man
- Collector’s booklet featuring new writing on the film by author and critic Calum Waddell
- Reversible sleeve featuring original and newly commissioned artwork by Graham Humphreys


The Night Child Special Features

- New widescreen transfer in the original ratio
- Newly translated optional English subtitles
- Optional English and Italian audio tracks
- EXORCISM ITALIAN-STYLE: Author and critic Paolo Zelati, filmmaker Luigi Cozzi and screenwriter Antonio Tentori reflect on the brief boom in pasta-possession movies which rushed out of Rome in the wake of William Friedkin's classic THE EXORCIST
- Original Italian and US trailers
- Collector’s booklet featuring new writing on the film by author and critic Calum Waddell
- Reversible sleeve featuring original and newly commissioned artwork by Graham Humphreys


Also, Arrow will release Christmas Evil on DVD on 12th November. Special features include:

- New widescreen transfer in the original ratio of the Director’s Cut
- Audio commentary with director Lewis Jackson
- Audio commentary with Lewis Jackson and director John Waters
- Original story-board sequences
- Comment Cards
- Rare audition tapes
- Collector’s booklet featuring writing on the film by critic and author Kim Newman, John Waters and a new introduction by Lewis Jackson, illustrated with original stills






(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 14294
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 3/8/2012 3:20:00 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6725
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: paul.mccluskey

Arrow have announced that they will release two films by Massimo Dallamano on DVD on 29th October: Super Bitch and The Night Child.






Now that is what we need a collection of cult Italian horror,and though i have not seen the first two,i have seen Christmas Evil many moons ago on bootleg VHS,and i do recall it was a fun slasher.
Might just watch THE EXORCIST tonight yet again,and SUPERNATURAL for my Friday night double bill of horror.Or some good old Italian Horror,so many dissuasions to make,where's me bottle of Vodka.

_____________________________

"You listen to me now,i will find you and i will kill you!"

(in reply to paul.mccluskey)
Post #: 14295
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 3/8/2012 6:40:20 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3984
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

Been flicking through a few web sites,and sadly i see The Shining,The Exorcist,Poltergeist and Creepshow would you belive are due to be remade in the new year with release peniciled in for 2014????Don't know about you but the first two make me fill up with rage,and the last well if it ant broke don't re boot the fucking thing.


Cannot agree more, this getting ridiculous. Of course we have the three Verhoeven remakes Total Recall, Robocop and Starship Troopers to come. Then there's Carrie, and I keep reading that The Entity and The Fury could happen too

_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 14296
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 4/8/2012 2:41:00 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6725
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera


quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

Been flicking through a few web sites,and sadly i see The Shining,The Exorcist,Poltergeist and Creepshow would you belive are due to be remade in the new year with release peniciled in for 2014????Don't know about you but the first two make me fill up with rage,and the last well if it ant broke don't re boot the fucking thing.


Cannot agree more, this getting ridiculous. Of course we have the three Verhoeven remakes Total Recall, Robocop and Starship Troopers to come. Then there's Carrie, and I keep reading that The Entity and The Fury could happen too

Well i am sort of looking forward to Total Recal as the tralier looked excellent,but then no Sharon Stone,and Verhoeven's other two might just scre throught as decent remakes???.But Carrie and The Entity please no,and as for the awesome,The Fury"NO I SAY NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!"

_____________________________

"You listen to me now,i will find you and i will kill you!"

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14297
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 4/8/2012 5:00:55 PM   
dannyfletch


Posts: 645
Joined: 25/5/2008
From: Bromley
I agree. Please leave De Palma's work alone. Just give The Fury and Carrie the blu-ray transfers they deserve!

Just recieved a copy of Fritz Lang's Metropolis on blu-ray. Have watched half and like the transfer, restored footage and remastered soundtrack very much It is indeed a film that should be in every sci-fi fans collection!

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 14298
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 5/8/2012 4:38:11 PM   
paul.mccluskey


Posts: 5159
Joined: 15/4/2007
From: Port Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Well I finally got round to seeing The Dark Knight Rises today. It's a 10/10 for me, absolutely loved it. The film is a perfect end to the trilogy, with great performances (Tom Hardy was superb) and astounding action sequences. I can't wait to see what's next for the Batman mythology, not keen on the idea of a reboot though. It would be really interesting to continue from where Rises left off.

Also, spent last night watching Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy. If you haven't seen it already, I'd advise you to pick it up, it is truly a fascinating documentary, and, at 4 hours, the definitive look at Freddy Krueger.

(in reply to dannyfletch)
Post #: 14299
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 6/8/2012 7:10:57 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6725
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: dannyfletch

I agree. Please leave De Palma's work alone. Just give The Fury and Carrie the blu-ray transfers they deserve!

Just recieved a copy of Fritz Lang's Metropolis on blu-ray. Have watched half and like the transfer, restored footage and remastered soundtrack very much It is indeed a film that should be in every sci-fi fans collection!

I have this one on DVD,with the added soundtrack by Berndt Heller,but this is the shorter version,as in 2008 it was finaly fully restored to it's full glory.I hope your Blu-Ray is of this cut,for i've read it really is astonding visulally and story wise,and for those who know only a little about this film,here's an old review by the good Dr;
METROPOLIS [1927]

Some time in the distant future is the city of Metropolis, where the people prosper and the economy is flourishing.  However, unknown to most people above ground, deep below the city live the workers who labour like robots.  One day Freder Fredersen, son of Joh the ruler of Metropolis, is relaxing in the Eternal Gardens when he sees Maria.  Immediately besotted, he follows her and discovers the world of the workers, where rebellion is kept at bay by Maria, who predicts that one day a man will mediate betwen rich and poor.  While Freder learns what it's like to toil and slave, Joh visist the inventor Dr. Rotwang, who has created a robot.  He wants the scientist to help carry out a devious plan to keep the workers in their place.  A plan which involves kidnapping Maria and creating a double of her.......


Fritz Lang's Metropolis is quite simply one of the greatest science fiction films ever made and is also one of the most influential. It can be seen in a variety of  films from Frankenstein to Blade Runner.  Images from it have virtually seeped into the public consciousnesss without everyone knowing where they come from.  Set in a fantastically realised future city [which was inspired by the director's first sight of New York from a ship], it's allegorical tale of repression, rebellion, love and treachery bravely assails social issues that are just as relevant today, and it doesn't come up with easy answers [though Hitler misunderstood the film and thought it was in support of Fascism, something clearly not the case].  Look around you, all over the world today, the poor are are the poor, the rich are the rich.  The poor exist to support the rich.  They have no solutions except maybe violence which never ends well.  The rich either don't want to know or don't care except when the poor rise above their stations, whereupon they put the poor back in their place.  Perhaps the film's idea of a possible 'mediator' is a little simplistic, but it does give the film a feeling of hope.  We can dream can't we?

Even if you're not interested in social comment, Metropolis works incredibly well as a futuristic epic crammed with memorable scenes.  Right from the beginning, we are treated to awe-inspiring scapes of the city, mixing models, paintings and real objects.  Up on the big screen, I could not believe the detail, from moving cars to people in skyscrapers.  Then soon after we are shown the workers and their huge machines, depicting a sort of industrial hell that is nonetheless not too far from the reality of some places today.  Much of the film is shot as a kind of variation on German Expressionism, with much use of diagonal and horizontal lines and minimal decor.  1920s style things like clothes and phones [though one is a picture phone-how clever!] are sometimes shown-this was another effort to make Metropolis relevant, though of course it dates the picture a bit!

The first half spends most of it's time setting up the plot and it's many protagonists, all of whom are, despite the fantastical setting, fully rounded characters with good and bad points.  Even Dr. Rotwang proves to have more depth than a normal mad scientist  [even if he seems to have inspired a great many mad scientists since].  Around half through the pace really takes off and is sustained to the climax of this two and a half hour film, an almost continuous series of kidnappings, chases, floods, burnings and a climactic fight that almost goes on for ever.  There are elements of the horror movie, especially in the scene where Rotwang chases a terrified Maria through dark caverns and shines a torch at wherever she moves to.  Other highlights include the awakening of the robot [who can be seen in so many cinematic robots since], replete with very convincing and rather unnerving movements, and some amazing hallucination and dream scenes which wouldn't be out of place in a Ken Russell or Alexandro Jodorowsky movie, with things like a factory furnace becoming the mouth of a hug idol into which victims are sacrificed, statues of the Seven Deadly Sins coming to life and people watching the robot Maria dancing becoming a screenful of gigantic eyes.  Of course there's also that bizarre tangent depicting the story of the Tower Of Babel.  Lang doesn't seem afraid to try anything and really allows his imagination to run riot.  Though he made some fine films when he later emigrated to Hollywood, I feel he lost some of the audacity and invention of his German work, or maybe just Hollywood didn't allow it!

Metropolis has one of the finest performances of the silent era, that of Brigitte Helm in the dual role of Maria.  She's pleasingly angelic as the 'real' Maria but really comes into her own when she portrays the 'robot' Maria, with lots of really bizarre, uncanny and slightly freaky movements.  Her best bits are when she dances in a club, managing to be frightening, funny and sexy-in-a-rather-odd-way all at the same time.  Another clever performance is by Alfred Abel as Joh, very restrained yet multilayered, the kind of things one does not think silent films acting as being.  Of course Rudolph Klein-Rogge as Rotwang is gloriously over the top.  All of the acting shows, in greater or lesser degrees, the wild gestures and facial expresssions of silent film acting, but that cannot really be called a flaw, it was just the way it was done then.  One must also mention the remarkably fluid and often inventive camerawork, some of it by the expert Karl Freund, there's not much that's static or stagy here.  There is so much that is astonishing about Metropolis, and it's even more astonishing on the big screen.

Heavily cut even in Germany after it's initial release, Metropolis has existed in a variety of shortened versions, probably the best known and most widely seen being the 1984 version with tints and pop music.  I actually rather liked that version, it seemed to work well.  The version out now is pretty much definative.  The 25 minutes of extra footage, taken from a recently discovered almost-complete print, is of fairly shoddy quality, especially when the rest of the film looks amazing for it's age, but it's all good stuff and makes the film even better than before.  Previously vague or muddled plot points are explained, characters and their motivations are made clearer, and most of the action bits are extended, including some great water heroics near the end.  A shame that one major fight sequence is still missing but titles explain what happens.  Of course Metropolis is still a silent film, with intertitles, slightly speeded up film, constant music and a great deal of melodramatic excess, and some will find it hard to get into because of this.  A shame, as it should be seen by anyone with the slightest interest in cinema.  It's simply an incredible achievement.
10/10


_____________________________

"You listen to me now,i will find you and i will kill you!"

(in reply to dannyfletch)
Post #: 14300
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 6/8/2012 7:13:08 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6725
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: paul.mccluskey

Well I finally got round to seeing The Dark Knight Rises today. It's a 10/10 for me, absolutely loved it. The film is a perfect end to the trilogy, with great performances (Tom Hardy was superb) and astounding action sequences. I can't wait to see what's next for the Batman mythology, not keen on the idea of a reboot though. It would be really interesting to continue from where Rises left off.

Also, spent last night watching Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy. If you haven't seen it already, I'd advise you to pick it up, it is truly a fascinating documentary, and, at 4 hours, the definitive look at Freddy Krueger.

Knew you'd love it,and i'll see if i can get my hands on the FREDDY Documentary,sounds awesome.

_____________________________

"You listen to me now,i will find you and i will kill you!"

(in reply to paul.mccluskey)
Post #: 14301
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 6/8/2012 9:27:02 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3984
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: dannyfletch

I agree. Please leave De Palma's work alone. Just give The Fury and Carrie the blu-ray transfers they deserve!

Just recieved a copy of Fritz Lang's Metropolis on blu-ray. Have watched half and like the transfer, restored footage and remastered soundtrack very much It is indeed a film that should be in every sci-fi fans collection!

I have this one on DVD,with the added soundtrack by Berndt Heller,but this is the shorter version,as in 2008 it was finaly fully restored to it's full glory.I hope your Blu-Ray is of this cut,for i've read it really is astonding visulally and story wise,and for those who know only a little about this film,here's an old review by the good Dr;
METROPOLIS [1927]

Some time in the distant future is the city of Metropolis, where the people prosper and the economy is flourishing.  However, unknown to most people above ground, deep below the city live the workers who labour like robots.  One day Freder Fredersen, son of Joh the ruler of Metropolis, is relaxing in the Eternal Gardens when he sees Maria.  Immediately besotted, he follows her and discovers the world of the workers, where rebellion is kept at bay by Maria, who predicts that one day a man will mediate betwen rich and poor.  While Freder learns what it's like to toil and slave, Joh visist the inventor Dr. Rotwang, who has created a robot.  He wants the scientist to help carry out a devious plan to keep the workers in their place.  A plan which involves kidnapping Maria and creating a double of her.......


Fritz Lang's Metropolis is quite simply one of the greatest science fiction films ever made and is also one of the most influential. It can be seen in a variety of  films from Frankenstein to Blade Runner.  Images from it have virtually seeped into the public consciousnesss without everyone knowing where they come from.  Set in a fantastically realised future city [which was inspired by the director's first sight of New York from a ship], it's allegorical tale of repression, rebellion, love and treachery bravely assails social issues that are just as relevant today, and it doesn't come up with easy answers [though Hitler misunderstood the film and thought it was in support of Fascism, something clearly not the case].  Look around you, all over the world today, the poor are are the poor, the rich are the rich.  The poor exist to support the rich.  They have no solutions except maybe violence which never ends well.  The rich either don't want to know or don't care except when the poor rise above their stations, whereupon they put the poor back in their place.  Perhaps the film's idea of a possible 'mediator' is a little simplistic, but it does give the film a feeling of hope.  We can dream can't we?

Even if you're not interested in social comment, Metropolis works incredibly well as a futuristic epic crammed with memorable scenes.  Right from the beginning, we are treated to awe-inspiring scapes of the city, mixing models, paintings and real objects.  Up on the big screen, I could not believe the detail, from moving cars to people in skyscrapers.  Then soon after we are shown the workers and their huge machines, depicting a sort of industrial hell that is nonetheless not too far from the reality of some places today.  Much of the film is shot as a kind of variation on German Expressionism, with much use of diagonal and horizontal lines and minimal decor.  1920s style things like clothes and phones [though one is a picture phone-how clever!] are sometimes shown-this was another effort to make Metropolis relevant, though of course it dates the picture a bit!

The first half spends most of it's time setting up the plot and it's many protagonists, all of whom are, despite the fantastical setting, fully rounded characters with good and bad points.  Even Dr. Rotwang proves to have more depth than a normal mad scientist  [even if he seems to have inspired a great many mad scientists since].  Around half through the pace really takes off and is sustained to the climax of this two and a half hour film, an almost continuous series of kidnappings, chases, floods, burnings and a climactic fight that almost goes on for ever.  There are elements of the horror movie, especially in the scene where Rotwang chases a terrified Maria through dark caverns and shines a torch at wherever she moves to.  Other highlights include the awakening of the robot [who can be seen in so many cinematic robots since], replete with very convincing and rather unnerving movements, and some amazing hallucination and dream scenes which wouldn't be out of place in a Ken Russell or Alexandro Jodorowsky movie, with things like a factory furnace becoming the mouth of a hug idol into which victims are sacrificed, statues of the Seven Deadly Sins coming to life and people watching the robot Maria dancing becoming a screenful of gigantic eyes.  Of course there's also that bizarre tangent depicting the story of the Tower Of Babel.  Lang doesn't seem afraid to try anything and really allows his imagination to run riot.  Though he made some fine films when he later emigrated to Hollywood, I feel he lost some of the audacity and invention of his German work, or maybe just Hollywood didn't allow it!

Metropolis has one of the finest performances of the silent era, that of Brigitte Helm in the dual role of Maria.  She's pleasingly angelic as the 'real' Maria but really comes into her own when she portrays the 'robot' Maria, with lots of really bizarre, uncanny and slightly freaky movements.  Her best bits are when she dances in a club, managing to be frightening, funny and sexy-in-a-rather-odd-way all at the same time.  Another clever performance is by Alfred Abel as Joh, very restrained yet multilayered, the kind of things one does not think silent films acting as being.  Of course Rudolph Klein-Rogge as Rotwang is gloriously over the top.  All of the acting shows, in greater or lesser degrees, the wild gestures and facial expresssions of silent film acting, but that cannot really be called a flaw, it was just the way it was done then.  One must also mention the remarkably fluid and often inventive camerawork, some of it by the expert Karl Freund, there's not much that's static or stagy here.  There is so much that is astonishing about Metropolis, and it's even more astonishing on the big screen.

Heavily cut even in Germany after it's initial release, Metropolis has existed in a variety of shortened versions, probably the best known and most widely seen being the 1984 version with tints and pop music.  I actually rather liked that version, it seemed to work well.  The version out now is pretty much definative.  The 25 minutes of extra footage, taken from a recently discovered almost-complete print, is of fairly shoddy quality, especially when the rest of the film looks amazing for it's age, but it's all good stuff and makes the film even better than before.  Previously vague or muddled plot points are explained, characters and their motivations are made clearer, and most of the action bits are extended, including some great water heroics near the end.  A shame that one major fight sequence is still missing but titles explain what happens.  Of course Metropolis is still a silent film, with intertitles, slightly speeded up film, constant music and a great deal of melodramatic excess, and some will find it hard to get into because of this.  A shame, as it should be seen by anyone with the slightest interest in cinema.  It's simply an incredible achievement.
10/10



Thanks Bill , saves me having to find it!


_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 14302
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 7/8/2012 12:32:50 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3984
Joined: 19/10/2005

January 5, 1900: four friends – David Filby, Anthony Bridewell, Walter Kemp and Philip Hillyer, arrive for a dinner in a town in the south of England, but their host, Herbert George Wells, is absent. As requested, they begin without him, but then George staggers in, exhausted and dishevelled. He begins to recount his adventures since they last met on New Year's Eve, 1899. A week earlier, George discusses time as "the fourth dimension" with the four, and shows them a tiny machine that he claims can travel in time, stating that a larger version can carry a man "into the past or the future". When activated, the device blurs and disappears. Most of his friends dismiss it as a trick and then leave, agreeing to meet next Friday,but Filby briefly stays behind. Seeming to believe George, he tells him to destroy the machine as no good can come of it. They agree to meet again next Friday. When Filby has gone, George goes to the full-size time machine and sets course for the future.......

I have always loved time travel stories, and luckily the subject is quite a common one in movies. I suppose the two greatest time travel films would be The Terminator and Back To The Future, but I have always had great love for this 1960 movie, the first of three adaptations of H.G.Wells’s novel of the same name. I may have seen it more times than the other two films I have mentioned. It’s a wonderfully innocent, idealistic and romantic science fiction adventure which may seem a little corny to some modern day viewers but remains a really fine piece of entertainment, full of that sense of wonder that many older science fiction movies have. What it isn’t is a faithful adaptation of Wells’s book, and neither are the two later versions, which had a chance to do the book right and botched it. I still think that he book would make an amazing film if adapted exactly and I don’t think modern audiences would have a problem with its downbeat tone, most of which was removed for the 1960 movie.

Wells wrote his book in 1895, and, as with much of his work, it was in part an exercise in social comment. He was worried with the way society was heading, especially the way the gap between the upper ‘privileged’ class and the lower ‘working’ class was widening. Sound familiar? As with many great science fiction writers, Wells seemed at times to actually tell the future, because he somehow had a knack for how society and technology would develop. The Time Machine presented a distant future where mankind evolved into two distinct species, the Eloi and the Morlocks. The Eloi were descendants of the upper class, carefree, peaceful but ignorant, who were now bred like cattle by the underground Morlocks, demonic humanoids who were the descendants of the downtrodden working class. The book also had its hero, known only as the Time Traveller, travel so far into the future that he witnessed the end of the world. For the film version, director George Pal, a major sci-fi film director with films like Destination Moon and The War Of The Worlds, and scriptwriter David Duncan, removed much of the social commentary and the downbeat final chapters, though they added bits set in 1917, 1940 and 1966 bits and also attacked war and the stupidity of the human race in continuing to wage it, things that were also close to Wells’s heart.

A major success in 1960, despite many studios not wanting to film the script even if it must have seemed like a sure-fire hit, it won the Oscar for Best Special Effects and rightly so, special effects being something like Pal was a bit of a pioneer in, especially animation. The Time Machine is no barrage of effects though and may disappoint new viewers in its early scenes, which are very slow and talky and set mostly inside Wells’ house where he is telling his friends about time travel and his invention. I really like these scenes, with their elaborate recreation of Victorian interiors and costumes, especially when Wells unveils his miniature time machine and sends it into the future. Though we rarely go outside, we get a real sense of the world Wells wants to leave, which he soon does and we are treated to what I believe is still the best depiction of time travelling ever, with time-lapse photography [basically photography speeded up] simply but beautifully showing the passage of time, from a snail rushing across the floor to flowers blooming and dying, and often focusing on a manikin in a shop window opposite where the time machine is, for a while Wells’s ageless companion in his travels.

The brief war scenes, to be honest, are none too impressive, especially a damp squib of an atomic bomb dropping which consists mostly of a couple of buildings exploding and lava destroying a few cars, but that was obviously due to budget constraints and are not really the central focus anyway, which is more on the human element. There are very touching scenes of George encountering his friend David’s son in 1917, and then as an old man in 1966. Then we get to 802, 701, after being fed some wonderful concepts like the human race eventually being able to control the weather, and we slowly introduced to a brave new world, though it’s certainly not brave. It cleverly seems like a sort of paradise at first, as its people seem to spend their days lazing around, but it’s really a kind of Hell. The Eloi look far too 60's with their makeup and hairdos, but the Morlocks, though just men in suits, look very impressive with their blue skin,white hair and bug eyes, especially when seen in partial darkness with their eyes lit up. They provide a few surprisingly creepy moments, and eventually lead to a lengthy action climax where Wells battles them to rescue some Eloi. The Time Machine is not an action movie, it isn’t trying to be, but the extended sequence here is tremendously exciting, aided immensely by Russell Garcia’s thrilling scoring, and contains one of my favourite “hell yeah”! moments as an Eloi, after Wells has been doing all the fighting, finally decides to help, clenches his fist and launches into action.

It has been said that it is morally suspect having Wells turn peaceful people into violent ones, but I just don’t see it; he is helping them to rid themselves of tyranny. It goes with the film’s message that, even if it usually ends up going wrong, there is still some goodness in mankind and hope that it get it right....one day. The novel was far more ambiguous on this issue, as it was on the subject of Weena, the woman whom George becomes friendly with, who is turned into more of a love interest for the film. Their tentative, almost child-like romance is really sweet, though contains a few clangers in the dialogue such as when George tells her his housekeeper is 60 and old and wrinkly and Weena laughs, even though she would have no idea of old age because the Eloi are killed off by the Morlocks when they reach 30 and would thereby not have understood what George said. There is also a silly scene where some ‘talking rings’ tell George some much-needed background; it would have scarcely been sillier if Basil Exposition has shown up. Some details are really clever though, like the way the Morlocks use the siren we heard in the 1966 scene to summon the Eloi into their lair to be killed. The film’s total charm, and faith in the story it is telling, more or less steer it through its occasional dodgy bits.

Rod Taylor is a great hero you are behind all the time, especially in the early scenes where he seems like both the mad scientist and somebody you actually believe. He’s almost the personification of the heroic explorer. I’ve always liked this pleasant if maybe limited actor and thought it a great shame that The Birds was the only other really major production he starred in. Yvette Mimieux, who was under 18 when production began, is very stiff and awkward but it seems somehow fitting for her character. She’s rather adorable and you just want to hug her to death [well I do anyway]. The afore-mentioned score has a lovely main theme which is maybe used too much, turning up as both the main theme and the love theme, but it’s so nice it doesn’t matter too much, and the score has plenty of darker and even experimental passages too, such as the weird whirling musical patterns you here when George is travelling. And of course, though I have left it a bit late, I have to mention the Time Machine itself, such a beautifully designed prop. For the most part, The Time Machine remains great stuff, vastly entertaining yet may also make you think, and is in my opinion the greatest of all films based on Wells’s enduring tales. What a shame Pal never made that sequel he wanted to do......

[rating: 8.5/10]

_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14303
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 7/8/2012 12:33:47 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3984
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera

Excellent review of DKR Bill, but I just cannot agree.

This review kind of turned into a critique of the whole trilogy, I doubt you or many will agree, but like LH I like to be different



THE DARK KNIGHT RISES and why such as a hit as the Nolan Batman trilogy is such such as miss for Dr Lenera



Eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, Commissioner James Gordon has nearly eradicated violent and organized crime from Gotham City, but feels guilty about the cover-up of Harvey Dent’s crimes. While following a lead in the abduction of a congressional representative, Gordon is badly wounded and his confessional speech falls into the hands of terrorist leader Bane, a powerful villain with a cruel plan. Batman seems to have disappeared and so has Bruce Wayne, living as a virtual recluse in Wayne Manor, though Wayne Enterprises is crumbling after he invested in a clean energy project but shut it down after learning that the fusion core at its heart could be modified to become a nuclear weapon. After Bane attacks the stock exchange and bankrupts him, Batman has to return, but he now also has Selina Kyle, a devious cat burglar, to deal with………..

It makes me feel like an outsider, it really does. It seems that if you are one of those people who thinks Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy is anything less than brilliant, you are considered a little odd. If , like me, you actually consider them very flawed and nothing special and, dare I say it, quite poor in places, than you are often considered an idiot who knows nothing about movies. I feel I have a reasonable knowledge of films and have developed reasonable critical faculties, but just cannot understand what the fuss is about with these three films. And frankly, it totally and utterly sickens me when I look at the IMDB and see that The Dark Knight is ranked the third best film ever and Batman Begins is ranked the eight. There are people, and lots of them, who are calling Batman Begins a ‘masterpiece of cinema’. I think this is a disgusting insult to creators of truly great films such as Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Akira Kurosawa, Steven Spielberg etc. But then we live in a world where fans of these films are willing to threaten critics who dare to give them bad reviews with death.

Batman Begins. Well, for a start I didn’t think that Batman And Robin was as bad as all thought, just a bright, silly children’s movie with a considerable amount of heart [you may have read my ‘Guilty Pleasures’ review on it]. Nonetheless, they decided to start all over again, and I distinctly remember how bored I was during the first half. Nothing wrong with build up, but Batman Begins’s was just so dull and tediously meticulous in explaining everything on Batman’s costume [yet still failed to convey to me why he dressed as a bat] that the result was just laborious in the extreme. But then Batman Begins is a dreary mess of a movie which half-heartedly tries to make a ‘comic book’ tale ‘realistic’ yet still fills it with conventional comic book movie and unbelievable aspects such as a secret society of ninjas and an immortal villain with a doomsday machine. The film just doesn’t gel, and it almost seems ashamed with having to put in action with its lame Spiderman 2 climax and its atrocious fight scenes where having a caption saying BATMAN WASTES FIVE VILLAINS would have been preferable to the incompetent stuff we get. There was one really good element though; Cillian Murphy’s scary the Scarecrow, who belonged in a different film and actually seemed to almost be in one, one that was far better than the film we got.

Joe Public seemed to respond positively though, so The Dark Knight was put into production, and this was a film people seemed to be raving about before they’d even seen it. The death of Heath Ledger seemed to make everyone praise his Joker to the skies, despite the fact that to my eyes he was ‘good’ rather than ‘great’, could have been played by several others and wasn’t a patch on Jack Nicholson. Then again, he wasn’t helped by a weak script which failed to give him, a character called the Joker remember, any actual jokes. In fact, his whole part of the film was botched, almost everything he does relying on the most ridiculous of coincidences [in fact he’s basically a fortune teller], but the film as a whole just repeated variations on the same situation and vastly preferred long sequences of people in rooms talking to actual action [of which there must have been about ten minutes]. Despite it pretending to be realistic, it was full of absurdities, from the bus scene near the beginning which defies all kinds of logic to that stupid ‘phone sonar’ moment where Batman can see everyone in Gotham. And then, just when you think the bloody thing has ended, it starts up again, to conclude with such hysterical melodramatics I alternated between laughing and saying to myself “is this is, is this what people are saying is so great”?

So we come on to The Dark Knight Rises, a film I was almost dreading to see because of all the arguments I would have about it. However, and I am happy to say this because I do prefer to find the positives in films rather than negatives, I do believe it is a better film than its predecessors. The first third is definitely slow but allows for some good performances especially from Christian Bale [funny Batman voice notwithstanding] and Michael Caine, who does well throughout, and the rest moves at a furious pace which makes the almost three hour running time fly be. There is a considerable epic feel to the film and Nolan is getting better with each film at shooting action, of which there is a huge amount in this movie, culminating in a climactic chase which really is very thrilling indeed. The sequence where the explosives are going off all over the city floored me with how well executed it was, and the timely commentary on the way certain things are going in the world today is also very good. As for the twists towards the end, they may not all make sense but they’re certainly fun, and for once Wayne’s latest girlfriend is not wasted!

Sadly though I still noticed a huge amount of flaws, far more than there should be. Bane is a boring villain saddled with a voice that sounds like a posh Darth Vader with a throat infection and is sometimes inaudible. Selina, who is never actually called Catwoman, is only slightly more interesting. She’s just a normal cat burglar who can fight well and undergoes unconvincing developments throughout. The script throughout is full of holes, and I’m not even going to get into the ridiculous airplane opening [remember folks, this is supposed to be a realistic movie]. Why does Bruce trust a certain person who he would surely have checked up on? How does he get from the Pit [with no money] to Gotham City when that is supposed to be impossible? What’s the deal with that stupid open-air prison anyway [yes I know it was explained but I didn’t ‘buy’ it one bit]? Is it really that easy to recover from a broken back? How on earth can people who are buried underground for three months emerge clean shaven and ready to fight? Wow, very realistic, ay? Some of this stuff would fit better into one of Joel Schumacher’s movies.

Some of this may just seem like nit-picking, and most films show flaws after you’ve seen them and had a think, but if I was too aware of all this during the film them it wasn’t doing its job properly. Batman is not in the film nearly enough and lazy scriptwriting has him saved by his new toy at least four times. The fights are often very lame, making it dreadfully obvious that punches are not connecting. Then the film seems to end, and seems to end well and even quite movingly too, until it adds on another few minutes which leave things open for another film. I thought this was supposed to be a trilogy? Why the hell can’t movies like this actually end anymore. It smacks of Nolan and his two co-writers being told what to do by Warners.

But in the end, there’s nothing about The Dark Knight Rises that is really awful…..except for its music, which is quite simply the worst film score in ages. Hans Zimmer, the third highest paid Hollywood film composer and on the evidence of this score the third least talented, seems to have written it in a couple of days, because quite simply three quarters of it is either the same string patterns or the same synthesised drum loops played over and over and over again with no variation. How the hell can this be considered good scoring? If this is what it has come to, than I fear for the art of film music, and no, I don’t require every film to be scored in the old-style Classical manner, nor do have a prejudice against electronic music; in fact, I love quite a lot of it, but this score is simply abysmal, brain numbing in its aggressive dumbness, and it never shuts up either, with droning notes playing under almost every dialogue scene. Zimmer, even though I find his way of scoring bizarre [record an archestra, than record a synthesiser over it to almost drown the orchestra out], detest his Media Ventures empire which is dominating and destroying film scoring, can sometimes write half-decent scores, so maybe the blame lies with Nolan, who has never had a good score yet in his films.

Now I’m not going to say they are awful films because they are not; far worse come out most weeks. However, to hold these up as the pinnacle of the ‘superhero’ flick just baffles me. It seems that anything realistic is automatically better than anything that isn’t, but, as I have already explained, they don’t even succeed in being that. Likewise, their supposed ‘darkness’. If a film is dark it’s considered better than a film that isn’t, but these films aren’t even that dark. Though both of them were in my opinion unsuitable for a 12A rating [a most pointless and dangerous rating], they tend to pussyfoot around ‘real’ darkness except for with their villains, and even then there is the feeling of holding something back. I would have actually loved to have seen Darren Aronovsky’s Batman film. Now that would have been truly realistic and truly dark!

Now I probably sound like I hate Nolan. I don’t. I think much of his non-Batman work is fairly good and actually I loved Inception…..well, except for its score. I respect him and actually agree with him on many things, from CGI [should not be overused] to 3D [is a pointless gimmick] to On Her Majesty’s Secret Service [the best James Bond film!]. But his Batman films just don’t do it for me. I have tried and tried to see what others see, and have failed. No amount of raving will convince me that these aren’t fairly ordinary and very flawed films which have been ludicrously blown up out of proportion. Nolan is producing the new Superman film, and Zimmer is doing the music. Sounds like they’ll royally screw up The Man Of Steel, which is a subject where a half-hearted realistic approach just wouldn’t work. Still, I expect everyone will say how brilliant it, and I’ll be crying “why” and trying to work out why such mediocrity is so loved.

Batman Begins 4/10

The Dark Knight 4/10

The Dark Knight Rises 6/10




Awesome stuff Dr Lenera! Completely agree with your assessment on Batman begins and TDK although i'd rate BB even lower than you. Havent seen TDKR but i know i wont like it. Thank god Nolan is moving away from Batman now.



Thanks

_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to DONOVAN KURTWOOD)
Post #: 14304
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 8/8/2012 8:35:49 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6725
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera



It has been said that it is morally suspect having Wells turn peaceful people into violent ones, but I just don't see it; he is helping them to rid themselves of tyranny. It goes with the film's message that, even if it usually ends up going wrong, there is still some goodness in mankind and hope that it get it right....one day. The novel was far more ambiguous on this issue, as it was on the subject of Weena, the woman whom George becomes friendly with, who is turned into more of a love interest for the film. Their tentative, almost child-like romance is really sweet, though contains a few clangers in the dialogue such as when George tells her his housekeeper is 60 and old and wrinkly and Weena laughs, even though she would have no idea of old age because the Eloi are killed off by the Morlocks when they reach 30 and would thereby not have understood what George said. There is also a silly scene where some 'talking rings' tell George some much-needed background; it would have scarcely been sillier if Basil Exposition has shown up. Some details are really clever though, like the way the Morlocks use the siren we heard in the 1966 scene to summon the Eloi into their lair to be killed. The film's total charm, and faith in the story it is telling, more or less steer it through its occasional dodgy bits.

Rod Taylor is a great hero you are behind all the time, especially in the early scenes where he seems like both the mad scientist and somebody you actually believe. He's almost the personification of the heroic explorer. I've always liked this pleasant if maybe limited actor and thought it a great shame that The Birds was the only other really major production he starred in. Yvette Mimieux, who was under 18 when production began, is very stiff and awkward but it seems somehow fitting for her character. She's rather adorable and you just want to hug her to death [well I do anyway]. The afore-mentioned score has a lovely main theme which is maybe used too much, turning up as both the main theme and the love theme, but it's so nice it doesn't matter too much, and the score has plenty of darker and even experimental passages too, such as the weird whirling musical patterns you here when George is travelling. And of course, though I have left it a bit late, I have to mention the Time Machine itself, such a beautifully designed prop. For the most part, The Time Machine remains great stuff, vastly entertaining yet may also make you think, and is in my opinion the greatest of all films based on Wells's enduring tales. What a shame Pal never made that sequel he wanted to do......

[rating: 8.5/10]

Love it a real old classic this one,and far better than the remake of a few years ago,though there are some real clangers in the script,but hey it was made in the 60's.Great write upmate by the way,and love the art work of the poster,and as you know i have a soft spot for time travel films,as one of my guilty pleasures is TIMECOP.
quote:


 
Thanks Bill , saves me having to find it!


It's one of my favorite reviews you have done in the past few years,so it had to be re posted for the newbes.

_____________________________

"You listen to me now,i will find you and i will kill you!"

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14305
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 8/8/2012 8:39:23 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6725
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera


quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera

Excellent review of DKR Bill, but I just cannot agree.

This review kind of turned into a critique of the whole trilogy, I doubt you or many will agree, but like LH I like to be different



THE DARK KNIGHT RISES and why such as a hit as the Nolan Batman trilogy is such such as miss for Dr Lenera




Now I probably sound like I hate Nolan. I don't. I think much of his non-Batman work is fairly good and actually I loved Inception…..well, except for its score. I respect him and actually agree with him on many things, from CGI [should not be overused] to 3D [is a pointless gimmick] to On Her Majesty's Secret Service [the best James Bond film!]. But his Batman films just don't do it for me. I have tried and tried to see what others see, and have failed. No amount of raving will convince me that these aren't fairly ordinary and very flawed films which have been ludicrously blown up out of proportion. Nolan is producing the new Superman film, and Zimmer is doing the music. Sounds like they'll royally screw up The Man Of Steel, which is a subject where a half-hearted realistic approach just wouldn't work. Still, I expect everyone will say how brilliant it, and I'll be crying "why” and trying to work out why such mediocrity is so loved.

Batman Begins 4/10

The Dark Knight 4/10

The Dark Knight Rises 6/10




Awesome stuff Dr Lenera! Completely agree with your assessment on Batman begins and TDK although i'd rate BB even lower than you. Havent seen TDKR but i know i wont like it. Thank god Nolan is moving away from Batman now.



Thanks

Now your taking the piss!!!
WE THE BORG STILL HAVE MORE YEAHS!!!!

_____________________________

"You listen to me now,i will find you and i will kill you!"

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14306
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 9/8/2012 2:11:24 PM   
Platter

 

Posts: 113
Joined: 14/8/2010
Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (2006)

As a horror it's weak, but as an actual story it's superior to the average slasher
A documentary crew follows a mass murderer as he prepares for his latest round of teen killings. It is set in an absurdist world were Jason Voorhees, Freddy Krueger and Michael Myers are real life hard working murder professionals.

The film works surprisingly well. It's not as clever, or as satirical, or as funny as it could be. But by low budget straight to rental standards it's much better than was probable. There seems to be some talented people involved who are really into the idea. I don't feel it's a bunch of hacks churning out work by rote.

A lot of the movie is filmed in that "found footage" style were we see things from a camera that a character is using. Luckily the makers are not beholden to that way of shooting. The film reverts to standard filming techniques for key scenes were it wouldn't make sense or would be a weaker way of shooting the sequence. The majority of the stalk and slash scenes are not done through the documentary camera.

Unfortunately the slasher parts are pretty weak. The director seems much more comfortable with the dialogue scenes, which are all strongly, or at least competently, handled. The action scenes aren't filmed with any flair or technique, and the editing is poor to bad. As a slasher the film fails quite badly. The kills are unimaginative, lack any brutality or gore and are flatly realised by weak direction and editing. The best kill for instance involves someone having their heart removed and then handed to them. It's so drably done with no sickening sound effects and minimal blood that it has no impact.

The film isn't scary in any way. Although I'm not sure if the movie made much of an attempt to be. It's much more of a comedy-drama than a horror. And it is mildly funny with a few good potshots at the conventions of the slasher genre.

The acting is much better than is expected from the type of film. The two leads are very good. Oddly the person who gives the worst performance is Robert Englund in a small Donald Pleasence style role. Also the main stoner person at the end was a pretty poor actor.

The monster in these movies usually end up being pretty iconic if they're any good. Leslie Vernon is probably the most verbal monster of them all. And as it's a comedy his personality isn't all darkness and suffering and sadism. He's more of a sadistic prankster than anything else. His iconic potential is undermined only by a rubbish mask. Otherwise he has what it takes to be on the pantheon of great slasher monsters. All he really needs is some fame.

Fans of slashers who genuinely enjoy Friday the 13th movies should adore this movie. I find the idea of slashers much more interesting than the reality as they are usually incredibly boring, half arsed, terrible movies. I liked this a lot more than real films of the genre as it had decent characters and a proper plot that was more than just random killings. It's nice to have a story that can sustain itself without relying only on decent murder scenes. Also the story manages to pull off a decent twist.

Overall the movie works well enough and it's very entertaining. I think the story is good enough to carry the poorly done slasher sequences. Those parts tell the story with competence, they just don't thrill like they should. In my opinion the story trumps well filmed murder scenes. A bad plot with good murder scenes means less to me than a good story with bad killings.

If you like this movie then I strongly recommend Tucker and Dale Vs Evil.

Overall 7 out of 10

_____________________________

My novel:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/This-Cuckoo-Island-ebook/dp/B00EIP4ZVS/ref=sr_1_4?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1377097535&sr=1-4

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 14307
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 9/8/2012 6:18:48 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3984
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Platter

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (2006)

As a horror it's weak, but as an actual story it's superior to the average slasher
A documentary crew follows a mass murderer as he prepares for his latest round of teen killings. It is set in an absurdist world were Jason Voorhees, Freddy Krueger and Michael Myers are real life hard working murder professionals.

The film works surprisingly well. It's not as clever, or as satirical, or as funny as it could be. But by low budget straight to rental standards it's much better than was probable. There seems to be some talented people involved who are really into the idea. I don't feel it's a bunch of hacks churning out work by rote.

A lot of the movie is filmed in that "found footage" style were we see things from a camera that a character is using. Luckily the makers are not beholden to that way of shooting. The film reverts to standard filming techniques for key scenes were it wouldn't make sense or would be a weaker way of shooting the sequence. The majority of the stalk and slash scenes are not done through the documentary camera.

Unfortunately the slasher parts are pretty weak. The director seems much more comfortable with the dialogue scenes, which are all strongly, or at least competently, handled. The action scenes aren't filmed with any flair or technique, and the editing is poor to bad. As a slasher the film fails quite badly. The kills are unimaginative, lack any brutality or gore and are flatly realised by weak direction and editing. The best kill for instance involves someone having their heart removed and then handed to them. It's so drably done with no sickening sound effects and minimal blood that it has no impact.

The film isn't scary in any way. Although I'm not sure if the movie made much of an attempt to be. It's much more of a comedy-drama than a horror. And it is mildly funny with a few good potshots at the conventions of the slasher genre.

The acting is much better than is expected from the type of film. The two leads are very good. Oddly the person who gives the worst performance is Robert Englund in a small Donald Pleasence style role. Also the main stoner person at the end was a pretty poor actor.

The monster in these movies usually end up being pretty iconic if they're any good. Leslie Vernon is probably the most verbal monster of them all. And as it's a comedy his personality isn't all darkness and suffering and sadism. He's more of a sadistic prankster than anything else. His iconic potential is undermined only by a rubbish mask. Otherwise he has what it takes to be on the pantheon of great slasher monsters. All he really needs is some fame.

Fans of slashers who genuinely enjoy Friday the 13th movies should adore this movie. I find the idea of slashers much more interesting than the reality as they are usually incredibly boring, half arsed, terrible movies. I liked this a lot more than real films of the genre as it had decent characters and a proper plot that was more than just random killings. It's nice to have a story that can sustain itself without relying only on decent murder scenes. Also the story manages to pull off a decent twist.

Overall the movie works well enough and it's very entertaining. I think the story is good enough to carry the poorly done slasher sequences. Those parts tell the story with competence, they just don't thrill like they should. In my opinion the story trumps well filmed murder scenes. A bad plot with good murder scenes means less to me than a good story with bad killings.

If you like this movie then I strongly recommend Tucker and Dale Vs Evil.

Overall 7 out of 10


Nice review of a film that I still need to get round to watching.

_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to Platter)
Post #: 14308
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 9/8/2012 6:35:10 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3984
Joined: 19/10/2005


In the year 1899, Dr. Alexander Hartdegen is a young inventor teaching at Columbia University in New York City. Unlike his friend David Philby, Alexander would rather do pure research than work in the world of business. After his sweetheart Emma is killed by a robber, he devotes himself to building a time machine in order to save her. Four years later, he finally completes his work and travels back to 1899 to rectify the past. He manages to prevent her murder, but his happiness is short lived when minutes later Emma is killed by an early automobile. Still convinced he can change what is seemingly fated, he then sets off into the future to see if the information required to do so exists…….

A remake of The Time Machine, directed by the great-grandson of H.G. Wells, the author of the original book, and taking advantage of all the technological advances in special effects? Sounds like a recipe for a great film that would be even better than the fine 1960 movie and be far more faithful to the novel. Well, this 2002 effort is nowhere near as good as the George Pal production and is even further from the book. I remember being extremely disappointed by it when it first came out, though it has grown on me, and I would imagine if you are new to the story you may thoroughly enjoy it. The film has considerable problems, mostly because it is filled with ideas and changes to the book/1960 movie that are sometimes interesting but are often just misconceived and or/ not thought through, and it does not really hang together. Its heart is in the right place though and it is certainly one of the better remakes of recent years.

Writer John Logan was, and is, a far more prominent screenwriter than David Duncan [who wrote the first version], with fine films like Hugo and The Last Samurai to his name [though I’m not a big fan of Gladiator], so one would have expected him to do a far better job than he ended up doing. Director Simon Wells got so exhausted making the movie that that very erratic filmmaker Gore Verbinski was brought in to take over the last 18 days of shooting. Originally intended for a December 2001 release, it was held up for three months because of a scene where a meteor shower destroys most of New York, a scene that was thought could remind people too much of 9/11. Eventually the scene was cut to a minimum, and I remember being most annoyed that this major special effects sequence did not appear on the DVD as a deleted scene, though nor did some other material that was cut, except for a longer introduction scene at the beginning of the movie. Reviews were pretty slating, though the film held its own at the box office, if not the big hit it was expected to be.

As before, we begin in Victorian times, though this time in New York, and CGI allows us to chance to see more of the city at the turn of the century then we did of London. The first section of the film has an interesting downbeat feel to it, telling as it does of Emma’s death and Alexander failing to save her four years later by travelling back in time. Alexander’s main reason for building the time machine seems to be to save Emma, and, while rather touching, I don’t like it as much as the ’60 production where George travelled in time just because he wanted to and hoped the future would be a better world than the one he lives in. It seems tacky that Logan had to give his hero such a strong excuse to set off the time travelling. Never mind, the journeying begins and of course CGI has replaced the time-lapse photography of the original. There’s no gradual speeding up here; it’s going fast straight away, so it’s far less exciting. Still, one particular shot, where we pull out of Alexander’s house, away from the Earth and onto the Moon as we rush through decades of progress and finish off seeing spaceships, is stunning. It’s also great to see detailed landscape change, even if it never fails to not look like computer graphics.

A 2030 sequence is nice and Vox 114, the somewhat sarcastic hologram, is a good way to give us some information as well as a bit of light relief, including a funny Andrew Lloyd Webber spoof. He shows up again later, filling part of the role of those daft talking rings. The cut down 2037 scene though, while it gives us the arresting image of the Moon breaking up, is so brief that it has little impact, and is also pretty ludicrous. We are asked to believe that the Moon, which has survived damage from countless asteroids, can be destroyed by doing some mining with nukes. Huh? When we finally arrive at 803,701, much effort has been made to differentiate it from the 803,701 of before. The blonde, white-skinned, very European-looking Eloi are now darker folk of possibly African descent, and, while is not explained why their houses are on the side of cliffs, it makes for considerable visual interest. The Eloi are not as appallingly weak here, while the Morlocks seem to be more agile and dangerous, though when they move the CG used is predictably poor. They are introduced in a thrilling sequence where they attack the Eloi and kidnap some of them, a scene which reminds me of the first appearance of the Apes in the original Planet Of The Apes. Vivid and exciting, especially when Alexander fights back , it does make the climactic fight with the Morlocks seem a bit rushed by comparison.

The final reel brings on a character called the ‘Uber Morlock’, played by Jeremy Irons in a surprisingly low-key manner, and his task just seems to be to confuse the audience and make things more unnecessarily complex, yet paradoxically creating a few holes and inconsistencies in a rare time travel tale, which, up to now, doesn’t really have them [though of course you could say they that they all have holes and inconsistencies!]. The ending scene, showing us two things happening simultaneously at different times, is nice, and I know I have spent much if this review criticising the film, but that’s the thing. This version constantly gives us some good and interesting ideas and then almost throws them away. For example, Guy Pearce may not be playing as inspiring a ‘hero’ as Rod Taylor’s, but his more studious, almost wimpish character is pleasingly different and really works for the film until half way through where he immediately has the ability to avoid and best some Morlocks. Taylor’s character could convincingly do that; Pearce’s just seems silly the way he suddenly seems to become someone else.

Out of the rest of the cast, Mark Addy does well in a very similar ‘best friend’ part to Alan Young’s, and Samantha Mumba is surprisingly good; she has a natural way with the camera and should have done more in films. Klaus Badelt’s score has some strong themes, especially a rather rousing main theme and African-sounding music for the Eloi, making it one of the best scores to come from this erratic composer [sometimes a Media Ventures clone, sometimes a decent composer with his own voice]. The actual time machine is pretty impressive, with its more elaborate design and the way a kind of bubble forms when it is travelling in time, though I prefer the simplicity of the original’s machine. Then again, if I was going to travel in time, this new machine certainly seems safer! My overall feeling about this remake is that it’s a solid science fiction adventure when taken on its own, and a reasonable if inferior remake when compared to the original movie. And maybe someone will film the fantastic book properly one day.

Rating: 6.5/10

_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14309
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 9/8/2012 6:41:50 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3984
Joined: 19/10/2005
And now, a real rarity!!



Dr Neil Perry is s scientist working for US defence contractor the Mega Corporation. When a missile goes off-course, Perry, using technology he has invented, reprograms it to crash into the sea, averting a disaster that could have destroyed Los Angeles. His reputation secures a grant of $20 million for his nearly-complete time machine project, but the corporation wants Perry to put the project on hold so that he can head a military weapon development project. Perry accelerates work on the time machine, permitting him to test it before being forced to work on the new project. A day later, he reports to the chairman of the board of Mega Corporation and tells of how he travelled in time, both into the past and into the future…….

The 1978 version of The Time Machine is a film that seems to be rarely seen, and is generally regarded as a travesty by those few who have viewed it. “One of the worst remakes ever made” I read on one review. I expected something rubbish with lots of unintentional laughs when I finally sat down to watch the film, but actually found it to be nowhere near as bad as its reputation. It has some bad ideas and poorly done scenes, but balances those out with good things too. For a start the idea of setting Wells’ tale in modern times is a good one and I’m very surprised that a major film has yet to do this. Deja Vu did reasonably well in combining time travel with computer technology and make us almost believe it, and of course the original story’s social commentary is more timely than ever.

This retelling isn’t any closer to the book than the 1960 version, something which may sound surprising considering it was part of a series of TV movie adaptations of famous novels called Classics Illustrated, which of course was also the name given to a lengthy series of comics running from 1941 to 1971 which very faithfully adapted books for children [God how we need something like that now!]. These films were produced by Sunn Classic Pictures, a company best known for some sensationalist documentaries which were often released in US cinemas in the 70’s about things like the Bermuda Triangle and psychic phenomena. The Time Machine was a major project but was received badly after its TV premiere and has been rarely shown since. In the UK it was, for some reason, shown in two parts.

The opening scenes of the film really are not promising at all and nor do they seem to have anything to do with a picture called The Time Machine, consisting mainly of lots of people looking at screens and a few shots of the rocket and Neil’s invention heading to destroy it, neither device looking like they’re actually moving. Then we have a quite astounding bit of idiocy when Neil’s weapon temporarily goes off course and Neil orders everyone out of the control room. The reason? The large number of folk in the room was causing the temperature to rise and [somehow] mess around with the guidance system [I’m not making this up]. After this, the only way is up and indeed the movie does improve a little with a couple of nice scenes between Neil and his assistant Agnes, who fills the role of Filby from the original film, and an okay recreation of the scene where a miniature time machine is sent into the future, a scene which gains a nice frisson from having the actor Whit Bissell, who was present in the scene in the ’60 movie, present at this one.

The speeded-up photography used to visualise George Pal’s time traveller’s time travelling makes a return here though it doesn’t look quite as smooth. It’s reasonable though, and at times turns into psychedelic weirdness as the time machine looks like it’s passing through 2001: A Space Odyssey’s star gate. The idea of having Neil travel back in time is a promising one and probably saved immensely on the budget but a 1692 scene in Salem [yes, this time machine can also travel to different locations] where he is found guilty of witchcraft, is so brief as to be almost pointless though the lengthy Western sequence which follows is certainly full of action and makes economic use of what looks like a Western set that turned up in many TV films and series around the time. Half-heartedly copying the flashback format of the first film, this version has the past scenes as a flashback but not the later future scenes. These future scenes are basically a scaled-down remake of the second half of the 60’s production, with our hero in the world of the peaceful Eloi and the demonic Morlocks again.

The white-clad Eloi seem far too like contemporary American young people of the time and bizarrely seem all too eager to let the Morlocks periodically take some of them away yet are happy to confront Neil. The love story with Weena lacks the charming innocence of before but the introduction of the Morlocks does introduce a dark atmosphere and could have been quite scary had they looked any good. With their silly masks and glowing eyes they just look laughable, not helped by the glow sticks which they carry around to stun their victims, but do create a few tense moments in the final action bits, which are low key but reasonably exciting and almost get away with the fact that it’s obvious that there are only two or three actual Morlocks. John Cacavas’s rather good score is especially good here, very suspenseful and sinsister. The second half of the film also benefits from the rather intriguing idea that in the ‘present day’ Neil will create weapons which will destroy much of Earth and create the Eloi and the Morlocks, though star John Beck, who is weak throughout, doesn’t show the emotions his character must be going through. This aspect is also weakened by some mediocre handling, including a tape in the future which shows the war that ravaged our planet [well, it’s better than those dumb talking rings], said tape showing footage from the 1953 The War Of The Worlds in amidst all the stock footage!

The actual time machine in this is rather good, simple in its minimalist design but looking quite practical and rather cool in its triangular shape. The original film’s anti-war theme is even stronger here and there’s a rather strong environmentalist theme in this one too. Wallace C. Bennett’s script certainly has its heart in the right place and has some invention but every now and again is let down by an idea which is just stupid. With some rewriting, the screenplay could have actually been rather good, but the hurried production given to TV movies obviously meant that rewriting was not an option. Still, this Time Machine has its merits and is certainly worth a look as an interesting if extremely flawed take on a well known story. If you don’t want to search for the DVD, which could take a while, you can view the whole movie on YouTube.

Rating: 5.5/10

_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14310
Page:   <<   < prev  475 476 [477] 478 479   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Favourite Films >> RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? Page: <<   < prev  475 476 [477] 478 479   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.188