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  481 482 [483] 484 485   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 8/10/2012 8:07:31 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6742
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: losthighway

Well i saw NIGHTBREED: THE CABAL CUT and GRABBERS last night at the Grimm Up North horror festival.

First things first it has to be said that the Cabal Cut is clearly a labour of love and has taken 9 months of effort to get into it this current cut (the director who was in attendance would still like to add some more footage when/if it becomes available)... and I guess that is my main criticism with it. It's just too long! Running at 144mins the story is indeed Barker's vision so we get more of the love story, more Nightbreed monsters and the studio orchestrated slasher element has pretty much disappeared. We also get Decker speaking to his mask and yes he does die at the end. The added footage is interlaced with DVD quality and tbh it jars at times actually moving between the two in some scenes although it's nice to see the bits that were chopped out but again I fall back to my initial criticism... Perhaps some of these moments would have been better excised because ultimately they feel like deleted scenes and one of the scenes at the end is such poor quality that unless you've read the book you wouldn't realise one of the characters is holding a knife because the picture is so blurry. Also, can someone please confirm for me whether Boone's girlfriend dies at the end and he goes off into the night alone because I thought she did!? Also, the film suffers from very dodgy acting by Cronenberg and one of the other guy's playing one of the Nightbreed. This humour i'm sure was intentional but just seems a bit too cheesy tbh. It's also worth mentioning that this new cut - certainly the ending which is the same as the book - feels like a social comment on American bigotry and it's treatment of minority groups. Whether that was intentional i'm not sure but 22 years later, that is certainly how it comes across.

Overall, this is a film die-hard horror fans should definitely try and catch, if only for the completists amongst us. The director said the plan is to have a BR release in a year's time with the studio cut of Nightbreed and the Cabal Cut alongside each other plus a 2hr documentary... that's if Morgan Creek/C20th Fox release the footage for them to get better quality prints! He also told us Barker only gave him 4 points to change after viewing his cut of the film, so as I say this is clearly Barker's vision which is a good thing but at the same time, I can't help feeling the original version probably wasn't that great to start off with. It's certainly no Hellraiser! Overall: 3/5

Grabbers plays like Shaun of the Dead but with aliens from outer space. I'd say a good 70% is like a tourism advert for the Irish Tourist Board and the other 30% has some gentle Father Ted comedy alongside the odd bit of creature/gore/madness. It's OK and passed 90mins but tbh it's about on a par with most of the straight to DVD fare we get on a weekly basis these days. Overall: 3/5

...Oh and finally it was Barker's 60th birthday yesterday so the director of the Cabal Cut videotaped us all singing happy birthday to him on his iphone and then sent to it Clive!

Well yes it's no Hellrasier but it was a good effort apart from Croneberg,who thankfully has not tryed his hand at acting scine??Hard to belive he's turned 60,but then all the directors i love are well up in years,and some struggle to make a decent film now.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to losthighway)
Post #: 14461
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 8/10/2012 8:18:42 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6742
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: UTB


quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

Stone at his best.In fact i forked out twice for this brilliant film,and will be getting the Blu-Ray as this is my favorite Oliver Stone movie.But the Directors cut  is the UK cinema release,it runs for 118 minutes,which is the 4 minutes restored that the MPAA removed,so it got it's R rating,and the BBFC approved for an 18 cert release in the UK,but the first DVD release was the US cut version.Even this cut DVD was delayed it's release due to all the media hype surrounding the film just like on it's Cinema release,all bad press from the gutter press(the usual ones)but then who cares for the rag's that claim to speak for the people.The version i saw in Canada on it's release during a film festival in Montreal,was the full 122 minutes back in 1994,and had been given an 18cert by the Canadian Film board.Stone decided that the US MPAA would go mad if they saw this,so reduced it to 118,but they still felt it was to graphic,and cut four minutes.Anyway here's ye old review,which is the only way to react to such a negative review,though i think it's one movie that will always cause a reaction. 

NATURAL BORN KILLERS (1994)
The misadventures of Mickey and Mallory: outcasts,victims of traumatized childhoods,who become lovers and serial killers. They travel across Route 666 conducting psychedelic mass-slaughters not for money, not for revenge, just for kicks. Glorified by the media, the pair become legendary folk heroes; their story told by the single person they leave alive at the scene of each of their slaughters.
 
Then there's also the fantastic soundtrack mainly by NIN,that is a stand alone soundtrack,one you can listen to with out ever seeing the film.But with the film it is one of the most awesome soundtracks going,mixing Bob Dylan,Pasty Cline,Peter Gabriel,Dr Dire etc etc,and the whole mix works,with the mix of colours,and visual styles.This has some of the most eye popping graphics,mix of film stock,mix of video graphics,you will ever see in one movie.Stone is at his most experimental,his most controversial(voted the 8Th most controversial film ever),his darkest most surreal/bizarre,he has ever been.The whole film has sort of a psychedelic visual style, and utilizes constant cuts and constant change in colour scheme, often changing between powerful green, blue, red and even black/white.There's times you will see touches of masters like Dario Argento,with his use of colour,dark blues and bloody reds,and even that dream like effect only David Lynch seems to be able to do is all here too.This is just superb direction by a man  on a mission,out to show the dark side of American culture,and not afraid to push the.boundaries.This is the ultimate 90's movie that defines a decade,a must see mind-blowing, powerhouse of a Stone movie not to be missed. 10/10


The delay for the DVD was due to it being released around the time of the Dunblane massacre, if I recall.

Great review though. I adore it. Its a visual assault on the senses with some superb, over the top performances and a brilliant soundtrack. Beep beep!

Also - is 'Dr Dire' a Freudian slip?


Yeah on a more serous note,there was that sad event that added to the Press fury at Stone's film,and other events in France that happened on it's cinema release there.All wrongly blamed on his film more than any other violent film around at the time,but then it happened with other films over the years too like Childs Play etc.The press more willing to blame others than taking a good look at themselfs,which for me was the main message in Stone's film,which is why the press turned on him. 


_____________________________

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

(in reply to UTB)
Post #: 14462
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 9/10/2012 6:23:14 PM   
losthighway


Posts: 3251
Joined: 25/1/2006
From: Manchesterford
quote:

Well yes it's no Hellrasier but it was a good effort apart from Croneberg,who thankfully has not tryed his hand at acting scine?? Hard to belive he's turned 60,but then all the directors i love are well up in years,and some struggle to make a decent film now.


It's an OK effort I'd say... I remember watching it on DVD back in the early 90s and I think it's dated badly tbh. I realise Hellraiser's SFX have dated too but that has a nasty BDSM vibe to it which still comes through today. Folks were laughing at some of the rather dodgy acting/twee scenes. However, I'm very glad i've seen it And if you want to see what Clive has been upto lately, just check out this: http://realclivebarker.tumblr.com/ BE WARNED... some of his tumblr photography is pornographic in nature!!

< Message edited by losthighway -- 9/10/2012 6:25:25 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 14463
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 9/10/2012 9:31:55 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 4038
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: losthighway

Well i saw NIGHTBREED: THE CABAL CUT and GRABBERS last night at the Grimm Up North horror festival.

First things first it has to be said that the Cabal Cut is clearly a labour of love and has taken 9 months of effort to get into it this current cut (the director who was in attendance would still like to add some more footage when/if it becomes available)... and I guess that is my main criticism with it. It's just too long! Running at 144mins the story is indeed Barker's vision so we get more of the love story, more Nightbreed monsters and the studio orchestrated slasher element has pretty much disappeared. We also get Decker speaking to his mask and yes he does die at the end. The added footage is interlaced with DVD quality and tbh it jars at times actually moving between the two in some scenes although it's nice to see the bits that were chopped out but again I fall back to my initial criticism... Perhaps some of these moments would have been better excised because ultimately they feel like deleted scenes and one of the scenes at the end is such poor quality that unless you've read the book you wouldn't realise one of the characters is holding a knife because the picture is so blurry. Also, can someone please confirm for me whether Boone's girlfriend dies at the end and he goes off into the night alone because I thought she did!? Also, the film suffers from very dodgy acting by Cronenberg and one of the other guy's playing one of the Nightbreed. This humour i'm sure was intentional but just seems a bit too cheesy tbh. It's also worth mentioning that this new cut - certainly the ending which is the same as the book - feels like a social comment on American bigotry and it's treatment of minority groups. Whether that was intentional i'm not sure but 22 years later, that is certainly how it comes across.

Overall, this is a film die-hard horror fans should definitely try and catch, if only for the completists amongst us. The director said the plan is to have a BR release in a year's time with the studio cut of Nightbreed and the Cabal Cut alongside each other plus a 2hr documentary... that's if Morgan Creek/C20th Fox release the footage for them to get better quality prints! He also told us Barker only gave him 4 points to change after viewing his cut of the film, so as I say this is clearly Barker's vision which is a good thing but at the same time, I can't help feeling the original version probably wasn't that great to start off with. It's certainly no Hellraiser! Overall: 3/5

Grabbers plays like Shaun of the Dead but with aliens from outer space. I'd say a good 70% is like a tourism advert for the Irish Tourist Board and the other 30% has some gentle Father Ted comedy alongside the odd bit of creature/gore/madness. It's OK and passed 90mins but tbh it's about on a par with most of the straight to DVD fare we get on a weekly basis these days. Overall: 3/5

...Oh and finally it was Barker's 60th birthday yesterday so the director of the Cabal Cut videotaped us all singing happy birthday to him on his iphone and then sent to it Clive!


I have to say, I'm very jealous. I love Nightbreed, even in its cut form I think it's a unique and neglected picture and better than Hellraiser ["runs away"].

_____________________________

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

(in reply to losthighway)
Post #: 14464
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 9/10/2012 9:39:09 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 4038
Joined: 19/10/2005
Others did proper reviews on our website, but saw;


An enjoyable and surprisingly dark time travel flick that certainly has intelligence but is nowhere near as original as it thinks it is and suffers from some odd pointless elements such as telekinesis. Excellent performances though and a pleasant surprise to have a fairly good film from Johnson. 7/10


Though none too original at first, this slow-building chiller becomes rather scary and is supported by some strong performances, though it stops being frightening around two thirds in. A nicely dark ending, though maybe not much of an actual climax. 7/10


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14465
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 9/10/2012 9:48:08 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 4038
Joined: 19/10/2005
And here's a short one I did do, kind of a companion to my Universal horror review thread;




In Victorian London, Dr. Henry Jekyll, who devotes much of his time to working in a charity hospital for the poor, gives a speech saying that within every person lurks impulses for both good and evil, and that if these impulses were separated, the good side could reach heights only dreamed of before. Jekyll is engaged but is disappointed when Muriel Carew’s father refuses to move up their wedding date. That evening, he saves prostitute Ivy Pearson from an attacker and, as he sees to her wounds, is attracted to the very available woman. Though he fights off temptation, things get worse when Muriel and her father go on a lengthy holiday. The frustrated Jekyll develops the drug which will release the evil side in himself, and in doing do frees My Hyde……..



Robert Louis Stevenson’s 1886 novella The Strange Case Of Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde is one of the most adapted books ever, with a total of 123 film and TV versions dating from the earliest days of cinema to the fairly recent series Jekyll, while it has inspired countless other stories and characters; who is Bruce Banner but a variant of Dr Jeykll? It’s easy to see why Stevenson’s concept of the duality of man is so popular, though interestingly very few versions retain the book’s structure of a mystery which is then explained via a letter left by the dead Dr Jekyll. Only three cinematic adaptations have really become classics; the 1920 silent version starring John Barrymore in the dual title role, the 1941 Spencer Tracy effort, and this 1931 film which in my opinion is easily the best film. It’s one of the highpoints of that incredible period, the early 30’s, where a group of superb horror pictures were made which still amaze today with their imagination, their audacity and their sheer filmmaking craft, such as Frankenstein, The Mummy, The Island Of Lost Souls, Freaks and King Kong. Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is a very innovative piece of cinema for its time and is also extremely adult in a way that will probably surprise many first-time viewers. And, in its own way, it’s still very frightening.

This version of Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde was clearly put into production because of the huge success of Universal’s Dracula and Frankenstein. Paramount actually asked John Barrymore to reprise his 1920 role, and thereafter it seems that director Rouben Mamoulian had a considerable amount of freedom with the film, turning down studio head Adolph Zukor’s suggestions and finally casting Fredric March against his wishes, March being mainly known for light roles. Poole, Jekyll’s butler, was played by Edgar Norton who had played the role many times on stage since 1898 and Stevenson’s nephew apparently appears in one scene though I’ve never been able to tell where. The script by Samuel Hoffenstein and Percy Heath was actually not based so much on the novel but on a 1887 stage version which introduced elements which soon became features on most successive adaptations [i.e.Jekyll’s fiancée and Hyde's prostitute girlfriend], and also the ‘20 film which introduced a sexual aspect to proceedings, something which the ’31 movie took to the next level. Made just before the Production Code seriously restricted things like sex and violence, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde only had one scene cut initially – Hyde trampling a young girl, which actually happened in the book – but later reissues chopped the film down considerably, not only losing some of the scenes featuring Ivy but other important footage including one transformation.

The fools even cut the film’s stunning opening scene which is filmed in the first person. We assume the point of view of Jekyll as he plays the organ, gets ready for his lecture and travels by carriage to the hall. We briefly see Jekyll in a mirror, but not properly until a minute or so later. Such audacious stuff was clearly considered too odd for audiences for many decades, though it’s possible that wasn’t the only reason. Due to MGM buying the rights to and virtually burying the film when their 1941 version came out, this superior earlier version was almost impossible to see in a coherent and good-looking print for many decades. The first version I saw was of one of these butchered versions and the film just didn’t flow though its quality was still obviously evident. It was only when MGM relinquished the rights after 45 years that efforts were made to restore it. Even viewing the fully restored version, you have to accept some things that were common in films of the time, such as cringe-worthy romantic dialogue and far too much obvious make-up on some cast members; the quality of the DVD enables us to see that star March is clearly caked in it. That’s the way things were done back then though, what are now seen as dated flaws were once the norm. What Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde most certainly doesn’t have is the staginess of most early 30’s films.

Oh no, it certainly doesn’t. The camera moves fluidly, great effort has been made to film even dialogue scenes in an interesting way from unusual angles to strange compositions such as objects looming large in the foreground, some scene transitions are accomplished by split screen etc. Jekyll’s first transformation is shown at first from inside his head, with the camera whirling around the room as certain incidents from earlier are replayed in his mind. The actual change is amazing even by today’s standards [actually it’s possibly better]. The usual method of rapid dissolves of the time was replaced by a cleverer technique which was a secret for many years until Mamoulian himself revealed it. Wally Westmore’s make-up was applied in contrasting colours and then a series of coloured filters that matched the make-up was then used which enabled the make-up to be gradually exposed or made invisible, the change in colour of course not being visible on the black-and-white film. The actual make-up, very simian in a way designed to evoke primitive man, is perhaps a little excessive to modern eyes but March acts the change in a way that is almost painful to watch. We almost think we are physically seeing somebody emerge out of someone else, Look at the way Hyde is initially awkward and has to adjust to his surroundings like a newborn. Horror films are usually ignored during the Oscars, but at least March’s astounding, horrifying yet richly nuanced performance was rightly rewarded with a win for Best Actor.

It’s easy to see why this film was heavily cut after its initial release, because it is as much about sex as the good and evil in mankind, introducing a huge amount of blatant and sometimes downright perverse sexuality into Stevenson’s tale. Jekyll is clearly sexually frustrated by not being allowed to marry Muriel as quickly as he wants [in the days, of course, when it wasn’t customary for a ‘respectable’ man to sleep with his wife until marriage]. When he meets Ivy, he is clearly attracted to her, and their first meeting has an amazing erotic charge as she lies under a sheet fully naked [and you can even make out certain, um, features!] and blatantly ‘comes on’ to Jekyll. Being the ‘respectable’ guy he leaves, though the camera dwelling on Ivy’s leg swinging erotically clearly shows us what it on his mind. When told the news that Muriel and her father are leaving for their extended holiday, Poole, Jekyll’s butler tells him that London has ‘diversions’ for a man if he wants them. Not wanting a man of his position to be seen in seedy locales, Jekyll takes his potion, thereby allowing himself, in the form of Mr Hyde, to have all the illicit fun that as Jekyll, he clearly wanted but felt unable to go and have.

When Hyde finds Ivy and shacks up with her, we are treated to a really disturbing portrayal of a brutal relationship, one of those terrible arrangements where the woman is even scared to get help and is totally trapped. Ivy is terrorised by Hyde in scenes which is horrifying to watch and suggest all manner of nastiness. We find out that Hyde whips her, but are left in no doubt that it certainly isn’t all he does; rape is certainly suggested. When Hyde says to her; “If you do one thing I don’t approve of while I’m gone, the LEAST little thing, mind you… I’ll show you what horror means”! , he is truly frightening. Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde may not scare these days in a conventional sense, but it gives us a horrifying glimpse into pure evil and the effect it can have. When Ivy goes to see Jekyll and tells him about Hyde, Miriam Hopkins, whose incredibly brave, convincing performance as Ivy is brilliant throughout, really breaks your heart here, even when she offers herself to Jekyll. You wish he would really take up with her, give her a new life and actually really ‘enjoy’ himself as Jekyll too, but no, convention dictates otherwise. Jekyll promises Ivy that Hyde will never bother her again, and he really means it, but soon the transformations begin to come on without the use of the drug. We are shown Ivy as being allowed a very brief time of happiness as she celebrates her release from Hyde with a bottle of champagne, and then Hyde comes in, and it’s truly horrible, especially when he mimics things that he said in the form of Jekyll and Ivy ends her sad existence as one of the tragic heroines in horror film history [and yes, she is really the heroine, not Muriel]. This film may not have much in the way of sudden jolts or expressionistic shadows, but make no mistake, it is still, most definitely, a horror film.

Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde is quite a talky piece and may not have too much in the way of ‘action’, but it moves at a rapid pace, with every scene advancing the story and/or its themes in some way, and speeds up even more towards the end when the climax is approaching. Scenes of Hyde escaping with monkey-like agility from Ivy’s room, being pursued by the police and the final scene of Hyde concerned in Jekyll’s laboratory may seem a little brief by the standards of today, but there was a time when films just did not need to always end in a big action climax. Unfortunately the final transformation is done by the usual dissolve method and jars with the earlier, more convincing scenes, while Hyde becoming ever more bestial with each change, so he ends almost resembling a werewolf, is perhaps a vulgarisation of Stevenson’s original concept. March is never less than great throughout though, and I haven’t yet emphasised how good he is as the doctor, so robust and so full of such passion and enthusiasm that you really believe that he is a scientist with a drive to pursue the truth of mankind’s greatest struggle between good and evil.

The one poor performance for me is by Rose Hubert as Muriel, she is very stilted and it’s hard to see how Jekyll can ever prefer her over Ivy. As with most films of the early sound era, Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde has no music score and after a while it just isn’t missed. The sets are very convincing, not as expressionistic as you usually got in the Universal movies of the time and actually quite simple, but still conjuring up a Victorian London of the imagination where you half-expect Jack The Ripper to turn up too. Every time I watch this movie, it never fails to impress and astound with me with its intelligence, its bravery and its sheer quality dripping from every frame. Saying that, the potential remains for a really good and more explicit remake [there have been plenty of remakes, but few that are much good] that could at least match it. It could be a truly harrowing but powerful experience. Until then, though, this remains the definitive version of The Strange Case Of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.

Rating: 9/10

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14466
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 10/10/2012 8:21:12 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6742
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: losthighway

quote:

Well yes it's no Hellrasier but it was a good effort apart from Croneberg,who thankfully has not tryed his hand at acting scine?? Hard to belive he's turned 60,but then all the directors i love are well up in years,and some struggle to make a decent film now.


It's an OK effort I'd say... I remember watching it on DVD back in the early 90s and I think it's dated badly tbh. I realise Hellraiser's SFX have dated too but that has a nasty BDSM vibe to it which still comes through today. Folks were laughing at some of the rather dodgy acting/twee scenes. However, I'm very glad i've seen it And if you want to see what Clive has been upto lately, just check out this: http://realclivebarker.tumblr.com/ BE WARNED... some of his tumblr photography is pornographic in nature!!



_____________________________

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

(in reply to losthighway)
Post #: 14467
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 10/10/2012 8:38:14 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6742
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera

Others did proper reviews on our website, but saw;


An enjoyable and surprisingly dark time travel flick that certainly has intelligence but is nowhere near as original as it thinks it is and suffers from some odd pointless elements such as telekinesis. Excellent performances though and a pleasant surprise to have a fairly good film from Johnson. 7/10


Seems we all agree on this one score wise.
quote:



In Victorian London, Dr. Henry Jekyll, who devotes much of his time to working in a charity hospital for the poor, gives a speech saying that within every person lurks impulses for both good and evil, and that if these impulses were separated, the good side could reach heights only dreamed of before. Jekyll is engaged but is disappointed when Muriel Carew’s father refuses to move up their wedding date. That evening, he saves prostitute Ivy Pearson from an attacker and, as he sees to her wounds, is attracted to the very available woman. Though he fights off temptation, things get worse when Muriel and her father go on a lengthy holiday. The frustrated Jekyll develops the drug which will release the evil side in himself, and in doing do frees My Hyde……..

The one poor performance for me is by Rose Hubert as Muriel, she is very stilted and it’s hard to see how Jekyll can ever prefer her over Ivy. As with most films of the early sound era, Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde has no music score and after a while it just isn’t missed. The sets are very convincing, not as expressionistic as you usually got in the Universal movies of the time and actually quite simple, but still conjuring up a Victorian London of the imagination where you half-expect Jack The Ripper to turn up too. Every time I watch this movie, it never fails to impress and astound with me with its intelligence, its bravery and its sheer quality dripping from every frame. Saying that, the potential remains for a really good and more explicit remake [there have been plenty of remakes, but few that are much good] that could at least match it. It could be a truly harrowing but powerful experience. Until then, though, this remains the definitive version of The Strange Case Of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.

Rating: 9/10



100% agree with you this is the best version of this story by miles,and it begs the chance of a modren great adult 18 cert version to be made,if that is it can get a daring powerful director,and an actor to at least match Fredric March's superb preformance.The fully restored version is a true classic,and for it's time a truly daring horror/erotic film,which is as powerful now as it was then,even with some truly awful dialogue,but hey listen to some of the so called actors dialogue in some modren horror films .

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14468
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 11/10/2012 1:11:33 PM   
Invader_Ace


Posts: 1588
Joined: 31/7/2008
quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill
Well yes it's no Hellrasier but it was a good effort apart from Croneberg,who thankfully has not tryed his hand at acting scine??Hard to belive he's turned 60,but then all the directors i love are well up in years,and some struggle to make a decent film now.


He is in Jason X.
He is the head of the facility that is going to freeze Jason and one of the first to suffer a ganking.

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 14469
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 15/10/2012 6:54:59 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6742
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Invader_Ace

quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill
Well yes it's no Hellrasier but it was a good effort apart from Croneberg,who thankfully has not tryed his hand at acting scine??Hard to belive he's turned 60,but then all the directors i love are well up in years,and some struggle to make a decent film now.


He is in Jason X.
He is the head of the facility that is going to freeze Jason and one of the first to suffer a ganking.

Cheers!!how true forgot about that one,though to be honest it was just a walk on die quickly part,he has had other walk on roles,but i don't count them as true acting/starring roles like in Nightbreed.He was also in Extreme Measures(1996) and Resurrection(1999) in part roles,and i'sure i've seen him pop up in the odd TV film/show,none that i can remmber off hand.



_____________________________

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

(in reply to Invader_Ace)
Post #: 14470
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 15/10/2012 8:44:11 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 4038
Joined: 19/10/2005


In Victorian London, a church service attended by many including Dr Jekyll is disrupted by a drunk who is then escorted out. Jekyll is engaged to Beatrix Emery but her father Charles voices his discomfort at their public displays of affection and even more at a speech Jekyll gives at a dinner party. He says that within every person lurks impulses for both good and evil, and that if these impulses were separated, the good side could reach heights only dreamed of before. That evening, he saves barmaid Ivy Peterson from an attacker and, as he sees to her wounds, is attracted to the very available woman but resists temptation. Henry throws himself into his work and after experimenting with rabbits and guinea pigs decides to try it his drug himself after his initial idea of trying it on the man who went mad in the church is prevented by the man dying. In doing so, he releases the evil Mr Hyde…….



It’s a constant source of debate amongst fans of classic horror. Which version of Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde is best, the 1931 version or the 1941 one? More people seem to err on the side of the ’31 picture, something which I agree with, though the ’41 remake does have its fans, is still a fine film, and on the question of who out of Fredric March and Spencer Tracy is the best Jekyll and Hyde, I would actually answer Tracy. The main problems with the ’41 version are that it slavishly follows the earlier film too much, and the extra scenes it does add don’t contribute much and considerably slow the pace down. It also suffers from the tighter censorship that was in evidence in 1941 and is therefore a little tamer, though it is still rather more daring than was the norm at the time. For me, watching this version after the ’31 film is always a somewhat disappointing experience, but taken on its own, it’s a good effort and there are enough aspects that are well done to still make it a minor classic. The tragedy is that it could have been superb and a very different film than the almost scene by scene remake that it ended up being.

MGM deciding to remake a highly acclaimed film that was only ten years old and had been successfully re-released five years later [albeit somewhat censored] was perhaps not the best of ideas, but when Spencer Tracy came onboard he had some interesting ideas for the project, one being that one actress [who he wanted to be his later co-star Katherine Hepburn] would play both of the women in the film, and another being that Jekyll would turn into Hyde not through a potion but alcohol or drugs. These two ideas alone would have made the film a very different one from the ’31 film, but the studio ignored his suggestions and proceeded to make a very close remake of the earlier work instead. Tracy grew very uncomfortable in the role and Lana Turner and Ingrid Bergman swapped roles as the two women. Though tamer than the Mamoulian film, it still suffered cuts from the draconian censors of the time, most notably of some hallucinatory montages [more on these later] and some psychological moments where Jekyll seems to talk with his alter-ego. These scenes exist in the German version and is it greatly to be hoped that one day the film will get a proper restoration on DVD or Blu Ray, as it seems that it would be improved greatly. When released it did big box office though had poor reviews, and Fredric March famously sent his friend Tracy an amusing telegram thanking him for his biggest career boost, as Tracy’s performance was routinely savaged.

Rather than opening with a lengthy subjective camera sequence of Jekyll going about his business, this version begins with a scene in church where a loon yells about the restrictions of morality. A solid introduction to one of the themes of the film, though it also immediately tells us that this is not going to have much in the way of innovative direction like the ‘31’ picture. Victor Fleming, who had previously just made The Wizard Of Oz and Gone With The Wind [he was nothing it not diverse!], avoids stylistics and just gets on with telling the story, though he fails to give it much pace, held back by John Lee Mahin’s screenplay, which suffers from many scenes just being too long. Slight additions or alterations include Jekyll experimenting on animals in a rather effective montage, Jekyll giving his speech at a dinner party rather than a university, and wanting to experiment on a man first. These are all okay but don’t really add much, and around the half way point the film becomes an almost exact copy of the earlier film, but slower and tamer in its sexuality, with for example Ivy changed from an obvious prostitute to a barmaid. Hyde’s abusive relationship with her is still here, but much else is toned down. Scenes may be recreated, but miss certain details or even lines.

This is most notable in the first meeting between Jekyll and Ivy. In the earlier version she blatantly ‘comes on’ to him and is clearly naked under a sheet. In this one she just somewhat flirts and they kiss while she remains clothed for the duration. You get the impression that previously Ivy falls for what this seemingly decent gentleman represents rather than Jekyll himself, but Ivy just falls traditionally in love with Jekyll here. Another particularly weak example of toning down is when Hyde first meets Ivy, and in the older film, smashes a wine bottle and threatens to thrust half of it into someone’s face. Here, he just starts one of those bar brawls which seem to start automatically in the movies. Still, there is one striking element of this version which is quite brave, and that is the two short montages that occur when Jekyll first changes into Hyde. Rife with Freudian symbolism such as Hyde whipping two horses who have the faces of Beatrix and Ivy superimposed over them, they are very audacious even in their cut form [which is the only way to see them unless you manage to obtain a German version].

We don’t actually see Jekyll turn into Hyde properly until three quarters of the way through, and it’s then done with the usual ‘dissolve’ manner. The more subtle approach to Hyde works well elsewhere. Fredric March’s Hyde looks maybe too bestial and certainly would not be able to go anywhere without being noticed, but Tracy’s Hyde sports far more restrained makeup and his voice, expression and overall demeanour convey a profound evil that is very chilling and also very human. You could read about this Hyde in the papers one day. He could be living next door. Though I think overall this Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde is considerably weaker, Tracy’s performance in it outdoes March’s. There are scenes where he is Jekyll and seems on the verge of becoming Hyde at any moment, showing acting of such subtlety it’s almost impossible to put into words. As the film plods to its climax though it’s impossible to shake of the feeling of déjà vu, though one nice touch has Jekyll’s friend Lanyon be the one who shoots Hyde.

There are aspects of this film which show great care, and others which just don’t. At times the sets looks as if they are almost the same as before, while elsewhere the usual MGM approach of a glossy look and ornate sets combined with variable matte paintings falls a little flat. We certainly don’t feel we are in Victorian London this time. The performances are fine all-round though, with Ingrid Bergman in particular delivering some superb acting in many of her scenes as Ivy, though one can’t get away from the idea that her and Lana Turner swapping roles resulted in miscasting. Obviously Bergman’s part required the stronger acting, but she just doesn’t entirely convince. Franz Waxman’s music score is a little too’ romantic’ at times [a convention of the times] but seems to underuse the creepy [and rather subtle] motif he uses for Hyde, but overall it’s a solid score with some especially powerful music during the Freudian montages. If the ’31 version of Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde had never existed, this ’41 version might very well be held up as the best version of Robert Louis Stevenson’s novel. Sadly though it does exist, and this often effective, often intriguing but also often pointless version just can’t help suffering by comparison.

Rating: 7.5/10

_____________________________

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

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 14471
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 17/10/2012 7:34:57 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6742
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera




There are aspects of this film which show great care, and others which just don't. At times the sets looks as if they are almost the same as before, while elsewhere the usual MGM approach of a glossy look and ornate sets combined with variable matte paintings falls a little flat. We certainly don't feel we are in Victorian London this time. The performances are fine all-round though, with Ingrid Bergman in particular delivering some superb acting in many of her scenes as Ivy, though one can't get away from the idea that her and Lana Turner swapping roles resulted in miscasting. Obviously Bergman's part required the stronger acting, but she just doesn't entirely convince. Franz Waxman's music score is a little too' romantic' at times [a convention of the times] but seems to under use the creepy [and rather subtle] motif he uses for Hyde, but overall it's a solid score with some especially powerful music during the Freudian montages. If the '31 version of Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde had never existed, this '41 version might very well be held up as the best version of Robert Louis Stevenson's novel. Sadly though it does exist, and this often effective, often intriguing but also often pointless version just can't help suffering by comparison.

Rating: 7.5/10

When they say they,"don't make them like this anymore",it's so true of the films like this,and like you this is my second fav Jekyll Hyde tale.Sad to say haven't got this in my collection and it's not been on the box in such a long time.
At work now on Poe/Corman films,in fact had the first review completed yesterday,only for the F**KING computer to once again crash.But not happy with some of it so back to the drawing board,will post soon,in the mean time;

Crazy Tuesdays viewing was this little horror.

SINISTER (2012)
 
Ellison Oswalt (Ethan Hawke)a true crime novelist discovers a box of mysterious, disturbing home movies that make him realize how and why a family was murdered in his new home, though his discoveries put his entire family in the path of a supernatural entity and plunge his family into a nightmarish experience of supernatural horror.

Well this was a nice surprise a well made horror film,that is not only scary,but has performances that are believable and a story that is intriguing and moving.Why i was surprised by this is mainly because A;i did not see the trailer,B;i've read no reviews except the Dr's short one,C;idid not realize till the credits rolled at the end,who directed this great chiller.Well this is only the second film i've seen of  director Scott Derrickson,who is great at focusing on plot development to a point of obsession as he did with The Exorcism of Emily Rose.Sinister is as much of a drama about family as it is a horror movie,which again was the strong point of his last great film.He avoids once again drenching the screen in gore and blood,instead directing and editing with interesting angles,spooky imagery,and with some great jump out of your seat moments.

Ethan Hawke gives one of his best performances i've seen in a while,he really gives his all in scenes where he is frustrated and depressed,you can see and feel his pain. Juliet Rylance who plays his wife is also wonderful,gives a superb heartbreaking performance that comes close to equaling Ethans.With great performances from the two leads,it's a joyful surprise that the kids Ashley (Clare Foley) and Trevor (Michael Hall D'Addario) are up there with these two big guns. Michael Hall D'Addario provides one of the most shocking and terrifying scenes,that got me holding my breath,along with most others at this showing.

Derrickson understands though that using loud bands and noises to jolt the audience can be done effectively,if you back up these moments with his strong imagery,think Suspria Argento's classic.I also love the use of the 8mm films Ellison finds,these are where the more graphic sequences of murder take pride of place,with the use of a garden tool.Add to this the moody/chilling soundtrack by Christopher Young who's worked on The Exorcism of Emily Rose,and you get a superb chiller,that drags along in places but rewards you with one hell of an ending.It's not the most scary film i've ever seen,but it's for now the one of best of this years horror fright films,an inventive above average horror film,directed by a director i will be keeping an eye on.7/10


< Message edited by evil bill -- 17/10/2012 7:48:47 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14472
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 18/10/2012 5:31:19 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 4038
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera




There are aspects of this film which show great care, and others which just don't. At times the sets looks as if they are almost the same as before, while elsewhere the usual MGM approach of a glossy look and ornate sets combined with variable matte paintings falls a little flat. We certainly don't feel we are in Victorian London this time. The performances are fine all-round though, with Ingrid Bergman in particular delivering some superb acting in many of her scenes as Ivy, though one can't get away from the idea that her and Lana Turner swapping roles resulted in miscasting. Obviously Bergman's part required the stronger acting, but she just doesn't entirely convince. Franz Waxman's music score is a little too' romantic' at times [a convention of the times] but seems to under use the creepy [and rather subtle] motif he uses for Hyde, but overall it's a solid score with some especially powerful music during the Freudian montages. If the '31 version of Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde had never existed, this '41 version might very well be held up as the best version of Robert Louis Stevenson's novel. Sadly though it does exist, and this often effective, often intriguing but also often pointless version just can't help suffering by comparison.

Rating: 7.5/10

When they say they,"don't make them like this anymore",it's so true of the films like this,and like you this is my second fav Jekyll Hyde tale.Sad to say haven't got this in my collection and it's not been on the box in such a long time.
At work now on Poe/Corman films,in fact had the first review completed yesterday,only for the F**KING computer to once again crash.But not happy with some of it so back to the drawing board,will post soon,in the mean time;

Crazy Tuesdays viewing was this little horror.

SINISTER (2012)
 
Ellison Oswalt (Ethan Hawke)a true crime novelist discovers a box of mysterious, disturbing home movies that make him realize how and why a family was murdered in his new home, though his discoveries put his entire family in the path of a supernatural entity and plunge his family into a nightmarish experience of supernatural horror.

Well this was a nice surprise a well made horror film,that is not only scary,but has performances that are believable and a story that is intriguing and moving.Why i was surprised by this is mainly because A;i did not see the trailer,B;i've read no reviews except the Dr's short one,C;idid not realize till the credits rolled at the end,who directed this great chiller.Well this is only the second film i've seen of  director Scott Derrickson,who is great at focusing on plot development to a point of obsession as he did with The Exorcism of Emily Rose.Sinister is as much of a drama about family as it is a horror movie,which again was the strong point of his last great film.He avoids once again drenching the screen in gore and blood,instead directing and editing with interesting angles,spooky imagery,and with some great jump out of your seat moments.

Ethan Hawke gives one of his best performances i've seen in a while,he really gives his all in scenes where he is frustrated and depressed,you can see and feel his pain. Juliet Rylance who plays his wife is also wonderful,gives a superb heartbreaking performance that comes close to equaling Ethans.With great performances from the two leads,it's a joyful surprise that the kids Ashley (Clare Foley) and Trevor (Michael Hall D'Addario) are up there with these two big guns. Michael Hall D'Addario provides one of the most shocking and terrifying scenes,that got me holding my breath,along with most others at this showing.

Derrickson understands though that using loud bands and noises to jolt the audience can be done effectively,if you back up these moments with his strong imagery,think Suspria Argento's classic.I also love the use of the 8mm films Ellison finds,these are where the more graphic sequences of murder take pride of place,with the use of a garden tool.Add to this the moody/chilling soundtrack by Christopher Young who's worked on The Exorcism of Emily Rose,and you get a superb chiller,that drags along in places but rewards you with one hell of an ending.It's not the most scary film i've ever seen,but it's for now the one of best of this years horror fright films,an inventive above average horror film,directed by a director i will be keeping an eye on.7/10



That's pretty much what I would have written if I had done a full review, a solid if unspectacular horror that does it's job well enough. And sorry to hear about computer crashing, it's done that to me a couple of times recently. Love those Corman/Poe films though not watched any in years, look forward to the reviews.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 14473
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 19/10/2012 10:39:41 AM   
losthighway


Posts: 3251
Joined: 25/1/2006
From: Manchesterford
This week ive mostly been watching...

FRINGE: SEASON 1... i'm about 6 episodes in and tbh i've given up. It's just all a bit too cheesy, repetitive and dull. Plus, here comes the science bit... yeah YAWN!

ILL MANORS: Not a fan of Plan B's music but I have to say his film debut is very well made and has some nice touches using his music to tell the characters stories, plus the cinematography for a debut is pretty damn impressive. It's just a shame the film is so fucking depressing and similar to the godawful Tyrannosaur wallows in its misery. Although unlike that film I actually thought this one was very good and would recommend folks check it out. I would like to see what Ben Drew can do with a less cliched narrative in the future though. 4/5

AMERICAN HORROR STORY: SEASON 1... I started waatching it when it aired on FXUK but gave up about episode 3 as I found it quite boring. Now S2 is almost upon us and it actually looks rather interesting I decided to buy the boxset and have a run through of it. I have just watched Halloween - Part 2 and so far it's better than I expected although it does appear to be nothing more than a glossy ghost story. However, I was seriously happy to see the gorgeous Zachary Quinto as part of a dysfunctional gay couple although no lip locking or action, so some disappointment there. I realise he is also in S2 playing a different character. I'm glad i've given it a second chance though and will report back once I have watched it all.

< Message edited by losthighway -- 19/10/2012 10:41:30 AM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14474
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 19/10/2012 12:56:50 PM   
Platter

 

Posts: 114
Joined: 14/8/2010
Prometheus (2012)

David Lynch's 2001: A Space Odyssey.
I enjoyed it but my brother thought it was pointless, as in it was a story that didn't need to be told. He liked the film well enough, but he wasn't overly taken with it.

The horror movie elements didn't really work as I thought the film was curiously lacking in tension. I felt no nervousness when watching it. There were a few mild jumps.

It takes a bit to get going but I had no problem with the unrushed beginning as I like space exploration style stuff. It was mysterious and interesting.

The acting was very variable. Only Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender and Charlize Theron had decent characters to work with. They also gave the only good acting performances. Everyone thinks Michael Fassbender steals the film as David, but I thought Charlize Theron was the most interesting character. She got to play a coward in a role that usually wouldn't be portrayed in that way.

Guy Pearce in old age make up didn't quite sit right with me.

Kate Dickie further confirms my theory that it is impossible to act with a broad Scottish accent. It always sounds phoney and mannered in films.

Idris Elba as the ship captain felt miscast. I can't escape the feeling he was great in The Wire, but has been pretty poor in everything else. He strikes me as a one trick actor who only had the one role in him.

I just didn't feel many of the actors really fitted their roles. It wasn't distracting or anything, but I would say it's one of the worst cast films I've seen.

It's a good looking movie but it's not a knockout. I think the production design and the creature concepts were rather prosaic, fairly unimaginative and unsurprising. I liked that the lighting was rarely fully dark. It's very nice to be able to actually see what the camera is looking at.

***BIG SPOILERS START***

I didn't care for the Noomi Rapace birth sequence. The whole thing was poorly handled, almost like it was no big deal getting infected, having surgery while awake to remove it and then escaping from it. No one chased after her, no one checked on her or asked questions about her or the alien. She also walks away from it as if she only has an upset stomach. The whole section was just weirdly done to the point of incompetence. The lack of proportional reaction to what was a very big deal destroys the credibility of the scene. In my opinion they should have just deleted this whole section (and altered the ending since this alien wouldn't be in the spaceship anymore).

Now that I think about it, did she kill Kate Dickie when she escaped? I don't remember her being in the movie after that scene.

The film raises a mountain of questions about the alien life cycle. How do these creatures connect to the ones in the Alien series? I have no idea. It's all pretty much new stuff. I feel there might be some incoherence and logic lapses. The ending for example with the fully grown traditional alien that bursts out of the Space Jockey is puzzling. Why no intermediate stage this time? I suspect the makers have little idea how these creatures join up with those to come. There is a strong hint of random cool stuff happening with no explanations.

Why does one of the crew comeback from the dead as a super strong humanoid monster? I have no idea. Again I don't think the makers can answer this question.

Also there are questions over the motivations of the Space Jockey race. I don't think the makers have much more of an idea than the audience does.

How did David know how to infect a crew member? Why did he do it? What was all that black liquid?

What was happening in the first scene with the alien by the waterfall?

Also a lot of people complained that it's clearly only part one as the whole thing feels like one big set up for a sequel. I feel that the story was told to completion. What happens immediately next isn't essential to know. I think people expected proper solid answers. The lack of them makes them assume a sequel will provide them. I wouldn't expect a follow up film to give any more answers than this one does. So no, I didn't feel it was half a story with the rest still to come.

I'm puzzled by how all this all connects to Alien (1979). Is this the same ship and planet that they investigate in Alien? I assume it is, but the space jockey died in the escape ship, not in the control room?

***SPOILERS END***

The film throws a bunch of weird stuff at the viewer and then makes no attempt to explain any of it. It's best to think of it as David Lynch's version of 2001: A Space Odyssey. I think they were deliberately making a movie that was meant to be an enigma full of unanswerable questions. They want you to be confused, to be asking questions. Maybe I'm thick? Or maybe I'm too lazy to try and work it out? Either way, I don't think the film has any answers. My advice is to stop trying to intellectualise what you are seeing and just go along for the ride. Weird unfathomable alien things are happening. Maybe we're not meant to understand it.

I liked it. At first I thought it was going to be like Alien: Resurrection, which I liked while watching it and then days later found myself slagging it off as a load of rubbish. Now, after writing this review, I feel the movie was quite substantial.

8 out of 10 stars

< Message edited by Platter -- 19/10/2012 3:07:41 PM >


_____________________________

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 losthighway)
Post #: 14475
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 19/10/2012 2:02:16 PM   
Nexus Wookie


Posts: 2333
Joined: 24/9/2011
From: the Godcity
quote:

ORIGINAL: Platter

Prometheus (2012)

David Lynch's 2001: A Space Odyssey.
I enjoyed it but my brother thought it was pointless, as in it was a story that didn't need to be told. He liked the film well enough, but he wasn't overly taken with it.

The horror movie elements didn't really work as I thought the film was curiously lacking in tension. I felt no nervousness when watching it. There were a few mild jumps.

It takes a bit to get going but I had no problems with the unrushed beginning as I like space exploration style stuff. It was mysterious and interesting.

The acting was very variable. Only Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender and Charlize Theron had decent characters to work with. They also gave the only good acting performances. Charlize Theron was the most interesting character in my opinion as she got to play a coward in a role that usually wouldn't be portrayed in that way.

Guy Pearce in old age make up didn't quite sit right with me.

Kate Dickie further confirms my theory that it is impossible to act with a broad Scottish accent. It always sounds phoney and mannered in films.

Idris Elba as the ship captain felt miscast. I can't escape the feeling he was great in The Wire, but has been pretty poor in everything else. He strikes me as a one trick actor who only had the one role in him.

I just didn't feel any of the actors really fitted their roles. It wasn't distracting or anything, but I would say it's one of the worst cast films I've seen.

It's a good looking movie but it's not a knockout. I think the production design and the creature concepts were rather prosaic, fairly unimaginative and unsurprising. I liked that the lighting was rarely fully dark. It's very nice to be able to actually see what the camera is looking at.

***BIG SPOILERS START***

I didn't care for the Noomi Rapace birth sequence. The whole thing was poorly handled, almost like it was no big deal getting infected, having surgery while awake to remove it and then escaping from it. No one chased after her, no one checked on her or asked questions about her or the alien. She also walks away from it as if she only has an upset stomach. The whole section was just weirdly done to the point of incompetence. In my opinion they should have just deleted this whole section (and altered the ending since this alien wouldn't be in the spaceship anymore).

Now that i think about it, did she kill Kate Dickie when she escaped? I don't remember her being in the movie after that scene.

The film raises a mountain of questions about the alien life cycle. How do these creatures connect to the ones in the Alien series? I have no idea. It's all pretty much new stuff. I feel there might be some incoherence and logic lapses. The ending for example with the fully grown traditional alien that bursts out of the Space Jockey is puzzling. Why no intermediate stage this time? I suspect the makers have little idea how these creatures join up with those to come. There is a strong hint of random cool stuff happening with no explanations.

Why does one of the crew comeback from the dead as a super strong humanoid monster? I have no idea. Again I don't think the makers can answer this question.

Also there are questions over the motivations of the Space Jockey race. I don't think the makers have much more of an idea than the audience does.

How did David know how to infect a crew member? Why did he do it? What was all that black liquid?

What was happening in the first scene with the alien by the waterfall?

Also a lot of people complained that it's clearly only part one as the whole thing feels like one big set up for a sequel. I feel that the story was told to completion. What happens immediately next isn't essential to know. I think people expect proper solid answers and this in particular makes them think a sequel is what it's all about (and I wouldn't expect a follow up film to give any more answers).

I'm puzzled by how all this all connects to Alien (1979). Is this the same ship and planet that they investigate in Alien? I assume it is but the space jockey died in the escape ship, not in the control room?

***SPOILERS END***

The film throws a bunch of weird stuff at the viewer and then makes no attempt to explain any of it. It's best to think of it as David Lynch's version of 2001: A Space Odyssey. I think they were deliberately making a movie that was meant to be an enigma full of unanswerable questions. They want you to be confused, to be asking questions. Maybe I'm thick? Or maybe I'm too lazy to try and work it out? Either way, I don't think the film has any answers. My advice is to stop trying to intellectualise what you are seeing and just go along for the ride. Weird unfathomable alien things are happening. Maybe we're not meant to understand it.

I liked it. At first I thought it was going to be like Alien: Resurrection, which I liked while watching it and then days later found myself slagging it off as a load of rubbish. Now, after writing this review, I feel the movie was quite substantial.

8 out of 10 stars


No its not the same ship and planet that we see in Alien. I was a little confused too on first viewing, but it was cleared afterwards for me in the Prometheus thread.

I really liked this picture. Yes its not as spectacular as the original or its sequel and contrary to the negatives towards the third and fourth film - I quite liked them too. I think the extended cut of Alien 3 is a really good film. A gothic, sci-fi. And Alien Ressurection was the first Alien film I saw, aned still remains a favourite of mine. Darius 'Se7en' Khondji's cinematography is superb. Theres a sickly, almost sepia toned feel to it - the film which it most reminded me in terms of feel and look was The Mission. I loved the production design and the humour in it. Its not as bad a film as a lot of fanboys make out!

Back to Prometheus, I thought that it was visually impressive. The opening scenes of the waterfall, and the Engineer's mothership, and the robed Engineer standing there was really breath-taking. In terms of the look and feel, if the first Alien film was Giger and Moebius inspired, this felt more H.P Lovecraft inspired, in terms of the setting and the creature design, especially the giant facehugger.

Its not a masterpiece - far from it, but even in its still a lot more daring and grown up than all the 12 rated family friendly trash we see. I admit getting Lindeloff on board was a big mistake. But its too late now, I think time will be more kinder to it. And I would love to see where a sequel will go.

As for Elba, I have to disagree with your point. I think he's a terrific actor. Maybe his film outputs of late haven't been too good, but he was excellent in the BBC drama 'Luther'. I'd love to see him do more roles in that mould, It really suits him. I thought he was okay in Prometheus -but he was great in Thor!

< Message edited by Nexus Wookie -- 19/10/2012 2:05:48 PM >


_____________________________

My blog: http://nexuswookie.wordpress.com/

(in reply to Platter)
Post #: 14476
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 19/10/2012 3:14:33 PM   
Platter

 

Posts: 114
Joined: 14/8/2010
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie
As for Elba, I have to disagree with your point. I think he's a terrific actor. Maybe his film outputs of late haven't been too good, but he was excellent in the BBC drama 'Luther'. I'd love to see him do more roles in that mould, It really suits him. I thought he was okay in Prometheus -but he was great in Thor!


He was AWFUL in Thor.

By coincidence I bought a copy of Homicide (the book that spawned The Wire and Homicide: Life On The Streets) for someone today for £2.

PS I received a seven film Blu-Ray Stanley Kubrick box set today (£22.25 from Amazon's Lightening Deal). I want to warn everyone in advance that I will probably review them, and I'm not someone who buys into his genius reputation. People WILL get angry.

_____________________________

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 Nexus Wookie)
Post #: 14477
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 19/10/2012 3:40:41 PM   
Nexus Wookie


Posts: 2333
Joined: 24/9/2011
From: the Godcity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Platter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie
As for Elba, I have to disagree with your point. I think he's a terrific actor. Maybe his film outputs of late haven't been too good, but he was excellent in the BBC drama 'Luther'. I'd love to see him do more roles in that mould, It really suits him. I thought he was okay in Prometheus -but he was great in Thor!


He was AWFUL in Thor.

By coincidence I bought a copy of Homicide (the book that spawned The Wire and Homicide: Life On The Streets) for someone today for £2.

PS I received a seven film Blu-Ray Stanley Kubrick box set today (£22.25 from Amazon's Lightening Deal). I want to warn everyone in advance that I will probably review them, and I'm not someone who buys into his genius reputation. People WILL get angry.


I have the Stanley Kubrick 10 disc special ediition boxset and its absolutely brilliant. The 2 disc set for 2001 is awesome, as is Eyes Wide Shut which is one of my favourite Kubrick films. Just a question Platter, if you don't buy into Kubrick's genius then why buy his films? Seems odd that.

_____________________________

My blog: http://nexuswookie.wordpress.com/

(in reply to Platter)
Post #: 14478
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 19/10/2012 3:47:54 PM   
Platter

 

Posts: 114
Joined: 14/8/2010
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Platter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie
As for Elba, I have to disagree with your point. I think he's a terrific actor. Maybe his film outputs of late haven't been too good, but he was excellent in the BBC drama 'Luther'. I'd love to see him do more roles in that mould, It really suits him. I thought he was okay in Prometheus -but he was great in Thor!


He was AWFUL in Thor.

By coincidence I bought a copy of Homicide (the book that spawned The Wire and Homicide: Life On The Streets) for someone today for £2.

PS I received a seven film Blu-Ray Stanley Kubrick box set today (£22.25 from Amazon's Lightening Deal). I want to warn everyone in advance that I will probably review them, and I'm not someone who buys into his genius reputation. People WILL get angry.


I have the Stanley Kubrick 10 disc special ediition boxset and its absolutely brilliant. The 2 disc set for 2001 is awesome, as is Eyes Wide Shut which is one of my favourite Kubrick films. Just a question Platter, if you don't buy into Kubrick's genius then why buy his films? Seems odd that.


I don't particularly like his movies, but I find them to be interesting. Even fascinating. No matter how much I hate Eyes Wide Shut, I'm still interested in it.

Plus I recently had a birthday, was bunged some money and now I'm spending it. I'm allowing myself to be stupid with my cash at the moment.

----------------------------------------------

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Perhaps the slowest and most overlong film ever made, 3 Jan 2010
I first watched this film with my brother on DVD. It was so slow and boring that we were not on our knees praying for the film to end, but for each and every overlong scene in turn to finish. As it was Kubrick's first film in 12 years we sat through it all. We loathed it. A tiny 40 minute non-story bloated out by the slowest pacing ever to create a two and a half hour monster. The uneventful story itself is also revealed to be tiny with very low dramatic stakes. What is the point of this film?

Some critics have the audacity to call it a flawed masterpiece. Flawed piece of [censored] is too kind.

The best thing I can say about it is that some of the lights have a nice burned into the film-stock look to them. Yes, that is literally the best thing about the film. Curiously the exact same complaints and minor praise can be applied to his 1975 historical dud Barry Lyndon. Another incredibly slow, overlong, dramatically inert monster with pretty looking lighting created by real candles (a technical marvel at the time).

It's astonishing to think that it took about twenty years to adapt from a novella, a year and a half to film and a year to edit (my numbers might not be super accurate). The film could easily have been filmed within a month like a normal film. When I saw the extended argument in the apartment in the film Le Mépris (aka Contempt) by Godard, I thought, that's it. That is how they should have shot Eyes Wide Shut. They should have just quickly and messily shot a semi-improvised deliberately pretentious film over a few weeks for less than a million dollars. As it's so cheap who cares if no one beyond a few film critics see it and roast it? Instead they had to make a big budget production out of such slight material.

For reasons of masochism I have returned to the movie two more times over the last nine years. And it remains a colossal dud. If you accept the painful inert pacing and the tiny storyline then it's not too painful, but it's still far from being even borderline okay.

I decided to try something a little bit out of the box in an attempt to make it watchable for my fourth viewing. I decided to watch the whole thing at x2 fast forward. 95% of the dialogue remained intelligible, and the 5% I didn't pick up I either didn't care about or I could work out the gist from the dialogue surrounding it. This way the awful draggy pace will be picked up and the running time halved to a more realistic 75 minutes.

And the film was bearable. The crap story and banal dialogue etc didn't suddenly burst into life, but at least things moved at a reasonable non-patience trying speed. For the majority of the film I was thinking it was a tepid two star movie.

And then the last post-orgy stretch turned up. If anything, the film SLOWED DOWN even further as Tom Cruise revisited the previous scenes. Seriously, what film slows down as it reaches its climax? A normal film is always gathering speed so that by the end it's racing towards the end. Kubrick and the Coen Brothers are about the only filmmakers I can think of who start slow and stay at that exact same pace from start to finish. It's just wrong.

The Coen Brothers movies used to drive me up the wall with the slow pace of all of their films until I learned to expect, and accept it. Fargo for example was such a horrible viewing experience first time I saw it as it took forever to get anywhere. Now whenever I put one of their films on I say to myself to expect that it will be slow from start to finish. If you expect it to take forever to get anywhere then it can't frustrate you as it's exactly what you expected (it's not the traffic jam that's making you angry, it's your expectations of getting to your destination quickly that is causing you to lose your temper).

I can sit happily through almost any Coen Brothers film now, as long as it's actually a good film like Fargo, but Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut is way beyond the pale. Even at x2 speed the film drags at its climax. So the two star review ended up as one star because the story really is so small and insignificant and the pace is too patience trying. As entertainment it really, really fails. As "art" it fails because it's rubbish with nothing to say that can be mistaken as profound, unlike 2001, which at least suggests or hints at something being said.

Some arthouse film snobs say that some films are not meant to be entertaining, and work on a different level. I don't buy it. A film is meant as entertainment. If it doesn't engage on some sort of entertainment level then it's not very good. Well I'll happily be the philistine who stands up and says that Kubrick is a so-so director with a knack for finding interesting novels to adapt and then stepping back into the limelight and allowing others to big him up in order to create a legendary reputation.

Two of my favourite films deal with mildly similar subject matter. For a superior viewing experience I fully recommend Belle de Jour and Les Choses Secrets.

1 out of 5 stars (probably 1 out of 10 stars)

4 Jan 2010
Yesterday I re-read a substantial chunk of Frederick Rafael's memoir of writing Eyes Wide Shut, titled Eyes Wide Open. He indicates that he tried to write a denser, funnier, more detailed film with semi-interesting characters. And he would hand his drafts in and have Kubrick ask him to remove any new details not in the novella, junk anything resembling humour and flat line the characters to make them as nondescript and empty as possible*. Kubrick was also not keen for a long time in having the events at the start connecting with the ending in order to create another shapeless random film like Full Metal Jacket. He took a lot of convincing to bring Sydney Pollack's character back for the climax. And the "reveal" billiard-room scene that Rafael wrote was dismissed as too Bogart-Greenstreet, so it was blanded down with each new draft until it was just more banal nuts and bolts dialogue.

I get the impression that if the film had been made from one of Rafael's earlier drafts then a much more fuller, more entertaining and substantial film would have been made. He tried to bring life to it and Kubrick sucked it all out.

Rafael seems to think Kubrick deliberately removed anything interesting and quirky in order to create as blank a script as possible so he could later apply his directorial imagination to it. Unfortunately he had no imagination beyond how to light it. The problem with a good script, according to Rafael, is that it usually directs itself. There's an obvious way to shoot it and so the director ends up being told what to do by default. Kubrick preferred to have no obligations such as these.

So I think it's fair to say that Kubrick sucked more life out of the film than any other director would have.

A shame the book ends before the film was released so I don't know what the screenwriter thinks of the finished film.

* For example there was a fascinating idea for a line of dialogue. Kidman asks Cruise if he has ever fantasied that she was a boy? A show stopping line but Kubrick dismissed it straight away.

< Message edited by Platter -- 19/10/2012 3:50:11 PM >


_____________________________

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 Nexus Wookie)
Post #: 14479
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 19/10/2012 5:38:57 PM   
Nexus Wookie


Posts: 2333
Joined: 24/9/2011
From: the Godcity
I respect your review for Eyes Wide Shut, as its your own views and that is what you feel.. But I have to disagree - I think Eyes Wide Shut is a fascinating film! I won't bother with a review now, as I did one on the favourite film's thread, but I love it because it is slow burning.

I love the score, I feel it is simply exquisite, the scene when Cruise's doctor walks into the 'Masonic' ritual, and the deeply unsettling music we hear - I found it captivating. Or when Cruise is being followed by a mysterious man, the piano key's almost like a charcter in itself. Or the opening music - its just superb.

One of the criticism's levelled at it at the time, was the fact that New York didn't look believable. And as Scorsese also pointed out - its not meant to. We know it was filmed on a set, and the New York we see which is alien and yet familiar at the same time suggests that maybe Cruise is dreaming this. It does have a dreamy feel to it - the film. And deals with a lot of issues - sexuality, infidelity - but in my view that is a smokescreen to the bigger picture.

I thought Cruise and Kidman put in an excellent performance. Its a really cold, slow burning piece which not everyone will like - its really unsettling in places too. But I honestly feel it is an underrated masterpiece. And a fitting film for Kubrick to leave before his death (of course I would loved to have seen his version of A.I - a shame he couldn't be around to see it realised).

_____________________________

My blog: http://nexuswookie.wordpress.com/

(in reply to Platter)
Post #: 14480
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 19/10/2012 6:02:11 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6742
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Platter

Prometheus (2012)

David Lynch's 2001: A Space Odyssey.

I'm puzzled by how all this all connects to Alien (1979). Is this the same ship and planet that they investigate in Alien? I assume it is but the space jockey died in the escape ship, not in the control room?

***SPOILERS END***

The film throws a bunch of weird stuff at the viewer and then makes no attempt to explain any of it. It's best to think of it as David Lynch's version of 2001: A Space Odyssey. I think they were deliberately making a movie that was meant to be an enigma full of unanswerable questions. They want you to be confused, to be asking questions. Maybe I'm thick? Or maybe I'm too lazy to try and work it out? Either way, I don't think the film has any answers. My advice is to stop trying to intellectualise what you are seeing and just go along for the ride. Weird unfathomable alien things are happening. Maybe we're not meant to understand it.

I liked it. At first I thought it was going to be like Alien: Resurrection, which I liked while watching it and then days later found myself slagging it off as a load of rubbish. Now, after writing this review, I feel the movie was quite substantial.

8 out of 10 stars


No its not the same ship and planet that we see in Alien. I was a little confused too on first viewing, but it was cleared afterwards for me in the Prometheus thread.

I really liked this picture. Yes its not as spectacular as the original or its sequel and contrary to the negatives towards the third and fourth film - I quite liked them too. I think the extended cut of Alien 3 is a really good film. A gothic, sci-fi. And Alien Ressurection was the first Alien film I saw, aned still remains a favourite of mine. Darius 'Se7en' Khondji's cinematography is superb. Theres a sickly, almost sepia toned feel to it - the film which it most reminded me in terms of feel and look was The Mission. I loved the production design and the humour in it. Its not as bad a film as a lot of fanboys make out!

Back to Prometheus, I thought that it was visually impressive. The opening scenes of the waterfall, and the Engineer's mothership, and the robed Engineer standing there was really breath-taking. In terms of the look and feel, if the first Alien film was Giger and Moebius inspired, this felt more H.P Lovecraft inspired, in terms of the setting and the creature design, especially the giant facehugger.

Its not a masterpiece - far from it, but even in its still a lot more daring and grown up than all the 12 rated family friendly trash we see. I admit getting Lindeloff on board was a big mistake. But its too late now, I think time will be more kinder to it. And I would love to see where a sequel will go.

As for Elba, I have to disagree with your point. I think he's a terrific actor. Maybe his film outputs of late haven't been too good, but he was excellent in the BBC drama 'Luther'. I'd love to see him do more roles in that mould, It really suits him. I thought he was okay in Prometheus -but he was great in Thor!

If Lynch had of made this we'd still be scratching our heads,and i though the cast where all well picked,just seems to of upset a few people.My mates felt that the crew where a bunch of morons who would never have been sent into space.But i think they missed a very importain point,the company paid for the trip,they owned it,they did not care,and like most corporations they look to save money where they can.Like in A L I E N the crew are expendable,the company just wants to make money out of the meeting with the Engineers??and eternal life?? for there leader.It falls short of A L I E N and Blade Runner as a classic,and i gave it 9/10 for that reason,and i've now watched it 4 times and still feel the same about it.but i believe like Blade Runner that was disliked by public and critics at the time of it's first release,and 2001 it may become a cult classic in latter years,and i look forward to part 2,as this i think will link with A L I E N.Again as i said also in my own review it is not an ALIEN prequal it is another story based in the world of Alien,and if watched that way it looks and sounds awesome,and as has been said is a real head scratcher,though not oon the Lynch scale or 2001,which it pays homage too in more than one scene.
quote:


Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Perhaps the slowest and most overlong film ever made, 3 Jan 2010
I first watched this film with my brother on DVD. It was so slow and boring that we were not on our knees praying for the film to end, but for each and every overlong scene in turn to finish. As it was Kubrick's first film in 12 years we sat through it all. We loathed it. A tiny 40 minute non-story bloated out by the slowest pacing ever to create a two and a half hour monster. The uneventful story itself is also revealed to be tiny with very low dramatic stakes. What is the point of this film?

Some critics have the audacity to call it a flawed masterpiece. Flawed piece of [censored] is too kind.

The best thing I can say about it is that some of the lights have a nice burned into the film-stock look to them. Yes, that is literally the best thing about the film. Curiously the exact same complaints and minor praise can be applied to his 1975 historical dud Barry Lyndon. Another incredibly slow, overlong, dramatically inert monster with pretty looking lighting created by real candles (a technical marvel at the time).

Some arthouse film snobs say that some films are not meant to be entertaining, and work on a different level. I don't buy it. A film is meant as entertainment. If it doesn't engage on some sort of entertainment level then it's not very good. Well I'll happily be the philistine who stands up and says that Kubrick is a so-so director with a knack for finding interesting novels to adapt and then stepping back into the limelight and allowing others to big him up in order to create a legendary reputation.

Two of my favourite films deal with mildly similar subject matter. For a superior viewing experience I fully recommend Belle de Jour and Les Choses Secrets.

1 out of 5 stars (probably 1 out of 10 stars)


Now this will cause a stir,and though this is a weak last film from a master film maker,it is still mind teaser of a film about love sex and loss.I found it to be very dark, creepy, and even unsetting a unique if flawed cult classic,in fact there are too many words to describe it. Very intelligent and like 2001 full of great images if a bit dated looking in style, and it boasts stunning performances from Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman who delivered big time in this film,and it probley helped wreak there marrage. A slow burner thriller that in truth is more drama, but still effective even now after all these years,and part of my collection of Kubrick films.It's one of those movies you have to watch more than once,it been counted as one of his weaker movies by a lot of critics too,but i think it's a lot better than what Platter has discribed.7/10

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Nexus Wookie)
Post #: 14481
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 19/10/2012 6:12:43 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6742
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie

I respect your review for Eyes Wide Shut, as its your own views and that is what you feel.. But I have to disagree - I think Eyes Wide Shut is a fascinating film! I won't bother with a review now, as I did one on the favourite film's thread, but I love it because it is slow burning.

I love the score, I feel it is simply exquisite, the scene when Cruise's doctor walks into the 'Masonic' ritual, and the deeply unsettling music we hear - I found it captivating. Or when Cruise is being followed by a mysterious man, the piano key's almost like a charcter in itself. Or the opening music - its just superb.

One of the criticism's levelled at it at the time, was the fact that New York didn't look believable. And as Scorsese also pointed out - its not meant to. We know it was filmed on a set, and the New York we see which is alien and yet familiar at the same time suggests that maybe Cruise is dreaming this. It does have a dreamy feel to it - the film. And deals with a lot of issues - sexuality, infidelity - but in my view that is a smokescreen to the bigger picture.

I thought Cruise and Kidman put in an excellent performance. Its a really cold, slow burning piece which not everyone will like - its really unsettling in places too. But I honestly feel it is an underrated masterpiece. And a fitting film for Kubrick to leave before his death (of course I would loved to have seen his version of A.I - a shame he couldn't be around to see it realised).

If you can dig out your review,i'd love to read it,and what better place to post it.On the subject of A.I remmber he handed the project over to Spelberg,because he belived he was the man for the job,and did act as producer in the background,keeping in touch with script changes and even seeing out takes.Steven himself belives he kept to Kubricks vision,and i agree it looks at times so much like the master himself was directing except for the ending??.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Nexus Wookie)
Post #: 14482
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 19/10/2012 6:20:36 PM   
Nexus Wookie


Posts: 2333
Joined: 24/9/2011
From: the Godcity

quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie

I respect your review for Eyes Wide Shut, as its your own views and that is what you feel.. But I have to disagree - I think Eyes Wide Shut is a fascinating film! I won't bother with a review now, as I did one on the favourite film's thread, but I love it because it is slow burning.

I love the score, I feel it is simply exquisite, the scene when Cruise's doctor walks into the 'Masonic' ritual, and the deeply unsettling music we hear - I found it captivating. Or when Cruise is being followed by a mysterious man, the piano key's almost like a charcter in itself. Or the opening music - its just superb.

One of the criticism's levelled at it at the time, was the fact that New York didn't look believable. And as Scorsese also pointed out - its not meant to. We know it was filmed on a set, and the New York we see which is alien and yet familiar at the same time suggests that maybe Cruise is dreaming this. It does have a dreamy feel to it - the film. And deals with a lot of issues - sexuality, infidelity - but in my view that is a smokescreen to the bigger picture.

I thought Cruise and Kidman put in an excellent performance. Its a really cold, slow burning piece which not everyone will like - its really unsettling in places too. But I honestly feel it is an underrated masterpiece. And a fitting film for Kubrick to leave before his death (of course I would loved to have seen his version of A.I - a shame he couldn't be around to see it realised).

If you can dig out your review,i'd love to read it,and what better place to post it.On the subject of A.I remmber he handed the project over to Spelberg,because he belived he was the man for the job,and did act as producer in the background,keeping in touch with script changes and even seeing out takes.Steven himself belives he kept to Kubricks vision,and i agree it looks at times so much like the master himself was directing except for the ending??.


I will do evil bill! And. I have to agree with you on A.I - I felt Spielberg kept that Kubrickesque feel to it. That cold feel. But still a heart-warming tale in my view and one of Spielberg's best. The ending? Its a bit barmy I agree, but its not as bad as what I thought on my first viewing!

_____________________________

My blog: http://nexuswookie.wordpress.com/

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 14483
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 19/10/2012 7:18:42 PM   
Nexus Wookie


Posts: 2333
Joined: 24/9/2011
From: the Godcity
Here you go evil bill (I've edited the review a little, mainly spelling corrections and some minor additions)...

EYES WIDE SHUT

Eyes wide shut is without doubt, a remarkable feat in virtuso film-makng by one of cinema's true greats.

The more time passes, the more one can feel the vast hole left in cinema by the absence of Stanley Kubrick, a master story-teller and an auteur of technical mastery of film, he is one of the true masters of film directing. Over the years he has contributed so much to cinema, in turn shaping the way we view films. Who can forget the voice of Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey? The monolith in the desert? The bone turning into a spaceship via one of the greatest jump cuts composed on film? Blood gushing out of the lift doors in The Shining? The brilliant tracking shot in Full Metal Jacket - these images have been seered on our minds. They are iconic images, images that will last throughout celluloid history.

All above films are masterpieces in their own right. But I will focus on Eyes Wide Shut, my personal favourite of Kubrick's films.

Many regarded Eyes Wide Shut as Kubricks folly when it first came out, a vanity project that backfired. But as time passes, many have come to realise that the opposite is true. Indeed, it is one of my favourite Kubrick films altogether! We have everything that is a trademark of Kubrick, the coldness, the bravura tracking shots, the music- but what one fails to realise is that his last movie was not only an erotic, psycho -sexual masterpiece. There was more to the film than meets the eyes.

Our protagonist (Tom Cruise) goes walkabout one night in New York after an 'argument' with his wife (Nicole Kidman). He encounters some odd characters on his travels. A prostitute who is not all she appears to be, some odd people at a costume shop. He then bumps into an old friend in a jazz club, who gives him a card with a secret password to a private 'party'. He goes there draped in the compulsory costume and enters a gothic, sexually charged dangerous world.

The scene of the 'masonic' ritual is my favourite throughout the film. The music is truly remarkable, it is like a masonic chant that captivates the viewer. It was almost a hypnotizing experience when I first saw it.

I was simply in awe of the music not only at that moment, but also during the scenes of people in masks, engaged in all manner of sexual debauchery while others watched. But this is where you need to stay alert because it is not just a party for grown ups, it is a sort of ritual. A sinister cult ritual. Our hero is found out and his life is in danger, but a woman exchanges her life for his. He leaves but is followed by shadowy men. He wants to look more into this matter but is stopped by unseen forces. Towards the end he is given a note with a threat on his life. He goes home to his wife, truly shaken from his experiences and realises the value of his relationship with his wife. Then a classic line is uttered that sums up what he has been missing.

On the outside this film seems like one man's sexual awakening or odyssey, but there are more deeper issues at play. And one needs to keep their eyes wide open to see the true message. Anyhow, this is my thought on what I feel the story really is about; Look at the people present at the party, we see Cruise's doctor friend (an excellent turn from the late Sydney Pollack) people in high positions gathered here. It is a secret society akin to the Illuminati (though they remain nameless in the film). Our hero unwittingly discovers their rituals and his life is in danger henceforth. He is warned by his doctor friend not to be too inquisitive. He is followed by sinister men who keep an eye on him - finally threatened. This is where the title of the film is most relevant, because even us the viewer watch this film oblivious to the true nature of the story. Our eyes are wide shut. And what this film is asking us is to open our eyes, and see the true meaning of this film. Its not (all) about sexual awakenings; its also a warning to our everyman Cruise of the dangers of asking too many questions,and a brief insight into the sinister world of secret societies.

You have to view it more than once to fully appreciate what Stanley Kubrick was saying. Things which you may have missed on first vieweing. Just listen to the piano notes in perfect syncronization with the mood of the film esp when Cruise is being followed on the streets at night by a mysterious stranger.

There are a lot of themes running in this film, for instance, love, sex , fate....and choices. Just look at the scene when our protagonist meets the prosititute. He is just a whisker away from sleeping with her, but he relents. In effect this choice will save his life because later on we learn she (the prostitute) is HIV positive.

One of the criticism's levelled at the time was that there was not enough sex in it. People who went to the cinema expecting an orgy of sex missed the point entirely, and I include so called critics into that fold too. It is about sex ....and a lot of other things. Another criticism was that New York didn't look real enough, (we know Stanley shot it in England). Another master storyteller, Martin Scorsese replied that that was the whole point; the New York you see on screen is not meant to be the New York of real, its a different sort of New York - almost like a 'dream' version. And that was what Stanley was aiming for.
Sometimes, a film will not be seen as a masterpiece
immediately. Over time, people watch it, re-watch it, maybe change their views, and start to realise what an incredible film it is. There are films that need to mature to be fully appreciated, like Blade Runner, Once Upon a time in America and so on. And I sincerely feel that this film also falls into that box.

In conclusion, Eyes Wide Shut is a superb picture. A fitting last film from the enigma, the master, the legend that was Stanley Kubrick. There will never be another film maker like him.

9/10


< Message edited by Nexus Wookie -- 19/10/2012 8:34:23 PM >


_____________________________

My blog: http://nexuswookie.wordpress.com/

(in reply to Nexus Wookie)
Post #: 14484
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 20/10/2012 12:56:30 PM   
Nexus Wookie


Posts: 2333
Joined: 24/9/2011
From: the Godcity

THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST (1988)

Scorsese's underrated masterpiece?



To me, Martin Scorsese is a god amongst film directors.

Countless generations have been thrilled by the cinema of Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, and mesmerised by the operatic story telling of Francis Ford Coppola. But amongst the 'golden generation' that emerged in the 70's, consisting of all above mentioned auteurs, and also including Brian De Palma, Scorsese and Spielberg stand out as the most consistent, which is no surprise as both are my most favourite directors working in film today.

The Last Temptation of Christ is maybe a lesser known picture in his impressive repetoire, but nonetheless it is still a vital film - and one which I love. It is based on a fictional novel by Nikos Kazantzakis.

Note that I have underlined the word fictional, because when it was released, Scorsese was 'crucified' by nearly all denomination of the Christian faith. They saw it as an attack on Christ. But that was where they failed to see the bigger picture. Scorsese himself is a Catholic, and would in no way go out to intentionally court controversy. Indeed, before any action is registered on screen, it is clearly stated that the film is a work of fiction. It is nothing more than a story and NOT a commentary on the life of the real Christ.

But the damage was done. Which is a shame as this film is I feel a hugely underrated masterpiece. Not to mention one of my favourite Scorsese films. The story revolves around a fictional Christ played by the excellent Willem Defoe, and his battle to resist the urge of tempation. He is always questioning things and self doubting himself. In the begining we see him making crosses for the Roman's. Judas played by the excellent Harvey Keitel walks in and scolds him for his trade ''you're a Jew killing Jew'' he cries in disgust, ''You're a coward! How will you ever pay for your sins?'', ''With my life'' cries Defoe. The Judas in this film is very different from the one every Christian was taught about in school. He is sympathetic and supportive of Defoe's Christ. On the contrary - Jesus is weak at first, and find's it difficult to resist the the urges of worldly trappings. He knows that God has chosen him for a higher purpose, he makes the crosses almost in retaliation so God can leave him alone. He soon leaves to be on his own. One night as he is alone in the desert, the devil comes a-calling in what for me is one of the stand out scenes in the film.

There are excellent supporting acts from Harvey Keitel as I mentioned as a sympathetic Judas, and the terrific Harry Dean Stanton as the zealous Paul/Saul. All the aforementioned are simply superb in their roles, as well as Barbara Hershey as Mary Magdeline.

The story is really about man's everlasting battle with the sins of the flesh and the movie is an excellent allegory of that. Our fictional Christ has to resist the temptation of the devil, his last temptation so to speak, hence the title.

My favourite part of the film is the final third when we see Defoe's Christ give into tempation as he hangs on the cross. A seemingly angelic girl appears and says God has forgiven him and he is now free. He takes her hand and is led to a life he craves; he marries, has children and grows old. On his deathbed he is visited by Judas and is duly reminded of his role, that he is the chosen one. 'That angel is satan' bellows Judas, infuriated. And then our fictional Christ realises his folly, and seeks God's forgiveness, when lo and behold - he wakes up and realises he was on the cross all along! His 'life' was nothing more than a dream! Satan has failed, and our fictional Christ (or everyman) has triumphed over temptation!

This dream section is what caused the outrage amongst Christians. But this is without doubt the most beautifully constructed, and realised chapter in the film. It's like A Wonderful Life but with Christ instead of Jimmy Stewart, as he witnesses what the world would be like if he did not die on the cross. And its my favourite part of the film!

Peter Gabriel's amazing score is another reason why The Last Tempation of Christ is a triumph; it is very 'arabesque' in tone, with drum beats and flute. His opening score alone is absolutely breath-taking. You think you are witnessing another historical religious picture - but then come the brum beats and you realise this is one Jesus film the like of which you have not seen before. It is one of my favourite sound tracks alongside such gems as Blade Runner (Vangelis), Raging Bull (Pietro Mascagni) and The Mission (Ennio Morricone). It is brilliant and has to be heard to be believed.

The Last Temptation of Christ is Scorsese's underrated masterpiece! You don't have to be a Christian, or religious to appreciate this film - I am neither, and yet its one of my favourite films. I urge all Scorsese fans or even non fans alike to give this fantastic film a chance and witness the master storyteller at his blistering best!

9/10

(NW's tip: keep your eyes peeled for a cameo by David Bowie!)










< Message edited by Nexus Wookie -- 20/10/2012 6:58:31 PM >


_____________________________

My blog: http://nexuswookie.wordpress.com/

(in reply to Nexus Wookie)
Post #: 14485
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 20/10/2012 11:08:08 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 4038
Joined: 19/10/2005
Wow some great reviews coming on this thread. I still think Prometheus was crap, the biggest disappoinment of the year [though was it, considering that Ridley had easily been bettered by his sadly departed brother for quite a while], but like Eyes Wide Shut. Cannot make up my mind about Last Temptation ,need to give it another go!

Anyway;



Young filmmaker and scientist Victor Frankenstein lives with his parents and his dog Sparky [who stars in Victor's homemade movies] in the quiet town of New Holland.Victor’s father is very concerned about his son’s isolation and encourages him to take up baseball and make achievements outside of science. At his first game, Victor hits a home run, and Sparky, pursuing the ball, is subsequently killed by a car. Inspired by a demonstration of the effect of electricity on dead frogs, a depressed Victor digs up Sparky’s corpse, creates a makeshift laboratory in the attic and successfully reanimates Sparky with lightning……

I think it’s fair to say that Tim Burton has lost his touch somewhat with his last two efforts being considerable disappointments, so I was awaiting his return to the world of stop motion animation with some trepidation. The Nightmare Before Christmas [which of course was actually directed by Henry Selick though is still a Burton film through and through] and The Corpse Bride are wonderful films and Frankenweenie actually had a previous incarnation which was very good indeed. That previous incarnation was of course Burton’s 1984 live action short film of the same title which he made for Disney [he started off as an animator there and actually did some animation on The Fox And The Hound] only for it to be roundly rejected. Well, the new Frankenweenie is definitely a return to form for Burton. It’s not a total success, and certainly not up there with his masterpieces like Edward Scisssorhands and Big Fish, but a huge leap in the right direction and it’s a shame that it seems to be disappointing at the box office when vastly inferior fare like Hotel Transylvania are cleaning up.

Then again, Burton was maybe asking for trouble by filming it in black and white. Kids might, though it sadly seems to be less and less these days, check out a black and white movie on TV or on a DVD owned by their parents, but as a trip to the cinema with friends? Of course you could say that Frankenweenie is not really a kid’s film at all. I have a feeling that it will be partially doomed by being stuck in the middle between ‘being for children’ and ‘being for adults’. Burton’s decision to make the picture in black and white shows considerable artistic integrity and it’s funny how Disney now seem to let him do what he wants when in the 80’s they couldn’t stand his stuff. Less pleasing to me is his [or maybe Disney’s] decision to shoot the film in the big con known as 3D. It even opens with people watching a home movie wearing the old-style 3D glasses and them being told it’s in 3D. It seems sneaky to me and starts the film off on a sour note.

Fortunately it quickly gets very good. It basically closely remakes the older Frankenweenie, to the point of recreating scenes exactly, but adds some characters and subplots including a spot of monster rampaging near the end. Of course it’s all a riff on the Frankenstein story and a tribute to old horror movies, especially the 1931 Frankenstein [with a bit of Bride], from which both versions of Frankenweenie borrow a great deal including a cemetery [ though it’s now of course a pet cemetery] and a windmill climax. I reckon fans of old horror films will love spotting the many references to older pictures in the new version, many of them very brief and even subtle. You’ll see the original versions of Nosferatu and The Raven, The Birds, The Bird With The Crystal Plumage [one which certainly surprised me but seemed obvious], and even a gut who looks like Peter Lorre, while the whole film has a dark, Gothic mood despite its look actually being a lot simpler than one would expect from Burton, with less elaborate detail than usual. Amongst Burton’s own features it seems closest to Edward Scisssorhands, with its skewed version of suburbia and hill at the end of the main street, plus the way elements of the story pan out, though of course all that was there in the original Frankenweenie made years before the Johnny Depp picture.

Despite overall the film looking less visually striking than you would think, there is still some great detail to enjoy such as Victor’s laboratory, which is basically a Universal Frankenstein film-style set but done with everyday objects like heaters, bicycle wheels and tins, and what with characters usually sporting long spindly arms, stretched faces and big eyes [Victor looks just like his namesake in Corpse Bride], we are still definitely in Burtonland. The plot progresses very quickly and we are soon treated to a great set piece with Victor bringing his dog to life in his attic, with sparks flying and Danny Elfman’s music soaring at its bombastic best. Sparky’s revival is done beautifully, with the dog under a blanket and us seeing first the end of his tail wag, then his tongue emerge to lick Victor’s hand. It’s a lovely contrast to the usual ‘monster awakening’ scene you see in Frankenstein movies which are generally done with the emphasis on the horror. I also enjoyed seeing a scientist who was actually a positive character, in fact science in general is presented fairly sympathetically rather than as a Big Scary Thing; it’s just that it can be misused.

That misuse comes in the action-packed final third where others try their hand at reviving animals and it all goes pear shaped, resulting in such sights as a cat with bat wings and a huge turtle stomping about like he’s escaped from a Japanese Kaiju flick. This will seem like heaven to monster movie fans and I loved all this stuff, but I could have done with a couple of extra scenes between boy and dog to help give the film the emotional dimension it only occasionally has and which movies like the ’31 Boris Karloff classic have in spades. It almost seems like such scenes may have been in the film but were cut out, though I doubt it considering how time consuming stop motion is. I watched the original Frankenweenie before I set off for the cinema to watch the remake, and found it more affecting in its low-key way. This one is funnier though, especially a transformed hamster which is built up to be a huge H.P.Lovecraft-type creature but emerges as one of the most pathetic monsters you’ll ever see. Both versions still suffer from an out-of-place happy ending which just doesn’t work.

The voice cast all do fine work and especially an unrecognisable Martin Landau, though I kept asking myself “where’s Christopher Lee”? Elfman’s score makes cool use of the organ and the theramin though is very much Elfman-by-numbers and even sneaks in part of his Batman theme! Frankenweenie just falls short of the greatness it should have and, truth be told, I think Paranorman is a slightly better film. Nonetheless Mr Burton, the real Mr Burton, it’s good to have you back.

Rating: 8/10

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Nexus Wookie)
Post #: 14486
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 21/10/2012 2:22:11 AM   
Nexus Wookie


Posts: 2333
Joined: 24/9/2011
From: the Godcity
Great review Dr Lenera! Its always a joy to hear both you and evil bill's thoughts. I'm really pleased to hear that Tim Burton has come back to his senses! He's been gone away for far too long, and those really poor recent films like Alice in Wonderland do not count as pure Burton. I've been a fan of his works for years now, Batman, Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, Sleepy Hollow - and yes, even Big Fish as you have mentioned in your review. I have yet to see Frankenweenie, but on the evidence of your review, rest assured thats the first thing on my must watch list!

_____________________________

My blog: http://nexuswookie.wordpress.com/

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14487
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 22/10/2012 6:06:41 PM   
losthighway


Posts: 3251
Joined: 25/1/2006
From: Manchesterford
Well i did write a lengthy review (for me!) of AMERICAN HORROR STORY: SEASON 1 but the site decided to play up and I lost it all so in short...

The Good: Jessica Lange, the numerous horror references, the Colombine style massacre scenes, the 6th Sense style twist, the boy Dahlia idea and the Halloween episodes.

The Very Good: The gorgeous Zachary Quinto in latex playing one half of a gay couple and a bottom to boot! Hmmmmm

The Bad: The fact the entire series was nothing more than a glossy ghost story. The underused 'infant' in the basement. The protracted storyline with the baby and his infidelity and finally that Beetlejuice style ending which pissed all over the adult/dark tone of the rest of the season.

I'm pleased I gave the show a second chance but it'll be traded in at CEX asap. Overall: 3.5/5

I will be watching Season 2. It certainly looks a more interesting concept than the first season.

< Message edited by losthighway -- 22/10/2012 6:07:08 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Nexus Wookie)
Post #: 14488
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 22/10/2012 7:21:27 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6742
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie

Here you go evil bill (I've edited the review a little, mainly spelling corrections and some minor additions)...

EYES WIDE SHUT

Eyes wide shut is without doubt, a remarkable feat in virtuso film-makng by one of cinema's true greats.

The more time passes, the more one can feel the vast hole left in cinema by the absence of Stanley Kubrick, a master story-teller and an auteur of technical mastery of film, he is one of the true masters of film directing. Over the years he has contributed so much to cinema, in turn shaping the way we view films. Who can forget the voice of Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey? The monolith in the desert? The bone turning into a spaceship via one of the greatest jump cuts composed on film? Blood gushing out of the lift doors in The Shining? The brilliant tracking shot in Full Metal Jacket - these images have been seered on our minds. They are iconic images, images that will last throughout celluloid history.

All above films are masterpieces in their own right. But I will focus on Eyes Wide Shut, my personal favourite of Kubrick's films.

There are films that need to mature to be fully appreciated, like Blade Runner, Once Upon a time in America and so on. And I sincerely feel that this film also falls into that box.

In conclusion, Eyes Wide Shut is a superb picture. A fitting last film from the enigma, the master, the legend that was Stanley Kubrick. There will never be another film maker like him.

9/10


Well where have you been hiding these awesome reviews,and yes indeed it takes time to trully get what a film is about,as proven by Blade Runner etc.And i'm one of those that like a film to grow on him,like a fine wine,and Eyes Wide Shut like 2001,falls into that place.It took a thrid screening before i could trully say 2001 is the greatest Sci/Fi of all time,and i love it!!,and it's been the same with this one,though i still think it's between 2001and The Shining which of his films i feel is the best.But from yoyr review i can understand why you have picked this as your top Kubrick film,and has put me in the mood to re watch this as soon as i can.
quote:


THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST (1988)

Scorsese's underrated masterpiece?



To me, Martin Scorsese is a god amongst film directors.


This dream section is what caused the outrage amongst Christians. But this is without doubt the most beautifully constructed, and realised chapter in the film. It's like A Wonderful Life but with Christ instead of Jimmy Stewart, as he witnesses what the world would be like if he did not die on the cross. And its my favourite part of the film!

Peter Gabriel's amazing score is another reason why The Last Tempation of Christ is a triumph; it is very 'arabesque' in tone, with drum beats and flute. His opening score alone is absolutely breath-taking. You think you are witnessing another historical religious picture - but then come the brum beats and you realise this is one Jesus film the like of which you have not seen before. It is one of my favourite sound tracks alongside such gems as Blade Runner (Vangelis), Raging Bull (Pietro Mascagni) and The Mission (Ennio Morricone). It is brilliant and has to be heard to be believed.

The Last Temptation of Christ is Scorsese's underrated masterpiece! You don't have to be a Christian, or religious to appreciate this film - I am neither, and yet its one of my favourite films. I urge all Scorsese fans or even non fans alike to give this fantastic film a chance and witness the master storyteller at his blistering best!

9/10

(NW's tip: keep your eyes peeled for a cameo by David Bowie!)



Yes it is a masterpiece,with not a mobster in sight,maybe folks got to use to De Niro as his number one muse,and belive he can only do great ganster films.But i for one loved this as it was Christ made human and so more real,and though it was always declared a work of fiction,i feel it was a very personal film for Marrty to make.In a way he examies his own fath,and i'm sure that is why some felt it was an attack on the Christain fath,but if you do not qustion you end up another religious nutter no matter what fath you cling too.Look at the up roar from the Jewish sector of God followers about The Passion by Mel Gibson,which again i liked more on first viewing,but after watching The Temptation with Willem Dafoe,i felt it was a more interesting retelling(re imaging) of the Jesus story,and yet as you pointed out also caused controversy,this time from extreme right wing Christians.Yet i feel both films where and are more about these two directors own Fath,and both works of art,yet one come's over as one a mans search for his own fath,a family drama if you like.The other as a horror story of mans inhumanity to his fellow man,but with a passion and fath that in the end Love wins??

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Nexus Wookie)
Post #: 14489
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 22/10/2012 7:32:09 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6742
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera

Wow some great reviews coming on this thread. I still think Prometheus was crap, the biggest disappoinment of the year [though was it, considering that Ridley had easily been bettered by his sadly departed brother for quite a while], but like Eyes Wide Shut. Cannot make up my mind about Last Temptation ,need to give it another go!

Anyway;



Young filmmaker and scientist Victor Frankenstein lives with his parents and his dog Sparky [who stars in Victor's homemade movies] in the quiet town of New Holland.Victor's father is very concerned about his son's isolation and encourages him to take up baseball and make achievements outside of science. At his first game, Victor hits a home run, and Sparky, pursuing the ball, is subsequently killed by a car. Inspired by a demonstration of the effect of electricity on dead frogs, a depressed Victor digs up Sparky's corpse, creates a makeshift laboratory in the attic and successfully reanimates Sparky with lightning……

I watched the original Frankenweenie before I set off for the cinema to watch the remake, and found it more affecting in its low-key way. This one is funnier though, especially a transformed hamster which is built up to be a huge H.P.Lovecraft-type creature but emerges as one of the most pathetic monsters you'll ever see. Both versions still suffer from an out-of-place happy ending which just doesn't work.

The voice cast all do fine work and especially an unrecognisable Martin Landau, though I kept asking myself "where's Christopher Lee”? Elfman's score makes cool use of the organ and the theramin though is very much Elfman-by-numbers and even sneaks in part of his Batman theme! Frankenweenie just falls short of the greatness it should have and, truth be told, I think Paranorman is a slightly better film. Nonetheless Mr Burton, the real Mr Burton, it's good to have you back.

Rating: 8/10

Never having seen the orginal,and knowing this was in B&W i was'nt sure about bring one of my younger daughters along to see this film on Sunday.But she may be only 7 but she loves the sort of horror films i loved as a child,and this film more than any other brought back those happy memories.Sadly we where nearly the only one's at this screening,as there was no more than 20 people at it.and i'd say that was due to the fact it was in B&W and 2D.Your review as always is hammer on the nail,and 8/10 is what i would score this Burton flawed classic.
quote:

losthighway

Well i did write a lengthy review (for me!) of AMERICAN HORROR STORY: SEASON 1 but the site decided to play up and I lost it all so in short...

The Good: Jessica Lange, the numerous horror references, the Colombine style massacre scenes, the 6th Sense style twist, the boy Dahlia idea and the Halloween episodes.

The Very Good: The gorgeous Zachary Quinto in latex playing one half of a gay couple and a bottom to boot! Hmmmmm

The Bad: The fact the entire series was nothing more than a glossy ghost story. The underused 'infant' in the basement. The protracted storyline with the baby and his infidelity and finally that Beetlejuice style ending which pissed all over the adult/dark tone of the rest of the season.

I'm pleased I gave the show a second chance but it'll be traded in at CEX asap. Overall: 3.5/5

I will be watching Season 2. It certainly looks a more interesting concept than the first season.


Back to your old tricks then
Have you been watching the new season of The Walking Dead i's bloody great fun,i've never seen so much gore in the whole of the last season,all put in to one show.

< Message edited by evil bill -- 22/10/2012 7:36:13 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14490
Page:   <<   < prev  481 482 [483] 484 485   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Favourite Films >> RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? Page: <<   < prev  481 482 [483] 484 485   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

0.328