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?

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Favourite Films >> RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? Page: <<   < prev  497 498 [499] 500 501   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 2/5/2013 5:54:33 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 4039
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

UK viewers! I'm just going through my TV guide and I've just noticed that that the original DJANGO is showing on Movie Mix... now this is a channel I've never paid any attention to (mainly because it seems to show COPS and BAYWATCH several times a day) but I loved this film about 20 years ago and haven't seen it since.

So, if you loved the Tarentino version, you might want to check this out. Freeview channel 32, 22.50 on Friday, not sure what the channel is if you've got Sky.

I hope it lives up to my expectations.


Django is a lot of fun, basically a more violent version of A Fistful Of Dollars, if not as well directed. Tarantino's movie isn't really anything like it.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mister Coe)
Post #: 14941
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 2/5/2013 6:08:10 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 4039
Joined: 19/10/2005

Paul Harris works at a small research facility on the outskirts of Boston. A quiet, shy and insecure man, he goes to a party where he gets friendly with co-worker Danielle and they end up having a weekend fling. He suggests they meet again to go to the cinema and then a restaurant, but after the cinema she makes excuses and asks Paul to take her home despite his disappointment. Eight months later, he is still working in the same building and still has feelings towards her, but she feels differently and starts to become friendly with another male co-worker. Paul, who has an ex-wife and son to contend with as well as some odd flashbacks, gets increasingly jealous.

Workplace romances can so easily go wrong and God I’ve had my share of this in my past, but nothing like what poor Paul, or indeed his co-worker and brief sexual partner Danielle, experience in Rubberneck. Rubberneck is a decent watch but its trailer is a little misleading for a film that is quite calm and quiet. I have a feeling that some may be a bit disappointed in such a low-key exercise, and low-key it certainly is, not so much a stalker flick as a very slow-burning psychological drama that relies a lot on its dialogue and acting to carry it along. There were a couple of times I myself wondered when the hell the movie was going to get going, and even when it seems to, it never really gathers pace. Based on a true police case, it’s certainly scarily believable and, as long as you don’t expect the usual thrills and spills, you may enjoy its measured, very detailed, approach. And it also has one of the most interesting psychotics we’ve seen in a film for ages, if psychotic he actually is.

You see Paul Harris is in some ways quite normal. He’s the kind of person you spend many of your days around but never notice. He’s average looking, to the point where he almost fades into the background. He’s cordial but not a person you would choose to go drinking with. He has a sister and likes to spend time with her son. Perhaps she knows him better than he knows himself? And he has this fling, which obviously means more to him than it does her. Rather than be totally straight with him, and many blokes reading this are probably thinking just how much better the world would be if women were always totally straight with us, she indicates very subtly that their relationship is over by just putting him off whenever he tries to meet up with her again. Danielle, who obviously senses what kind of a guy Paul is, doesn’t really treat him very well and I didn’t like her much for a while, even when Paul becomes infatuated with her and develops severe jealousy issues. I felt sorry for this guy, having to work with someone day and day out with whom he is besotted but does not return his feelings. He even tries to do the best thing and get a job somewhere else.

As the film develops and we get to know Paul more, stranger things come to the fore, but still nothing that screams PSYCHO. He regularly sees a prostitute, more for companionship than sex it seems. He has what seem like heart palpitations. He seems hypnotised by a woman he sees on the other side of an underground railway platform, but we don’t know why. The only thing which is glaringly obvious are brief flashbacks to some basement, and I was disappointed that the film had to resort to cliché here. Eventually, of course he does explode. You will know it’s going to come, but probably not exactly when, so when it does happen, it’s truly shocking even though it’s partially staged off-screen. Of course this does alter things, but doesn’t really change the feel of the film much even though it becomes a different kind of story for its final quarter. Nor does it, I think, stop the viewer from having sympathy for Paul. He doesn’t mean to do what he does, and I didn’t really want him to be caught.

For much of its length, Rubberneck is content to glide along slowly. We get a real sense of the work environment that most of the characters do their job in, the seeming authenticity increased by a real laboratory, than a set, being used. Characters talk, but the way they talk and their mannerisms are sometimes more important. A few too many scenes go nowhere, and the film could have built more suspense, but I suppose if it had done this it would have made Paul’s explosion less shocking. It does go downhill towards the end though. The film seems to be fighting a losing struggle against the realisation that there’s nowhere much for it to go, and, while it’s commendable that they seem to stick to what really happened and resist the temptation so sensationalise things, we really didn’t need a Psycho-style explanation at the end, and actually in this film it only really scratches the surface anyway. In this case, it would have been much better if they had not tried to explain Paul at all, or just provided little hints. Considering how intelligent the approach of the film is in general, it’s sad that they had to dumb things down a little, while the thing that I most wanted to know – whether Paul actually loves Danielle or not- we are not given an answer to.

Paul’s state of mind is constantly conveyed to us by the direction, the photography and the score. Cinematographer Beecher Cotton gives us a beautiful and rather haunting shot of Paul alone in the middle of a lake fishing, and shoots some gorgeous night-time footage involving cars whizzing by Paul as he stands by a road, possibly thinking about killing himself, possibly not. I couldn’t help thinking of God’s Lonely Man Travis Bickle. There’s also a stunning shot of Paul in a hotel room, bathed equally in black and orange. James Lavino’s electronic music drones on and on but that is the point, it’s the perfect aural evocation of Paul’s life cold, sterile existence, right from the very beginning. I’m really tiring of these sort of scores but it’s perfectly applied here. Director Alex Karpovsky is better known as an actor in indie comedies though this isn’t his first directorial effort. I hope it won’t be his last, because he does a very good job on Rubberneck, often using close-ups and long distance shots for emphasis. It’s just a shame that, in the end, his film doesn’t offer much in the way of surprises and seems a little forced towards the end, not helped by some seriously ropey acting from two cop characters.

Aside from that, the acting is superb in this movie. Karpovsky is simply fantastic as Paul, giving quite a multi-layered performance as a human powder keg, and interestingly we only really see him ‘lose it’ once. The four women in his life are also well played, especially Amanda Good Hennessey as his sister who has a really touching scene with him at the end, and Jaime Ray Newman in probably the most difficult role as Danielle; she’s neither good or bad, just a realistic, fully-rounded person with flaws, the major one being a certain thoughtlessness; I don’t think she means to hurt Paul. There is some interesting stuff going on in Rubberneck and it has some good qualities, though in the end it never reaches the high level I wanted it to. It may make you think twice about trying to hook up with that person you fancy at work though.

Rating: 6.5/10

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14942
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 2/5/2013 6:21:53 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 4039
Joined: 19/10/2005

Text at the beginning of the film:

On 10th August 2010, seven volunteers attended a clinical trial run by ProSynthetic Pharmaceuticals. In exchange for a fee of £2000, these guinea pigs agreed to spend two weeks testing an experimental new drug called Pro9. This is what happened……

So here we have another British indie horror film, and going by their general high standard and the film’s premise, I had every right to expect another fine product which I would rave about and moan about it going straight to DVD while far inferior efforts end up on our cinema screens. Well, I’m not quite going to rave about The Facility, because it’s nothing outstanding and didn’t really fulfil my high expectations, though that’s probably my fault for expecting another The Fallow Field or The Seasoning House. Undemanding horror films will probably be quite pleased with The Facility; it’s tense, uncomfortable, makes good use of its primary setting and is very well acted by its small cast. Unfortunately it lacks much in the way of surprises and doesn’t really have enough spark or originality to stand out amongst the pack. As the credits came up, my thoughts were: “ummm…that was good, but….”

Actually the film is very good in its early scenes. Our seven test subjects arrive at the Limebrook Clinic, meet up, and one by one go into a room where a nurse injects them with some of Pro9 [2 mgs and then apparently daily top-ups of 1mg.....], and we get to know something about these people in short, almost jagged scenes which don’t really flow with each other but which is obviously the point. There’s Adam, the first character we meet and not actually someone characterised that well except that he is somewhat serious, but he makes do as our ‘hero’, the nice guy who is clearly the one we are intended to most identify with. There’s Joni, an office temp who has done this several times before and has a ‘seen it all before’ attitude. Dumb blonde Carmen. Nervous Arif who is just in it for the money. Journalist Katie whom you just know is going to get too deep inside her own story. Estate agent and fitness freak Jerome who is the one person I couldn’t stand and wanted something horrible to happen after a few seconds of him being on screen. And Morty, an old hippie who seems to have spent most of his life as a lab rat and has probably consumed more chemicals than Amy Winehouse and Iggy Pop put together.

Of course some of these people are stereotypes but I always say, there wouldn’t be stereotypes without lots of folk like this existing in the first place, and I have certainly known people like some of these. Now I should say right here that the performances really are quite impressive in this film. The best for me was Steve Evets as Morty, making his character fully rounded and very convincing as he runs the full gamut from dirty letch to know-it-all expert to harbringer of doom, but then again the part is very well written too and he has some great lines such as, when talking about if Pro9 is a psycho-active drug, he says the consequences could be “anything the human mind can imagine”. I enjoyed seeing Alex Reid who horror fans will recognise from the Descent movies and will probably join me in wondering why her career hasn’t quite taken off in the way it ought to. The cast work really well together and especially score in the early scenes, most notably when they are having their injections. These little scenes are a great example of economical writing and I really wondered if writer/director Ian Clark, whose shorts like Jenny And The Worm really sound like something I must check out, is an outstanding talent.

Well, I still thought Clark was a talent as the film finished, if not quite an outstanding one. The first third of The Facility really does work well and nicely sets us up for the terror you expect to follow. Except for Morty telling a scary story about another test clinic, Clark doesn’t do much in the way of the expected creepy atmosphere or fore-shadowing; it’s just little details like – horror of horrors – our protagonists have to give their phones in, which to many people these days is probably worse than losing a limb. Then Things Start To Happen; someone goes insane whilst having a nightmare, the nurse is seen running away outside, somebody else is covered in blood, someone bangs on the main door to outside, and it all becomes like The Crazies but set in one location with just a few people. There’s the expected tension of Who’s Next and even some emotion as people you like start losing their humanity, but sadly the proceedings never really frighten and then, just when you think it’s on the verge of reaching a higher level, the film just stops.

Though not a Found Footage flick, it does feel very realistic with the total lack of a music score and Stuart Bentley’s hand-held camerawork, which may actually make you feel someone is filming what’s going on. There’s even some good use of scenes viewed through cameras, the kind of stuff that has really been done to death with things like the Paranormal Activity series. Of course the obligatory Shakycam is present, with one scene about half way through, involving someone stupidly letting someone in from outside, so incoherently shot I couldn’t tell what the hell just happened, but actually there’s not much use of this afterwards, and Clark manages one really effective sequence lit by quick camera flashes that is very well done indeed. Elsewhere there’s a real sense of the sterile nature of the location, and much mileage made of all those long dark corridors, but as I said earlier, the film just seems to pull back from being as scary as it should be. The blood and gore effects though, if often just seen briefly or from a distance, are rather convincing, once again proving, if it was ever needed, that CGI is no match for good old-fashioned practical effects, and a few really nasty bits of business are chillingly handled in a rather dispassionate manner.

Though perhaps also inspired by films like Exit, Clark seems at times to be trying to channel early David Cronenberg with his film. He hasn’t really got near the unique and compulsive mixture of disgust and intelligence that the great Canadian director made his own, but I reckon he may get there someday. In the mean time, The Facility is worth checking out, even if in the end it doesn’t really reach the heights its first third suggests it may.

Rating: 7/10

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14943
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 2/5/2013 6:30:26 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 4039
Joined: 19/10/2005

Earth is being devastated by a mysterious sex ray which is causing people to have carnal desires, strip naked, and have sex. Professor Gordon thinks it comes from the planet Porno. Meanwhile his son Flesh Gordon and Dale Ardor meet on an airplane which is then struck by the sex ray, making everyone, including the pilots, fornicate with each other. Flesh parachutes out with Dale in his arms, and, landing in a forest, discover Dr. Flexi Jerkoff ‘s secret laboratory. He has invented a spaceship capable of reaching the stars and wants to travel to the planet Porno to stop the ray. The three set off…….

When I was at school during the early 80’s, the cool kids had video players and the really cool kids had parents who let them hire out and watch whatever they liked. People like me didn’t have video players for ages so we weren’t cool at all, and for us there was considerable excitement and mystery about titles like Zombie Flesh Eaters and Life Of Brian, films which were obviously not the kind of films kids of my age should be watching but those who had great [we didn’t know the meaning of the word irresponsible!] parents or older brothers were given the great privilege of doing so. One of the most legendary titles was Flesh Gordon, not, of course, to be confused with the 1980 Flash Gordon, which could also be a great Guilty Pleasure if it wasn’t for the beautiful sets and the stunning costumes which actually make it rather good as well as just being heaps of fun. Several classmates would go on about Flesh Gordon and how funny and raunchy it was. Even when my mum and dad did get a video player there is no way they would let me hire out something like Flesh Gordon. I had to wait quite a few years till I got round to seeing it.

Flesh Gordon was originally planned as a hardcore porn movie, a follow-up to producer Bill Osco’s and director Howard Ziehm’s Mona, The Virgin Nymph, the first hardcore film to feature a ‘proper’ narrative. The basis was the 1936 serial Flash Gordon. For years the story went that after shooting, they decided to reshoot some scenes and change it into a softcore film because the special effects were turning out rather good and therefore could attract a wider audience. Rumours abounded that the full hard core version existed somewhere. Actually, what really happened was that part of the way through production the film was seized because making a hard core sex film in Los Angeles at that time was considered equivalent to ‘pandering’ [operating a brothel] and the hardcore footage destroyed. No ‘full uncut’ version exists. They did reshoot many scenes and brought in a team of special effects talents including future star Rick Baker and even established artists like Jim Danforth and Dave Allen. The film was shorn of eleven minutes for its US cinema release, not sexual scenes but trims to quicken the pace. UK cinemas, quite amazingly, saw the full version, though the video release lost a lesbian rape/seduction scene and a shot of a shaved pussy, amounting to just under a minute and a half cut.

The best way to approach Flesh Gordon is to pretend you are a 14 year old boy [and I suppose girl, though we all know that even soft core porn movies tend to be unfairly aimed at the male of the species], and though I did, and still do, gain much enjoyment from this film, I really wish I had seen it when I was around 14. The names of the characters are changed so they are smutty i.e. Flash Gordon to Flesh Gordon, Dale Arden to Dale Ardor, etc. The story follows the serial quite closely [and would be virtually reprised in the 1980 film] but changes bits and pieces so it all revolves around sex. The weapon attacking Earth turns people into sex maniacs. The spaceship looks like a penis. The first monster the humans encounter on the planet Porno is immediately recognised by Dr Jerkoff as a ‘Penisaurus’. The rebels living beneath the evil Emperor Wang’s palace are rapacious lesbians. The Tree Men, the leader of which is the rightful heir to the planet, are all gay. Wang’s secret weapon is the ‘Rape Robots’ who have drills between their legs. And so forth.

So it’s all very juvenile, and even the non-sexual humour is of the idiotic kind and actually only mildly amusing [though I always chuckle when Jerkoff starts his spaceship and we see he’s using a set of car keys]. What I find quite appealing is how childlike and harmless most of it is. Yes, there’s a great deal of nudity and sex – Dale spends most of the time topless and you can actually glimpse the odd glimpse of actual sex footage in Wang’s palace where orgies are always taking place – but compared to much of today’s comedy output which is very mean-spirited and just seems to want to shock, the proceedings seem almost innocent. Yes, you do get to very briefly see, in return for saving his life, Flash letting Prince Precious [the leader of the Tree Men] give him a blow-job, but the only bit in the film which leaves a sour taste in my mouth [sorry] is when Dale is strapped to a table and sexually assaulted by a lesbian, half-way through starting to enjoy it. For once the BBFC did a good job is removing most of this dodgy sequence. Otherwise, so long as you know you’re watching a film that is ‘18’-rated, there really isn’t anything to offend in it.

Now of course as filmmaking it’s pretty rudimentary, and, blown up from 16mm to 25mm, it has always looked a bit shabby, but if you consider that it was made for $470,000,they didn’t do a bad job in some areas really. The opening credits, with reasonable serial-type music playing over lewd [it’s mainly boobs] but very stylish drawings, certainly gets the film off to quite a good start. The spaceships, Wang’s palace [made mostly out of drinking glasses] and an area of psychedelically painted caves are quite impressive. A fight with a stop-motion ‘ant-man’ plays like a half-decent approximation of a Ray Harryhausen set-piece, and it all ends quite well with a King Kong-inspired climax involving the ‘Great God Porno’, who looks and moves like Harryhausen’s Ymir from Twenty Million Miles to Earth but is, quite insanely, voiced by Craig T. Nelson sounding like a dirty Bing Crosby. Considering the budget, this whole sequence is very well put together. And then there’s that rather beautiful image of Queen Amora’s swan-like spaceship gliding past the constellations in space; no, it’s not really convincing, but a certain amount of artistry is certainly present.

The direction is run-of-the-mill and the acting is atrocious, with Jason Williams as Flash Gordon even making Sam J. Jones in the part seem good. Though technically it’s quite an achievement considering what they had to work with, at the end of the day this is still not a good film, but then many films can be enjoyed as much for their badness as their goodness. Flesh Gordon is utter madness of a highly inventive kind which just isn’t seen today. Damn it, a film like this and this low budget wouldn’t even get a decent release. Whether that’s a good thing may be open to dispute, but, after checking out Flesh Gordon, which finally seems to be available uncut both sides of the Atlantic, watch a bit of the 1990 follow-up Flesh Gordon Meets The Cosmic Cheerleaders, which attempted a more conventional kind of comedy, toned down the sex, but also toned down the audacity and energy, and ended up dropping every ball. It’s harder [sorry] to make this kind of thing work than you might expect. They at least got half way there with this crazy one-of-kind-movie [of course full-blown pornographic versions of major films are a dime a dozen] and I’m so glad it exists.

Rating: 5/10

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14944
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 2/5/2013 8:40:45 PM   
Mister Coe

 

Posts: 1561
Joined: 20/10/2012
Oh, Dr, I'd totally forgotten about that video 'classic' that you HAD to watch as a teenager in the 80's, otherwise you were so out of the loop! Thanks for that!

How do you stand on the old B+W FLASH GORDON serials from the 30's? I remember watching them as a VERY young kid in the 70's, the BBC used to put them on during the school holidays at roundabout 11am, an episode every day. Even though my grandparents were probably watching them the first time round, I loved 'em. I can still remember the music. The only one I've seen in the recent years is FLASH GORDON CONQURES THE UNIVERSE, the third and final serial, which I've got on a cheap DVD with awful picture quality, but I still got a kick out of it.

Damn, good old Flash needs to return to out cinema screens! The ghost of Buster Crabbe demands It!

_____________________________

Say what now?

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14945
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 3/5/2013 1:58:27 PM   
losthighway


Posts: 3251
Joined: 25/1/2006
From: Manchesterford
Lords of Salem went straight to DVD on 22nd April and was released in one cinema in London the Friday before! It had its northern premiere at Grimm Up North on 20th April.

I'm a big fan of Zombie and his new album is excellent btw, however I think Lords is his weakest film to date (Rejects and H2 remain my favourites). Lords cinematography is fantastic but it's essentially a twist on Polanski's Rosemary's Baby and the look and tone of the film is clearly indebted to that director, along with Kubrick and Friedkin.

Lords is not a bad film, it's just a particularly good one and to be fair is a bit too slow for my tastes. I was initially disappointed with the UK artwork for the film and much prefer the US poster concept, however having seen the film our artwork is actually truer to the film and the US Warhol inspired artwork seems totally out of place with the actual film! Anyway, it's worth hunting out for a viewing at least once.

Overall: 3/5

I saw The Look of Love last weekend... Coogan plays himself/Wilson/Partridge is a sex romp through Soho. Again, it's not a bad film but not a great one. It plays more like a TV drama than a cinematic piece and will probably play better on BR/Film4 when it eventually hits our TV screens. 3/5

The Collection... A poor mess of a sequel to The Collector. It looks fantastic, just a shame it's complete tosh and appears to completely change the lead villain from something sub-human to well, human! Avoid. 2/5

Going to see I'm So Excited! this weekend... it looks fabulously gay! LOL!

< Message edited by losthighway -- 3/5/2013 2:04:07 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mister Coe)
Post #: 14946
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 5/5/2013 10:23:20 AM   
Platter

 

Posts: 114
Joined: 14/8/2010
The Holy Mountain (1973)
Very striking movie with many strange, disturbing, extreme and peculiar images. There is a lot of humour to go with the more serious ideas (seeing s-t turned into gold, is that sick or funny?).

Many of the sets are fascinating looking. I get a slight A Clockwork Orange vibe from it visually.

The film reminds me of what Kenneth Anger seems to be trying to achieve, but can't due to a lack of money. Also Alejandro Jodorowsky's superior technical ability and more enjoyable set of ideas puts this light years ahead of Anger's terrible movies. They share similar fascinations with arcane spiritual matters (Anger does black magik, Jodorowsky the tarot cards) that they turn into content for their films.

It looks well funded with many large sets and many extras. It has a almost epic quality to it.

The story is a fragmented series of set pieces but the pacing is brisk and there is enough connective tissue joining the scenes together to make it add up to a proper narrative. The introductions of the other characters in the middle goes on a bit, but there are many funny moments and weird images to make it very enjoyable. From the spiritual training to climb the mountain the film lost me a little as it started to meander in uninteresting directions. I think the last half hour is the weakest section but it's still fairly good and full of arresting images.

A very impressive, satisfying film full of striking images and ideas that entertains much more than I expected. Quite remarkable.

It's a shame everyone wears ridiculous platform boots as it dates the movie to its era.

8 out of 10



Seven Psychopaths (2012)
It starts very strong with unusual ideas and an odd comic touch. It was a very, very promising start full of subversive energy. Then it kind of lost focus and drifted about and didn't seem to know where to go next. I get the impression the screenwriter really struggled with the story from this point on as it becomes random and hazy. There were still some good isolated moments but the meandering took over. The film then becomes pretty bad after Walken spooks Harrelson with his neck scar. The desert scenes in the last third were an undercooked, underdeveloped, underwritten boring splodge of this and that. Conceptually it's a mess and falls apart by about the halfway point. It felt to me like it was a difficult script that took years to write and was composed of random, unconnected ideas and sequences that failed to cohere together. The struggle to join the unconnected bits together was in vain as the joins are very visible. Overall the film doesn't work. It's more of a failure than a success. It was a bit rubbish but it was interesting and engaging so it's not a bad movie. Great start, weak middle, crap ending. An interesting mess.

5 out of 10



The Tree of Life (2011)
I gave up 30 minutes in when I first tried to watch it. The slow story and the pretentious voiceovers held no appeal to me. I became interested in it again so I've now given it a second try. It wasn't really worth the effort. The main problem with the film is that there is very little plot made to stretch to more than two hours. The first hour wasn't too bad. I was kind of engaged in a low wattage way. It held my attention at least. Then it runs out of steam and just meanders in no particular direction for a long time. I was so bored that I abandoned the film at about the 100 minutes point (the shot of the kid starting to walk over the wooden bridge). I decided I wanted to get it out the way so I returned to it (from the BB gun scene) the same day and finished the last of it while reading a magazine to save me from terminal boredom. What little I was aware of during the end seemed particularly slow and uninteresting. The last part of the film looks very audience unfriendly. The voiceovers aren't that pretentious but they're not exactly unpretentious either. The story telling is odd and brittle. Basically the movie looks like someone got a family's high quality abstract home movies and then edited them together in a impressionistic, fragmented way. There is a documentary quality to some of it. The problem is there is very little plot advancement going on for large stretches of time. A lot of sequence add nothing to the story, so there are many parts of the film that are fairly meaningless. The origins of life segment is quite good but it isn't needed. They could have cut it and the film wouldn't suffer. There is a decent (not great) 90 minute movie in here. At the 133 minute length it's just too much boring hanging out with some banal kids and other underwritten characters. The film is just no fun at all. There is no pleasure to be had in watching it. I don't know if it's a mistake or it's deliberate but I'm not completely sure what kid died (I assume it's the blonde haired middle kid who played the guitar). Visually it looks good but the documentary camerawork isn't breathtakingly beautiful or anything. Also I've no idea why Sean Penn is even in the movie. His short, almost mute, sections added zero to the movie.

2 out of 10




Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (1999)
There are a few interesting, unusual ideas in it and a few comic scenes. This makes it seem better than it really is. It's a bit slow and meandering with an unusual structure which basically climaxes 80 minutes in with the death of the boss, but then continues for another 30 minutes of nothing much. The ending was also a bit so-so making the whole thing feel a bit pointless. The director has no visual panache to tie it all together with great directorial vision. I think it's a lot more insubstantial than it appears. The suggestions of depth are only that - suggestions. The action scenes are poorly staged, and the lead character is too uncommunicative to be an interesting, appealing centre for the movie. It's a weak movie but it has some stuff going for it, and it is intermittently engaging.

6 out of 10


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

William Friedkin's autobiography

Probably the best thing that ever happened to Friedkin was the publication of Easy Riders, Raging Bulls in 1998 by Peter Biskind. It was highly critical and portrayed him in a negative light. The upside was that a previously fairly obscure, almost forgotten director came to partly dominate a book that covered much more famous and successful directors. His pages were among the most interesting due to his bad behaviour and tensioned filled sets. Perhaps he was always well remembered, but for me it was the first time I'd ever really heard about him. I'm unaware of him having much, if any, reputation before that book.

Later Mark Kermode made exceptional high quality, dense with detail BBC documentaries about the making of The French Connection and The Exorcist. Everything you need to know about those movies is covered between the Biskind book and these documentaries (widely available as extras on the DVDs and Blu-Rays for those two films).

Also for good measure I bought a book called William Friedkin: Films of Aberration, Obsession and Reality by Thomas D. Clagett. It goes into a lot of detail on his films up to 2003. It's a good book with a particularly useful chapter that makes some sort of sense out of Cruising (1980) - one of the most confused movies ever made.

So what does this leave for Friedkin's own autobiography to say that hasn't been covered elsewhere? Not a lot. About all his book has to offer is his own biased take on things. His writing style is not very detailed, to the point of being superficial, so his own written point of view just isn't that interesting. My conclusion is that the sources listed above are better than this. I would recommend all of those before this.

The first third deals with his childhood, his move into live TV, the making of documentaries and then his first movies up to 1970. None of these documentaries or films have lasted the course of time and are of little interest. There are no fascinating stories about the making of them. This stuff is readable but indifferent.

The second third covers the making of The French Connection (1971) and The Exorcist (1973). This material is the most comprehensive and detailed. The downside is that these movies are so well covered elsewhere (the Mark Kermode DVD docs in particular) that he has little new to add. Its fine for what it is, and well worth reading, but it mostly just retreads often told stories.

The last third covers his career from after The Exorcist up to the present day. This was the section I was most curious about so it's disappointing that it's so short. He never goes into enough detail about the films to satisfy. The Clagett book is superior on these movies.

Oddly Crime of the Century (1983) and The Guardian (1990) are not even mentioned. They are literally ignored. When even the director himself doesn't want to mention them in his own autobiography you have to wonder just how bad they are?* On The Guardian DVD he appears in a retrospective making of documentary. He did not seem apologetic or act like he thought it was a bad film. So if he could front it out in person then why not in his own book?

Jade (1995) is covered in only two dismissive pages. For all intents and purposes it is ignored. He has nothing to say about it. When I pre-ordered this book I also bought a copy of Joe Eszterhas' autobiography Hollywood Animal (2004). He wrote the script for Jade. In his book he suggests that he wrote a good script and Friedkin changed it and made a mess of it. Accurate or not, there was a real argument between them over the film. Friedkin brushes it away with no mention of it. If he's selective about what he's telling us on this movie, then what else is he neglecting to tell us? I'm not convinced he's a completely reliable guide. For example he doesn't bother to mention firing guns on the set of The Exorcist to unnerve his actors, or that Ellen Burstyn allegedly injured her back on the same film due to an instruction he gave to a stuntman.

Also there is almost nothing about his personal life. His marriages, divorces and children are mostly completely ignored. I'm indifferent about this.

Like most of his films, his book is a bit of a disappointing dud. He's had a fascinating career but the other sources are all better than this book. I recommend all of them over this. What is here is okay, and it's very readable. If you haven't read or seen the other sources then this might impress you more than it did me.

3 out of 5

* I have seen The Guardian. My review from a few years ago: `Friedkin displays many instances of incredible poor taste and all-round bad judgement. The film is of no merit. It's badly scripted with many inconsistencies, odd character behaviour and silly plot holes. The special effects are really bad. The killer tree is laughable and the wolf attacks badly filmed. Jenny Seagrove was good and gives the type of performance that the film needs to at least have one interesting person on screen. It's hard to comprehend the quality drop off between this incompetent schlock and the hard, cold brutality of The Exorcist. How can this be directed by the same man, so giant is the gulf between them? For all the films many, many problems, I have to confess that I did enjoy watching it. It might be a very bad film but at least it's not a boring one. 3 out of 10'


The Exorcist (1973)
It holds up well. It's a bit slow to get started and the final exorcism isn't particularly thrilling. It's still pretty shocking and extreme. It's retained most of its power over the past forty years. The scenes jump forward in time without much warning, which can be a little disorientating when someone mentions that the last scene happened weeks ago. I noticed there are a lot of zooms used in the film - they look a bit trashy. The special effects are a little looking creaky now. One scene had Linda Blair's head all done in grey make up but they didn't do her ears, so her healthy pink ears destroy the dramatic impact of the scene. The soundtrack is fairly disassociated with the picture to an almost Sergio Leone degree.

8 out of 10


Cruising (1980)
It really doesn't work. The story details are too vague and scenes don't build on each other to add up to a proper narrative with forward momentum. For example, the transvestite gives a cop information about his friends hearing singing at the scene of the park murder. The cop says thanks and walks away. Nothing comes of this information. The cops don't pursue it (at least not onscreen). The film is full of these dead ends. It suggests that Friedkin was a poor writer of drama as his script doesn't add up. Visually the camerawork is very bland and unimaginative. For a movie of almost non-stop waiting around and observing it would have done a lot of good if there was some creative work going on with the visuals. The ending is almost aggressively audience baiting as the case is not solved, or wrapped up in a way that satisfies. Overall the movie is a boring, inconclusive mess. Like Hitchcock's Vertigo it fascinates some people, including me, by being so bad because its weak story mechanics are exposed on the outside which makes it easy to study. It's many failures are the only things about it that make it interesting. Without the incompetence it would be a very boring film that I would have completely dismissed after only one viewing.

4 out of 10

< Message edited by Platter -- 28/5/2013 11:58:23 AM >


_____________________________

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 #: 14947
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 5/5/2013 6:08:14 PM   
paul.mccluskey


Posts: 5185
Joined: 15/4/2007
From: Port Glasgow, Scotland, UK
A couple of classic horror films will be available on DVD soon. Scream and Scream Again and Madhouse are due for release on 27th May.




(in reply to Platter)
Post #: 14948
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 7/5/2013 1:05:17 PM   
adamthehorrorfan

 

Posts: 124
Joined: 16/10/2011
From: London, England
I recently got around to watching The Lords of Salem and was really disappointed by it. I remember hearing that a few people hated it before I watched the film, so I already started to have lower expectations. It seemed to have a homage to Rosemary's Baby but I felt that Rob Zombie could have done a lot better on the film. If you intend on watching it and thinking that it will be similar to his previous films, like House of 1000 Corpses or The Devil's Rejects then you will be very disappointed for sure.

I remember meeting Zombie at the meet and greet before the Twins of Evil show last November, where I told him that I was looking forward to Lords of Salem. I might give this film another viewing at some point and see if my perspective changes, since my views might have seemed too harsh after the first viewing. If I still feel the same then I might sell the DVD.

< Message edited by adamthehorrorfan -- 7/5/2013 1:07:23 PM >

(in reply to paul.mccluskey)
Post #: 14949
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 7/5/2013 8:01:04 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6743
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera




The direction is run-of-the-mill and the acting is atrocious, with Jason Williams as Flash Gordon even making Sam J. Jones in the part seem good. Though technically it's quite an achievement considering what they had to work with, at the end of the day this is still not a good film, but then many films can be enjoyed as much for their badness as their goodness. Flesh Gordon is utter madness of a highly inventive kind which just isn't seen today. Damn it, a film like this and this low budget wouldn't even get a decent release. Whether that's a good thing may be open to dispute, but, after checking out Flesh Gordon, which finally seems to be available uncut both sides of the Atlantic, watch a bit of the 1990 follow-up Flesh Gordon Meets The Cosmic Cheerleaders, which attempted a more conventional kind of comedy, toned down the sex, but also toned down the audacity and energy, and ended up dropping every ball. It's harder [sorry] to make this kind of thing work than you might expect. They at least got half way there with this crazy one-of-kind-movie [of course full-blown pornographic versions of major films are a dime a dozen] and I'm so glad it exists.

Rating: 5/10

I take along weekend off and this happens , well i'm shocked, NOT!!!, it really is a so bad it's good film, I remember the trouble a mate of mine got into when his mum found a copy of this film under his bed. What a laugh we had at this silly film, and the fact it was so softcore surprised us, cause the word on the street was it was hardcore, but then back in the late 70's early 80's there was no internet porn. But I do have good memories of how much fun this was, as it's more Monty Python than Deep Throat, a sort of Carry On In Space, with all it's naughtiness "OH Matron".

quote:


 
Though not a Found Footage flick, it does feel very realistic with the total lack of a music score and Stuart Bentley’s hand-held camerawork, which may actually make you feel someone is filming what’s going on. There’s even some good use of scenes viewed through cameras, the kind of stuff that has really been done to death with things like the Paranormal Activity series. Of course the obligatory Shakycam is present, with one scene about half way through, involving someone stupidly letting someone in from outside, so incoherently shot I couldn’t tell what the hell just happened, but actually there’s not much use of this afterwards, and Clark manages one really effective sequence lit by quick camera flashes that is very well done indeed. Elsewhere there’s a real sense of the sterile nature of the location, and much mileage made of all those long dark corridors, but as I said earlier, the film just seems to pull back from being as scary as it should be. The blood and gore effects though, if often just seen briefly or from a distance, are rather convincing, once again proving, if it was ever needed, that CGI is no match for good old-fashioned practical effects, and a few really nasty bits of business are chillingly handled in a rather dispassionate manner.

Though perhaps also inspired by films like Exit, Clark seems at times to be trying to channel early David Cronenberg with his film. He hasn’t really got near the unique and compulsive mixture of disgust and intelligence that the great Canadian director made his own, but I reckon he may get there someday. In the mean time, The Facility is worth checking out, even if in the end it doesn’t really reach the heights its first third suggests it may.

Rating: 7/10

Sounds like a good a body shock horror, and i'm glad it's not just another Lost Footage film, as I feel the gag has had it's time, though I may be wrong someone might just breath new life into it at some point.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14950
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 7/5/2013 8:05:11 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6743
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

Oh, Dr, I'd totally forgotten about that video 'classic' that you HAD to watch as a teenager in the 80's, otherwise you were so out of the loop! Thanks for that!

How do you stand on the old B+W FLASH GORDON serials from the 30's? I remember watching them as a VERY young kid in the 70's, the BBC used to put them on during the school holidays at roundabout 11am, an episode every day. Even though my grandparents were probably watching them the first time round, I loved 'em. I can still remember the music. The only one I've seen in the recent years is FLASH GORDON CONQURES THE UNIVERSE, the third and final serial, which I've got on a cheap DVD with awful picture quality, but I still got a kick out of it.

Damn, good old Flash needs to return to out cinema screens! The ghost of Buster Crabbe demands It!

I too remember the old B&W Flash Gordon on Saturday morning on the BBC, a long time ago, but 1980's Flash Gordon film was the most fun, and I can't see anybody making a good job of Flash Gordon.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mister Coe)
Post #: 14951
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 7/5/2013 8:08:58 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6743
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: losthighway

Lords of Salem went straight to DVD on 22nd April and was released in one cinema in London the Friday before! It had its northern premiere at Grimm Up North on 20th April.

I'm a big fan of Zombie and his new album is excellent btw, however I think Lords is his weakest film to date (Rejects and H2 remain my favourites). Lords cinematography is fantastic but it's essentially a twist on Polanski's Rosemary's Baby and the look and tone of the film is clearly indebted to that director, along with Kubrick and Friedkin.

Lords is not a bad film, it's just a particularly good one and to be fair is a bit too slow for my tastes. I was initially disappointed with the UK artwork for the film and much prefer the US poster concept, however having seen the film our artwork is actually truer to the film and the US Warhol inspired artwork seems totally out of place with the actual film! Anyway, it's worth hunting out for a viewing at least once.

Overall: 3/5

I saw The Look of Love last weekend... Coogan plays himself/Wilson/Partridge is a sex romp through Soho. Again, it's not a bad film but not a great one. It plays more like a TV drama than a cinematic piece and will probably play better on BR/Film4 when it eventually hits our TV screens. 3/5

The Collection... A poor mess of a sequel to The Collector. It looks fantastic, just a shame it's complete tosh and appears to completely change the lead villain from something sub-human to well, human! Avoid. 2/5

Going to see I'm So Excited! this weekend... it looks fabulously gay! LOL!

Salem still splitting the troops on here, still it's getting decent enough reviews, I still have to get a copy, and I hope you enjoyed your weekend mate.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to losthighway)
Post #: 14952
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 9/5/2013 7:01:02 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 4039
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

Oh, Dr, I'd totally forgotten about that video 'classic' that you HAD to watch as a teenager in the 80's, otherwise you were so out of the loop! Thanks for that!

How do you stand on the old B+W FLASH GORDON serials from the 30's? I remember watching them as a VERY young kid in the 70's, the BBC used to put them on during the school holidays at roundabout 11am, an episode every day. Even though my grandparents were probably watching them the first time round, I loved 'em. I can still remember the music. The only one I've seen in the recent years is FLASH GORDON CONQURES THE UNIVERSE, the third and final serial, which I've got on a cheap DVD with awful picture quality, but I still got a kick out of it.

Damn, good old Flash needs to return to out cinema screens! The ghost of Buster Crabbe demands It!


I never watched the old serials, though I do remember watching the similar Buck Rogers [and lots of other ones like King Of The Rocketmen and Undersea Kingdom] and loving it. Talk about coincidence, but the other day I found a really cheap deal for all three Flash Gordon serials and Buck Rogers, and ordered the lot

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mister Coe)
Post #: 14953
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 9/5/2013 7:02:58 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 4039
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Platter

The Holy Mountain (1970)
Very striking movie with many strange, disturbing, extreme and peculiar images. There is a lot of humour to go with the more serious ideas (seeing shit turned into gold, is that sick or funny?). Many of the sets are fascinating looking. I get a slight A Clockwork Orange vibe from it visually. The film reminds me of what Kenneth Anger seems to be trying to achieve, but can't due to a lack of money. Also Alejandro Jodorowsky's superior technical ability and more enjoyable set of ideas puts this light years ahead of Anger's terrible movies. They share similar fascinations with arcane spiritual matters (Anger does black magik, Jodorowsky the tarot cards) that they turn into content for their films. It looks well funded with many large sets and extras. It has a almost epic quality to it. The story is a fragmented series of set pieces but the pacing is brisk and there is enough connective tissue joining the scenes together to make it add up to a proper narrative. The introductions of the other characters in the middle goes on a bit, but there are many funny moments and weird images to make it very enjoyable. From the spiritual training to climb the mountain the film lost me a little as it started to meander in uninteresting directions. I think the last half hour is the weakest section but it's still fairly good and full of weird images. A very impressive, satisfying film full of weird arresting images and ideas that entertains much more than I expected. Quite remarkable. It's a shame everyone wears ridiculous platform boots as it dates the movie to its era.

8 out of 10



Seven Psychopaths (2012)
It starts very strong with unusual ideas and an odd comic touch. It was a very, very promising start full of subversive energy. Then it kind of lost focus and drifted about and didn't seem to know where to go next. I get the impression the screenwriter really struggled with the story from this point on as it becomes random and hazy. There were still some good isolated moments but the meandering took over. The film then becomes pretty bad after Walken spooks Harrelson with his neck scar. The desert scenes in the last third were an undercooked, underdeveloped, underwritten boring splodge of this and that. Conceptually it's a mess and falls apart by about the halfway point. It felt to me like it was a difficult script that took years to write and was composed of random, unconnected ideas and sequences that failed to cohere together. The struggle to join the unconnected bits together was in vain as the joins are very visible. Overall the film doesn't work. It's more of a failure than a success. It was a bit rubbish but it was interesting and engaging so it's not a bad movie. Great start, weak middle, crap ending. An interesting mess.

5 out of 10



The Tree of Life (2011)
I gave up 30 minutes in when I first tried to watch it. The slow story and the pretentious voiceovers held no appeal to me. I became interested in it again so I've now given it a second try. It wasn't really worth the effort. The main problem with the film is that there is very little plot made to stretch to more than two hours. The first hour wasn't too bad. I was kind of engaged in a low wattage way. It held my attention at least. Then it runs out of steam and just meanders in no particular direction for a long time. I was so bored that I abandoned the film at about the 100 minutes point (the shot of the kid starting to walk over the wooden bridge). I decided I wanted to get it out the way so I returned to it (from the BB gun scene) the same day and finished the last of it while reading a magazine to save me from terminal boredom. What little I was aware of during the end seemed particularly slow and uninteresting. The last part of the film looks very audience unfriendly. The voiceovers aren't that pretentious but they're not exactly unpretentious either. The story telling is odd and brittle. Basically the movie looks like someone got a family's high quality abstract home movies and then edited them together in a impressionistic, fragmented way. There is a documentary quality to some of it. The problem is there is very little plot advancement going on for large stretches of time. A lot of sequence add nothing to the story, so there are many parts of the film that are fairly meaningless. The origins of life segment is quite good but it isn't needed. They could have cut it and the film wouldn't suffer. There is a decent (not great) 90 minute movie in here. At the 133 minute length it's just too much boring hanging out with some banal kids and other underwritten characters. The film is just no fun at all. There is no pleasure to be had in watching it. I don't know if it's a mistake or it's deliberate but I'm not completely sure what kid died (I assume it's the blonde haired middle kid who played the guitar). Visually it looks good but the documentary camerawork isn't breathtakingly beautiful or anything. Also I've no idea why Sean Penn is even in the movie. His short, almost mute, sections added zero to the movie.

2 out of 10




Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (1999)
There are a few interesting, unusual ideas in it and a few comic scenes. This makes it seem better than it really is. It's a bit slow and meandering with an unusual structure which basically climaxes 80 minutes in with the death of the boss, but then continues for another 30 minutes of nothing much. The ending was also a bit so-so making the whole thing feel a bit pointless. The director has no visual panache to tie it all together with great directorial vision. I think it's a lot more insubstantial than it appears. The suggestions of depth are only that - suggestions. The action scenes are poorly staged, and the lead character is too uncommunicative to be an interesting, appealing centre for the movie. It's a weak movie but it has some stuff going for it, and it is intermittently engaging.

6 out of 10


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

William Friedkin's autobiography

Probably the best thing that ever happened to Friedkin was the publication of Easy Riders, Raging Bulls in 1998 by Peter Biskind. It was highly critical and portrayed him in a negative light. The upside was that a previously fairly obscure, almost forgotten director came to partly dominate a book that covered much more famous and successful directors. His pages were among the most interesting due to his bad behaviour and tensioned filled sets. Perhaps he was always well remembered, but for me it was the first time I'd ever really heard about him. I'm unaware of him having much, if any, reputation before that book.

Later Mark Kermode made exceptional high quality, dense with detail BBC documentaries about the making of The French Connection and The Exorcist. Everything you need to know about those movies is covered between the Biskind book and these documentaries (widely available as extras on the DVDs and Blu-Rays for those two films).

Also for good measure I bought a book called William Friedkin: Films of Aberration, Obsession and Reality by Thomas D. Clagett. It goes into a lot of detail on his films up to 2003. It's a good book with a particularly useful chapter that makes some sort of sense out of Cruising (1980) - one of the most confused movies ever made.

So what does this leave for Friedkin's own autobiography to say that hasn't been covered elsewhere? Not a lot. About all his book has to offer is his own biased take on things. His writing style is not very detailed, to the point of being superficial, so his own written point of view just isn't that interesting. My conclusion is that the sources listed above are better than this. I would recommend all of those before this.

The first third deals with his childhood, his move into live TV, the making of documentaries and then his first movies up to 1970. None of these documentaries or films have lasted the course of time and are of little interest. There are no fascinating stories about the making of them. This stuff is readable but indifferent.

The second third covers the making of The French Connection (1971) and The Exorcist (1973). This material is the most comprehensive and detailed. The downside is that these movies are so well covered elsewhere (the Mark Kermode DVD docs in particular) that he has little new to add. Its fine for what it is, and well worth reading, but it mostly just retreads often told stories.

The last third covers his career from after The Exorcist up to the present day. This was the section I was most curious about so it's disappointing that it's so short. He never goes into enough detail about the films to satisfy. The Clagett book is superior on these movies.

Oddly Crime of the Century (1983) and The Guardian (1990) are not even mentioned. They are literally ignored. When even the director himself doesn't want to mention them in his own autobiography you have to wonder just how bad they are?* On The Guardian DVD he appears in a retrospective making of documentary. He did not seem apologetic or act like he thought it was a bad film. So if he could front it out in person then why not in his own book?

Jade (1995) is covered in only two dismissive pages. For all intents and purposes it is ignored. He has nothing to say about it. When I pre-ordered this book I also bought a copy of Joe Eszterhas' autobiography Hollywood Animal (2004). He wrote the script for Jade. In his book he suggests that he wrote a good script and Friedkin changed it and made a mess of it. Accurate or not, there was a real argument between them over the film. Friedkin brushes it away with no mention of it. If he's selective about what he's telling us on this movie, then what else is he neglecting to tell us? I'm not convinced he's a completely reliable guide. For example he doesn't bother to mention firing guns on the set of The Exorcist to unnerve his actors, or that Ellen Burstyn allegedly injured her back on the same film due to an instruction he gave to a stuntman.

Also there is almost nothing about his personal life. His marriages, divorces and children are mostly completely ignored. I'm indifferent about this.

Like most of his films, his book is a bit of a disappointing dud. He's had a fascinating career but the other sources are all better than this book. I recommend all of them over this. What is here is okay, and it's very readable. If you haven't read or seen the other sources then this might impress you more than it did me.

3 out of 5

* I have seen The Guardian. My review from a few years ago: `Friedkin displays many instances of incredible poor taste and all-round bad judgement. The film is of no merit. It's badly scripted with many inconsistencies, odd character behaviour and silly plot holes. The special effects are really bad. The killer tree is laughable and the wolf attacks badly filmed. Jenny Seagrove was good and gives the type of performance that the film needs to at least have one interesting person on screen. It's hard to comprehend the quality drop off between this incompetent schlock and the hard, cold brutality of The Exorcist. How can this be directed by the same man, so giant is the gulf between them? For all the films many, many problems, I have to confess that I did enjoy watching it. It might be a very bad film but at least it's not a boring one. 3 out of 10'


The Exorcist (1973)
It holds up well. It's a bit slow to get started and the final exorcism isn't particularly thrilling. It's still pretty shocking and extreme. It's retained most of its power over the past forty years. The scenes jump forward in time without much warning, which can be a little disorientating when someone mentions that the last scene happened weeks ago. I noticed there are a lot of zooms used in the film - they look a bit trashy. The special effects are a little looking creaky now. One scene had Linda Blair's head all done in grey make up but they didn't do her ears, so her healthy pink ears destroy the dramatic impact of the scene. The soundtrack is fairly disassociated with the picture to an almost Sergio Leone degree.

8 out of 10


Cruising (1980)
It really doesn't work. The story details are too vague and scenes don't build on each other to add up to a proper narrative with forward momentum. For example, the transvestite gives a cop information about his friends hearing singing at the scene of the park murder. The cop says thanks and walks away. Nothing comes of this information. The cops don't pursue it (at least not onscreen). The film is full of these dead ends. It suggests that Friedkin was a poor writer of drama as his script doesn't add up. Visually the camerawork is very bland and unimaginative. For a movie of almost non-stop waiting around and observing it would have done a lot of good if there was some creative work going on with the visuals. The ending is almost aggressively audience baiting as the case is not solved, or wrapped up in a way that satisfies. Overall the movie is a boring, inconclusive mess. Like Hitchcock's Vertigo it fascinates some people, including me, by being so bad because its weak story mechanics are exposed on the outside which makes it easy to study. It's many failures are the only things about it that make it interesting. Without the incompetence it would be a very boring film that I would have completely dismissed after only one viewing.

4 out of 10


Glad you enjoyed The Holy Mountain, I think it'sextraordinary and one of the best films ever made [honestly, I wouldn't say that lightly]. Tree Of Life....I liked...but I can see why you hated it, if that makes sense.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Platter)
Post #: 14954
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 9/5/2013 7:05:04 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 4039
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: adamthehorrorfan

I recently got around to watching The Lords of Salem and was really disappointed by it. I remember hearing that a few people hated it before I watched the film, so I already started to have lower expectations. It seemed to have a homage to Rosemary's Baby but I felt that Rob Zombie could have done a lot better on the film. If you intend on watching it and thinking that it will be similar to his previous films, like House of 1000 Corpses or The Devil's Rejects then you will be very disappointed for sure.

I remember meeting Zombie at the meet and greet before the Twins of Evil show last November, where I told him that I was looking forward to Lords of Salem. I might give this film another viewing at some point and see if my perspective changes, since my views might have seemed too harsh after the first viewing. If I still feel the same then I might sell the DVD.


Heard mixed opinions about Lords Of Salem....but then again I can't make my mind up about Zombie. I hated Halloween, and disliked the sequel, but his other two films I greatly admire!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to adamthehorrorfan)
Post #: 14955
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 9/5/2013 7:11:03 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6743
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

Oh, Dr, I'd totally forgotten about that video 'classic' that you HAD to watch as a teenager in the 80's, otherwise you were so out of the loop! Thanks for that!

How do you stand on the old B+W FLASH GORDON serials from the 30's? I remember watching them as a VERY young kid in the 70's, the BBC used to put them on during the school holidays at roundabout 11am, an episode every day. Even though my grandparents were probably watching them the first time round, I loved 'em. I can still remember the music. The only one I've seen in the recent years is FLASH GORDON CONQURES THE UNIVERSE, the third and final serial, which I've got on a cheap DVD with awful picture quality, but I still got a kick out of it.

Damn, good old Flash needs to return to out cinema screens! The ghost of Buster Crabbe demands It!


I never watched the old serials, though I do remember watching the similar Buck Rogers [and lots of other ones like King Of The Rocketmen and Undersea Kingdom] and loving it. Talk about coincidence, but the other day I found a really cheap deal for all three Flash Gordon serials and Buck Rogers, and ordered the lot

 How we can get carried away with nostalgia and go mad with ye old credit card, talking of which I just re watched a certain 1960's comic based Sci/Fi with a certain very young Jane Fonda, which i'll do a write up on real soon.

Has anybody watched Hannibal the new TV series on Sky Living HD, it's bloody awesome, I was surprised how gory it was and how great a opening show it has stared with, and great acting too.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14956
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 9/5/2013 7:19:10 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 4039
Joined: 19/10/2005

Claire Cooper is an illustrator of books of fairy tale who lives near a lake where, many years before, a town was flooded and is now at the bottom of the lake. For several nights, she has been having two distinct dreams, one of a boy tied to a bed, and one of a little girl being led through an orchard by a shadowy figure. She thinks that the girl might well one of several girls that a serial killer has been murdering, but neither the police nor her husband take her seriously. Then her own daughter is kidnapped, and Claire realises that she was not seeing the past but the future….

It probably sounds like I’ve given away too much with my synopsis of the first third of In Dreams, but trust me it only is of the first third. This is a movie I cannot believe it has taken me until now to see, especially considering director Neil Jordan’s other two fine forays into horror; The Company Of Wolves and Interview With A Vampire, but with his return to vampirism Byzantium coming up, I felt I had to check it out. It’s an astonishingly painful, unsettling movie that, as it was drawing to its conclusion, I thought that was finishing in an overly simplistic and cliched way, until I realized what was really going on in the story. What we are being shown and told is not necessarily what is actually happening. That so many critics failed to pick up on the fact that the whole film is told from the point of view of someone going mad, and instead just picked apart all the supposed implausibilities, is very sad, I mean Jordan even gives you clues throughout which just seemed like added weird detail until, as the film finished, I thought hang on!

Yes, to really appreciate this film you really have to have your thinking cap on, a hard thing to do when it also has so much atmosphere which is tempting to just let wash all over you. Shot under the title Blue Vision, it was based on a novel called Doll’s Eyes by Bari Wood, whose Twins became Dead Ringers. Jordan and his co-writer Bruce Robinson changed a great deal of the book, something many great creators do, often quite drastically, so they can make it more their own work while retaining the essence of it. The film had Robert Downey Jr’s last role before being sent to the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison on drug charges. Marketed more as a straight serial killer flick than the far stranger film that it is, In Dreams bombed at the box office, and even now it seems to be one of those films that people love or hate. I think it’s safe to say that more people hate it [just read the comments on the forum for this film on the IMDB], something which I think is partly today with expectations: I mean I love it when a film surprises me and is different to what I expected, but many folk aren’t as weird as me.

I knew I was going to love this film right from the opening scene where two divers explore the underwater town set to some of the most eerily beautiful music I have heard in a film in ages. After this the story does begin to take in echoes of other films; The Eyes Of Laura Mars, The Shining, Don’t Look Now and A Nightmare On Elm Street to name there, plus many visual echoes of Alfred Hitchcock. The two films it most resembles though, and I have yet to see this mentioned, are Candyman and The Stendahl Syndrome [it’s even got that film’s lip-biting!]. The similarities are striking, and yet Jordan makes In Dreams his own. As I write this, I have images from this film flooding through my mind which will remain there for ages; the gorgeous but slightly sickly autumn orchard which acts as a kind of twisted Garden of Eden, the haunting POV shots of the lake seemingly from the point of view of the lake itself, young girls dressed as fairies swarming around Claire like demons. And the camera never seems to stop moving, constantly imparting a sense of unease to the proceedings, like when Claire and her husband make love and we see only see it briefly through some windows as the camera glides along the outside of the house.

Of course technical virtuosity doesn’t always work if not backed up by substance, and In Dreams certainly is, though sometimes you have to work at it as the story switches from being about a woman unknowingly able to predict the future to a possession tale to something bordering on a very dark love story. Though not an action-packed film, the story moves fast, without an inch of fat, and yet I left the credits wanting more. About three quarters of the way through Jordan literally shows us events happening simultaneously and repeating each other, with editing by Darius Khondji that is absolutely brilliant in matching images in one time period with another. And then the film seems to wind down to the cliched confrontation between the heroine and the serial killer you’ve seen a hundred times before, though it’s both intriguing and profoundly disturbing that the little girl the killer holds prisoner seems totally happy in her new ‘home’, and you really end up feeling sorry for the abductor. All does seem a little pat, and the final jump scare, in a film which has avoided them, initially seems cheap, but boy does it work!! Anyway, is all this really happening?

There are quite a few things going on in this film which seem silly when first thought of, like a bizarre sequence with loads and loads of apples being thrown into a sink blender and weird slime coming out, and an even stranger one with a dog that appears to be the cleverest dog on Earth. However, if you realise that you’re probably not meant to take everything at face value, such supposed flaws don’t seem much like flaws at all. There’s a somewhat different story being told then the one supposedly unfolding on screen, and it’s an immensely dark and even depressing one about grief and madness. It even dares to say that fairy tales, while we may think they are a good refuge from reality, have lessons for us all, and are certainly an excellent tool to prepare kids for life, may not be such a good influence after all. Elements of child abuse and transgressive sexuality are present, and there are even a couple of decent slasher killings, but the lasting impression you should get from this film, if you’re willing to go with it, is of immense sadness at the destruction of a life.

If you’re looking for major flaws, then one is better off looking at some of the acting. Downey Jr. is clearly ripped to the gills on drugs, Aidan Quinn seems half-asleep, and Jordan regular Chris Rea has a laughable American accent. Aidan Quinn seems half-asleep though his character is weakly written anyway. Annette Benning is the revelation in this film, doing brilliantly in a very brave role, and emphasising the fact that she actually has very haunted features; one just isn’t normally aware of them because of the parts she normally plays. Then there’s Eliot Goldenthal’s sensational score, as much a character in the film as the people in it, whether it’s darkly beautiful piano or full orchestral onslaught or electric guitars making the most discordant [but entirely appropriate] sound I’ve heard in ages. And of course, the film has to finish with the Roy Orbison song, whose lyrics actually somewhere sum it up. What an underrated and misunderstood motion picture this is. I’ll be shocked if Byzantium is as good.

Rating: 8/10

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14957
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 10/5/2013 2:45:50 AM   
UTB


Posts: 9999
Joined: 30/9/2005
Long time no see chaps.

Watched The Lords Of Salem tonight. Will keep it brief...

Great improvement on Zombie's part (though I have a soft spot for all of his films). Much, MUCH better dialogue than anything he's done before - dialled back the need to have the word "fuck" follow every other word, which has been an issue with all of his films. Sherri Moon is still terrible, Zombie needs to cast someone else next time. Fantastic imagery, a lot of Kubrick-esque shots of corridors. Worked well for me, not least because it fully committed to the subject (of witches). Great supporting cast too.

Intriguing film. As with all of Zombie's output I will watch again (hopefully on Blu Ray next time. DVD only in UK. Pah!).

Recommended!

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14958
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 10/5/2013 8:52:08 AM   
Nexus Wookie


Posts: 2333
Joined: 24/9/2011
From: the Godcity
Dr Lenera, thank you so much for that Flesh Gordon review! I remember watching it as young teen (about 14 years old!) around a mates house - its definitely not Flash Gordon i'll give you that but at least we had a right laugh!

< Message edited by Nexus Wookie -- 10/5/2013 8:56:02 AM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to UTB)
Post #: 14959
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 12/5/2013 2:26:04 PM   
paul.mccluskey


Posts: 5185
Joined: 15/4/2007
From: Port Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Watched Maniac Cop last night. You'd think a blend of slasher film and police thriller would be a total mess, however, this is nicely balanced, and a fun ride from start to finish. Bruce Campbell is also an added bonus . Has anyone on here seen the two sequels? By al accounts, they're dreadful, but I'm sure there is a certain charm to them.

(in reply to Nexus Wookie)
Post #: 14960
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 12/5/2013 10:50:33 PM   
Mister Coe

 

Posts: 1561
Joined: 20/10/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

Oh, Dr, I'd totally forgotten about that video 'classic' that you HAD to watch as a teenager in the 80's, otherwise you were so out of the loop! Thanks for that!

How do you stand on the old B+W FLASH GORDON serials from the 30's? I remember watching them as a VERY young kid in the 70's, the BBC used to put them on during the school holidays at roundabout 11am, an episode every day. Even though my grandparents were probably watching them the first time round, I loved 'em. I can still remember the music. The only one I've seen in the recent years is FLASH GORDON CONQURES THE UNIVERSE, the third and final serial, which I've got on a cheap DVD with awful picture quality, but I still got a kick out of it.

Damn, good old Flash needs to return to out cinema screens! The ghost of Buster Crabbe demands It!


I never watched the old serials, though I do remember watching the similar Buck Rogers [and lots of other ones like King Of The Rocketmen and Undersea Kingdom] and loving it. Talk about coincidence, but the other day I found a really cheap deal for all three Flash Gordon serials and Buck Rogers, and ordered the lot


Shit, Dr L, I'd forgotten King Of The Rocketmen! I LOVED that one, another classic from weekday weeks-off-from-school TV! Thanks for the reminder, now scouring the 'net for clips or whole episodes...

I'm sure that childhood memory is why I love THE ROCKETEER so much... well, that and Jennifer Connollys cleavage...

_____________________________

Say what now?

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14961
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 13/5/2013 9:39:52 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6743
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera



If you're looking for major flaws, then one is better off looking at some of the acting. Downey Jr. is clearly ripped to the gills on drugs, Aidan Quinn seems half-asleep, and Jordan regular Chris Rea has a laughable American accent. Aidan Quinn seems half-asleep though his character is weakly written anyway. Annette Benning is the revelation in this film, doing brilliantly in a very brave role, and emphasising the fact that she actually has very haunted features; one just isn't normally aware of them because of the parts she normally plays. Then there's Eliot Goldenthal's sensational score, as much a character in the film as the people in it, whether it's darkly beautiful piano or full orchestral onslaught or electric guitars making the most discordant [but entirely appropriate] sound I've heard in ages. And of course, the film has to finish with the Roy Orbison song, whose lyrics actually somewhere sum it up. What an underrated and misunderstood motion picture this is. I'll be shocked if Byzantium is as good.

Rating: 8/10

A great review of another great Neil Jordan film, he is such a wonderful director when he puts his mind to it, and never more so than in the Horror field where he belongs.The Company Of Wolves and Interview With A Vampire, being two of my favourite Jordan films with there real feel for Gothic Horror in both visual style and script, but in this he heads into the dark recesses of the human mind, so we get a truly unsettling and chilling tale of madness. Your review is perfect reflection of my own thoughts on this sadly underrated film, and I wonder why I have not review this myself, but hey I can't do them all, and this should I hope encourage a few more to seek it out and give it a chance.

Sunday I went and watched;
STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS (2013)

When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis. With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction. As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.

Well I will say right away I was afraid this might be somewhat over hyped, and be another CGI 3D fuelled empty if great looking shell of a film, with no heart and no story. Wrong it's bloody awesome looking, it's got a story that has depth no matter what others may say, the direction is spot on, it's full of action without overload, giving the actors some room to add more depth to there roles. And I watched it in 3D which to be honest is ok, it works well, but I could so easily have watched this in 2D as it looks stunning in nearly every frame, and at just over 2 hours long flies by without leaving you behind in it's wake. Also the film as you'd expect of a Star Trek film, has some cliché moments however they make use of them well and still have a few surprises and twists to keep the adults glued. Small warning about it's 12A, there is some swear words and Violence that will upset some more old school film fans with young children, as even I had to sort of check in case my youngest was getting upset, but then she's more like dad(a bit mad on Horror etc). But any Trekkie will forgive those few moments when they see how J.J. Abrams has just out done his first Trek film,or to put it another way this is what Dark Knight was to Batman Begins, far darker yet more awesome, giving you a real thrill ride from the opening shot onward.

J.J Adrams is on a roll here, his love for this franchise is all on screen, as he takes the next step in moving this forward yet back at the same time, yes that sounds like i'm talking rubbish, but I don't want to give away any plot lines. It's like this he has ignited a realism most fans did not expect this franchise could deliver, and booted it for a modern age, but at the same time he has gone back to the original films and mixed them into this new story, to deliver the best Star trek film of them all, I kid you not. It is a great summer Blockbuster, that is going to be hard to beat, from the new blockbuster kidd on the block, who use's all his visual flair, his camera skills to wonderful effect, giving you a thrill ride that comes very close to taking your breath away. And without giving to much away has left it open for a part two of this story, if they so desire, or they could come back at a later date, who knows, but I for one look forward to there 5 year mission, where no one has gone before.

Acting skills here is from the same troop as before,Starting with Chris Pine as Captain James T. Kirk, he's still the brash, womanising guy we all love, as we catch him in bed with two be-tailed alien sisters, but there is more character depth here than I expected.The uneasy friendship between Kirk and Spock also gets a fair amount of play, and there are some great moments between the two, ranging from casual rows to a pretty dramatic section near the end of the film. In fact Zachary Quinto as Spock  play's this so well you can understand Kirk's frustration with the Vulcan, again his role is deeper more emotional yet still the Spock of old. Then there's Alice Eve as Dr Carol who is more than just a blonde bombshell in a Starfleet mini-skirt, and good looking I must say in that dress, and is clearly the beginnings of something being set up between her and Kirk here for a future film. Simon Pegg as Scotty and Karl Urban as Bones in particular stand out in this one, both bringing different brands of comic relief to the proceedings while functioning as far more than merely that just light relief. I liked the dynamics set up between Carol & Kirk, her & Spock, and her & Bones it added another string to the bow of this film. All the favourites are here too, with Chekov and his accent get their moment of heroic, and  Sulu gets to sit in the chair for a brief period, Uhura and Spock's relationship still bouncing around again adding to the films layers.

But Benedict Cumberbatch as the main villain steals the show, he chews the scenery at the right moments, chills you with his cold gaze, and amuses you with his words.Most people would know from his excellent portrayal of Sherlock Holmes in the BBC series, and again he surprises me of what a fine actor he is, it would be so easy to ham this up, but no he lends gravity to this film with his performance. There is enough reasoning behind his actions, considering he's the villain, to make you understand his actions, yet you know he's playing with the minds of all who come into his dark gaze, and that his game of chess is a game of death, and he will not stop for no man. This I found gave this the extra boot in the ass to make it my favourite of all the Star Trek films, it needed a villain that was more than just a plot line, it's what in the end gels the story together, and harks back to the past in what is a truly awesome homage.

Overall, a breath of fresh air in a year of so far of decent yet lack lustre crowd pleasers sequels and comic hero films, that don't hold a candle to this, visual mesmerising  stunning action Sci/Fi blockbuster.With it's nice homages to the original series, and films, filled with heart, superb characters and excellent acting clever yet wonderful at the same time visuals and immersive CGI with good use of 3D, this just tops the  2009 Trek film, due to the great story that links so well with the history of Star trek, and having a much better villain. I strongly recommended this film to all the treckies out there, and those that love a  good Sci/Fi yarn, that packs a punch in the action league. 9/10

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 14962
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 13/5/2013 10:21:39 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 4039
Joined: 19/10/2005
Bill, I wish I agreed with you, and that's a good review, but I wrote this elsewhere [SORRY]:

STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS

What a disappointment. Was okay until about a third of the way through when they sent Kirk to kill somebody, a complete bastardisation of Star Trek. Now I'm no Trekkie, but when something is called Star Trek that's what I expect to see.That overrated hack Abrams has dumbed it down so much it's almost unrecognisable as Star Trek. The whole thing felt constantly forced and mechanical, lacked much in the way of imagination, and then turned into a lame remake of Wrath Of Kahn towards the end. I stopped giving a damn after about an hour and a half. The cast all do well, some, but not all, of the effects are decent, and in the end it's passable as action entertainment, but no more.

I am now seriously worrried about Star Wars.

5/10

< Message edited by Dr Lenera -- 13/5/2013 10:22:04 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 14963
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 15/5/2013 7:05:49 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6743
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: UTB

Long time no see chaps.

Watched The Lords Of Salem tonight. Will keep it brief...

Great improvement on Zombie's part (though I have a soft spot for all of his films). Much, MUCH better dialogue than anything he's done before - dialled back the need to have the word "fuck" follow every other word, which has been an issue with all of his films. Sherri Moon is still terrible, Zombie needs to cast someone else next time. Fantastic imagery, a lot of Kubrick-esque shots of corridors. Worked well for me, not least because it fully committed to the subject (of witches). Great supporting cast too.

Intriguing film. As with all of Zombie's output I will watch again (hopefully on Blu Ray next time. DVD only in UK. Pah!).

Recommended!

Just ordered the DVD as you said no Blu-Ray, but looking forward to it anyway.
Yes long time no see, but glad your still around.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to UTB)
Post #: 14964
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 15/5/2013 7:34:03 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6743
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie

Dr Lenera, thank you so much for that Flesh Gordon review! I remember watching it as young teen (about 14 years old!) around a mates house - its definitely not Flash Gordon i'll give you that but at least we had a right laugh!

This so reminded me of this film I reviewed a few months back;
BARBARELLA (1968)

Barbarella (Jane Fonda), an interstellar representative of the united Earth government in the 41st century, is dispatched to locate scientist Durand Durand, whose positronic ray, if not recovered, could signal the end of humanity. Outfitted in an array of stunning Star Trek/Bond girl outfits and cruising around in a plush, psychedelic spaceship, Barbarella travels to the Tau Seti system and promptly crash-lands. She then spends the rest of the film discovering the joys of interstellar sex with a keeper of feral children (Ugo Tognazzi), a blind, beatific angel (John Phillip Law), and an inept revolutionary named Dildano (David Hemmings). Slowly but surely, she also finds her way to Durand Durand by moving from one exotic, Wizard of Oz-style locale to another. Along the way, she meets the kindly Professor Ping (Marcel Marceau), a Eurotrash dominatrix named the Great Tyrant (Anita Pallenberg), and the Concierge (Milo O'Shea), a strangely familiar lackey of the Great Tyrant who tries to destroy Barbarella with his great big organ of love.
 
quote:

Mister Coe

Shit, Dr L, I'd forgotten King Of The Rocketmen! I LOVED that one, another classic from weekday weeks-off-from-school TV! Thanks for the reminder, now scouring the 'net for clips or whole episodes...

I'm sure that childhood memory is why I love THE ROCKETEER so much... well, that and Jennifer Connollys cleavage...

How us hot blooded males do Jennifer Connollys cleavage, which saved that film just like Jane Fondas saved the other comic turned film.

< Message edited by evil bill -- 15/5/2013 7:38:19 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Nexus Wookie)
Post #: 14965
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 16/5/2013 9:37:48 PM   
dannyfletch


Posts: 651
Joined: 25/5/2008
From: Bromley
I know I'm gonna agree with you on this one Bill. Loved the last one and with Benedict Cumberbach onboard you can't go wrong!

I've just been catching up on the last season of Spartacus War of the Damned! Now this is a series I have loved from the start and it definitely deserves a mention on this thread as its surely fitting with its extreme violence and sex! Apart from the violence and sex I was completely hooked and must say that the final season was an excellent send off for our heroes. Gutted about the way the mighty Cruxus (my favourite character) was killed off and the final scenes did leave a bit of a lump in the throat. Shame there won't be any more seasons but with all now in my blu ray collection, it will definitely be one I watch happily over and over!
Now time to catch up on Game of Thrones!

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 14966
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 17/5/2013 8:11:34 PM   
paul.mccluskey


Posts: 5185
Joined: 15/4/2007
From: Port Glasgow, Scotland, UK
quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

Sunday I went and watched;
STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS (2013)

When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis. With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction. As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.

Well I will say right away I was afraid this might be somewhat over hyped, and be another CGI 3D fuelled empty if great looking shell of a film, with no heart and no story. Wrong it's bloody awesome looking, it's got a story that has depth no matter what others may say, the direction is spot on, it's full of action without overload, giving the actors some room to add more depth to there roles. And I watched it in 3D which to be honest is ok, it works well, but I could so easily have watched this in 2D as it looks stunning in nearly every frame, and at just over 2 hours long flies by without leaving you behind in it's wake. Also the film as you'd expect of a Star Trek film, has some cliché moments however they make use of them well and still have a few surprises and twists to keep the adults glued. Small warning about it's 12A, there is some swear words and Violence that will upset some more old school film fans with young children, as even I had to sort of check in case my youngest was getting upset, but then she's more like dad(a bit mad on Horror etc). But any Trekkie will forgive those few moments when they see how J.J. Abrams has just out done his first Trek film,or to put it another way this is what Dark Knight was to Batman Begins, far darker yet more awesome, giving you a real thrill ride from the opening shot onward.

J.J Adrams is on a roll here, his love for this franchise is all on screen, as he takes the next step in moving this forward yet back at the same time, yes that sounds like i'm talking rubbish, but I don't want to give away any plot lines. It's like this he has ignited a realism most fans did not expect this franchise could deliver, and booted it for a modern age, but at the same time he has gone back to the original films and mixed them into this new story, to deliver the best Star trek film of them all, I kid you not. It is a great summer Blockbuster, that is going to be hard to beat, from the new blockbuster kidd on the block, who use's all his visual flair, his camera skills to wonderful effect, giving you a thrill ride that comes very close to taking your breath away. And without giving to much away has left it open for a part two of this story, if they so desire, or they could come back at a later date, who knows, but I for one look forward to there 5 year mission, where no one has gone before.

Acting skills here is from the same troop as before,Starting with Chris Pine as Captain James T. Kirk, he's still the brash, womanising guy we all love, as we catch him in bed with two be-tailed alien sisters, but there is more character depth here than I expected.The uneasy friendship between Kirk and Spock also gets a fair amount of play, and there are some great moments between the two, ranging from casual rows to a pretty dramatic section near the end of the film. In fact Zachary Quinto as Spock  play's this so well you can understand Kirk's frustration with the Vulcan, again his role is deeper more emotional yet still the Spock of old. Then there's Alice Eve as Dr Carol who is more than just a blonde bombshell in a Starfleet mini-skirt, and good looking I must say in that dress, and is clearly the beginnings of something being set up between her and Kirk here for a future film. Simon Pegg as Scotty and Karl Urban as Bones in particular stand out in this one, both bringing different brands of comic relief to the proceedings while functioning as far more than merely that just light relief. I liked the dynamics set up between Carol & Kirk, her & Spock, and her & Bones it added another string to the bow of this film. All the favourites are here too, with Chekov and his accent get their moment of heroic, and  Sulu gets to sit in the chair for a brief period, Uhura and Spock's relationship still bouncing around again adding to the films layers.

But Benedict Cumberbatch as the main villain steals the show, he chews the scenery at the right moments, chills you with his cold gaze, and amuses you with his words.Most people would know from his excellent portrayal of Sherlock Holmes in the BBC series, and again he surprises me of what a fine actor he is, it would be so easy to ham this up, but no he lends gravity to this film with his performance. There is enough reasoning behind his actions, considering he's the villain, to make you understand his actions, yet you know he's playing with the minds of all who come into his dark gaze, and that his game of chess is a game of death, and he will not stop for no man. This I found gave this the extra boot in the ass to make it my favourite of all the Star Trek films, it needed a villain that was more than just a plot line, it's what in the end gels the story together, and harks back to the past in what is a truly awesome homage.

Overall, a breath of fresh air in a year of so far of decent yet lack lustre crowd pleasers sequels and comic hero films, that don't hold a candle to this, visual mesmerising  stunning action Sci/Fi blockbuster.With it's nice homages to the original series, and films, filled with heart, superb characters and excellent acting clever yet wonderful at the same time visuals and immersive CGI with good use of 3D, this just tops the  2009 Trek film, due to the great story that links so well with the history of Star trek, and having a much better villain. I strongly recommended this film to all the treckies out there, and those that love a  good Sci/Fi yarn, that packs a punch in the action league. 9/10

I agree with every word of this review. Bill, you are spot on. I ain't a Trekkie, but I really enjoyed the 2009 reboot because it appealed to a wider audience. Went to see Star Trek Into Darkness with my old man on Wednesday night, and I was blown away. A spectacular, bold and brilliant sequel, with strong performances. Loved the dynamic between Kirk and Spock. Benedict Cumberbatch was a revelation, but, to be honest, the whole cast were excellent. You can tell J.J. Abrams is very passionate about each project he works on, I only hope he does Star Wars Episode VII justice.

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 14967
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 19/5/2013 6:29:05 PM   
losthighway


Posts: 3251
Joined: 25/1/2006
From: Manchesterford
Hello folks... long time, no post. Life and work getting in the way. Quick update... the US will be getting a feature length making of documentary (like Rejects had) with the DVD release of Lords over there. Appears we'll be missing out due to its STDVD route here in the UK.

I've bought some goodies today:

BAISE-MOI (UNCUT!) - £5 at Fopp. Looks a decent release. Remember watching the cut version years ago so glad to give it a proper watch in its uncut form.

HANNIBAL LECTOR TRILOGY & HANNIBAL RISING (BR)... I'm actually a fan of the 4th film and have purchased these now because anyone with SKY Living MUST MUST MUST watch...

HANNIBAL (Tuesdays at 10pm). In short, it's excellent and is like the anti-version of CSI. Pure class, looks amazing, really great performances, great scripts and some seriously grisly homicide scenes.

THE BIRDS (50TH ANNIVERSARY BR) - My favourite film ever. Enough said. It's Ltd Ed so grab it while you can!

Hoping to see STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS and THE GREAT GATSBY at some point. Oh and I was pleasantly surprised to see we're getting a theatrical release for BEHIND THE CANDLABRA (is that how you spell it!? ) on 7th June... Check it out.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to paul.mccluskey)
Post #: 14968
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 19/5/2013 11:15:09 PM   
dannyfletch


Posts: 651
Joined: 25/5/2008
From: Bromley
I really want to watch the Hannibal series so hope it won't be too long before they release it on DVD!
My favourite Lector has got to be Manhunter, I think Micheal Mann's version is far superior to terrible remake! Didn't bother getting all the way through Hannibal Rising but did enjoy both Silence of the Lambs and though that Ridley Scott did quite a good job of Hannibal!

(in reply to losthighway)
Post #: 14969
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 20/5/2013 7:05:30 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6743
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: paul.mccluskey

quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

Sunday I went and watched;
STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS (2013)


Overall, a breath of fresh air in a year of so far of decent yet lack lustre crowd pleasers sequels and comic hero films, that don't hold a candle to this, visual mesmerising  stunning action Sci/Fi blockbuster.With it's nice homages to the original series, and films, filled with heart, superb characters and excellent acting clever yet wonderful at the same time visuals and immersive CGI with good use of 3D, this just tops the  2009 Trek film, due to the great story that links so well with the history of Star trek, and having a much better villain. I strongly recommended this film to all the treckies out there, and those that love a  good Sci/Fi yarn, that packs a punch in the action league. 9/10

I agree with every word of this review. Bill, you are spot on. I ain't a Trekkie, but I really enjoyed the 2009 reboot because it appealed to a wider audience. Went to see Star Trek Into Darkness with my old man on Wednesday night, and I was blown away. A spectacular, bold and brilliant sequel, with strong performances. Loved the dynamic between Kirk and Spock. Benedict Cumberbatch was a revelation, but, to be honest, the whole cast were excellent. You can tell J.J. Abrams is very passionate about each project he works on, I only hope he does Star Wars Episode VII justice.

I'm looking forward now to Star Wars VII, as this is one guy I feel has the talent and love to re boot this Franchise, I just hope he also gives us a few more of his own films too. Glad you agree Into Darkness was awesome, but it has annoyed the good DR, lets see how the rest of the folk on here feel about this one, could be a split in the camp again.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to paul.mccluskey)
Post #: 14970
Page:   <<   < prev  497 498 [499] 500 501   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Favourite Films >> RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? Page: <<   < prev  497 498 [499] 500 501   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

0.359