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  501 502 [503] 504 505   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 6/8/2013 8:44:12 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3960
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: paul.mccluskey





Then, on 21st October, Arrow will release Brian De Palma's The Fury. Special features are:

- Brand new digital transfer of the film from the original camera negative
- Original uncompressed mono 2.0 PCM audio
- Optional English SDH subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing
- Blood on the Lens: An interview with Cinematographer Richard H. Kline
- Spinning Tales: Fiona Lewis on starring in The Fury
- The Fury Revisited – An interview with Sam Irvin, intern on The Fury, author of the film's shooting diary and then correspondent for Cinefantastique magazine
- Original archive interviews from the 1978 promotional tour, featuring Brian De Palma, producer Frank Yablans and stars Carrie Snodgress and Amy Irving
- "Double Negative” [20 mins] – A short film tribute to De Palma by Sam Irvin, starring William Finley
- Gallery of behind-the-scenes production images
- Reversible sleeve featuring original and newly commissioned artwork by Jay Shaw
- Booklet featuring new writing on the film by Chris Dumas, author of Un-American Psycho: Brian De Palma and the Political Invisible, as well as a re-print of a contemporary interview with De Palma, illustrated with original stills and posters, with more to be announced



Arrow are also working on Blu-ray editions of Invasion of The Bodysnatchers and Big Trouble in Little China. More news as I get it !

Not a fan of Texas Chainsaw II, but will be getting THE FURY on Arrows Blu-Ray, plus great to hear Big Trouble In Little China getting a make over, but the one I would really want on the Blu-Ray Invasion Of The Body Snatchers, as long as it is the 1978 version.IE this one I have on DVD:
INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS 1978

In this remake of the 1956 cult classic, terror slowly and silently strikes San Francisco as the city is mysteriously covered by alien spores that produce strangely beautiful flowers. Unbeknownst to the people,the flowers are bearers of alien pods that shoot out a spiderlike webbing that captures victims as they sleep and replicates there human form. Although they still look human,the victims are transformed into emotionless creatures by a strange race of aliens out to consume and control humanity--and only four people are left to stop them.

Donald Sutherland stars as Matthew Bennel, a Department of Health inspector whose close friend and co-worker Elizabeth Driscoll (Brooke Adams) is overwhelmed by fear and paranoia when she begins to suspect her boyfriend, Geoffrey (Art Hindle), of no longer being human. Together, with friends Jack (Jeff Goldblum) and Nancy (Veronica Cartwright),they are out to stop the bizarre alien Invasion before they fall victim to the alien pods. Leonard Nimoy co-stars as Dr. David Kibner, a guru psychiatrist who might not be whom he seems. This haunting parable of human paranoia is a creepy glimpse of a city overrun with robot like yuppies threatening to wipe out all of humankind, and in this Sutherland gives a knockout performance as the leader of the last four humans left in San Francisco in this terrific blend of B-movie science fiction and modern terror
.
In my book the original 1956 film is one of best thrillers of it's time, and a very hard movie to top, and as most know I'm not a great fan of remakes of classic horror and Sci/Fi films, but this version by Philip Kaufman is much better than one would expect. In fact it is scarier, more tense, darker and far more atmospheric than the original, and this is now like John Carpenters The Thing 1983, one of the best remakes of all time. Director Kaufman weaves an increasingly sinister cityscape through prowling camerawork and a highly effective stereo score which chills you to the bone. I think Don Siegel's version is good because it really evokes small town life in middle America of the 1950's, and so makes the horror and suspense all the more effective for that time. Kaufman transplants the setting to San Francisco of the late 70's and thought big city location means it loses its sense of intimacy and community, it becomes a far darker movie and  has more of an alienated urban feel to it. You get more of a feeling of not belonging, and the being the odd one out in a city full of strangers which adds to the chill factor, with the great use of the city streets at night adding to the sheer overpowering feeling of no hope. Even in daylight the great City looks foreboding with the excellent camera work and the great cast, and at no time is there any relief from the growing suspense, and you feel for these four friends, but feel just as helpless at the on screen terror.

Along with Cronenberg's The Fly and Carpenters The Thing  this is became one of  the most successful remake's of a 1950s classic Sci/Fi to date. What really helps this movie is without doubt the superb cast, with Donald Sutherland the real shining star of this film, he was one of the 1970s most interesting and intelligent actors and this and Don't Look Now are for me two films he more than excelled in. And lovely Brooke Adams (The Dead Zone, The Unborn) is first rate as the main female lead, giving some real powerto  the emotional stress between herself and Donald rest of the supporting cast.And what a great supporting cast, led by the wonderful Jeff Goldblum, Veronica Cartwright, and of course Leonard Nimoy, in his most memorable non-Trek role. Also keep an eye out for cameos by the star and director of the original version (Kevin McCarthy and Don 'Dirty Harry' Siegel), and a very brief but eerie one by Robert Duvall! This is an awesome nail-biting superior sci-fi thriller that even make's raindrops, plants and electrical cords take on a sinister life of there own, also  there's a little something extra in virtually every frame,a superb example of how to remake a horror classic, and is one of the creepiest and most nerve-wracking thrillers of the1970s,and with a killer of an ending that will stay with you forever I Kidd you not.9/10


Now I prefer the 50's one, but as you say this is a good example of a very good remake, it just doesn't have the original's power for me though. Where do you stand on the Abel Ferrera 90's version? [I liked, but not that much]. Let's not mention the recent The Invasion though!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 15061
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 6/8/2013 8:44:49 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3960
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Art Decade

Nightbreed - The Cabal Cut is being released by Scream Factory!

http://www.clivebarker.info/morenightbreed.html


YES!!!!!!!!!!!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Art Decade)
Post #: 15062
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 6/8/2013 8:49:13 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3960
Joined: 19/10/2005

Chris is a caravan fan and aspiring writer who takes his girlfriend Tina, who has lead a sheltered life since her dog died in a knitting accident, on a trip round the countryside, much to the chagrin of Tina’s mother. At one of their stops, Chris yells at a man who is littering. When they get back to their car, Chris accidentally runs him over and kills him, which upsets the couple but they continue onward with their trip. It seems that Chris is actually a serial killer, with a tendency for sudden, explosive outbursts which result in the violent deaths of random strangers who have crossed, or simply inconvenienced him, in some way. When the none-too-bright Tina finally cottons onto the fact that Chris has murdered at least two people since their sightseeing holiday began, she faces a stark choice between returning alone to her overbearing mother, or continuing to accompany her barmy boyfriend on his murderous spree…..

“This is not my vagina!” A strange way to begin a review, but I can’t get those words out of my head thanks to Sightseers. Now of course humour might very well be more subjective than anything else. What one person finds funny, someone else will not. I have actually sat watching Airplane with people who have barely managed a smile while I, as I always do, laughed so much I still think I may have missed some jokes. Therefore, if I tell you that Sightseers is the funniest new film I’ve seen in a while, I certainly don’t expect every other viewer to find it as funny, though I hope they recognise the film’s quality. There are some who find the subject of multiple murder, for a start, to be not something to laugh at, and fair play, I respect their opinion even as I may remind them that the cinema has an honourable tradition of seeing the funny side of serial killing ranging from the brilliant American Psycho all the way back to 1949 and Kind Hearts And Coronets. In any case, Sightseers certainly reached my funny bone. It’s a jet-black comedy which, as with director Ben Wheatley’s previous two pictures, exudes Englishness while at the same time subverting it. There is no way this film could come from another country, yet it also, bizarrely, seems to have the eye of an outsider.

Wheatley did not actually write this particular movie. The script actually comes from the pen of stand-up comedians Alice Lowe and Steve Oram, who also star and actually had played the characters in comedy sketches for years, yet it’s almost the flipside to Kill List, the insanely dark, twisted but excellent film he made before. That film is a true journey into the heart of darkness where killing is shown to be a truly horrible business that is not something to laugh at. Sightseers is, in its own way, a similar journey, and perhaps at times just as disturbing, but it’s a lighter, sunnier affair that allows us to laugh at the crazy things its two main protagonists get up to…which some may say actually makes it nastier. It gives us, courtesy of Laurie Rose, who made even me want to visit the Crich Tramway Museum, the Keswick Pencil Musuem and the Ribblehead Viaduct, some of the beautiful cinematography of the English countryside in years, but also gives us two psychopaths who you are asked to like for much of the time. It’s been called Nuts In May meets Bonnie And Clyde, though I would replace the latter film with Badlands, and say that in no way does Sightseers have the horrible condescending attitude that for me blights Mike Leigh’s work.

The opening scene is extremely off-kilter, with a lengthy, deathly cry heard in conjuncture with the music score over images of a map showing where our couple intend to travel to. The cry is revealed to actually belong to Tina’s mother, and very good screenwriting here tells us, in just two or three brief scenes, what she’s like and the nature of her relationship with her daughter. She’s pitiful and pathetic, yet cruel [it’s indicated she beats Tina] and controlling. She reminded me somewhat of Carrie’s mad mum. Small wonder then that Tina disobeys her wishes and goes on an “erotic odyssey” with her boyfriend, who seems like such a nice chap even if he does look like a cross between Paul Giamatti and Frankie Boyle. Tina comes across as a dopey cow and initially you may wonder what Chris is doing with her, though of course he is soon revealed to be not such a nice guy after all.

Now Chris is one of those guys who is easily annoyed. Especially by people. The first person who annoys him is a litter lout. Now I hate litter louts too, in fact I get annoyed by many of the things Chris gets annoyed at like rudeness, self-absorption, and being serenely happy [if I’m in a bad mood]. Of course I’m not a killer, and won’t deliberately slaughter [well, it’s ambiguous for the first killing, but I think it was intentional] those who wind me up, but Sightseers deviously gets us to dislike the victims-to-be without really making us think Chris is right in ending their miserable existence. Chris’s comment on one victim: “he’s not a person, he’s a Daily Mail reader” is there to show his hard-line mindset, not yet another tiresome attack on the right-wing rag. We believe that he truly believes that he is, to use his words, “giving to the world” by his actions. Much of this is down to the superb performance of Steven Oram, who brilliantly conveys psychopathia beneath normality and always resists going over the top. Then again, Alice Lowe is also excellent, and maybe has the harder part. She not only has to make convincing that she doesn’t once consider going to the police when she discovers what her boyfriend has been up to, but that she happily accepts things after a short while, and, while Chris never seems to change except when he shows amazing hypocrisy [yet, and this is important, it makes sense considering his personality], Tina becomes a totally different person to the one she starts off as.

The killings, though not dwelt upon, are very convincing. The excellent special effects don’t look like they employ CGI and are all the better for it. Most of the humour consists of wry quips. “That’s why I’d never have stone flooring” says Tina when she discovers someone has [supposedly] fallen off a cliff. There’s also a funny sex scene and even some chuckles involving a [very] cute dog which maybe belong more in a kiddie flick, but I laughed so it didn’t bother me. As I said before, it just depends on what you find funny, and maybe they wouldn’t have worked for me so well without the brilliant delivery in Black County accents; I don’t know why, and I don’t mean to sound offensive to any readers, but things just sound automatically funnier when said in that kind of accent. In any case the story will keep you guessing as to its outcome. The story offers a clever twist on all those films which play into our xenophobic fears and have English or American tourists encounter something very nasty when going abroad. In Sightseers, the tourists themselves are the menace, while Chris is nothing less than a caricature of Old Englishness in his attitudes and mindset.

Wheatley’s direction isn’t as stylized as Kill List’s, with none of that films jagged, Terence Malick-in-a-bad-mood editing, but he does use slow motion and clever editing [by three people: Wheatley, his wife Amy Jump, and Robin Hill] to link events in different places together. A few moments of sheer strangeness stick in the mind, like a dream scene that opens with a beautifully haunting shot straight out of a Hammer film where a white-clad woman is walking in a misty forest, and goes on to contain a shot from the end of the film. It doesn’t really explain the psyche of one of the characters, but I’m glad it’s there. Sightseers could maybe have done with more depth, and the odd scene misses the mark, but overall it’s another really impressive movie from Wheatley, hugely fun while with a bit more depth than may at first seem apparent. After all, don’t we all……

“just want to be feeling perspective? Not too much to ask for, is it?”

Rating: 8.5/10

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 15063
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 6/8/2013 9:38:50 PM   
dannyfletch


Posts: 641
Joined: 25/5/2008
From: Bromley
Great review of Sightseers Dr, I think it's one of the best British comedy horrors out there and another excellent Ben Wheatley film. Talking about Ben Wheatley, I just purchased and watched A Field in England as I missed it on film 4 and badly wanted to see it. I am pleased to say I think it's a truly excellent modern cult classic that I will watch again on numerous occasions! Micheal Smiley is excellent and puts in a mesmerising and evil performance. This film now sits next to Valhalla Rising in my collection as the two films are kind of on the same wavelength in a weird way!

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 15064
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 7/8/2013 12:04:11 AM   
Mister Coe

 

Posts: 1561
Joined: 20/10/2012
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

OK, so where to you fellow lovers of WEIRD / STRANGE movies stand on GWENDOLINE?

This was a video favourite of mine back in the 80's, mainly because Tawny Kitaen, who I had a bit of a thing for after all those Whitesnake videos, got all nudey and I was an impressionable young boy.  Don't judge me! 

Just got delivery of an uncut copy, apparently with nearly four minutes of cuts restored (was the original movie that shocking?), haven't got time to watch it tonight but will do so tomorrow... Dr L and Evil Bill (or anyone else who remembers this flick), whaddya reckon?

Here's the trailer if you need a reminder...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaEMk3lyFdw


Now there's a movie I've never seen. After seeing that trailer I will be seeing it soon.


Dr L, I've seen a movie you haven't?  My life is complete!


Joking aside, my memories of it are very good, I haven't rewatched it since I got it in the post, personal stuff came up, but I'd love to read your doubtlessly excellent opinion...

_____________________________

Say what now?

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 15065
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 7/8/2013 7:22:54 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6716
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: UTB

God I love that movie (Body Snatchers). It's sublime from start to finish. Just picked up the US blu ray as it happens :)

Lucky you, I live in hope for a UK/Ireland Blu-Ray of this classic, as I still have not got myself a region free Blu-Ray player, but I wonder if the US Blu-Ray is region free.

quote:


INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS 1978
 

Now I prefer the 50's one, but as you say this is a good example of a very good remake, it just doesn't have the original's power for me though. Where do you stand on the Abel Ferrera 90's version? [I liked, but not that much]. Let's not mention the recent The Invasion though!

BODY SNATCHERS 1993 Abel Ferrera third version of Jack Finney's novel is a  decent remake, but I expected a lot better of this director, who as you know am a big fan of, and whereas the 1978 had a slow build-up and an eerie atmosphere, this one relies on gorey effects rather than suspense. The alien invasion occurs this time on a military base, but the plot  jumps jerkily forward rather than slowly letting us know that something's up, and even compared to 1956 version it fails to create the claustrophobia which so made it a classic 50's B Movie of the cult kind. But I did enjoy it's effects, some scary moments, and visually it worked very well, but never gave near as many jump out of your seat or nail biting frenzy moments of both 78 and 56 versions, which is why I understand why you prefer the 56 version, as there's not much between the too except the hair raising ending. As for Body Snatchers, I cheaked out an old review I gave it 6/10
INVASION 2007 was and is i must say just one too many of the shit remakes of the 00s and adds noting too the last three, even with all the money, star names and CGI thrown in.The two best and oldest films 1956 film directed by Don Siegel and the 1978 version by Philip Kaufman are rightly regarded at as genre milestones in Sci/Fi, but the newer films don't manage to convey the wonderful powerful creepy basic premise of who can you trust, in a good old-fashioned and atmospheric way. Abel Ferrara's 1993 film still contained some of this and had a few very effective moments of fright, but this 2007 version is shit I refused to even do a proper review as I can't give it even 1/10.It's a film that was such a disappointment that i'll only watch it if tied down and my eyes taped open with needles.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to UTB)
Post #: 15066
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 7/8/2013 7:28:37 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6716
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

I fucking LOVE The Fury!  Almost as good as Carrie...

Consider my order placed...





Yeah falls short of CARRIE but only just, I've always loved Brian De Palma's horror/thrillers, just wish he could deliver something as good as The Fury or Carrie or even Blow Out, Dressed To Kill or Sisters for one last time.

quote:


Nightbreed - The Cabal Cut is being released by Scream Factory!

http://www.clivebarker.info/morenightbreed.html

This could be the version we have all wished for.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mister Coe)
Post #: 15067
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 7/8/2013 8:13:18 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6716
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera




Wheatley's direction isn't as stylized as Kill List's, with none of that films jagged, Terence Malick-in-a-bad-mood editing, but he does use slow motion and clever editing [by three people: Wheatley, his wife Amy Jump, and Robin Hill] to link events in different places together. A few moments of sheer strangeness stick in the mind, like a dream scene that opens with a beautifully haunting shot straight out of a Hammer film where a white-clad woman is walking in a misty forest, and goes on to contain a shot from the end of the film. It doesn't really explain the psyche of one of the characters, but I'm glad it's there. Sightseers could maybe have done with more depth, and the odd scene misses the mark, but overall it's another really impressive movie from Wheatley, hugely fun while with a bit more depth than may at first seem apparent. After all, don't we all……

"just want to be feeling perspective? Not too much to ask for, is it?”

Rating: 8.5/10

On my must see list mate, and more so now because of this review.
Now what a wonderful surprise Crazy Tuesday film was, and I on the whole agree with Whistler, so i'll just add a few thoughts of my own on;
THE CONJURING 2013
 
The true story of Carolyn and Roger Parren who move their family into a dilapidated Rhode Island farm house in 1971,and soon strange things start happening around it with escalating nightmarish terror. In desperation, Carolyn contacts the noted world renowned paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren (Patrick Wilson, Vera Farmiga). They hope they can help there family get free of a dark presence that has taken over there farmhouse. The Warren's are forced to confront this powerful demonic entity, and find themselves caught in the most horrifying case of their lives.

One of the blurs for this film was "Before there was Amityville, there was Harrisville" also it like Amityville is based on a true tale of a demonic haunting, which was maybe embellished by the writers of the books and then again by the script writers. But who cares I love a good haunted house story that delivers chills, and this one more than delivers, it has some hair raising moments that are cliché but work big time. There's no gore or in your face CGI, but it still got a 15cert here in the UK and an R in the US and Canada, and that's down to the fact that this is the most scary film in the last ten years, I never felt like this in so long i'd gave up in getting more than one moment of fear. There are minor flaws that come close to annoying like repetitive scenes, and it ends to quickly, yes I wanted more and that's me complaining, for not only is this a scary, but maybe James Wan's  best film in fact almost a masterpiece.

The script, is wonderful paying homage to a lot of the classic horror films of the 70's, like The Exorcist, The Amityville Horror, The Omen etc, yet a still a great stand alone horror/chiller and that's down to the acting of all the cast, who project fear from every nerve jangling scene. The direction here,is dare I say it even better than his wonderful Insidious, in both style and tone, for Wan's camera work is his best out of any of his movies so far. The fact this is set in the 70s and was not updated to the 10's, like some other so called modern horror directors would have been temped to do, is a stroke of genius as it makes it feel more authentic and so more real.The Conjuring is one of the best horror movies I've seen in a long time, and it's been a really long time that a movie has scared me this much, along with every other person at the showing I was at. The Others was the last time I felt this tense watching a chiller on the big screen, and the last time I heard than many screens from a near total silent bunch of cinema goers, it was awesome. The best Horror film of this year for sure, and maybe the best of the past ten years, and a film that did not fail to get me begging for more Mr Wan, I just hope you can match this, if you do another chiller.9/10

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 15068
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 7/8/2013 8:35:33 PM   
losthighway


Posts: 3248
Joined: 25/1/2006
From: Manchesterford
Not got time to write reviews as such so just some scores...

THE HEAT: 4/5
THE CONJURING: 4/5 (Good but littered with haunted house clichés)
ONLY GOD FORGIVES: 4/5 (I really liked it but it's certainly an acquired taste. Reminded me of Lynch)
ALAN PARTRIDGE: ALPHA PAPA - 5/5 (It's f**king hilarious. One of best films I've seen this year!

I've pre-ordered TCSM2 direct from Arrow for £19.99 as Amazon are charging £34.99!!! (Rip off!!)

I've bought ANTIVIRAL on DVD for £3.50. Yet to watch.

As for Scream Factory releasing The Cabal Cut. Not good news! It better be on DVD because if it's on BR then we're f**ked. They are buggers for releasing region A locked discs (on BR). The recent The Fog release being a sore case in point!!!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 15069
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 7/8/2013 9:00:08 PM   
Whistler


Posts: 3107
Joined: 22/11/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

Now what a wonderful surprise Crazy Tuesday film was, and I on the whole agree with Whistler, so i'll just add a few thoughts of my own on;
THE CONJURING 2013
 
The true story of Carolyn and Roger Parren who move their family into a dilapidated Rhode Island farm house in 1971,and soon strange things start happening around it with escalating nightmarish terror. In desperation, Carolyn contacts the noted world renowned paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren (Patrick Wilson, Vera Farmiga). They hope they can help there family get free of a dark presence that has taken over there farmhouse. The Warren's are forced to confront this powerful demonic entity, and find themselves caught in the most horrifying case of their lives.

One of the blurs for this film was "Before there was Amityville, there was Harrisville" also it like Amityville is based on a true tale of a demonic haunting, which was maybe embellished by the writers of the books and then again by the script writers. But who cares I love a good haunted house story that delivers chills, and this one more than delivers, it has some hair raising moments that are cliché but work big time. There's no gore or in your face CGI, but it still got a 15cert here in the UK and an R in the US and Canada, and that's down to the fact that this is the most scary film in the last ten years, I never felt like this in so long i'd gave up in getting more than one moment of fear. There are minor flaws that come close to annoying like repetitive scenes, and it ends to quickly, yes I wanted more and that's me complaining, for not only is this a scary, but maybe James Wan's  best film in fact almost a masterpiece.

The script, is wonderful paying homage to a lot of the classic horror films of the 70's, like The Exorcist, The Amityville Horror, The Omen etc, yet a still a great stand alone horror/chiller and that's down to the acting of all the cast, who project fear from every nerve jangling scene. The direction here,is dare I say it even better than his wonderful Insidious, in both style and tone, for Wan's camera work is his best out of any of his movies so far. The fact this is set in the 70s and was not updated to the 10's, like some other so called modern horror directors would have been temped to do, is a stroke of genius as it makes it feel more authentic and so more real.The Conjuring is one of the best horror movies I've seen in a long time, and it's been a really long time that a movie has scared me this much, along with every other person at the showing I was at. The Others was the last time I felt this tense watching a chiller on the big screen, and the last time I heard than many screens from a near total silent bunch of cinema goers, it was awesome. The best Horror film of this year for sure, and maybe the best of the past ten years, and a film that did not fail to get me begging for more Mr Wan, I just hope you can match this, if you do another chiller.9/10


Glad you liked it as much as I did

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 15070
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 7/8/2013 9:03:00 PM   
Whistler


Posts: 3107
Joined: 22/11/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera



“just want to be feeling perspective? Not too much to ask for, is it?”

Rating: 8.5/10


Might give this a go. I wasn't much of a fan of Kill List (I felt like I got punched in the gut, several times), so I've been a little reluctant to go near this or A Field In England, but that's probably silly.

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 15071
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 8/8/2013 5:39:24 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3960
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: dannyfletch

Great review of Sightseers Dr, I think it's one of the best British comedy horrors out there and another excellent Ben Wheatley film. Talking about Ben Wheatley, I just purchased and watched A Field in England as I missed it on film 4 and badly wanted to see it. I am pleased to say I think it's a truly excellent modern cult classic that I will watch again on numerous occasions! Micheal Smiley is excellent and puts in a mesmerising and evil performance. This film now sits next to Valhalla Rising in my collection as the two films are kind of on the same wavelength in a weird way!


Thanks very much, and yay!, we actually agree on a film for a change. I have Field In England too, can't wait to watch it, especially if it's like the amazing Valhalla Rising.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to dannyfletch)
Post #: 15072
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 8/8/2013 5:40:02 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3960
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

OK, so where to you fellow lovers of WEIRD / STRANGE movies stand on GWENDOLINE?

This was a video favourite of mine back in the 80's, mainly because Tawny Kitaen, who I had a bit of a thing for after all those Whitesnake videos, got all nudey and I was an impressionable young boy.  Don't judge me! 

Just got delivery of an uncut copy, apparently with nearly four minutes of cuts restored (was the original movie that shocking?), haven't got time to watch it tonight but will do so tomorrow... Dr L and Evil Bill (or anyone else who remembers this flick), whaddya reckon?

Here's the trailer if you need a reminder...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaEMk3lyFdw


Now there's a movie I've never seen. After seeing that trailer I will be seeing it soon.


Dr L, I've seen a movie you haven't?  My life is complete!


Joking aside, my memories of it are very good, I haven't rewatched it since I got it in the post, personal stuff came up, but I'd love to read your doubtlessly excellent opinion...


Ha Ha! It does happen!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mister Coe)
Post #: 15073
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 8/8/2013 5:42:46 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3960
Joined: 19/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: UTB

God I love that movie (Body Snatchers). It's sublime from start to finish. Just picked up the US blu ray as it happens :)

Lucky you, I live in hope for a UK/Ireland Blu-Ray of this classic, as I still have not got myself a region free Blu-Ray player, but I wonder if the US Blu-Ray is region free.

quote:


INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS 1978
 

Now I prefer the 50's one, but as you say this is a good example of a very good remake, it just doesn't have the original's power for me though. Where do you stand on the Abel Ferrera 90's version? [I liked, but not that much]. Let's not mention the recent The Invasion though!

BODY SNATCHERS 1993 Abel Ferrera third version of Jack Finney's novel is a  decent remake, but I expected a lot better of this director, who as you know am a big fan of, and whereas the 1978 had a slow build-up and an eerie atmosphere, this one relies on gorey effects rather than suspense. The alien invasion occurs this time on a military base, but the plot  jumps jerkily forward rather than slowly letting us know that something's up, and even compared to 1956 version it fails to create the claustrophobia which so made it a classic 50's B Movie of the cult kind. But I did enjoy it's effects, some scary moments, and visually it worked very well, but never gave near as many jump out of your seat or nail biting frenzy moments of both 78 and 56 versions, which is why I understand why you prefer the 56 version, as there's not much between the too except the hair raising ending. As for Body Snatchers, I cheaked out an old review I gave it 6/10
INVASION 2007 was and is i must say just one too many of the shit remakes of the 00s and adds noting too the last three, even with all the money, star names and CGI thrown in.The two best and oldest films 1956 film directed by Don Siegel and the 1978 version by Philip Kaufman are rightly regarded at as genre milestones in Sci/Fi, but the newer films don't manage to convey the wonderful powerful creepy basic premise of who can you trust, in a good old-fashioned and atmospheric way. Abel Ferrara's 1993 film still contained some of this and had a few very effective moments of fright, but this 2007 version is shit I refused to even do a proper review as I can't give it even 1/10.It's a film that was such a disappointment that i'll only watch it if tied down and my eyes taped open with needles.


I'd basically agree with that, maybe I'd rate the 2007 version slightly higher than you, but it really was a waste of time, and even Craig and Kidman were shit.

< Message edited by Dr Lenera -- 8/8/2013 5:43:05 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 15074
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 8/8/2013 7:39:03 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6716
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler


quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

Now what a wonderful surprise Crazy Tuesday film was, and I on the whole agree with Whistler, so i'll just add a few thoughts of my own on;
THE CONJURING 2013
 
The best Horror film of this year for sure, and maybe the best of the past ten years, and a film that did not fail to get me begging for more Mr Wan, I just hope you can match this, if you do another chiller.9/10


Glad you liked it as much as I did

OOOHHH!!! yes I did, and I've now posted this review with a few more lines on the thread you started, plus I plan on going to get my chill thrill again, this time with a couple of mates that fancy giving it a go.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 15075
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies fan base? - 8/8/2013 7:42:50 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6716
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: losthighway

Not got time to write reviews as such so just some scores...

THE HEAT: 4/5
THE CONJURING: 4/5 (Good but littered with haunted house clichés)
ONLY GOD FORGIVES: 4/5 (I really liked it but it's certainly an acquired taste. Reminded me of Lynch)
ALAN PARTRIDGE: ALPHA PAPA - 5/5 (It's f**king hilarious. One of best films I've seen this year!

I've pre-ordered TCSM2 direct from Arrow for £19.99 as Amazon are charging £34.99!!! (Rip off!!)

I've bought ANTIVIRAL on DVD for £3.50. Yet to watch.

As for Scream Factory releasing The Cabal Cut. Not good news! It better be on DVD because if it's on BR then we're f**ked. They are buggers for releasing region A locked discs (on BR). The recent The Fog release being a sore case in point!!!

Pretty high scores from you mate for all the films, and that's bad news that Cabal will be region locked.
The more I read, and you comparing it to a Lynch film, the more I need to see this ONLY GOD FORGIVES.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to losthighway)
Post #: 15076
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 8/8/2013 7:45:35 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6716
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera

quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: UTB

God I love that movie (Body Snatchers). It's sublime from start to finish. Just picked up the US blu ray as it happens :)

Lucky you, I live in hope for a UK/Ireland Blu-Ray of this classic, as I still have not got myself a region free Blu-Ray player, but I wonder if the US Blu-Ray is region free.

quote:


INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS 1978
 

Now I prefer the 50's one, but as you say this is a good example of a very good remake, it just doesn't have the original's power for me though. Where do you stand on the Abel Ferrera 90's version? [I liked, but not that much]. Let's not mention the recent The Invasion though!

BODY SNATCHERS 1993 Abel Ferrera third version of Jack Finney's novel is a  decent remake, but I expected a lot better of this director, who as you know am a big fan of, and whereas the 1978 had a slow build-up and an eerie atmosphere, this one relies on gorey effects rather than suspense. The alien invasion occurs this time on a military base, but the plot  jumps jerkily forward rather than slowly letting us know that something's up, and even compared to 1956 version it fails to create the claustrophobia which so made it a classic 50's B Movie of the cult kind. But I did enjoy it's effects, some scary moments, and visually it worked very well, but never gave near as many jump out of your seat or nail biting frenzy moments of both 78 and 56 versions, which is why I understand why you prefer the 56 version, as there's not much between the too except the hair raising ending. As for Body Snatchers, I cheaked out an old review I gave it 6/10
INVASION 2007 was and is i must say just one too many of the shit remakes of the 00s and adds noting too the last three, even with all the money, star names and CGI thrown in.The two best and oldest films 1956 film directed by Don Siegel and the 1978 version by Philip Kaufman are rightly regarded at as genre milestones in Sci/Fi, but the newer films don't manage to convey the wonderful powerful creepy basic premise of who can you trust, in a good old-fashioned and atmospheric way. Abel Ferrara's 1993 film still contained some of this and had a few very effective moments of fright, but this 2007 version is shit I refused to even do a proper review as I can't give it even 1/10.It's a film that was such a disappointment that i'll only watch it if tied down and my eyes taped open with needles.


I'd basically agree with that, maybe I'd rate the 2007 version slightly higher than you, but it really was a waste of time, and even Craig and Kidman were shit.

When a film is SHIT!! I can't bare to even score it, and INVASION was SHIT!!!.
Hope to read a review from you of ONLY GOD FORGIVES, as it's getting mixed reviews at the moment, though all pretty good I must admit.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 15077
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 8/8/2013 10:24:58 PM   
Mister Coe

 

Posts: 1561
Joined: 20/10/2012
I will also throw some love at the early 90's version of BODY SNATCHERS... not an absolute classic. but a pretty decent sci-fi / horror flick and certainly a fuck of a lot better than THE INVASION...

_____________________________

Say what now?

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 15078
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 11/8/2013 12:28:14 PM   
Whistler


Posts: 3107
Joined: 22/11/2006


Lawman John Reid (Hammer), guided by a code and driven by loyalty, transforms into the legendary masked outlaw to bring justice to the land, helped by his Native American sidekick, Tonto (Depp).

The press surrounding The Lone Ranger hasn’t been good. It looks set to lose Disney in the region of $120m thanks to the massive budget and reportedly baggy shoot, and it’s been bombarded with lukewarm to downright nasty reviews since it was press screened, leaving it on a measly 29% RT approval rating. All of these things, plus the 149 minute running time, left me finding it incredibly hard to muster up any excitement for the film, but, just perhaps, that’s exactly what I needed.

We begin in San Fransisco in the 1930s where a little boy meets an aged Native American at a history museum. As the Indian begins to recite the tale of the famous The Lone Ranger, we delve back a few decades to a world of train robbery, bounties and outlaws, where John Reid rides a train harboring two criminals; Tonto and the infamous Butch Cavendish, a Mola Ram-esque bad guy played horribly well by the excellent William Fitchner. One of the first things to really strike me about the film was how dark it got at times – for a 12A – usually through Cavendish. It’s not exactly pitch black; there isn’t an abundance of blood or many prolonged, hanging shots of violence, but a guy does cut out someone’s heart and eat it. I don’t know about anyone else, but that’s pretty grim.

The cast is filled out with some great names, from the always reliable Tom Wilkinson to the excellent but never given enough to do James Badge Dale to the inevitable Helena Bonham Carter/Johnny Depp team-up, and Armie Hammer fits the titular role nicely off the back of impressive turns in The Social Network and J. Edgar. Depp is a strange one here. He is good, as he kind of always is, but at the same time we don’t believe in him for a second. I could’ve done with just a little less kookiness for a start. He’s supposed to be a Native American, but it’s just Johnny Depp pretending to be a Native American, and Tonto basically just becomes Jack Sparrow, and the film basically just becomes Pirates Of The Caribbean in the old west, exemplified in a scene involving two locomotives racing side by side while Tonto crosses from one to the other on a ladder – swap the trains for boats and what are you left with?

Every once in a while we cut back to San Fransisco, where the aged Tonto answers a few questions from the boy he’s telling the story to, but these cuts really don't work. They’re unnecessary for one, in that they don’t tell us anything important or provide any exposition, and they just chop into the flow of the film. Too often I would feel jolted out of the world that had just spent half an hour immersing me, only for a little boy to ask a bunch of questions that we know will be answered later on in the film anyway. Cut these out and the running time would come down a little too, which would be nice.

It’s doing absolutely nothing new; we’ve seen the story a hundred times before and the character paths are awfully predictable (has Tom Wilkinson ever played a different character?), but to be fair, it’s doing it pretty well. The action sequences are fun, adrenalised and exciting, and it always keeps you interested, even though you know exactly where everything’s headed. It never drags either, despite the monster running time, and there are several nice references to classics like Once Upon A Time In The West, The Good, The Bad And The Ugly and, strangely, The Lord Of The Rings. In other words, it keeps you perfectly entertained.

This was generally a pretty fun ride that mercifully doesn’t feel as long as it is. It won’t blow you away or live particularly long in the memory, but there doesn’t have to be anything wrong with that when the journey is fun, and it probably doesn’t deserve to be tanking quite as much as it is

< Message edited by Whistler -- 11/8/2013 12:30:16 PM >

(in reply to Mister Coe)
Post #: 15079
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 13/8/2013 9:11:21 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3960
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera

quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: UTB

God I love that movie (Body Snatchers). It's sublime from start to finish. Just picked up the US blu ray as it happens :)

Lucky you, I live in hope for a UK/Ireland Blu-Ray of this classic, as I still have not got myself a region free Blu-Ray player, but I wonder if the US Blu-Ray is region free.

quote:


INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS 1978
 

Now I prefer the 50's one, but as you say this is a good example of a very good remake, it just doesn't have the original's power for me though. Where do you stand on the Abel Ferrera 90's version? [I liked, but not that much]. Let's not mention the recent The Invasion though!

BODY SNATCHERS 1993 Abel Ferrera third version of Jack Finney's novel is a  decent remake, but I expected a lot better of this director, who as you know am a big fan of, and whereas the 1978 had a slow build-up and an eerie atmosphere, this one relies on gorey effects rather than suspense. The alien invasion occurs this time on a military base, but the plot  jumps jerkily forward rather than slowly letting us know that something's up, and even compared to 1956 version it fails to create the claustrophobia which so made it a classic 50's B Movie of the cult kind. But I did enjoy it's effects, some scary moments, and visually it worked very well, but never gave near as many jump out of your seat or nail biting frenzy moments of both 78 and 56 versions, which is why I understand why you prefer the 56 version, as there's not much between the too except the hair raising ending. As for Body Snatchers, I cheaked out an old review I gave it 6/10
INVASION 2007 was and is i must say just one too many of the shit remakes of the 00s and adds noting too the last three, even with all the money, star names and CGI thrown in.The two best and oldest films 1956 film directed by Don Siegel and the 1978 version by Philip Kaufman are rightly regarded at as genre milestones in Sci/Fi, but the newer films don't manage to convey the wonderful powerful creepy basic premise of who can you trust, in a good old-fashioned and atmospheric way. Abel Ferrara's 1993 film still contained some of this and had a few very effective moments of fright, but this 2007 version is shit I refused to even do a proper review as I can't give it even 1/10.It's a film that was such a disappointment that i'll only watch it if tied down and my eyes taped open with needles.


I'd basically agree with that, maybe I'd rate the 2007 version slightly higher than you, but it really was a waste of time, and even Craig and Kidman were shit.

When a film is SHIT!! I can't bare to even score it, and INVASION was SHIT!!!.
Hope to read a review from you of ONLY GOD FORGIVES, as it's getting mixed reviews at the moment, though all pretty good I must admit.


DJ reviewed Only God Forgives on HCF and gave it 9/10, I won't do my own review because I don't really have time any more to do reviews of films that someone else has also reviewed, unless I totally disagree with him. I found Only God Forgives wonderfully stylish and amazing to look at, though it left me a little cold for some reason. Good, but I preferred Valhalla Rising and Drive, not seen the director's others yet.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 15080
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 13/8/2013 9:18:43 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3960
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler



Lawman John Reid (Hammer), guided by a code and driven by loyalty, transforms into the legendary masked outlaw to bring justice to the land, helped by his Native American sidekick, Tonto (Depp).

The press surrounding The Lone Ranger hasn’t been good. It looks set to lose Disney in the region of $120m thanks to the massive budget and reportedly baggy shoot, and it’s been bombarded with lukewarm to downright nasty reviews since it was press screened, leaving it on a measly 29% RT approval rating. All of these things, plus the 149 minute running time, left me finding it incredibly hard to muster up any excitement for the film, but, just perhaps, that’s exactly what I needed.

We begin in San Fransisco in the 1930s where a little boy meets an aged Native American at a history museum. As the Indian begins to recite the tale of the famous The Lone Ranger, we delve back a few decades to a world of train robbery, bounties and outlaws, where John Reid rides a train harboring two criminals; Tonto and the infamous Butch Cavendish, a Mola Ram-esque bad guy played horribly well by the excellent William Fitchner. One of the first things to really strike me about the film was how dark it got at times – for a 12A – usually through Cavendish. It’s not exactly pitch black; there isn’t an abundance of blood or many prolonged, hanging shots of violence, but a guy does cut out someone’s heart and eat it. I don’t know about anyone else, but that’s pretty grim.

The cast is filled out with some great names, from the always reliable Tom Wilkinson to the excellent but never given enough to do James Badge Dale to the inevitable Helena Bonham Carter/Johnny Depp team-up, and Armie Hammer fits the titular role nicely off the back of impressive turns in The Social Network and J. Edgar. Depp is a strange one here. He is good, as he kind of always is, but at the same time we don’t believe in him for a second. I could’ve done with just a little less kookiness for a start. He’s supposed to be a Native American, but it’s just Johnny Depp pretending to be a Native American, and Tonto basically just becomes Jack Sparrow, and the film basically just becomes Pirates Of The Caribbean in the old west, exemplified in a scene involving two locomotives racing side by side while Tonto crosses from one to the other on a ladder – swap the trains for boats and what are you left with?

Every once in a while we cut back to San Fransisco, where the aged Tonto answers a few questions from the boy he’s telling the story to, but these cuts really don't work. They’re unnecessary for one, in that they don’t tell us anything important or provide any exposition, and they just chop into the flow of the film. Too often I would feel jolted out of the world that had just spent half an hour immersing me, only for a little boy to ask a bunch of questions that we know will be answered later on in the film anyway. Cut these out and the running time would come down a little too, which would be nice.

It’s doing absolutely nothing new; we’ve seen the story a hundred times before and the character paths are awfully predictable (has Tom Wilkinson ever played a different character?), but to be fair, it’s doing it pretty well. The action sequences are fun, adrenalised and exciting, and it always keeps you interested, even though you know exactly where everything’s headed. It never drags either, despite the monster running time, and there are several nice references to classics like Once Upon A Time In The West, The Good, The Bad And The Ugly and, strangely, The Lord Of The Rings. In other words, it keeps you perfectly entertained.

This was generally a pretty fun ride that mercifully doesn’t feel as long as it is. It won’t blow you away or live particularly long in the memory, but there doesn’t have to be anything wrong with that when the journey is fun, and it probably doesn’t deserve to be tanking quite as much as it is


You clearly liked this more than I did mate!





At a sideshow in a San Francisco fair in 1933, young Will, who idolises a legend known as the Lone Ranger, encounters Tonto, an elderly Comanche Native American, who proceeds to recount his experiences with the Ranger, who actually existed. In Colby, Texas on March 18, 1869, he was a lawyer named John Reid. His train is derailed by outlaws rescuing a prisoner called Butch Cavendish who had been captured by John’s Texas Ranger brother Dan. He joins Dan and six others in going after the outlaws, but Cavendish’s men ambush and kill their pursuers in a canyon. Tonto, who has just escaped prison, comes across the dead men and buries them. However, a white spirit horse awakens John as a “spirit walker”….

So once again we have a would-be blockbuster that is a Western, and once again it has bombed. Does this mean that most filmgoers hate Westerns, the younger kind in particular considering the genre old-fashioned and boring? It’s difficult to say. Several years ago you could have said about the pirate movie, and then along came Pirates Of The Caribbean. True Grit and Django Unchained have been commercial successes, though they were aimed primarily at a somewhat different kind of audience. Who knows, and I’m sure in a few years time they’ll try again. In the meantime, we have The Lone Ranger, and I would love to say that it is rip-roaring fun that in no way deserves neither the bad reviews nor the low box office numbers it is getting. Sadly, I can’t. It has good moments, albeit mostly copied from other films, but is overall a shambling mess that can’t seem to decide what it’s trying to be. Pirates Of The Caribbean in the West sounds like a good thing, but not if the result is closest to the often dreary third film in that franchise. Like that film, The Lone Ranger stumbles along like a shambling drunk, wasting time on random sequences and subplots, then remembering towards the end to give you some action and excitement, and only occasionally providing the giddy lift that you should get from a film like this.

The Lone Ranger first appeared in 1933 in a very long-running radio show, then later on in a TV series, which led to two movie spin-offs. 1981 and 2003 saw two more unsuccessful attempts to bring the character to the cinema and TV respectively, and I guess that the clean-cut hero is a difficult one to make relevant in today’s climate. I think it’s rather sad that most heroes have to be ‘flawed’ and have ‘depth’ nowadays. It’s now got so bad that we even have Superman, who is supposed to represent the best that we can become, breaking a guy’s neck. However, this is the way it is, and that’s presumably why that the makers of The Lone Ranger have tried to make a film that at least half of the time seems like it’s trying to be something else. Most notably, they’ve made the Lone Ranger’s Native American companion Tonto into his equal, and that’s a decision that works, but little else does. Once again, we have a film that is ridiculously long. You could cut a third out of it and it would be far better.

We open with old Tonto in a museum, soon to be followed by a shot of Monument Valley which should get any lover of Westerns excited. This framing device of Tonto, probably inspired by Little Big Man, is tolerable at the beginning and the end of the film, but gets very annoying when we keep cutting back to Tonto, often in the middle of scenes, elsewhere. The film gets off to a good start with some great action aboard a train, and I must say that straight-away it has a real Western feel, while technically the film is usually first class. Even the CGI is mostly excellent, while there are some great swooping shots courtesy of cinematographer Bojan Bazelli, though it’s hard to entirely see where all the money went. However the film starts to grind to a halt once John Reid has died and then come back from the grave. The Lone Ranger and Tonto bicker and bicker, and some of it is quite funny, Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer having considerable chemistry. However, the movie is just content to meander aimlessly as the two go all over the place. At one point, they find themselves in a sleazy town full of freaks and prostitutes, and it feels like Tim Burton [there’s even Helena Bonham Carter looking the way she usually does these days] has just met Federico Fellini, but what the hell is it doing in this movie? There’s so much wondering around in the desert that even I started to feel really thirsty, and while, for instance, Sergio Leone can take his time with such stuff and let what plot there is gradually reveal itself, Gore Verbinski is no Leone, even if he is quite good at action, and thankfully doesn’t indulge in the shakycam, hyper-fast editing crap that plagues modern cinema.

Unfortunately, there barely is any action till the last twenty minutes, when Gioachino Rossini’s William Tell Overture, a piece of music which has been associated with the Lone Ranger since he first came on the radio, begins to play and we are treated to all sorts of crazy action involving two trains. It’s over the top in the best way and gloriously entertaining, and it’s a shame that the rest of the film is not like this. Occasionally it tries to be a comical adventure with a fantastical edge, but things such as a wonder horse which, we are led to believe, flies, seem out of place amidst what is the usual attempt at realism and grittiness that is so common these days. Even if much of the nasty stuff, like a heart ripping [which is partially and cleverly shown through glasses Hitchcock-style], is not explicit, there is a somewhat nasty edge to much of the film which is just not necessary. The Lone Ranger doesn’t seem to be trying to deliver glorious escapism, but then I don’t know what it’s trying to do half the time, except to irritate fans of the character, who probably won’t recognise their hero here at all; he is even first seen robbing a bank, and later on smashes someone’s face in with the butt of his gun. Though I’m not a fan, one of the most pleasing things about the Lone Ranger is that, like Superman [at least until Zach Snyder and Christopher Nolan got their hands on him]], he is totally moral and admirable; in short, a terrific role model for kids, and I was looking forward to seeing such a hero, a rarity these days, on the screen. Of course, it wasn’t to be.

Sometimes The Lone Ranger seems like it’s trying to be one of those pro-Native American ‘revisionist’ Westerns of the 70’s, and that’s commendable because, much like Johnny Depp has said, I also used to be on the side of the ‘Reds’ rather than the ‘Whites’ whilst watching old Westerns as a kid and got annoyed because they always lost and were usually negatively portrayed. But a film called The Lone Ranger which promises lots of adventure and derring-do is not really the film to show audiences how the west was really won. Shanghai Noon had positive portrayal of Native Americans and a few jokes containing a bit of social commentary involving them, and that’s all that was needed. Speaking of the Jackie Chan/Owen Wilson starrer, scenes and situations are copied quite often for The Lone Ranger, which despite being so all over the place doesn’t show much in the way of originality. At least lots of references to old Westerns [they even feature the favourite hymn of the great Western director John Ford that sometimes showed up in his films] please because they’re noticeable to fans but don’t stick out and take one out of the film.

Hammer, who sounds just like Brendan Fraser, is a little bland in the title role, but he’s adequate. Depp has been accused of doing Jack Sparrow all over again, but his restrained performance is actually very different. His dead-pan delivery sometimes makes potentially unfunny lines funny. Hans Zimmer’s score is an improvement on his last few efforts, but makes little attempt at a Western flavour, and is generally astoundingly mediocre throughout except when he’s ripping off [yet again] Ennio Morricone. I wanted to love The Lone Ranger and tell all those critics they were wrong, but I can’t. It’s fitfully entertaining, but overall it’s yet another bloated, messy blockbuster from a Hollywood which seems to be finding it increasingly difficult to deliver decent entertainment of this kind. If you want to see Verbinski and Depp doing a Western, you’d be better off checking out Rango.

Rating: 5/10

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 15081
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 13/8/2013 9:21:19 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3960
Joined: 19/10/2005

In the midst of a battle during the English Civil War in the 17th century, the alchemist Whitehead flees from his strict master Trower and meets Cutler and two deserters, Jacob and Friend, who save him. Together they leave the battleground and head off in search of an ale house nearby. Along the way they come across the Irishman O’Neill, the man whom Whitehead has been sent to apprehend for stealing his master’s documents. O’Neill quickly asserts his authority over the group and tells them of a treasure hidden somewhere in the field. The group sets off, the only things to eat being hallucinogenic mushrooms….

Director Ben Wheatley says that A Field In England began life when he would look out of trains onto fields and often wonder what it would be like to shoot a whole film in one of those fields. This is the result, and it really seems to have polarised people. This is nothing new with Wheatley’s work, especially Kill List. Viewers seem to either love or hate his stuff, and I would imagine that Wheatley is just fine with that. He strikes me as the kind of filmmaker who might regard someone loathing his work as not too bad a thing, because at least it’s caused a strong reaction. A Field In England is something else though. It has proved to be his most divisive film yet, and to be honest as I write this, I’m not sure whether I liked it or not. I certainly didn’t hate it, and I am full of respect for all concerned to make such a ‘different’ film in today’s climate, but I didn’t really enjoy it either. I totally and utterly recommend it to anyone whose taste veers to the offbeat and strange though, though even then your enjoyment of the film may be based on how you take it, on whether you like to take a film at face value, or like to search for meanings in what you are watching.

You could, therefore, say that A Field In England is just about some men from different backgrounds who meet in the middle of a war, search for a treasure and weird things happen due to the consumption of magic mushrooms. Fair enough, but consider that the film seems to echo a heady array of sources that include Samuel Becket’s existentialist play Waiting For Godot and contain much imagery from alchemy, such as the Sol Niger, a black sun that represents great transformative power. Like Wheatley’s other work, but even more so, it seems to be informed by Wheatley’s fascination with the ancestry of us Brits, the reminding that our past was a bloody, nasty one, and that we have echoes of that past inside us. And even the magic mushrooms, which may seem to some to be just put in as an excuse for some madness, have a historical basis. They were used a great deal during the 17th century , especially by supposed magicians who would grind magic mushrooms into dust and blow it in people’s faces, allowing them to think they are seeing magic tricks. Fields containing mushroom rings were called “fairy rings” and considered by some to be a portal into the “fairy world”. We tend to think of drugs, at least of the psychedelic kind, to be a comparatively new thing in this country, but that is most definitely not the case.

The whole film is set, yes, in a field which one of the characters said is in Monmouthshire [though it was actually shot in Surrey just outside Guildford]. The thing is, Monmouthshire is actually in Wales, not England, but it used to be disputed, and I have no doubt that writer Amy Jump [the wife of the director, in what has become a partnership of great creativity] knew of this and used it to add some confusion, though in the end it doesn’t really matter where the field is. The film opens with some frantic shakycam representing the point of view of something scrambling through bracken and yes, I said to myself “uh oh”, but it only lasts a few seconds. We realise we are in the middle of a English Civil War battle, and we actually hardly see anything but very clever use of particular shots and sound manages to convince us. The guy who appears to be our ‘hero’, Whitehead, first seen trying to flee for his life, has his life saved and sets off across the field with his rescuer and two companions for a supposed pub. Little happens for quite a while as the characters walk and talk. This film really takes its time, lingering on the four distant black figures crossing the countryside, or a dissolve going from one of them singing to the four of them walking again appearing to be stuck. We get to know snippets about all the characters amidst dialogue that has been criticised for being too humorous, but soldiers do often constantly crack jokes as a way of dealing with their job. As usual in a Wheatley picture the humour has an unpredictable and bitter edge. The height of this is later on when somebody is dying and decides not to tell his wife he loves her but says as many nasty things about her as he can.

The film doesn’t seem like it’s going anywhere, but the combination of Laurie Rose’s incredible photography, which is able to make a simple field seem beautiful, hell on earth, and several other things in-between, and James William’s really diverse score, ranging from what sounds like authentic sounds of the time to Brian Eno-esque ambient beauty, succeeds in creating a truly strange mood like few others, though I saw elements of Terence Malick, Andrei Tarkovksy and even Nicolas Rending Wefn [principally Valhalla Rising]. Wheatley himself admits that Onibaba and Culloden were strong influences. In any case, we then get to two absolutely amazing sequences which show both a brilliant command of cinema and a knack for the truly unsettling. Whitehead goes into O’ Neill’s tent, and for ages we hear him scream…and scream….scream, but never really know what is happening to him, until he emerges from the tent with a rope acting as a “dog” lead, staggering around in slow motion. Then, later on, a drug trip uses strobe lighting while images, all taken from elsewhere in the film, seem to morph into each other and even create patterns in a sequence which I replayed several times because I was so stunned.

Of course you know there’s going to be violence, and images like a face being shot off have an impact even with the black and white photography, with gives the proceedings a peculiar feeling of authenticity even though it probably shouldn’t. The ending will make you really scratch your head. Now what does it all mean? Is it partly about faith? Is it about passing from this world to the next, the field being purgatory, and second chances? Is it….well, I had several other possibilities as I watched, and maybe all or none of them are correct. If you’re not the thinking type, you may have trouble with this film, but I reckon you’ll still enjoy the performances, with Kill List’s Michael Smiley really giving an impression of great power as O’ Neill, and the idea of a bunch of people going to a field without a finished script and shooting a movie in eight days. In an unusual move, A Field In England was released simultaneously cinemas, in stores, on TV and VoD. I guess that it was the best way to get such a ‘different’ film out there.

I found A Field In England frustrating at times, yet in the process of writing this review and thinking about what I have just watched more, I have grown to like it far more than I did when I began it. In fact, I now want to go and watch it again, and if that isn’t proof of a good film then I don’t know what is. I’m aware that I’m contradicting what I said near the start of this review, but I’m not altering my words. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with changing one’s view of a movie, and though this may make my review seem a little unprofessional, I hope you appreciate my honesty. I still think that the film doesn’t entirely succeed in doing everything it set out to do, but it’s still a respectable throwback to the days of the ‘Midnight Movie’, the time when filmmakers were more willing, and had the freedom to experiment, to ask an audience to think, to go the extra mile – or failing that, to just go and get wasted and see what crazy movie came about as a result. There aren’t many doing that these days, so we should cherish them, while, even more than before, Wheatley has proved himself as one of the very best British independent filmmakers, with work that is diverse in genre and style yet consistent in intelligence and theme.

Rating: 8/10

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 15082
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 13/8/2013 10:19:12 PM   
dannyfletch


Posts: 641
Joined: 25/5/2008
From: Bromley
Great review there of A Field in England mate and yes it is certainly a film I needed to watch more than once and does grow on you the more you think about it in the same way that Valhalla Rising did for me, hence one reason I found it strangely reminded me of that excellent film! Micheal Smiley stole the show for me as the devil like O'neil and that scene with the rope you have pictured is quite haunting and chilling in a way that I've never really experienced in a film before. Can't wait to see what Ben Wheatley's next project is gonna be!

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 15083
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 14/8/2013 7:40:50 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6716
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera


quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler




It's doing absolutely nothing new; we've seen the story a hundred times before and the character paths are awfully predictable (has Tom Wilkinson ever played a different character?), but to be fair, it's doing it pretty well. The action sequences are fun, adrenalised and exciting, and it always keeps you interested, even though you know exactly where everything's headed. It never drags either, despite the monster running time, and there are several nice references to classics like Once Upon A Time In The West, The Good, The Bad And The Ugly and, strangely, The Lord Of The Rings. In other words, it keeps you perfectly entertained.

This was generally a pretty fun ride that mercifully doesn't feel as long as it is. It won't blow you away or live particularly long in the memory, but there doesn't have to be anything wrong with that when the journey is fun, and it probably doesn't deserve to be tanking quite as much as it is


You clearly liked this more than I did mate!







Sometimes The Lone Ranger seems like it's trying to be one of those pro-Native American 'revisionist' Westerns of the 70's, and that's commendable because, much like Johnny Depp has said, I also used to be on the side of the 'Reds' rather than the 'Whites' whilst watching old Westerns as a kid and got annoyed because they always lost and were usually negatively portrayed. But a film called The Lone Ranger which promises lots of adventure and derring-do is not really the film to show audiences how the west was really won. Shanghai Noon had positive portrayal of Native Americans and a few jokes containing a bit of social commentary involving them, and that's all that was needed. Speaking of the Jackie Chan/Owen Wilson starrer, scenes and situations are copied quite often for The Lone Ranger, which despite being so all over the place doesn't show much in the way of originality. At least lots of references to old Westerns [they even feature the favourite hymn of the great Western director John Ford that sometimes showed up in his films] please because they're noticeable to fans but don't stick out and take one out of the film.

Hammer, who sounds just like Brendan Fraser, is a little bland in the title role, but he's adequate. Depp has been accused of doing Jack Sparrow all over again, but his restrained performance is actually very different. His dead-pan delivery sometimes makes potentially unfunny lines funny. Hans Zimmer's score is an improvement on his last few efforts, but makes little attempt at a Western flavour, and is generally astoundingly mediocre throughout except when he's ripping off [yet again] Ennio Morricone. I wanted to love The Lone Ranger and tell all those critics they were wrong, but I can't. It's fitfully entertaining, but overall it's yet another bloated, messy blockbuster from a Hollywood which seems to be finding it increasingly difficult to deliver decent entertainment of this kind. If you want to see Verbinski and Depp doing a Western, you'd be better off checking out Rango.

Rating: 5/10

Interesting difference of reviews here, one thumbs up it seems and the other, well not really a thumbs down more a just average with noting to recommend it for a trip to the cinema. Now I,m not a fan of the Lone Ranger, though I was a western fan from a very young age, and yet I do fancy seeing this film, as I like the cast and it sounds like more of a homage to ye old westerns of old. So might just still give it a shot. 

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 15084
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 14/8/2013 7:46:29 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6716
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera




I found A Field In England frustrating at times, yet in the process of writing this review and thinking about what I have just watched more, I have grown to like it far more than I did when I began it. In fact, I now want to go and watch it again, and if that isn't proof of a good film then I don't know what is. I'm aware that I'm contradicting what I said near the start of this review, but I'm not altering my words. I don't think there's anything wrong with changing one's view of a movie, and though this may make my review seem a little unprofessional, I hope you appreciate my honesty. I still think that the film doesn't entirely succeed in doing everything it set out to do, but it's still a respectable throwback to the days of the 'Midnight Movie', the time when filmmakers were more willing, and had the freedom to experiment, to ask an audience to think, to go the extra mile – or failing that, to just go and get wasted and see what crazy movie came about as a result. There aren't many doing that these days, so we should cherish them, while, even more than before, Wheatley has proved himself as one of the very best British independent filmmakers, with work that is diverse in genre and style yet consistent in intelligence and theme.

Rating: 8/10

Just arrived from Love Film, so i'll watch it this weekend, and going by your review I think i'll enjoy this very much, for as you know I loved KILL LIST and was looking forward to this film, only it did not get a release over here in ye local flicks.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 15085
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 14/8/2013 8:12:43 PM   
Whistler


Posts: 3107
Joined: 22/11/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera


quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler




It's doing absolutely nothing new; we've seen the story a hundred times before and the character paths are awfully predictable (has Tom Wilkinson ever played a different character?), but to be fair, it's doing it pretty well. The action sequences are fun, adrenalised and exciting, and it always keeps you interested, even though you know exactly where everything's headed. It never drags either, despite the monster running time, and there are several nice references to classics like Once Upon A Time In The West, The Good, The Bad And The Ugly and, strangely, The Lord Of The Rings. In other words, it keeps you perfectly entertained.

This was generally a pretty fun ride that mercifully doesn't feel as long as it is. It won't blow you away or live particularly long in the memory, but there doesn't have to be anything wrong with that when the journey is fun, and it probably doesn't deserve to be tanking quite as much as it is


You clearly liked this more than I did mate!







Sometimes The Lone Ranger seems like it's trying to be one of those pro-Native American 'revisionist' Westerns of the 70's, and that's commendable because, much like Johnny Depp has said, I also used to be on the side of the 'Reds' rather than the 'Whites' whilst watching old Westerns as a kid and got annoyed because they always lost and were usually negatively portrayed. But a film called The Lone Ranger which promises lots of adventure and derring-do is not really the film to show audiences how the west was really won. Shanghai Noon had positive portrayal of Native Americans and a few jokes containing a bit of social commentary involving them, and that's all that was needed. Speaking of the Jackie Chan/Owen Wilson starrer, scenes and situations are copied quite often for The Lone Ranger, which despite being so all over the place doesn't show much in the way of originality. At least lots of references to old Westerns [they even feature the favourite hymn of the great Western director John Ford that sometimes showed up in his films] please because they're noticeable to fans but don't stick out and take one out of the film.

Hammer, who sounds just like Brendan Fraser, is a little bland in the title role, but he's adequate. Depp has been accused of doing Jack Sparrow all over again, but his restrained performance is actually very different. His dead-pan delivery sometimes makes potentially unfunny lines funny. Hans Zimmer's score is an improvement on his last few efforts, but makes little attempt at a Western flavour, and is generally astoundingly mediocre throughout except when he's ripping off [yet again] Ennio Morricone. I wanted to love The Lone Ranger and tell all those critics they were wrong, but I can't. It's fitfully entertaining, but overall it's yet another bloated, messy blockbuster from a Hollywood which seems to be finding it increasingly difficult to deliver decent entertainment of this kind. If you want to see Verbinski and Depp doing a Western, you'd be better off checking out Rango.

Rating: 5/10

Interesting difference of reviews here, one thumbs up it seems and the other, well not really a thumbs down more a just average with noting to recommend it for a trip to the cinema. Now I,m not a fan of the Lone Ranger, though I was a western fan from a very young age, and yet I do fancy seeing this film, as I like the cast and it sounds like more of a homage to ye old westerns of old. So might just still give it a shot. 


Well it's funny, my review is quite kind but I'm well aware of all the problems it has. Dr Lenera's review is a bit more objective, I think. I guess I feel a little sorry for the film, and because it was more fun than many of the summer blockbusters have been this year, I thought it deserved a bit of praise.

It's not perfect by any means, but I had fun.

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 15086
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 15/8/2013 2:30:05 PM   
Whistler


Posts: 3107
Joined: 22/11/2006
(WARNING - CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR THE FIRST KICK-ASS)

Director: Jeff Wadlow
Cast: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Chloe Grace Moretz, Jim Carrey, Morris Chestnut, Claudia Lee, Donald Faison, Clarke Duke, Christopher Mintz-Plasse
Running time: 103 minutes
Certification: 15

As Mindy (Moretz) attempts to live a ‘normal’ life outside of her alter-ego Hit Girl at the behest of her new foster parent, Dave/Kick-Ass (Taylor-Johnson) joins a crime fighting circle led by the eccentric Colonel Stars and Stripes (Carrey) and attempts to clean up the city. Meanwhile, Red Mist (Mintz-Plasse), now going by the alternative super-villain The Motherf***er, forms a villain group of his own and wages war on Kick-Ass and his superhero chums.

The first Kick-Ass, directed by Layer Cake auteur Matthew Vaughn, was a huge success both commercially and critically. I think much of the power came from a lack of awareness of the source material (I hadn’t known of the comics beforehand) and therefore a lack expectation behind it, which gave it the chance to completely take audiences by surprise with its super-fun, ultra-violent, supremely entertaining wackiness. The change of director for the sequel, Never Back Down’s Jeff Wadlow, wasn’t exactly optimism-inducing news for fear that it would lose Vaughn’s thrill-paced touch, but here’s a case for always keeping your mind open. All I really wanted from this film was the same level of pure entertainment that the first one brought, and by golly I got it.

Just a whiff of controversy has surrounded the lead-up to the release of Kick-Ass 2, in Jim Carrey’s refusal to promote the film after the awful Sandy Hook massacre at the end of last year. He said he wasn’t ashamed of doing the film, but he couldn’t condone the violence in it after something like that, and has thus refused to do any press tours, interviews, or even tweet about it. I completely respect his decision, as we all should, but it’s also a bit of a shame because the film really is great. Of course It is very violent, much like the first one, but it’s always done in quite a comical tone. Perhaps that doesn’t exactly make it less effective or impacting, but it certainly makes it less hateful, which I think is important in a film like this. Anyway, that’s not even to mention how toned down it is compared to the blood-drenched comics – not that I’ve read any of them, but I’ve heard a thing or two – and whether violent or not, the action is always another level of fun. Getting to see Turk from Scrubs run around in a superhero costume with a spiked baseball bat is worth the admission price alone.

Carrey is a most welcome addition to the cast this time around, despite his post-wrap strike. He’s one of those few actors who can just make a film for me – at least when he’s doing comedy – whether it’s good or bad. From The Cable Guy to Liar, Liar to Ace Venture to Bruce Almighty, his facial expressions, tirelessness and unrelenting wackiness just gets me every time, and while he’s not in that mode in Kick-Ass 2, he still brings an extra level of humour and charm to the mix that only accentuates the fun. As before, he said he isn’t ashamed of the role, which I do hope is true because it’s a great and incredibly enjoyable performance. Donald Faison, too, while not given all that much to do, is fun to have around (too much to hope for a Zach Braff appearance in Kick-Ass 3?), yet once again it’s Moretz who steals the show. She won us all over as Hit Girl at a mere 13 years old, not least because of the effortlessness with which she delivered her sweary lines. While her cursing isn’t as shockingly funny this time around, what with being a few years older, her wit, charm, ass-kicking, and now, beauty, make for an irresistible concoction. She’s made Hit Girl a superstar; or perhaps Hit Girl has made her one.

The film does miss Nicolas Cage, there’s no getting away from that. Love him or hate him, he’s always an entertainer, but there are those rare roles of his that just exuberate – à la Big Daddy. The crazy, smiling picture on Hit Girl’s wall helps a little as a reminder, and Carrey fills the void to an extent, but there remains a vacant hole throughout screaming for the same chemistry that Hit Girl and Big Daddy shared. The core relationship is thus shifted to Hit Girl and Kick-Ass, or more accurately, Dave and Mindy. As Hit Girl becomes her own empowered young woman who Big Daddy would have been proud of, she remains at odds with her adolescence outside of the mask. Dave essentially becomes the Big Daddy to Hit Girl’s Mindy, as he reassures her during the arduous journey of fitting in in high school and teaches her to be her own person, in the same way that Big Daddy would have. It’s a warmly written relationship, and a sweet touch to the narrative.

The score by Henry Jackman and Matthew Margeson is much the same as before, and as fantastic as ever. The main theme has an overwhelming, almost transcendent, power to lift us up and make us grin, and while objectively it’s perhaps a little overused, I found it hard to see that as a problem because it’s such a joy to listen to. It’s an amalgamation of sorts, between original work and some of John Murphy’s wondrous chords on Danny Boyle’s Sunshine - which is not a bad OST to be using. The track that played during Big Daddy’s death in the first movie – which sadly doesn’t show up here – is a brilliant remix of ‘Surface Of The Sun’, one of my favourite tracks of any soundtrack ever.

Kick-Ass 2 ups the ante; where the first film saw Kick-Ass, Hit Girl and Big Daddy virtually going it alone against a mob boss, the sequel creates all out warfare between two armies, and the sheer ludicrousness of the previous finale’s jet pack and bazooka is swapped for the perhaps less hilarious and outrageous but far larger scale mayhem of a shark tank and warehouse brawl. It’s a ballsy, rip-roaring and immensely fun descent into uncompromisingly entertaining, erratically-controlled mayhem.

< Message edited by Whistler -- 15/8/2013 3:13:47 PM >

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 15087
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 15/8/2013 6:49:56 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6716
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

(WARNING - CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR THE FIRST KICK-ASS)



Kick-Ass 2 ups the ante; where the first film saw Kick-Ass, Hit Girl and Big Daddy virtually going it alone against a mob boss, the sequel creates all out warfare between two armies, and the sheer ludicrousness of the previous finale's jet pack and bazooka is swapped for the perhaps less hilarious and outrageous but far larger scale mayhem of a shark tank and warehouse brawl. It's a ballsy, rip-roaring and immensely fun descent into uncompromisingly entertaining, erratically-controlled mayhem.

Loved Kick Ass, so looking forward to number 2, just wish I seen the first on the big screen, so this one is a must for the cinema trip. Well written write up by the way and I like the way you don't score it, just let your words do it for you.
quote:


 
Well it's funny, my review is quite kind but I'm well aware of all the problems it has. Dr Lenera's review is a bit more objective, I think. I guess I feel a little sorry for the film, and because it was more fun than many of the summer blockbusters have been this year, I thought it deserved a bit of praise.

It's not perfect by any means, but I had fun.


Well a mate in work agrees with you he found it was fun, and a refreshing change from all the so called Sci/Fi blockbusters of this year, and he can't understand why it got such bad reviews. Just shows we all get a different view of a film from are own likes and dislikes, and can't always relie on the film critics of the various mags and web sties. Sometimes a good old popcorn fun filled film is all we need, and this seems to be one of them, which maybe needs a little more love than a critical eye.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 15088
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 15/8/2013 9:05:04 PM   
Whistler


Posts: 3107
Joined: 22/11/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

(WARNING - CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR THE FIRST KICK-ASS)



Kick-Ass 2 ups the ante; where the first film saw Kick-Ass, Hit Girl and Big Daddy virtually going it alone against a mob boss, the sequel creates all out warfare between two armies, and the sheer ludicrousness of the previous finale's jet pack and bazooka is swapped for the perhaps less hilarious and outrageous but far larger scale mayhem of a shark tank and warehouse brawl. It's a ballsy, rip-roaring and immensely fun descent into uncompromisingly entertaining, erratically-controlled mayhem.

Loved Kick Ass, so looking forward to number 2, just wish I seen the first on the big screen, so this one is a must for the cinema trip. Well written write up by the way and I like the way you don't score it, just let your words do it for you.


I was expecting something a bit rubbish after critical reception it got - they don't know what they're talking about, it was great!

I don't really like using numbers or a star rating because I feel they're too restrictive, but I have to confess that I do use them on my blog at the suggestion of a few friends and family. I understand some people prefer to have a quick indicator as to whether I liked a film or not (who am I kidding - I like to be able to refer to a quick rating too), so I give it one (out of 10 rather than 5), but I do hope my words speak for themselves so thanks for the feedback

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 15089
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 15/8/2013 9:08:15 PM   
Platter

 

Posts: 112
Joined: 14/8/2010
Swimming Pool (2002) 7 out of 10
For some this slow movie were nothing happens will be like watching paint dry. I found it to be stimulating and interesting. It doesn't really go anywhere and the ending is slightly fumbled in a who cares shrug sort of a way. I think it works well and I enjoyed it. It was mildly engrossing.




Number 23 (2006) 1
It begins okay and is mildly intriguing. Then the silly suicide blonde sequence turns up (the first dialogue heavy fantasy scene) and you can see the movie go down the toilet in front of your very eyes. I think this was the scene where I gave up on the movie when I tried to watch it for the first time over five years ago. I wanted to continue so I powered through it but I just couldn't buy into the number obsession. The number 23 is not scary, or sinister, or unnerving in any way what so ever. The more they reached to contrive connections with the number the more silly it sounded. The fantasy scenes were stupid looking with needless stylistic decisions. Very cheap and under designed with pointless visual trickery. I could only snigger as they failed to get them to work. The movie was not working and it was becoming boring. I noticed I was only 40 minutes in with more than half still to go. I decided the film was a dud and so I gave up on it for the second time.



Maniac (2013) 5
The filming of almost the whole movie from the killers point of view sounds like a weak gimmick. Amazingly it actually works and isn't laboured or in any way compromising to the film. Also the editing was normal so it wasn't endless unbroken takes. It really worked well. It also made the generic kills a lot, lot more creepy than they would have been otherwise. Unfortunately the plot is incredibly standard issue. Nothing odd or unusual happens. It plods through the uneventful (very low body count) and generic slasher storyline without bringing anything new to the genre. Due to the banal storyline the film was overall a bit so-so. It's much better made than usual, but the unimaginative script means it's all for not much.



Robot and Frank (2013) 7
A small, simple little film of no great ambition. It's good but there isn't a lot to it. The story isn't very detailed or dramatic, and it doesn't achieve the poignancy it feels like it was trying for. A very slight movie but very decent.




Gone (2011) 4
It's an interesting story idea but it's a standard straight to rental squandering of potential. The script is weak and doesn't know what to do with the story beyond the most obvious. It doesn't play up the horror element and instead feels more like a tepid thriller. The ending is logically questionable, silly and very anti-climactic. It's a watchable, inoffensive way to waste some time, but it could have been a lot better. Below average with a bad ending.



Django Unchained (2012) 6 (a harsh 6, very close to 7)
I liked it, and I enjoyed it, but it was a bit of a talk-a-thon. A lot of dialogue could have been curbed without doing any harm. Apparently it cost one hundred million dollars to make, but way more than half of it is practically a stage play. I can't imagine why it cost so much as that kind of money is not on the screen. Tarantino really likes his long talking scenes. It's almost like he's deliberately trying to write the longest scenes possible. The film is quite funny and the action decent, but the story doesn't quite gel or work dramatically. There's something hollow and unconvincing about the dramatic element. It's also overlong. The acting is good but for a Tarantino film the casting seems kind of bland - where are all the weird curveball choices, or are they so obscure that I don't notice them? Bland is a good word to describe it. It lacks the inventive zest of his other films. This is almost staid and plodding in comparison. Perhaps the historical setting without modern pop culture to reference hemmed him in (the World War 2 setting of his previous film still gave him room for pop culture references). Also the music selected seemed a little uninspired in my opinion. It's a good film but flawed. His cameo is very bad.



Cloud Atlas (2012) 7
It's a good movie but it falls short of the epic masterpiece they were clearly aiming for. All the bits worked but I'm not sure if any of the stories were that interesting in and of themselves. Did the San Francisco section even have a climax? The connections between the stories felt very minor to the point of irrelevance. The actors playing multiple roles either worked so well you didn't notice (Halle Berry as the white woman married to the composer) or so poorly that it was distracting (the Asian actress playing the wife of the man on the ship who was being poisoned). I think the sci-fi sections (done by the Wachowskis') were a bit so-so, with the more modern days sections (all done by Tom Tykwer) being the more effective. I liked it but I didn't love it.


Run Lola Run (1998) 6
Okay film that isn't as hyperactive and MTV influenced as I expected it to be. The script was pretty banal and didn't really do much for comic or dramatic effect with the three alternative timelines. Watchable though rather middling little film of no great style or substance.



Repeaters (2010) 6
I love the idea of Groundhog Day style repeat movies. This starts a bit underpowered dramatically with little in the way of information being used and abused. It's not a clever script with lots of clockwork precision moments. Then it goes down a logic path to psychopathic behaviour that I wasn't that interested in. Although it has a few funny bits in it, for the most part It's curiously humourless in places. Also I don't follow the logic of the jumper from the damn - it throws up a bunch of questions. It was okay, and far from a failure but it wasn't half as good as it could have been.



Memento (2001) 8
A uniquely told story with an interesting ending. It's very good, although perhaps easier to admire than outright love.




Evil Dead (2013) 7
I enjoyed this a lot more than I expected. I recently watched the three previous movies* and I wasn't that impressed by them. Surprisingly I think this is the best of them. It sustained its small five people in an isolated cabin plot well and didn't feel overlong. There was a nice level of sustained nastiness without become uncomfortable. It wasn't particularly scary. The jumps were mild and few. It looks good without being glossy. It probably wouldn't have done any harm if there was a bit of humour to it. It seems odd to see an Evil Dead movie without any comedy. It was a strong movie. I liked it. Also I didn't find I missed Bruce Campbell. The direction is technically very assured but it does miss the personality and distinctive quirks of Sam Raimi. There is something a little anonymous about the film.

* I have reviews for them but I'm not posting them as they will only piss everyone off.

_____________________________

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 Whistler)
Post #: 15090
Page:   <<   < prev  501 502 [503] 504 505   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Favourite Films >> RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? Page: <<   < prev  501 502 [503] 504 505   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

0.344