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  504 505 [506] 507 508   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 9/9/2013 7:48:41 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6694
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

A rather small review for a rather good film.



Director: Drew Lowery
Cast: Casey Affleck, Rooney Mara, Ben Foster, Keith Carradine, Nate Parker, Robert Longstreet, Charles Baker, Augustine Frizzell
Running time: 96 minutes
Certification: 15

When Bob (Affleck) escapes from prison and attempts to reunite with his wife Ruth (Mara) and the daughter he's never seen, he's tracked by both the law that separated them in the first place and the revenge-seeking men that Bob double-crossed years before.

Ain't Them Bodies Saints is the most naturalistic and modest film you'll see this year. It's just beautiful and down-to-earth storytelling. There's nothing flashy or showy here, nothing attention-grabbing or gut-punching or shock-inducing. There's nothing that will make you run out of the cinema smiling or crying, nothing that will change your world. It's just a sad story about love, revenge and consequences, that plays out a little like a Shakespearean tragedy.

Director Drew Lowery's approach to capturing the earthy feel of rural 70s Texas – the backdrop on which our film is set and balances so delicately on – is to first hire an excellent cinematographer (Bradford Young) and then forgo conventional lighting techniques to the point where our actors' faces are often completely consumed by shadows. During night sequences, or even just rides in a car when the sun isn't searing down, we regularly can't see anyone because there's a very conscious effort to avoid the artificiality that inherently comes with lighting up a set. This would rarely be allowed in mainstream Hollywood. ”Cover up the star's face? Never. We paid millions to get them in this thing, you light the crap outta them, dammit!”. Here, though, it pays off wonderfully. We almost don't need to see their faces because we feel their emotion. There's a strange ethereal quality to the drama that negates the necessity of such conventional tropes and techniques, and it benefits greatly from it.

There's a strong resemblance here to There Will Be Blood. It lacks the scope and sheer corporeal power of Paul Thomas Anderson's masterpiece, but right down to the font used for the titles, it feels as if we're in a similar place – and that is no bad place to be. If Ain't Them Bodies Saints doesn't have the powerhouse performance of Daniel Day Lewis, it has the effortless, brooding presence of Casey Affleck, the younger brother of our new Batman and an astonishing actor who I've been a big fan of ever since his small but standout turn in Good Will Hunting. That was really the first time I took notice of him, and he's just continued to impress me ever since (see The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford for further proof of how brilliant this guy is). Rooney Mara also puts in a wonderful turn, and Ben Foster is magnetic as a conflicted, empathetic Sheriff who tries to comfort Ruth and her child despite being shot by Bob just before he was arrested, sparking some truly engaging and reflective moments between the two.

Modest, naturalistic and profoundly affecting. Ain't Them Bodies Saints is no world-changer, but it's a beautiful, melancholic piece of work, and one of the unexpected standouts of the year.

8/10

Seems you've been a busy writer this past few weeks with yet another cracking review of a film I've still to see, and Casey Affleck is showing all the signs of being a great actor, up there with Depp, De Niro and Pacino . I watched A PLACE IN THE PINES which was awesome, and JACK REACHER which was surprisingly good, so I have my work cut out for this week, as i'll re watch and review.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 15151
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 9/9/2013 7:59:23 PM   
Nexus Wookie


Posts: 2326
Joined: 24/9/2011
From: the Godcity

quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

Good old Snake Eyes for getting you into this Cult Classic film, and your review shows it really did give you a kick, and what about those classic Heavy Metal tunes, just awesome. And I agree with you about CONAN remake, it has it's faults, but in no way is it as bad as it was painted by a lot of film critics, the same with JOHN CARTER which I liked big time.


Without doubt! The score was frakking amazing! The opener was a blast, slow mysterious, atmospheric music .....and then rock and roll baby!


_____________________________

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

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 15152
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 10/9/2013 10:44:34 PM   
Whistler


Posts: 2957
Joined: 22/11/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

Modest, naturalistic and profoundly affecting. Ain't Them Bodies Saints is no world-changer, but it's a beautiful, melancholic piece of work, and one of the unexpected standouts of the year.

8/10

Seems you've been a busy writer this past few weeks with yet another cracking review of a film I've still to see, and Casey Affleck is showing all the signs of being a great actor, up there with Depp, De Niro and Pacino . I watched A PLACE IN THE PINES which was awesome, and JACK REACHER which was surprisingly good, so I have my work cut out for this week, as i'll re watch and review.



Thanks again. Indeed I have - and I'm still behind on current releases. Hope to catch and review About Time this week, and then there's the Insidious 1+2 double-bill on Thursday...

Look forward to your Jack Reacher review. Missed it on release but I'd like to check it out.

_____________________________

Eddy's Film Review
Latest: Need For Speed, Under The Skin, 300: Rise Of An Empire

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 15153
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 10/9/2013 11:54:54 PM   
Mister Coe

 

Posts: 1426
Joined: 20/10/2012
Hope you like ABOUT TIME, Whistler, it was so much better than I thought it would be...

_____________________________

Say what now?

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 15154
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 11/9/2013 7:22:44 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6694
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
Well here's my thoughts on two films I watched on Blu_Ray over the weekend.
JACK REACHER (2012)

Six shots. Five dead. One heartland city thrown into a state of terror. But within hours the cops have it solved: a slam-dunk case. Except for one thing. The accused man says: You got the wrong guy. Then he says: Get Reacher for me. And sure enough, ex-military investigator Jack Reacher is coming. He knows this shooter-a trained military sniper who never should have missed a shot. Reacher is certain something is not right-and soon the slam-dunk case explodes. Now Reacher is teamed with a beautiful young defense lawyer, moving closer to the unseen enemy who is pulling the strings. Reacher knows that no two opponents are created equal. This one has come to the heartland from his own kind of hell. And Reacher knows that the only way to take him down is to match his ruthlessness and cunning-and then beat him shot for shot.

This is a pretty good violent adaptation of the bestselling novel of Lee Child's 2005 novel One Shot, about an Iraq War veteran turned vigilante investigator. Written and directed by Christopher McQuarrie, who also gave us Way Of The Gun, another cracking crime violent thriller, so my hopes where high that this could be a great second feature, though he has written scripts for a number of other films. Well i'm glad to say this is a fast paced no nonsense action/crime thriller, that wastes no time getting the action rolling, while still delivering a great story, and a good mystery tale too, which harks back to the great films in the 70's of  Don Siegel, rather than the new wave of action films that are more 80's/90's based. There's an awesome car chase, lots of action, but at no time do you feel cheated on plot, which for me is a huge bonus, and it is a pretty dark film that reminds me of so many of the 70's films about the corrupt political-industrial corporation's that rule us. Now Tom Cruise is a problem he is no where near like the Jack Reacher of the book, but over all he deliver's a good performance that is believable and has a good chemistry with  Rosamund Pike who stars as defence attorney Helen Rodin. The rest of the cast do a decent job, and the bad guy is very creepy, and you just want Jack to blow him away, and this all helps keep this film in the above average thriller position.6/10
 
A Place Beyond The Pines (2013)

A mysterious motorcycle racer, Luke, (Ryan Gosling) drives out of a traveling carnival globe of death and whizzes through the backstreets of Schenectady, New York, desperately trying to connect with a former lover, Romina, (Eva Mendes) who recently and secretly gave birth to the stunt rider's son. In an attempt to provide for his new family, Luke quits the carnival life and commits a series of bank robberies aided by his superior riding ability. The stakes rise as Luke is put on a collision course with an ambitious police officer, Avery Cross, (Bradley Cooper) looking to quickly move up the ranks in a police department riddled with corruption. The sweeping drama unfolds over fifteen years as the sins of the past haunt the present days lives of two high school boys wrestling with the legacy they've inherited.

This is an epic story about karma, life, greed, and so much more, and with a running time of 140 minutes it somehow packs all this in and more, with great visuals and a hard hitting message.Writer-director Derek Cianfrance has topped his 2010 drama Blue Valentine, with an even finer movie The Place Beyond the Pines,a deep powerful drama that is for me one of the best films of this year. It's a unusual too the way it is set with three major acts, which are filmed in slightly different styles but yet are one film.The first part  focuses on Ryan Gosling, a motorcycle stunt rider who turns to robbing banks to support his new born child, and has a rock video vibe to it, with the neon of the fun fair mixed with the neon of the inside of the banks he robs, and a great use of the scenery too, which reminded me of Twin Peaks, or even First Blood. The soundtrack is phenomenal and the cinematography is so beautiful, and with Ryan Gosling in outstanding form too, with character development packed into the first 20 minutes of the film, very few actors could carry this off with 3 massive life events all happening in this time span. Then there's Eva Mendes with a fine performance as Ryan's ex partner who's moved on, but with his child and a new dad in her life, this is played out with a real gritty feel, which is underplayed in a good way that adds to the realism. Ben Mendelsohn as his boss and so called friend who leads him into bank robbery is also excellent, but it's Ryan who steals this first section, and sets the life changing events in motion.

The second section focuses on Avery Cross (Bradley Cooper), a rookie cop trying to move up the ranks with a family of his own, and  Cooper's acting was simply brilliant, maybe his best role yet, and use's his screen time to full use of his talent, maybe Oscar will beckon. Cooper's portrayal of a good cop merely trying to fulfil his duties in a corrupt police department trying to profit from proceeds of crime is captivating, and his fight with his own conscious after he shoots Luke in a face off, is all on screen in his look and movement. Director Cianfrance switches focus to Avery and his family, and also follows him trying to expose corruption within the department and making a name for himself, and this is where the screen catches fire when Cooper is in conflict with the Ray Liotta's corrupt detective, who with very little screen time ratchet's up the tension on screen. Again this director gives this section a different look and feel a sort of documentary police footage look at times, yet still with a thread of that Twin Peak look, that follows through to the final section where all the threads are neatly tied up.

The third section jumps 15 years forward and is all about the now grown up teenage son's of both Cooper and Gosling, who meet in school knowing noting of the life lines that link them. Jason (Dane DeHaan) and AJ (Emory Cohen) Luke and Avery's kids are decent actors, but Cohen is the weak link he lack's the talent to carry off this last part with all it's build up of emotion.The switch in filming style to a more straight forward camera style,and even soundtrack cools down the energy that so filled the first two parts of the film. These small gripes are not a movie breaking issue because DeHaan is able to show that he is a new face to watch, and delivers a good ending performance that has the right amount of emotion and power to give this superb script the final act it needs.The rest of the supporting cast stand their ground making the film extremely enjoyable and the stunning cinematography by Sean Bobbitt keeps the different styles in the end feeling like one film, and helps make this a fascinating to film to watch. An intense drama, that is full of so much deep layers, it's hard to really describe, it has got me thinking of so many other films I could say it's like, but i'd be wrong, for this is a one off a kind, that deserves to be viewed more than once. And will I believe deliver a different view on life, and what it all means,to different viewers at different times in there lives, so all I can say in summing up it's about karma, what goes round comes round, you reap what you sow. Overall it will divide those who watch it, between love and hate, but I say give it a viewing, relax and enjoy some truly fine acting from a great cast, under the watchful eye of an up and coming great director. 9/10 



_____________________________

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

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 15155
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 12/9/2013 9:24:25 AM   
DONOVAN KURTWOOD


Posts: 8475
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G


Anyone seen this Korean movie? It's awesome. Unfortunately it's been denied a BD release in the UK so I had to pick it up on DVD. I've watched it twice now and I really love it. As the poster suggests, it's an update of The Towering Inferno. The scale of this movie is huge and easily matches the biggest Hollywood blockbusters. In fact the whole movie could be a Hollywood movie, albeit a very well made one. The characters are great and the movie takes good time setting them up in the opening act, with a variety of memorable actors. It's disaster movie 101 through and through but it is all done very well and done right. The FX and set pieces and very well staged and very effectively executed. I can't recommend this movie enough.

A while ago I was on here raving about the Director's previous movie, Sector 7, a fantastic 3D monster movie set on an oil rig. I highly recommend The Tower for fans of action and disaster movies and fans of blockbusters in general.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 15156
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 12/9/2013 11:24:12 AM   
Whistler


Posts: 2957
Joined: 22/11/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

Well here's my thoughts on two films I watched on Blu_Ray over the weekend.
JACK REACHER (2012)

Six shots. Five dead. One heartland city thrown into a state of terror. But within hours the cops have it solved: a slam-dunk case. Except for one thing. The accused man says: You got the wrong guy. Then he says: Get Reacher for me. And sure enough, ex-military investigator Jack Reacher is coming. He knows this shooter-a trained military sniper who never should have missed a shot. Reacher is certain something is not right-and soon the slam-dunk case explodes. Now Reacher is teamed with a beautiful young defense lawyer, moving closer to the unseen enemy who is pulling the strings. Reacher knows that no two opponents are created equal. This one has come to the heartland from his own kind of hell. And Reacher knows that the only way to take him down is to match his ruthlessness and cunning-and then beat him shot for shot.

This is a pretty good violent adaptation of the bestselling novel of Lee Child's 2005 novel One Shot, about an Iraq War veteran turned vigilante investigator. Written and directed by Christopher McQuarrie, who also gave us Way Of The Gun, another cracking crime violent thriller, so my hopes where high that this could be a great second feature, though he has written scripts for a number of other films. Well i'm glad to say this is a fast paced no nonsense action/crime thriller, that wastes no time getting the action rolling, while still delivering a great story, and a good mystery tale too, which harks back to the great films in the 70's of  Don Siegel, rather than the new wave of action films that are more 80's/90's based. There's an awesome car chase, lots of action, but at no time do you feel cheated on plot, which for me is a huge bonus, and it is a pretty dark film that reminds me of so many of the 70's films about the corrupt political-industrial corporation's that rule us. Now Tom Cruise is a problem he is no where near like the Jack Reacher of the book, but over all he deliver's a good performance that is believable and has a good chemistry with  Rosamund Pike who stars as defence attorney Helen Rodin. The rest of the cast do a decent job, and the bad guy is very creepy, and you just want Jack to blow him away, and this all helps keep this film in the above average thriller position.6/10
 



Nice review. I've heard mutterings about Cruise's casting but as I'm a fan of his (Scientology aside) and haven't read any of the books, I don't see it being a problem for me. I'll definitely check it out soon.

Glad you like A Place Beyond The Pines too. I thought it was pretty great.

_____________________________

Eddy's Film Review
Latest: Need For Speed, Under The Skin, 300: Rise Of An Empire

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 15157
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 12/9/2013 9:00:23 PM   
Mister Coe

 

Posts: 1426
Joined: 20/10/2012
JACK REACHER should deffo be checked out,it's a pretty decent thriller.  People go on about Mr Cruise's casting in both JR and INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE... he pulled it off in the latter and he does the same in the former...

_____________________________

Say what now?

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 15158
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 13/9/2013 11:15:25 AM   
evil bill


Posts: 6694
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD



Anyone seen this Korean movie? It's awesome. Unfortunately it's been denied a BD release in the UK so I had to pick it up on DVD. I've watched it twice now and I really love it. As the poster suggests, it's an update of The Towering Inferno. The scale of this movie is huge and easily matches the biggest Hollywood blockbusters. In fact the whole movie could be a Hollywood movie, albeit a very well made one. The characters are great and the movie takes good time setting them up in the opening act, with a variety of memorable actors. It's disaster movie 101 through and through but it is all done very well and done right. The FX and set pieces and very well staged and very effectively executed. I can't recommend this movie enough.

A while ago I was on here raving about the Director's previous movie, Sector 7, a fantastic 3D monster movie set on an oil rig. I highly recommend The Tower for fans of action and disaster movies and fans of blockbusters in general.

Now this I do fancy big time, as I was reading about a remake of The Towering Inferno is on the cards, and always thought of all the Disaster films around this could do with some good CGI, and here it is. Korean but who cares they beat Hollywood to the punch, and going by the trailer it looks awesome, just a shame it's not Blu-Ray, but you say it's excellent that's enough for me.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to DONOVAN KURTWOOD)
Post #: 15159
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 13/9/2013 11:18:54 AM   
evil bill


Posts: 6694
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

JACK REACHER should deffo be checked out,it's a pretty decent thriller.  People go on about Mr Cruise's casting in both JR and INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE... he pulled it off in the latter and he does the same in the former...

Cruise has surprised me a few times now, as he was awesome in Born On The Forth Of July, Interview With The Vampire and Jack Reacher, the Forth Of July was for me his Oscar turn, but even in his lesser films he can entertain.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mister Coe)
Post #: 15160
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 13/9/2013 3:01:37 PM   
DONOVAN KURTWOOD


Posts: 8475
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G
quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD



Anyone seen this Korean movie? It's awesome. Unfortunately it's been denied a BD release in the UK so I had to pick it up on DVD. I've watched it twice now and I really love it. As the poster suggests, it's an update of The Towering Inferno. The scale of this movie is huge and easily matches the biggest Hollywood blockbusters. In fact the whole movie could be a Hollywood movie, albeit a very well made one. The characters are great and the movie takes good time setting them up in the opening act, with a variety of memorable actors. It's disaster movie 101 through and through but it is all done very well and done right. The FX and set pieces and very well staged and very effectively executed. I can't recommend this movie enough.

A while ago I was on here raving about the Director's previous movie, Sector 7, a fantastic 3D monster movie set on an oil rig. I highly recommend The Tower for fans of action and disaster movies and fans of blockbusters in general.

Now this I do fancy big time, as I was reading about a remake of The Towering Inferno is on the cards, and always thought of all the Disaster films around this could do with some good CGI, and here it is. Korean but who cares they beat Hollywood to the punch, and going by the trailer it looks awesome, just a shame it's not Blu-Ray, but you say it's excellent that's enough for me.



Please check it out evil bill, if it wasn't for the Korean actors and setting, you would think this was a Hollywood movie. A lot of Korean/ Asian movies love to try and emulate Hollywood and this one does it very well. The CG is excellent, and the emotional moments are very well played. I'm going to try and seek out a BD release, I hear there is a Korean one and that a US BD release is on the way.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 15161
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 13/9/2013 4:16:05 PM   
Whistler


Posts: 2957
Joined: 22/11/2006


Director: James Wan
Cast: Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, Barbara Hershey, Lin Shaye, Ti Simpkins, Leigh Whannell, Steve Coulter, Angus Sampson
Running time: 105 minutes
Certification: 15

Set directly after the events of the first film, as the Lambert family attempts to readjust to life after the horrifying events they experienced. Unfortunately things don’t improve for long, as Renai (Byrne) and Lorraine (Hershey) once again begin witnessing apparitions around their home, and Dalton (Simpkins) notices an eerie change in his dad, Josh (Wilson), leading to the uncovering of terrifying truths from his childhood.

Insidious blew me away when I first saw it in theaters a couple of years ago. It was one of the most genuinely frightening films I’d seen in quite some time, and remains the subject of one of my most embarrassing stories, in which I actually bruised myself from gripping so hard throughout it. It was that freaking terrifying. So it was it much due anticipation that I went along to see Insidious: Chapter 2 - horror maestro James Wan’s second dose of thrills and chills this year after the excellent The Conjuring - as a double-bill with the first entry.

Without giving away any spoilers for the first film, I was quite unsure of how this was going to play out. Insidious leaves us on a chilling cliffhanger that is certainly open to a sequel, but not one that’s particularly obvious as to where it’s going to go. It’s here, therefore, where the script (penned by Wan’s fellow Australian scribe and Insidious/Saw actor Leigh Whannel) shows off its intelligence and ingenuity. While there are certainly times where the tying up of loose ends feels a little rushed and forced, ultimately the narrative is skillfully woven into the events of the first film, focusing a lot more on back story rather than relentless hauntings. It’s evident in Insidious 2 that Whannel wanted to move away slightly from straight-out horror and construct a plot that has a bit more backbone and complexity. That’s not to say the first Insidious or Saw had none of this, but there’s a definite agenda here. It’s looking to exploit the rich substance of the story by delving even further into The Further, and I’d argue that it succeeds.

Yet as intricate as the script is, what it makes up for in smarts it sacrifices for genuine scares. Like I mentioned, Insidious 2 focuses a lot more on the back story of the hauntings – in particular one of the entities, which incidentally I found the most utterly creepy in the first film. It’s a bittersweet thing; I don’t know whether to love or hate the fact it’s been given an origin story, for on the one hand it provides a sense of relief knowing what and who it is, but on the other it takes away from one of the most impacting aspects of the first film. Ultimately what we want here is to be freaked out, and while the handling of this particular ghoul is still incredibly creepy and sinister, it lacks the cutting edge that it once had.

There’s a lot more comedy this time around. Paranormal investigators Specs and Tucker (played by Whannel & Sampson) return to their comedic bickering but this time vamp it up to ten, acting as a sort of Shaggy/Scooby relationship. In fact, much of their subplot plays out like an episode of Scooby Doo as they follow clues to various locations, being spooked by ghouls along the way. To say the film suffers from too much comedy would be to do it a disservice. While certainly there is lots of it here, I’d argue that it provides a quite frankly welcome relief from the treacherous malignance of the evil narrative.

What we ultimately want from Insidious 2 is scares. Is it scary? Well it does work as a horror because Wan knows his stuff. He knows how to plot out and pace scares effortlessly, and he always plays on our deepest fears. Yet it doesn’t feel as truly evil as the first entry. You could say it isn’t as insidious. In the first film we never knew where the threat was coming from or why. It was just constant frights from a whole platter of different ghouls and entities, each creepier than the last, whereas this one is a little more straight-played. It will creep you out, no doubt about it. It’ll make you jump and squirm; it might even make you not want to fall asleep – but it won’t stay with you for as long.

Ultimately less scary than its predecessor, but undeniably enjoyable. Even when he’s not at his very best, Wan has still made the second best horror movie of the year. I can’t wait to go back to it.

7/10

_____________________________

Eddy's Film Review
Latest: Need For Speed, Under The Skin, 300: Rise Of An Empire

(in reply to DONOVAN KURTWOOD)
Post #: 15162
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 14/9/2013 11:02:08 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3826
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD



Anyone seen this Korean movie? It's awesome. Unfortunately it's been denied a BD release in the UK so I had to pick it up on DVD. I've watched it twice now and I really love it. As the poster suggests, it's an update of The Towering Inferno. The scale of this movie is huge and easily matches the biggest Hollywood blockbusters. In fact the whole movie could be a Hollywood movie, albeit a very well made one. The characters are great and the movie takes good time setting them up in the opening act, with a variety of memorable actors. It's disaster movie 101 through and through but it is all done very well and done right. The FX and set pieces and very well staged and very effectively executed. I can't recommend this movie enough.

A while ago I was on here raving about the Director's previous movie, Sector 7, a fantastic 3D monster movie set on an oil rig. I highly recommend The Tower for fans of action and disaster movies and fans of blockbusters in general.


You and me tend to like the same movies [except Man Of Shit, so I'll check this out pronto.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to DONOVAN KURTWOOD)
Post #: 15163
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 14/9/2013 11:04:05 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3826
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

Well here's my thoughts on two films I watched on Blu_Ray over the weekend.
JACK REACHER (2012)

Six shots. Five dead. One heartland city thrown into a state of terror. But within hours the cops have it solved: a slam-dunk case. Except for one thing. The accused man says: You got the wrong guy. Then he says: Get Reacher for me. And sure enough, ex-military investigator Jack Reacher is coming. He knows this shooter-a trained military sniper who never should have missed a shot. Reacher is certain something is not right-and soon the slam-dunk case explodes. Now Reacher is teamed with a beautiful young defense lawyer, moving closer to the unseen enemy who is pulling the strings. Reacher knows that no two opponents are created equal. This one has come to the heartland from his own kind of hell. And Reacher knows that the only way to take him down is to match his ruthlessness and cunning-and then beat him shot for shot.

This is a pretty good violent adaptation of the bestselling novel of Lee Child's 2005 novel One Shot, about an Iraq War veteran turned vigilante investigator. Written and directed by Christopher McQuarrie, who also gave us Way Of The Gun, another cracking crime violent thriller, so my hopes where high that this could be a great second feature, though he has written scripts for a number of other films. Well i'm glad to say this is a fast paced no nonsense action/crime thriller, that wastes no time getting the action rolling, while still delivering a great story, and a good mystery tale too, which harks back to the great films in the 70's of  Don Siegel, rather than the new wave of action films that are more 80's/90's based. There's an awesome car chase, lots of action, but at no time do you feel cheated on plot, which for me is a huge bonus, and it is a pretty dark film that reminds me of so many of the 70's films about the corrupt political-industrial corporation's that rule us. Now Tom Cruise is a problem he is no where near like the Jack Reacher of the book, but over all he deliver's a good performance that is believable and has a good chemistry with  Rosamund Pike who stars as defence attorney Helen Rodin. The rest of the cast do a decent job, and the bad guy is very creepy, and you just want Jack to blow him away, and this all helps keep this film in the above average thriller position.6/10
 
A Place Beyond The Pines (2013)

A mysterious motorcycle racer, Luke, (Ryan Gosling) drives out of a traveling carnival globe of death and whizzes through the backstreets of Schenectady, New York, desperately trying to connect with a former lover, Romina, (Eva Mendes) who recently and secretly gave birth to the stunt rider's son. In an attempt to provide for his new family, Luke quits the carnival life and commits a series of bank robberies aided by his superior riding ability. The stakes rise as Luke is put on a collision course with an ambitious police officer, Avery Cross, (Bradley Cooper) looking to quickly move up the ranks in a police department riddled with corruption. The sweeping drama unfolds over fifteen years as the sins of the past haunt the present days lives of two high school boys wrestling with the legacy they've inherited.

This is an epic story about karma, life, greed, and so much more, and with a running time of 140 minutes it somehow packs all this in and more, with great visuals and a hard hitting message.Writer-director Derek Cianfrance has topped his 2010 drama Blue Valentine, with an even finer movie The Place Beyond the Pines,a deep powerful drama that is for me one of the best films of this year. It's a unusual too the way it is set with three major acts, which are filmed in slightly different styles but yet are one film.The first part  focuses on Ryan Gosling, a motorcycle stunt rider who turns to robbing banks to support his new born child, and has a rock video vibe to it, with the neon of the fun fair mixed with the neon of the inside of the banks he robs, and a great use of the scenery too, which reminded me of Twin Peaks, or even First Blood. The soundtrack is phenomenal and the cinematography is so beautiful, and with Ryan Gosling in outstanding form too, with character development packed into the first 20 minutes of the film, very few actors could carry this off with 3 massive life events all happening in this time span. Then there's Eva Mendes with a fine performance as Ryan's ex partner who's moved on, but with his child and a new dad in her life, this is played out with a real gritty feel, which is underplayed in a good way that adds to the realism. Ben Mendelsohn as his boss and so called friend who leads him into bank robbery is also excellent, but it's Ryan who steals this first section, and sets the life changing events in motion.

The second section focuses on Avery Cross (Bradley Cooper), a rookie cop trying to move up the ranks with a family of his own, and  Cooper's acting was simply brilliant, maybe his best role yet, and use's his screen time to full use of his talent, maybe Oscar will beckon. Cooper's portrayal of a good cop merely trying to fulfil his duties in a corrupt police department trying to profit from proceeds of crime is captivating, and his fight with his own conscious after he shoots Luke in a face off, is all on screen in his look and movement. Director Cianfrance switches focus to Avery and his family, and also follows him trying to expose corruption within the department and making a name for himself, and this is where the screen catches fire when Cooper is in conflict with the Ray Liotta's corrupt detective, who with very little screen time ratchet's up the tension on screen. Again this director gives this section a different look and feel a sort of documentary police footage look at times, yet still with a thread of that Twin Peak look, that follows through to the final section where all the threads are neatly tied up.

The third section jumps 15 years forward and is all about the now grown up teenage son's of both Cooper and Gosling, who meet in school knowing noting of the life lines that link them. Jason (Dane DeHaan) and AJ (Emory Cohen) Luke and Avery's kids are decent actors, but Cohen is the weak link he lack's the talent to carry off this last part with all it's build up of emotion.The switch in filming style to a more straight forward camera style,and even soundtrack cools down the energy that so filled the first two parts of the film. These small gripes are not a movie breaking issue because DeHaan is able to show that he is a new face to watch, and delivers a good ending performance that has the right amount of emotion and power to give this superb script the final act it needs.The rest of the supporting cast stand their ground making the film extremely enjoyable and the stunning cinematography by Sean Bobbitt keeps the different styles in the end feeling like one film, and helps make this a fascinating to film to watch. An intense drama, that is full of so much deep layers, it's hard to really describe, it has got me thinking of so many other films I could say it's like, but i'd be wrong, for this is a one off a kind, that deserves to be viewed more than once. And will I believe deliver a different view on life, and what it all means,to different viewers at different times in there lives, so all I can say in summing up it's about karma, what goes round comes round, you reap what you sow. Overall it will divide those who watch it, between love and hate, but I say give it a viewing, relax and enjoy some truly fine acting from a great cast, under the watchful eye of an up and coming great director. 9/10 




J Reacher I thought was a bit meh, Place Beyond The Pines I still need to see, judging by your review I'll love it.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 15164
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 14/9/2013 11:05:23 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3826
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler



Director: James Wan
Cast: Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, Barbara Hershey, Lin Shaye, Ti Simpkins, Leigh Whannell, Steve Coulter, Angus Sampson
Running time: 105 minutes
Certification: 15

Set directly after the events of the first film, as the Lambert family attempts to readjust to life after the horrifying events they experienced. Unfortunately things don’t improve for long, as Renai (Byrne) and Lorraine (Hershey) once again begin witnessing apparitions around their home, and Dalton (Simpkins) notices an eerie change in his dad, Josh (Wilson), leading to the uncovering of terrifying truths from his childhood.

Insidious blew me away when I first saw it in theaters a couple of years ago. It was one of the most genuinely frightening films I’d seen in quite some time, and remains the subject of one of my most embarrassing stories, in which I actually bruised myself from gripping so hard throughout it. It was that freaking terrifying. So it was it much due anticipation that I went along to see Insidious: Chapter 2 - horror maestro James Wan’s second dose of thrills and chills this year after the excellent The Conjuring - as a double-bill with the first entry.

Without giving away any spoilers for the first film, I was quite unsure of how this was going to play out. Insidious leaves us on a chilling cliffhanger that is certainly open to a sequel, but not one that’s particularly obvious as to where it’s going to go. It’s here, therefore, where the script (penned by Wan’s fellow Australian scribe and Insidious/Saw actor Leigh Whannel) shows off its intelligence and ingenuity. While there are certainly times where the tying up of loose ends feels a little rushed and forced, ultimately the narrative is skillfully woven into the events of the first film, focusing a lot more on back story rather than relentless hauntings. It’s evident in Insidious 2 that Whannel wanted to move away slightly from straight-out horror and construct a plot that has a bit more backbone and complexity. That’s not to say the first Insidious or Saw had none of this, but there’s a definite agenda here. It’s looking to exploit the rich substance of the story by delving even further into The Further, and I’d argue that it succeeds.

Yet as intricate as the script is, what it makes up for in smarts it sacrifices for genuine scares. Like I mentioned, Insidious 2 focuses a lot more on the back story of the hauntings – in particular one of the entities, which incidentally I found the most utterly creepy in the first film. It’s a bittersweet thing; I don’t know whether to love or hate the fact it’s been given an origin story, for on the one hand it provides a sense of relief knowing what and who it is, but on the other it takes away from one of the most impacting aspects of the first film. Ultimately what we want here is to be freaked out, and while the handling of this particular ghoul is still incredibly creepy and sinister, it lacks the cutting edge that it once had.

There’s a lot more comedy this time around. Paranormal investigators Specs and Tucker (played by Whannel & Sampson) return to their comedic bickering but this time vamp it up to ten, acting as a sort of Shaggy/Scooby relationship. In fact, much of their subplot plays out like an episode of Scooby Doo as they follow clues to various locations, being spooked by ghouls along the way. To say the film suffers from too much comedy would be to do it a disservice. While certainly there is lots of it here, I’d argue that it provides a quite frankly welcome relief from the treacherous malignance of the evil narrative.

What we ultimately want from Insidious 2 is scares. Is it scary? Well it does work as a horror because Wan knows his stuff. He knows how to plot out and pace scares effortlessly, and he always plays on our deepest fears. Yet it doesn’t feel as truly evil as the first entry. You could say it isn’t as insidious. In the first film we never knew where the threat was coming from or why. It was just constant frights from a whole platter of different ghouls and entities, each creepier than the last, whereas this one is a little more straight-played. It will creep you out, no doubt about it. It’ll make you jump and squirm; it might even make you not want to fall asleep – but it won’t stay with you for as long.

Ultimately less scary than its predecessor, but undeniably enjoyable. Even when he’s not at his very best, Wan has still made the second best horror movie of the year. I can’t wait to go back to it.

7/10


I have to wait till Thurs to see this, the first Insidious freaked me out big-time, so maybe I'll appreciate a softer ride this time!!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 15165
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 14/9/2013 11:12:11 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3826
Joined: 19/10/2005

The night after another unsatisfactory New Year party, Tim Lake’s father tells his son that the men in his family have always had the ability to travel through time. Tim can’t change history, but he can change what has happened in his own life. Tim immediately sets out to get himself a girlfriend but that turns out not to be as easy as you might think, with his attempts to woo a friend who is staying with his family, failing miserably. Moving from the Cornwall coast to London to train as a lawyer, Tim finally meets Mary. They are immediately attracted to each other, but when he tries to help his housemate an unfortunate time-travel incident means he’s never met her at all. However, all Tom needs to do is travel back in time a little bit and rectify the situation…..

About Time will probably please fans of writer and director Richard Curtis greatly, as it has most of his tried and tested elements in spades, right from yet again taking place in a twee, cosy, middle-class version of England that seems divorced from the outside world and makes Curtis seem like some kind of tourist rep for gullible Americans. There’s the awkward, slightly bumbling [yet who can still get laid on a first date] English hero who here may not be Hugh Grant but sounds and acts just like him [which is a huge problem when he narrates much of the thing] and woos an American girl. He has an eccentric family or group of friends. There’s the [supposedly] funny housemate and the damaged close friend [here a sister]. Then there’s a montage when the seasons quickly pass by, lots of scenes where people say embarrassing things, constant pop songs, even a wedding and a funeral, and…..well, you get the idea. Fans will have fun ticking all this stuff off, but if you’re not a fan you may just as much get tired of seeing the same stuff yet again and even end up feeling rather ill.

I’ve always been of the opinion that his writing is very limited [even Blackadder is nowhere near as funny when revisited twenty years later], and that Love Actually, which was three quarters of a really good film, was some kind of aberration. About Time has a few good scenes and ideas, but is overall a really lazy exercise that showcases the worst aspects of Curtis in spades. It never becomes as excruciating as, say, Bridget Jones’s Diary [which he co-wrote], or as dull as Notting Hill, but it’s a seriously flawed endeavour nonetheless. Take for example the comedy. In About Time, the so-called humour almost entirely consists of somebody swearing or saying something sexual, usually to more than one person, but sometimes not. I reckon the person who the audience is most supposed to laugh at is the hero’s housemate Harry, whose character is basically that he’s randomly rude to people. When Tim goes to stay with him for the first time, he is shown to his room and is almost immediately told he can f*** Harry’s sister when Tim sees her picture. Mildly amusing I suppose if you’re in a certain mood, but juvenile and actually more disturbing than funny, especially if we are actually supposed to like this person. It’s nowhere near as disturbing though as Tim’s sister Kit Kat [!], who is almost incestuously touchy-feely with her family and even pounces on Mary when she first meets the family. I guess it’s supposed to show how needy she is, but all it does is create frustration at Curtis hinting at something complex or disturbing but then backing away from it.

The opening immediately sets a bad tone when Tim, narrating [remember, Domhnall Gleeson sounds like Hugh Grant], describes his family, over images of them, in a way which is obviously supposed to be funny, but isn’t. We do soon get into the story and things get going very quickly. Tim is informed by his dad that the male members of their family can travel back in time, and straight away starts to use his gift, though of course mostly for himself. The film quickly becomes a variant on Groundhog Day, but unlike the changes in emotion and variety of that film’s repeating of events, it basically stays on one level and soon becomes a bit tedious. Tim says something wrong? Bingo….he goes back in time to change what he said. Sometimes he helps other people with his gift, and the time travelling eventually leads to some quite moving scenes between father and son, with another fine Bill Nighy performance. However, the film repeatedly breaks its own rules regarding its fantasy aspect. Dad says to son that he can’t change history, but later on does that very thing. He also says that it’s just male family members who have this gift, but a female one later on goes back in time.

Of course time travel tales are full of paradoxes – it’s part of what makes them such fun – but here it soon becomes apparent that it’s all just a gimmick upon which to hang Curtis’s view of the world, which is basically that it’s all wonderful and everyone’s lovely. There’s nothing wrong with saying that if that’s what you think, and Curtis managed this well at the beginning and end of Love Actually, where even I felt all happy and lovey-dovey and not only that but felt pleased that I had been manipulated to feel that way. The last twenty minutes of About Time though are thoroughly nauseating. For what seems like an eternity, we are fed images of people smiling, being nice and doing favours for others while Domhnall Gleeson [remember, he sounds like Hugh Grant] goes on and on in the narration ramming home points like how you have to appreciate each and every day. Frankly, all this could have been cut to about two minutes. Feeling warm inside? No way, I felt like throwing up and came out wanting to hit the nearest person. There are occasionally times where the act of emotional manipulation can go too far.

There is no doubt that About Time is a very personal film for Curtis, but it needed a lot of work in all its stages to actually make it a good one. There is one rather ‘dark’ moment involving a baby, but it doesn’t fit with the rest of the film. His direction, which is mostly as smooth and unobtrusive as ever, uses extreme close-ups in a couple of scenes to good effect, but every now and again uses the dreaded [well, by me anyway, and hopefully by anybody who cares about cinema] ‘shakycam’ technique [somebody following the cast members with a handheld camera shaking it about as if they are epileptic] for a few seconds. It jars incredibly and is pointless. Meanwhile, aside from the father and son scenes mentioned earlier, little convinces. Gleeson and Rachel McAdams [used to time travelling] don’t help by having no chemistry whatsoever. Good points? Well, the couple’s first meeting is cute and original, it occurring in almost total darkness. There is a very funny bit where Tim uses his gift to make sex better. The soundtrack includes good stuff from the likes of The Cure, Amy Winehouse and Nick Cave, and the Cave song is cleverly used more than once, but as usual too often the songs just seem thrown in there and are too frequent.

There’s probably a half-decent 90 min film that exists somewhere in About Time, but it’s hard to locate amongst all the sludge and maudlin tedium, much of which actually feels like deleted scenes from The Time Traveller’s Wife [which wasn't great in itself, but at least seemed like a fully realised project]. It may wear its heart on its sleeve, but here that’s nowhere near enough.

Rating: 4/10

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 15166
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 14/9/2013 11:22:55 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3826
Joined: 19/10/2005

France, 18th century. Lieutenant Andre Duvalier has been accidentally separated from his regiment. Wandering near the coast, he sees and begins to follow a mysterious woman who never answers him. Attacked by a raven, he awakes in the house of an old woman who claims never to have seen the woman, but a man who lives in her house tells him to enquire at the castle of Baron Von Leppe. This he does, but when inside the castle, he is told again that the woman doesn’t exist. Then he sees a picture of Von Leppe’s deceased wife on the wall. She looks just like the strange woman Duvalier has been seeing….

Roger Corman’s marvellous Edgar Allan Poe adaptations are wonderful exercises in Gothic horror and were responsible for making me fall in love with the great writer’s work when I saw them on TV as a teenager [such films rarely get shown now, presumably it’s considered that less people want to watch old movies, but I reckon this is in part due to the former.....but I digress]. The 1965 flick The Haunted Palace is sometimes considered part of the series, but is actually based the work of H.P.Lovecraft. I’m very surprised that The Terror isn’t more often linked with the Corman Poe films, because it has a very Poe-like feel about it as well as borrowing somewhat from The Fall Of The House Of Usher and containing a distinct whiff of Lenore. Then again, it’s a hard film to see in a decent print, and I don’t remember it ever been shown on UK TV at all – it probably was, but can’t have been very often. Due to Corman never registering it with the U.S. Copyright Office, The Terror lapsed into the public domain and various video and DVD companies have been able to release it, always in a bad print. By all accounts a recent R1 Blu-ray release isn’t much better, though a good version has apparently been shown on US TV. I picked my DVD copy up for a quid, and despite the weak picture, it was worth every penny. It’s not quite a horror classic and is at times both clumsy and confusing, but it has great things in it.

The story behind the making of this film is fascinating. Corman was making The Raven when he realized that he was running ahead of his production schedule so, rather than waste the film’s sets and cast, he got writer Leo Gordon to write part of a script that could be shot in three days immediately after on them, for a production that would then be stopped and finished later when the rest of the script was written. He also made a deal with Boris Karloff to be available for three days filming for a small amount of money plus a deferred payment when the film made a certain amount amount of money. Over the following nine months, Corman, plus star Jack Nicholson [in his first leading role for Corman] and three future directing notables Francis Ford Coppola, Monte Hellman and Jack Hill, finished the rest of what was largely an improvised production and which also used sets from The Haunted Palace. The Terror did make money but it was three years before Karloff saw the money he was promised. In 1989, Corman, in an effort to regain copyright of the film, shot new beginning and ending footage featuring cast member Dick Miller, but this version wasn’t circulated much. Miller says the money he received for a day’s work was the most he ever received from Corman.

So, knowing its history, you would expect The Terror to be a total hodgepodge. For God’s sake, this a film where Karloff’s scenes were shot so quickly that they didn’t even bother to use slates to mark the beginnings of shots, where Nicholson’s costume is exactly the one worn by Marlon Brando nine years before in Desiree, and where one quicksand scene was shot in one of the director’s gardens after being thought up on the spot. And at times the film does show evidence of its production. Exteriors often don’t match. One outdoor scene cuts randomly from the middle of the day to the evening. What seems like the sound stage lights come on in one funny moment and the camera has to adjust to the new light. Nicholson’s character survives a rockslide but in the next shot all the rocks are gone. Sets wobble. Bricks float. The plot is easy to understand for the first half, but then becomes almost unintelligible because they were making much of it up as they went along.

Set against this though is much that is good, and I personally am happy to accept more flaws, some of which might be unavoidable, in a low budget production like this, then in your average expensive blockbuster. The film absolutely oozes with Gothic atmosphere and, despite being credited to two cinemagographers [John Nicholaus and Floyd Crosby] is at times so visually striking that it matches not only the great look of Corman’s Poe pictures but the even more beautiful Mario Bava films like The Whip And The Body. Scenes in a forest paint web-like patterns with black. A graveyard is shrouded in fog and disappears into a dreamlike nothingness, the lack of a full set actually being a good thing. An eerie blue often pervades, especially inside the castle. The early scenes of Duvalier pursuing ‘Helene’ , which have an almost painfully dark romantic quality about them, get closer to the essence of Poe then perhaps any of Corman’s official adaptations. These, and the many scenes of Duvalier alone in the castle, benefit from superb scoring by Ronald Stein, the composer fully understanding the feel and tone which were being attempted with his eerie, often subtly unnerving music [though some of it resembles passages from the score to The Curse Of Frankenstein].

The story does get very confusing, a real feat in a film with just six cast members. The pacing is just right though, nice and leisurely for the first two thirds and then very fast from then on. The gore is mostly restricted to a raven attack and a woman’s face rotting away [both of which were cut by the BBFC on its cinema release], and the bird scene only shows the blood after the attack, but the face-rotting scene is fascinating to watch. Perhaps it doesn’t look realistic, but I simply adore this kind of cheap special effect, where somebody worked against time and money, with no computer help, to realise something required by the script, and does it look any less realistic than some of the CGI stuff you see in big films today? It all climaxes in a big flood, which disappointed the crew-members who were looking forward to ‘fire day’, Corman’s films often ending in a conflagration. Nicholson nearly drowned and the elderly Karloff hated being in the water, but Karloff, despite being uncomfortable at the amount of physical activity Corman asked him to do, is excellent in his last decent role except for Targets [which used footage from The Terror]. When he speaks of how his dead wife came to be dead, and when he appears to be visited by her ghost, he is very moving. Enjoy it or not, the actor put his all into the film and shows how good and perhaps underused [he never turned his back on the horror genre which he loved, but would have been so good in other types of movies and roles] he was.

Nicholson seems lost, as perhaps he was. He was never that good in his Corman roles and, if you didn’t know better, you wouldn’t imagine he would become the great actor and star he soon became. The Terror is a difficult film to entirely judge overall. Its flaws, whether or not they were unavoidable, are probably as numerous as its good points, but there is true genius in places, whether entirely intended or not, and it’s absolutely essential viewing for fans of the Gothic, which is why my rating is higher than many other people’s might be. Its incredible atmosphere and poetic quality will stick with me for quite a while. But please, somebody properly restore it.

Rating: 7/10

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 15167
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 15/9/2013 8:29:57 PM   
Whistler


Posts: 2957
Joined: 22/11/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera





There’s probably a half-decent 90 min film that exists somewhere in About Time, but it’s hard to locate amongst all the sludge and maudlin tedium, much of which actually feels like deleted scenes from The Time Traveller’s Wife [which wasn't great in itself, but at least seemed like a fully realised project]. It may wear its heart on its sleeve, but here that’s nowhere near enough.

Rating: 4/10


STILL haven't gotten around to checking this out, but I have a feeling I'll like it more than you. Blackadder, for me, remains one of the funniest TV shows ever made, and I love Notting Hill, Four Weddings and Love Actually

_____________________________

Eddy's Film Review
Latest: Need For Speed, Under The Skin, 300: Rise Of An Empire

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 15168
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 15/9/2013 9:48:44 PM   
Art Decade

 

Posts: 75
Joined: 29/12/2012
Blu Ray release Nov 4th 2013!

quote:

Special Features:

High Definition digital transfer of the film by Universal Pictures
Original uncompressed Stereo 2.0 audio
Optional English SDH subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing
Audio commentary with star Brandon Quintin Adams, moderated by Calum Waddell
Fear, Freud and Class Warfare: Director Wes Craven Discusses the Timely Terrors of The People Under the Stairs
Behind Closed Doors: Leading Lady A.J. Langer Remembers The People Under the Stairs
Silent But Deadly: Co-Star Sean Whalen on The People Under the Stairs
Underneath the Floorboards: Jeffrey Reddick, creator of The Final Destination series, recalls the lasting impact of The People Under the Stairs
Original Trailer
Reversible sleeve featuring original and newly commissioned artwork by Stephen R. Bissette
Collectors booklet featuring new writing on the film, illustrated with original archive stills


< Message edited by Art Decade -- 15/9/2013 9:49:44 PM >

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 15169
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 16/9/2013 5:23:30 PM   
paul.mccluskey


Posts: 5101
Joined: 15/4/2007
From: Port Glasgow, Scotland, UK
quote:

ORIGINAL: Art Decade

Blu Ray release Nov 4th 2013!

quote:

Special Features:

High Definition digital transfer of the film by Universal Pictures
Original uncompressed Stereo 2.0 audio
Optional English SDH subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing
Audio commentary with star Brandon Quintin Adams, moderated by Calum Waddell
Fear, Freud and Class Warfare: Director Wes Craven Discusses the Timely Terrors of The People Under the Stairs
Behind Closed Doors: Leading Lady A.J. Langer Remembers The People Under the Stairs
Silent But Deadly: Co-Star Sean Whalen on The People Under the Stairs
Underneath the Floorboards: Jeffrey Reddick, creator of The Final Destination series, recalls the lasting impact of The People Under the Stairs
Original Trailer
Reversible sleeve featuring original and newly commissioned artwork by Stephen R. Bissette
Collectors booklet featuring new writing on the film, illustrated with original archive stills


Also, the 1978 version of Invasion of the Bodysnatchers will be released on Blu-ray on 18th November. Extras include:

- High Definition Blu-ray (1080p) presentation of the film
- Original uncompressed Stereo 2.0 audio / 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio
- Optional English SDH subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing
- Audio commentary with director Philip Kaufman
- Pod Discussion: A new panel conversation about Invasion of the Body Snatchers and invasion cinema featuring critic Kim Newman and filmmakers Ben Wheatley and Norman J. Warren
- Dissecting the Pod: A new interview with Kaufman biographer Annette Insdorf
- Pod Novel: A new interview with Jack Seabrook, author of “Stealing through Time: On the Writings of Jack Finney” about Finney’s original novel ‘The Body Snatchers’
- Re-Visitors from Outer Space: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Pod – a documentary on the making of the film featuring Philip Kaufman, Donald Sutherland, writer W.D. Richter and more
- The Man Behind the Scream: The Sound Effects Pod – a look at the film’s pioneering sound effects
- The Invasion Will Be Televised: The Cinematography Pod – cinematographer Michael Chapman (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull) discusses the look of and influences on the visual style of the film
- Practical Magic: The Special Effect Pod – A look at the creation of the special effects from the opening space sequence
- Original Theatrical Trailer
- Reversible sleeve featuring original and newly commissioned artwork by Nathanael Marsh
- Collector’s booklet featuring new writing on the film by critic David Cairns, as well as re-prints of classic articles including contemporary interviews with Philip Kaufman and W.D. Richter, illustrated with original archive stills and posters



_____________________________

My DVD Collection

Do not walk away in silence...

(in reply to Art Decade)
Post #: 15170
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 16/9/2013 8:29:36 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6694
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler





Ultimately less scary than its predecessor, but undeniably enjoyable. Even when he's not at his very best, Wan has still made the second best horror movie of the year. I can't wait to go back to it.

7/10

Well he wasn't going to top his best horror film of this decade, but it sounds like it's a decent part 2, and the second best horror film of the year well i'll see tomorrow night all being well.

quote:


 
There is no doubt that About Time is a very personal film for Curtis, but it needed a lot of work in all its stages to actually make it a good one. There is one rather ‘dark’ moment involving a baby, but it doesn’t fit with the rest of the film. His direction, which is mostly as smooth and unobtrusive as ever, uses extreme close-ups in a couple of scenes to good effect, but every now and again uses the dreaded [well, by me anyway, and hopefully by anybody who cares about cinema] ‘shakycam’ technique [somebody following the cast members with a handheld camera shaking it about as if they are epileptic] for a few seconds. It jars incredibly and is pointless. Meanwhile, aside from the father and son scenes mentioned earlier, little convinces. Gleeson and Rachel McAdams [used to time travelling] don’t help by having no chemistry whatsoever. Good points? Well, the couple’s first meeting is cute and original, it occurring in almost total darkness. There is a very funny bit where Tim uses his gift to make sex better. The soundtrack includes good stuff from the likes of The Cure, Amy Winehouse and Nick Cave, and the Cave song is cleverly used more than once, but as usual too often the songs just seem thrown in there and are too frequent.

There’s probably a half-decent 90 min film that exists somewhere in About Time, but it’s hard to locate amongst all the sludge and maudlin tedium, much of which actually feels like deleted scenes from The Time Traveller’s Wife [which wasn't great in itself, but at least seemed like a fully realised project]. It may wear its heart on its sleeve, but here that’s nowhere near enough.

Rating: 4/10

 
 not a fan of these type of films, and apart from the soundtrack I think it fails the test of being a film that fit's on this thread, but i'm easy still a great review, and we do bend the rules of what is fit for this thread.
So let's get back to what really fits, and this film fits so neatly on here, and was a  highly enjoyable rental Blu-ray viewing over the weekend.
STOKER (2013)

India Stoker(Mia Wasikowska) was not prepared to lose her father and best friend Richard (Dermount Mulroney) in a tragic auto accident. The solitude of her woodsy family estate, the peace of her tranquil town, and the unspoken sombreness of her home life are suddenly upended by not only this mysterious accident, but by the sudden arrival of her Uncle Charlie (Mathew Goode) whom she never knew existed. When Charlie moves in with her and her emotionally unstable mother Evie (Nicole Kidman) India thinks the void left by her father's death is finally being filled by his closest bloodline. Soon after his arrival, India comes to suspect that this mysterious, charming man has ulterior motives. Yet instead of feeling outrage or horror, this friendless young woman becomes increasingly infatuated with him.

Now I watched this on Sunday night, and what a surprise it was, and some how suited a Sunday nights viewing, with it's slow burn, in a very visual entrancing dark gothic style, with it's strange, melancholy story. It's plot of fragile relationships in what at times feels like an extreme Adams Family twisted take, and has a real Vampire feel to it, hence the title name Stoker, but not a set of fangs in sight, for this is about sexual predator seducing the innocent and is full of symbolism that could fit into a tale of Vampires. This strange mix  of a film is all developed with great mastery by acclaimed director Chan-wook Park (Thirst, Old Boy) in a tale of obsession, sexual desires and secrets that create a tale of chilling terror. It's also a great  mystery/thriller that Hitchcock would be proud of, but at no time steals from any of the great mans films or any other film I can think of. It's a superbly well scripted film, that's use of the dialogue is outstanding, giving the actors plenty to work with, and of course great performances from all.

Nicole Kidman plays mother Evelyn Stoker, who has recently been widowed and I have to say she fit's so neatly into this role, and plays it in an entirely believable way, as we find her struggle with her own distress at the lost of her husband, and a teenage daughter she has been distant from. She never overplays any role she is given, and here you feel her loss, her confusion, of her husbands brother turning up who she never knew existed, her own latent desire to be loved again, but guilt at having these feeling, and yet jealous of her own child, who grows ever closer to her uncle.Matthew Goode plays the strange  charismatically creepy Uncle Charles Stoker, in a real unnerving yet hypnotic way, that shows a talent I never thought this actor had to be honest, yeah he's always been a decent actor, but here he goes the extra mile. But there's simply no argument as to who steals the film, it's Mia Wasikowska (Alice In Wonderland, Jane Eyre), as 18 year old India Stoker, she is outstanding here, in what should at the very least get her an Oscar nod. She is 23 has the skill and looks to be an 18 year old, as her character demands, and being the main focus of the film,she was perfectly cast for the role, as she's old, portray a darkly sexy woman, yet make you the viewer feel a little conflicted about thinking so, as this is a teenage girl, despite her innocent appearance, has a look that you can believe hides a personality a lot more sinister.

The true star of course is Chan-wook Park direction, from the surreal CGI aided opening which is also the ending, to the stylish, artistic, beautiful, camera work that so marks this film as not just another Hollywood thriller. It is also must be said quite controversial and feeling much more like a movie from South Korea, though less violent and more subtle than those movies. Not that there's not any violence, cause there is, and it is brutal when it appears, but this is primarily a character study focusing on the loss of innocence. It's stunning to look at and almost every shot is symbolic, mainly it's sexual symbolism regarding loss of innocence, and the same goes for the frequent symbolism in the dialogue, and his use of colour and shade keeps you glued, even with it's very slow opening pace, that goes from a crawl to a prance later. Those looking for the action of Old Boy will be disappointed, but those looking for a deep, well written and directed film, that is more close to Argento's Gothic thrillers wil be well pleased. I mentioned Hitchcock and Argento, and the reason being this is the Korean Hitchcock, who reminds me of that one time master of terror the Italian Hitchcock, for there's a wonderful Hitchcock feel to it and clearly pays homage to Shadow Of A doubt with a character called Uncle Charlie. But yet like Argento's early work, it is so much different in style and content, and with a 20 minute enforced cut made to the film by an editor for the studio, it reminded me of Argento's problems with getting his filmed vision released. Here's hoping there's a Director cut released at some point, for I think this just falls short of being a masterpiece, for it's awesome, but something is missing that I can't put my finger on,still I will give it a good score, maybe on second watch i'll give it a ten but for now.9/10 

.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 15171
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 17/9/2013 12:30:50 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3826
Joined: 19/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler





Ultimately less scary than its predecessor, but undeniably enjoyable. Even when he's not at his very best, Wan has still made the second best horror movie of the year. I can't wait to go back to it.

7/10

Well he wasn't going to top his best horror film of this decade, but it sounds like it's a decent part 2, and the second best horror film of the year well i'll see tomorrow night all being well.

quote:


 
There is no doubt that About Time is a very personal film for Curtis, but it needed a lot of work in all its stages to actually make it a good one. There is one rather ‘dark’ moment involving a baby, but it doesn’t fit with the rest of the film. His direction, which is mostly as smooth and unobtrusive as ever, uses extreme close-ups in a couple of scenes to good effect, but every now and again uses the dreaded [well, by me anyway, and hopefully by anybody who cares about cinema] ‘shakycam’ technique [somebody following the cast members with a handheld camera shaking it about as if they are epileptic] for a few seconds. It jars incredibly and is pointless. Meanwhile, aside from the father and son scenes mentioned earlier, little convinces. Gleeson and Rachel McAdams [used to time travelling] don’t help by having no chemistry whatsoever. Good points? Well, the couple’s first meeting is cute and original, it occurring in almost total darkness. There is a very funny bit where Tim uses his gift to make sex better. The soundtrack includes good stuff from the likes of The Cure, Amy Winehouse and Nick Cave, and the Cave song is cleverly used more than once, but as usual too often the songs just seem thrown in there and are too frequent.

There’s probably a half-decent 90 min film that exists somewhere in About Time, but it’s hard to locate amongst all the sludge and maudlin tedium, much of which actually feels like deleted scenes from The Time Traveller’s Wife [which wasn't great in itself, but at least seemed like a fully realised project]. It may wear its heart on its sleeve, but here that’s nowhere near enough.

Rating: 4/10

 
 not a fan of these type of films, and apart from the soundtrack I think it fails the test of being a film that fit's on this thread, but i'm easy still a great review, and we do bend the rules of what is fit for this thread.
So let's get back to what really fits, and this film fits so neatly on here, and was a  highly enjoyable rental Blu-ray viewing over the weekend.
STOKER (2013)

India Stoker(Mia Wasikowska) was not prepared to lose her father and best friend Richard (Dermount Mulroney) in a tragic auto accident. The solitude of her woodsy family estate, the peace of her tranquil town, and the unspoken sombreness of her home life are suddenly upended by not only this mysterious accident, but by the sudden arrival of her Uncle Charlie (Mathew Goode) whom she never knew existed. When Charlie moves in with her and her emotionally unstable mother Evie (Nicole Kidman) India thinks the void left by her father's death is finally being filled by his closest bloodline. Soon after his arrival, India comes to suspect that this mysterious, charming man has ulterior motives. Yet instead of feeling outrage or horror, this friendless young woman becomes increasingly infatuated with him.

Now I watched this on Sunday night, and what a surprise it was, and some how suited a Sunday nights viewing, with it's slow burn, in a very visual entrancing dark gothic style, with it's strange, melancholy story. It's plot of fragile relationships in what at times feels like an extreme Adams Family twisted take, and has a real Vampire feel to it, hence the title name Stoker, but not a set of fangs in sight, for this is about sexual predator seducing the innocent and is full of symbolism that could fit into a tale of Vampires. This strange mix  of a film is all developed with great mastery by acclaimed director Chan-wook Park (Thirst, Old Boy) in a tale of obsession, sexual desires and secrets that create a tale of chilling terror. It's also a great  mystery/thriller that Hitchcock would be proud of, but at no time steals from any of the great mans films or any other film I can think of. It's a superbly well scripted film, that's use of the dialogue is outstanding, giving the actors plenty to work with, and of course great performances from all.

Nicole Kidman plays mother Evelyn Stoker, who has recently been widowed and I have to say she fit's so neatly into this role, and plays it in an entirely believable way, as we find her struggle with her own distress at the lost of her husband, and a teenage daughter she has been distant from. She never overplays any role she is given, and here you feel her loss, her confusion, of her husbands brother turning up who she never knew existed, her own latent desire to be loved again, but guilt at having these feeling, and yet jealous of her own child, who grows ever closer to her uncle.Matthew Goode plays the strange  charismatically creepy Uncle Charles Stoker, in a real unnerving yet hypnotic way, that shows a talent I never thought this actor had to be honest, yeah he's always been a decent actor, but here he goes the extra mile. But there's simply no argument as to who steals the film, it's Mia Wasikowska (Alice In Wonderland, Jane Eyre), as 18 year old India Stoker, she is outstanding here, in what should at the very least get her an Oscar nod. She is 23 has the skill and looks to be an 18 year old, as her character demands, and being the main focus of the film,she was perfectly cast for the role, as she's old, portray a darkly sexy woman, yet make you the viewer feel a little conflicted about thinking so, as this is a teenage girl, despite her innocent appearance, has a look that you can believe hides a personality a lot more sinister.

The true star of course is Chan-wook Park direction, from the surreal CGI aided opening which is also the ending, to the stylish, artistic, beautiful, camera work that so marks this film as not just another Hollywood thriller. It is also must be said quite controversial and feeling much more like a movie from South Korea, though less violent and more subtle than those movies. Not that there's not any violence, cause there is, and it is brutal when it appears, but this is primarily a character study focusing on the loss of innocence. It's stunning to look at and almost every shot is symbolic, mainly it's sexual symbolism regarding loss of innocence, and the same goes for the frequent symbolism in the dialogue, and his use of colour and shade keeps you glued, even with it's very slow opening pace, that goes from a crawl to a prance later. Those looking for the action of Old Boy will be disappointed, but those looking for a deep, well written and directed film, that is more close to Argento's Gothic thrillers wil be well pleased. I mentioned Hitchcock and Argento, and the reason being this is the Korean Hitchcock, who reminds me of that one time master of terror the Italian Hitchcock, for there's a wonderful Hitchcock feel to it and clearly pays homage to Shadow Of A doubt with a character called Uncle Charlie. But yet like Argento's early work, it is so much different in style and content, and with a 20 minute enforced cut made to the film by an editor for the studio, it reminded me of Argento's problems with getting his filmed vision released. Here's hoping there's a Director cut released at some point, for I think this just falls short of being a masterpiece, for it's awesome, but something is missing that I can't put my finger on,still I will give it a good score, maybe on second watch i'll give it a ten but for now.9/10 

.


Well I ummed and aarghed about whether to post About Time on here, finally I decided I'd get away with it if I posted Corman's The Terror at the same time.

Stoker....yeah I'd agree with most of this though I would have rated it slightly lower, maybe 8...fantastic direction, atmosphere and dialogue, though it felt somewhat incomplete, I didn't actually know the studio cut it down so that may explain it.

< Message edited by Dr Lenera -- 17/9/2013 12:31:47 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 15172
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 17/9/2013 6:45:32 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6694
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera

.
 
.

There's probably a half-decent 90 min film that exists somewhere in About Time, but it's hard to locate amongst all the sludge and maudlin tedium, much of which actually feels like deleted scenes from The Time Traveller's Wife [which wasn't great in itself, but at least seemed like a fully realised project]. It may wear its heart on its sleeve, but here that's nowhere near enough.

Rating: 4/10

 
 not a fan of these type of films, and apart from the soundtrack I think it fails the test of being a film that fit's on this thread, but i'm easy still a great review, and we do bend the rules of what is fit for this thread.
So let's get back to what really fits, and this film fits so neatly on here, and was a  highly enjoyable rental Blu-ray viewing over the weekend.
STOKER (2013)

.

The true star of course is Chan-wook Park direction, from the surreal CGI aided opening which is also the ending, to the stylish, artistic, beautiful, camera work that so marks this film as not just another Hollywood thriller. It is also must be said quite controversial and feeling much more like a movie from South Korea, though less violent and more subtle than those movies. Not that there's not any violence, cause there is, and it is brutal when it appears, but this is primarily a character study focusing on the loss of innocence. It's stunning to look at and almost every shot is symbolic, mainly it's sexual symbolism regarding loss of innocence, and the same goes for the frequent symbolism in the dialogue, and his use of colour and shade keeps you glued, even with it's very slow opening pace, that goes from a crawl to a prance later. Those looking for the action of Old Boy will be disappointed, but those looking for a deep, well written and directed film, that is more close to Argento's Gothic thrillers wil be well pleased. I mentioned Hitchcock and Argento, and the reason being this is the Korean Hitchcock, who reminds me of that one time master of terror the Italian Hitchcock, for there's a wonderful Hitchcock feel to it and clearly pays homage to Shadow Of A doubt with a character called Uncle Charlie. But yet like Argento's early work, it is so much different in style and content, and with a 20 minute enforced cut made to the film by an editor for the studio, it reminded me of Argento's problems with getting his filmed vision released. Here's hoping there's a Director cut released at some point, for I think this just falls short of being a masterpiece, for it's awesome, but something is missing that I can't put my finger on,still I will give it a good score, maybe on second watch i'll give it a ten but for now.9/10 

.


Well I ummed and aarghed about whether to post About Time on here, finally I decided I'd get away with it if I posted Corman's The Terror at the same time.

Stoker....yeah I'd agree with most of this though I would have rated it slightly lower, maybe 8...fantastic direction, atmosphere and dialogue, though it felt somewhat incomplete, I didn't actually know the studio cut it down so that may explain it.

Yes totally agree it did feel incomplete, that's why it fell short of a ten for me, that's what I could not put my finger on, it's me nagging in my head since I watched it on \Sunday. Still I really enjoyed this so much it had to be a nine, and hope the 20 minutes that where dropped by the Studio 20TH Century Fox are in a directors cut, though saying that it may not happen because here's what Chan-wook Park  had to say:   "It's just such a different animal from what I've experienced in Korea," he says, "but it's just like how you can't really complain about the weather in the States when you're going over to shoot a film. The Searchlight people had good taste, though. There were some differences of opinion, but at least they didn't make any nonsensical remarks."
quote:



France, 18th century. Lieutenant Andre Duvalier has been accidentally separated from his regiment. Wandering near the coast, he sees and begins to follow a mysterious woman who never answers him. Attacked by a raven, he awakes in the house of an old woman who claims never to have seen the woman, but a man who lives in her house tells him to enquire at the castle of Baron Von Leppe. This he does, but when inside the castle, he is told again that the woman doesn't exist. Then he sees a picture of Von Leppe's deceased wife on the wall. She looks just like the strange woman Duvalier has been seeing….
 
Nicholson seems lost, as perhaps he was. He was never that good in his Corman roles and, if you didn't know better, you wouldn't imagine he would become the great actor and star he soon became. The Terror is a difficult film to entirely judge overall. Its flaws, whether or not they were unavoidable, are probably as numerous as its good points, but there is true genius in places, whether entirely intended or not, and it's absolutely essential viewing for fans of the Gothic, which is why my rating is higher than many other people's might be. Its incredible atmosphere and poetic quality will stick with me for quite a while. But please, somebody properly restore it.

Rating: 7/10

I did read your review of THE TERROR it's perfect, and I love the way Corman was always looking for ways to cash in on his own success, as with the Poe films, re using sets crew actors etc, for similar projects. And this is so much like a Edgar Allen Poe film, but as you said has some flaws, mainly due to too many cooks as they say and it's low budget, but yet it's a real gem of a Gothic horror film in both looks and story.

< Message edited by evil bill -- 17/9/2013 6:46:26 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 15173
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 24/9/2013 7:42:45 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6694
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
Whistler did a great review of this film, but here's a few of my thoughts too;

 
INSIDIOUS: CHAPTER 2 (2013)
The haunted Lambert family believe the evil that haunted them,and Josh who has the gift for astral projection, with the help of Elise, eventually suppresses this and forgets about his gift. Just when the family think they are safe and their horror has passed them, things begin to go bump in the night. But this time its not little Dalton who's in trouble, its Josh himself. Renai and new character, Carl get help for Josh after they both sense theirs something not quite right about him. They set out to free Josh and the family from the evil that haunts them, and seek to uncover the mysterious childhood secret that has left them dangerously connected to the spirit world.

Director James Wan and writer Leigh Whannell reunite with the original cast of Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, Lin Shaye and Ty Simpkins for chapter 2 of Insidious, which was one of the best Horror films of the past few years till The Conjuring, which he also wrote and directed. And there lies the problem, it's hard to top a great Horror film, yet he did it with The Conjuring, but I feel this Chapter 2 of Insidious, is well a decent sequel, but looks so weak compared to the original and Conjuring. Not that's there's not some decent scares, plus  it's stylish, and some real dark humour, but this is not enough for it to be no more than a decent part 2, which you know will lead to part 3 etc etc, and slowly reduce it to yet another franchise doomed to flop in the end. It's also more cartoonish, more like an episode of Scooby Doo, which has already been mentioned, it also steals from The Shining, like Wilson's rather embarrassing attempt at echoing Jack Nicholson just for starters. Another steal is Carol Anne from "Poltergeist" talking from the other side through a TV, is done this time through a tin can phone, and there's even a Psycho 1960 moment which i'll not say anything more about.

These are my main gripes, and may make you think it's a shit film well,I strangely enough actually enjoyed it, not as much as his other two films, but enough for me to say yes give it a go, but not if you have not seen the first, as this is full of major spoilers, as we uncover the truth about the first haunting. And this is it's main strength, for here is a more complex story, a origin story if you like, that has some great twists, some good chills, and great direction as you'd expect from Wan, but just no where near as scary, but still fun to watch. 6/10




_____________________________

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

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 15174
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 25/9/2013 3:06:51 PM   
Whistler


Posts: 2957
Joined: 22/11/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

Whistler did a great review of this film, but here's a few of my thoughts too;

 
INSIDIOUS: CHAPTER 2 (2013)
The haunted Lambert family believe the evil that haunted them,and Josh who has the gift for astral projection, with the help of Elise, eventually suppresses this and forgets about his gift. Just when the family think they are safe and their horror has passed them, things begin to go bump in the night. But this time its not little Dalton who's in trouble, its Josh himself. Renai and new character, Carl get help for Josh after they both sense theirs something not quite right about him. They set out to free Josh and the family from the evil that haunts them, and seek to uncover the mysterious childhood secret that has left them dangerously connected to the spirit world.

Director James Wan and writer Leigh Whannell reunite with the original cast of Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, Lin Shaye and Ty Simpkins for chapter 2 of Insidious, which was one of the best Horror films of the past few years till The Conjuring, which he also wrote and directed. And there lies the problem, it's hard to top a great Horror film, yet he did it with The Conjuring, but I feel this Chapter 2 of Insidious, is well a decent sequel, but looks so weak compared to the original and Conjuring. Not that's there's not some decent scares, plus  it's stylish, and some real dark humour, but this is not enough for it to be no more than a decent part 2, which you know will lead to part 3 etc etc, and slowly reduce it to yet another franchise doomed to flop in the end. It's also more cartoonish, more like an episode of Scooby Doo, which has already been mentioned, it also steals from The Shining, like Wilson's rather embarrassing attempt at echoing Jack Nicholson just for starters. Another steal is Carol Anne from "Poltergeist" talking from the other side through a TV, is done this time through a tin can phone, and there's even a Psycho 1960 moment which i'll not say anything more about.

These are my main gripes, and may make you think it's a shit film well,I strangely enough actually enjoyed it, not as much as his other two films, but enough for me to say yes give it a go, but not if you have not seen the first, as this is full of major spoilers, as we uncover the truth about the first haunting. And this is it's main strength, for here is a more complex story, a origin story if you like, that has some great twists, some good chills, and great direction as you'd expect from Wan, but just no where near as scary, but still fun to watch. 6/10





I totally agree with everything here. It's certainly not as scaring as the first Insidious or, indeed, The Conjuring, but there is something quite enjoyable about it. Like I said, I look forward to watching it again to see how it holds up on a second viewing.

Can't say I'm too excited by the news of Insidious 3 without Wan...

_____________________________

Eddy's Film Review
Latest: Need For Speed, Under The Skin, 300: Rise Of An Empire

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 15175
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 25/9/2013 7:22:35 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6694
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler


quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

Whistler did a great review of this film, but here's a few of my thoughts too;

 
INSIDIOUS: CHAPTER 2 (2013)
The haunted Lambert family believe the evil that haunted them,and Josh who has the gift for astral projection, with the help of Elise, eventually suppresses this and forgets about his gift. Just when the family think they are safe and their horror has passed them, things begin to go bump in the night. But this time its not little Dalton who's in trouble, its Josh himself. Renai and new character, Carl get help for Josh after they both sense theirs something not quite right about him. They set out to free Josh and the family from the evil that haunts them, and seek to uncover the mysterious childhood secret that has left them dangerously connected to the spirit world.

Director James Wan and writer Leigh Whannell reunite with the original cast of Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, Lin Shaye and Ty Simpkins for chapter 2 of Insidious, which was one of the best Horror films of the past few years till The Conjuring, which he also wrote and directed. And there lies the problem, it's hard to top a great Horror film, yet he did it with The Conjuring, but I feel this Chapter 2 of Insidious, is well a decent sequel, but looks so weak compared to the original and Conjuring. Not that's there's not some decent scares, plus  it's stylish, and some real dark humour, but this is not enough for it to be no more than a decent part 2, which you know will lead to part 3 etc etc, and slowly reduce it to yet another franchise doomed to flop in the end. It's also more cartoonish, more like an episode of Scooby Doo, which has already been mentioned, it also steals from The Shining, like Wilson's rather embarrassing attempt at echoing Jack Nicholson just for starters. Another steal is Carol Anne from "Poltergeist" talking from the other side through a TV, is done this time through a tin can phone, and there's even a Psycho 1960 moment which i'll not say anything more about.

These are my main gripes, and may make you think it's a shit film well,I strangely enough actually enjoyed it, not as much as his other two films, but enough for me to say yes give it a go, but not if you have not seen the first, as this is full of major spoilers, as we uncover the truth about the first haunting. And this is it's main strength, for here is a more complex story, a origin story if you like, that has some great twists, some good chills, and great direction as you'd expect from Wan, but just no where near as scary, but still fun to watch. 6/10





I totally agree with everything here. It's certainly not as scaring as the first Insidious or, indeed, The Conjuring, but there is something quite enjoyable about it. Like I said, I look forward to watching it again to see how it holds up on a second viewing.

Can't say I'm too excited by the news of Insidious 3 without Wan...

Now that could be a big mistake for the producers, as it is Wan who makes part two worth the cinema ticket price, and yes I too will re watch this on Blu-Ray maybe buy it.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 15176
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 28/9/2013 10:46:27 AM   
Platter

 

Posts: 108
Joined: 14/8/2010
***LOTS OF SPOILERS***

Three Colours Trilogy

Three Colours Blue (1993)

It was more enjoyable than I expected. The pace was quick. It started with arty close ups on details - I found that to be slightly off-putting. Then about four minutes into the movie, when Juliette Binoche tries to take the pills, it became properly dramatic and affecting with an emotional punch to it. It dragged me into its world and I took to the film and got on its wavelength. Even the opening close ups paid off as there was a moment about twenty minutes in when she finds a sweet wrapper that echoes one we saw at the start. As we know what sort of memories it triggers the scene has an impact out of proportion to what we are seeing.

Not a lot happens in the film but there are a string of minor, low-key incidents to keep the film going. The pace is brisk, with abrupt scene endings and no meandering, and there are no pointless arty touches (with the exception of two close ups concerning her coffee).

The film isn’t really about much, which makes the exaggerated heavyweight critical reputation seem more than a little over the top. It’s a minor little film about a woman dealing with grief. There really isn’t much more to it. A lot of the story elements don’t amount to much and the movie tails off into nothing much towards the end. I dislike the last minutes with opera over images of various characters. It seems overblown and self-consciously arty were the rest of the movie is small and low-key.

I liked the film but the ending was disappointing as it didn’t really lead to anything. Visually it’s very nice looking and the acting is good from everyone.

7 out of 10


Three Colours White (1994)

The story is too random and haphazard to convince that it’s a proper joined up plot. It lurches from section to section with little connecting the different parts together. Then it becomes rather twee and unbelievable with the lead character becoming rich and building a business empire. Also his friend wanting to be killed didn’t feel right.

I hate the ending. It doesn’t make any sense to me. He goes to such extremes to win her back and then has her arrested for his murder. It is too stupid and silly and illogical (faking his own death is both difficult and a long term commitment) so the details don’t add up, and emotionally it doesn’t work. The ending is very bad. I don’t swallow any of it. It simply makes no sense to me.

It’s supposed to be a comedy. There are a few minor laughs and a sardonic black comic feel to a few scenes, but to call it a comedy is to go way too far. The downside is that the comedy reduces the serious side of the film, so the movie ends up being lightweight without the benefit of actually being funny. We get the worst of both worlds.

Julie Delpy only plays a minor role in a few scenes. Her screen time can’t be more than ten minutes, if that. I think of the Colours Trilogy as being about a central female character in each film, but this movie proves that not to be true.

5 out of 10


Three Colours Red (1994)

I thought White had a fairly random story. Red is even more fragmented. I don’t think it has a real plot. There is no centre that binds the scenes together. It really is just a random (I assume made up as it goes along) collection of scenes with reoccurring characters.

The long dialogues between the model and the retired judge are the main focus. I never felt a true story, or a substantial relationship, emerged from those scenes.

The film was really pretty pointless. The first hour was more entertaining than it should have been. It was quietly compelling. A lot of this is probably due to the brisk pacing. The pace slacked off and it became slower in the last half hour. The last meeting in the theatre was not much of a climax. It had pointless diversion with a storm and a janitor – the bit when the model has to close the doors seemed particularly random. The dialogue between the two characters started to become a bit pretentious towards the end. Especially her treating his dream of her as a fifty year old as being prophetic.

The film climaxes with the lead characters from the three movies in the trilogy meeting by chance. It’s not funny, ironic, meaningful or interesting. They don’t talk to each other. They are simply on the same boat together. It ties nothing up and is a wasted opportunity.

The film does not measure up to its sky high heavyweight reputation. Overall it was too random and unconvincing as a proper story. It’s well acted and nicely filmed. I think Red is the weakest of the three movies. It wasn’t bad, and it was very watchable, but it didn’t add up to much.

5 out of 10

I've just worked out the meaning of the ending on the boat after re-reading my review. I literally wrote it. He is saying they are all in the same boat, as in they all have the same problems. Seems so obvious now.


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


The Double Life of Veronique (1991)
I gave up on this the first time I tried to watch it. It was after half an hour when the first woman had a heart attack. I felt it was about nothing to the extent that it was without any content. I saw a vapid movie that was just a string of random images and scenes with no particular point or reason. Which wouldn’t have been so bad if at least it was quite interesting or entertaining on some level. I thought it was just very boring. So for this second viewing I adjusted my expectations to a suitably low-level.

I think I was right first time. It is a serious of random images and scenes with no end destination or point in mind. Nothing much really happens, and what does happen is silly and unconvincing. What really connects these two women? Not much. So what that they look alike?

The puppeteer was a silly character with ludicrous motivations (if he has any) for his actions in the second half. It made no sense and was just very silly. If this wasn’t subtitled people would not be buying the whole last half hour.

Visually there was a lot of weird looking green lighting. Whole scenes were bathed in this lime colour for no obvious reason.

The pace was neither quick or slow, more ploddingly average in speed.

I didn’t enjoy the movie. I was not convinced by it at all. The weak story, if you can even call it that, had no discernible point to it. Not a good film. It was at least only ninety minutes and it wasn’t patience trying. The last scene at her father’s house was very puzzling. What was the purpose of that last moment of him making furniture at a saw and her touching a tree at the gate? Was it an obscure comment on how the tree will die and one day be used to make furniture. If so, who cares?

3 out of 10

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

To the Wonder (2012)


A film that expects endless patience from the viewer
I've got no idea what Malick's thinking by making movies in this weird abstract way. He strings a bunch of well photographed (often steadycam) snatched documentary shots together. There is no conventional staging of actors, almost zero dialogue (half of which is probably not scripted) and no real scenes to speak of. It's then topped off with the most pretentious voice overs imaginable. It's really not an enjoyable, audience friendly combination. Why he thinks this is a good way to make movies I can't guess.

I wonder if he even likes his own movies?

At least the voice overs are mostly in foreign languages so the subtitles disguise just how pretentiously silly they are. I cringed when Affleck did a voice over in English at the start. The subtitles make them seem more respectable and intelligent because you can't help but associate reading with smartness.

No discernible plot of any interest or consequence takes place.

The camera pervs at Olga Kurylenko quite a bit, and is probably the only enjoyable part of the whole movie.

Rachel McAdams turns up and then disappeared without any explanation.

Eventually after a torturously long time it finally ends after wasting everyone's time. What there is to get out of this movie I don't know. It's just a massive bore. Pretty images randomly edited together with quietly portentous classical music playing low in the background is not fun. The movie goes nowhere.

I actually kind of didn't mind the first half hour. It wasn't good or anything, but I didn't hate it. Then it just became boring. Finally I lost my patience with it and gave up at the seventy minute point (a little after the online video chat with the daughter in France).

I decided I might as well finish the thing as it's only about 110 minutes. So I went back to it after a few hours. It wasn't worth the effort, as I suspected. The ending itself seemed particularly pointless.

It's a really boring film. There is no entertainment or anything profound to be found here. It's art cinema at the duller end of the spectrum.

It's really The Tree of Life Part 2 as the two films are so similar. Tree has a bigger, grander scope to it but it's longer and more depressing than Wonder, so on balance I would say Wonder is slightly better.

2 out of 10


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


Bande A Part (1964) 4 out of 10
Not a lot of fun. More of a dull plod through a banal story. There is very little plot, and instead we spend most of the time just hanging out with the characters. Unfortunately the characters are paper thin and not an interesting, or likeable, bunch. After about an hour of mostly boring improvised time wasting the robbery takes place. It's not very exciting and is just very so-so. It's a deliberately aimless movie. They just stretched the running time as best they could with pointless uncinematic diversions such as reading newspapers to each other. A lot of the movie is time wasting bloat. The opening schoolroom scene goes on forever and is annoying and extremely dull with a long quotation read out by the teacher at unnecessary length. The famous dance sequence was good (the long ten or so minute cafe scene is maybe composed of only ten edits in total), and I laughed out loud at the Louvre running scene. It wasn't any fun hanging out with these people beyond a few rare bright spots. Visually it doesn't look very good as the very low budget documentary style footage is very rough around the edges.


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


Lake Placid (1999) 7 out of 10
***BIG SPOILERS*** The horror elements are very, very average. There is almost no blood, the body count is tiny (I think maybe three people die and all of the main and supporting cast survive). It's competently made but it's not aiming to scare the crap out of you. What lifts it above average is the dialogue and acting. The dialogue is often very funny with some real wit, and the actors deliver it perfectly. Brendan Gleeson and Betty White were probably the funniest. Usually the humans interacting are the weakest, most boring parts of a monster movie but here they were the best parts. The opening 20 to 30 minutes were the strongest. The film doesn't quite live up to the full potential of the start. The ending is a bit so-so.


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


Hobo with a Shotgun (2011) 4 out of 10
It's basically the third movie in the Grindhouse project. It is very similar in style to Planet Terror in tone and visual look (grainy film stock and extreme use of colour). It's mildly funny in places, but the extreme violence and the lack of morality makes it feel like it was made by a sick thirteen year old. There isn't much funny about sexual violence towards women, and this film doesn't justify it with context. It was really quite offensive in places. School kids are murdered in the movie, which seems a bit much for a 'fun' movie like this. The relentless grimness made it hard to enjoy no matter how comic book and over the top it was. It was an unpleasant movie. I endured it more than enjoyed it. It's a deliberate chaotic mess but a bit of sophistication in the script wouldn't have gone a miss. Also I found the abrupt ending to be a bit pointless.


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


The Sessions (2012) 9 out of 10
The subject matter isn't very appealing so I was relieved when about five minutes in the tone was set - it was definitely aiming to be funny. It's an amusing story and quite poignant. The potentially depressing or boring subject matter is told with a real attempt at making brisk entertainment and isn't all about bashing you over the head with how worthy it is. The film works very well with a good pace, lots of humour and good acting from everyone. It's quite a warm movie. Maybe too warm as there isn't a dissenting voice who disagrees with what is going on. Everyone being okay with it doesn't make for much drama. Helen Hunt does two shots of full frontal nudity while the male lead does none, which seems a little unfair.


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


Clue (1985) 8 out of 10
A very enjoyable piece of silly fun. A lot of amusing moments. Half the cast steal the film. The plot doesn't hold up to any scrutiny as the motivations and peoples abilities to be in certain places are very contrived. It's best to not question any of it and just go along for the ride. A very fun movie and you can see how it has developed an audience participation following like The Rocky Horror Picture Show.


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


Mental (2012) 5 out of 10
A loud (five girls constantly screaming), tasteless (covering white furniture in period blood) sprawling (not a lot of focus to the story) self-indulgent (the Sound of Music singing) mess. The plot often goes off on odd tangents (returning the stuffed shark to the water) that don't seem all that relevant to the story we've been watching so far. Apparently it's been in development for over a decade. You can see the joins as unconnected ideas formed years apart are squashed together. Some of the characters are fairly grotesque. It's a highly eccentric, rambling mess but there is a an unpretentious mainstream sensibility to it. I can't say it was good, but it was very watchable and there are a few funny bits in it. As much a success as a failure. If nothing else, it should be float around unforgotten in my memory forever more.


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


Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) 7 out of 10
A competent space set sci-fi action movie. Perhaps I was just too indifferent to it, but I let it wash over me without thinking too much and so I enjoyed it as a fairly dumb action film. Apparently a lot of people think it has a lot of potholes and stuff. I can't say I noticed any, or felt the logic was too strained. It was not a smart movie, but a standard blockbuster. I didn't predict much of what was going to happen and I thought it was well made. An enjoyable, undemanding slice of action.


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


The Sixth Sense (1999) 7 out of 10
It was quite good. A solid story well told, but it's hard to see why it was so successful beyond having a great twist. Without that twist, or if the story was the same but the twist information was revealed at the start, then I doubt it would have been such a big deal. It's not very eventful and has a strangely small cast - there are only about four main characters, with everyone else relegated to very minor bit parts. There is nothing about it that really screams out 'perfect summer blockbuster'. I guess it was a real sleeper hit as I doubt anyone could have predicted just how well it would do. The acting is good with Osment being very impressive for his age. The pace is a little slow but it fits the mood of the film. It's a good, solid, workmanlike movie but it's not a thrill ride. Beyond the twist it's nothing special. I have to admit though that there are a few moments that gave me 'Goosebumps', such as when Bruce Willis plays the tape recording of a silent room with the volume all the way up.

< Message edited by Platter -- 28/9/2013 11:45:45 PM >


_____________________________

My novel:

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

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 15177
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 28/9/2013 3:12:29 PM   
Whistler


Posts: 2957
Joined: 22/11/2006
Maybe on the edge of weird or strange, but it was either this or Diana



Director: Brad Anderson
Cast: Halle Berry, Abigail Breslin, Morris Chestnut, Michael Eklund, Michael Imperioli, David Otunga
Running time: 94 minutes
Certification: 15

When a mistake by 911 operator Jordan (Berry) leads to the death of a young girl, she’s overcome by guilt and feels doubly compelled to help the next abducted girl (Breslin) escape from the clutches of her mysterious kidnapper, who she thinks is the same man.

It’s surprisingly rare these days to sit down to a thriller and be genuinely thrilled. You know, thrilled to the point of an increased pulse, clenched fists and lip-biting – everything the ‘thriller’ aspires to. That being the case, I think The Call – director Brad Anderson’s ode to Cortes’ Buried and Schumacher’s Phone Booth - is largely a success.

The set-up is simple: what if your mistake caused the death of an innocent person, and what would you do if given a second chance? Perhaps the greatest achievement of the film is that it never sways from that set-up. The reason I cite Buried and Phone Booth as direct influences is because they possessed the same discipline; they were never tempted to try to be more than they were. They had a simple but effective premise which was followed through on and paid off. Nothing more. In the case of The Call, we know basically where we’re headed (at times a little too much thanks to the over-explanatory trailer) and we’re excited about it. There’s no reason to veer off path, because it’s completely effective with what it has.

It really is a relentless and frantic beast, with the second act in particular pumping up the tension as Jordan struggles with her own demons while trying as hard as she can to get the kidnapped Casey out of the boot she’s been stuffed in. If, like me, you’ve seen the trailer, you’ll know ultimately how it climaxes, or at least how parts of it climax, yet somehow that doesn’t ruin the spell. One particular scene at a gas station springs to mind; a sequence which was completely spoiled in said trailer, but joyfully still had me gripping the end of my seat. Something about the film just works. It clicks. All the elements fall together into one functioning, cogent little motor.

Perhaps the third act loses a little something, in that the thrills diminish slightly and it ever so subtly toys with the idea of exploding into a budgetary climax, but it just about keeps things in check and I kept with it. If you’ve been won over by the first two-thirds of the film, generally you won’t be bothered by the third, and the unconventional ending which has sparked a few complaints, I would argue, kind of works. If you allow it to.

The two leads, Berry and Breslin, are fantastic. Breslin, who’s grown up somewhat since her glorious Little Miss Sunshine and even Zombieland days is incredibly convincing, making us believe for every second in her fear and claustrophobia. Again to go back to Buried, much like Ryan Reynolds’ Paul Conroy, she spends much of her time trapped in a dark box with nothing but a mobile phone. How do you make acting choices in such confines? Well, that’s for them to know. Halle Berry, too, while I’m not always convinced by her, plays her part of the troubled 911 operator really well.

A genuinely nice surprise. This is a really neat, effective thriller that doesn’t overstay its welcome or try to do more than it has to, and I think that’s worth celebrating.

8/10

_____________________________

Eddy's Film Review
Latest: Need For Speed, Under The Skin, 300: Rise Of An Empire

(in reply to Platter)
Post #: 15178
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 28/9/2013 11:49:41 PM   
Mister Coe

 

Posts: 1426
Joined: 20/10/2012
Agree with you, Whistler, I wasnt expecting much but went along with friends, purely for the social aspect of it, and had a very enjoyable night out.

Deffo worth a look, guys!

_____________________________

Say what now?

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 15179
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 30/9/2013 7:20:44 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3826
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

Whistler did a great review of this film, but here's a few of my thoughts too;

 
INSIDIOUS: CHAPTER 2 (2013)
The haunted Lambert family believe the evil that haunted them,and Josh who has the gift for astral projection, with the help of Elise, eventually suppresses this and forgets about his gift. Just when the family think they are safe and their horror has passed them, things begin to go bump in the night. But this time its not little Dalton who's in trouble, its Josh himself. Renai and new character, Carl get help for Josh after they both sense theirs something not quite right about him. They set out to free Josh and the family from the evil that haunts them, and seek to uncover the mysterious childhood secret that has left them dangerously connected to the spirit world.

Director James Wan and writer Leigh Whannell reunite with the original cast of Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, Lin Shaye and Ty Simpkins for chapter 2 of Insidious, which was one of the best Horror films of the past few years till The Conjuring, which he also wrote and directed. And there lies the problem, it's hard to top a great Horror film, yet he did it with The Conjuring, but I feel this Chapter 2 of Insidious, is well a decent sequel, but looks so weak compared to the original and Conjuring. Not that's there's not some decent scares, plus  it's stylish, and some real dark humour, but this is not enough for it to be no more than a decent part 2, which you know will lead to part 3 etc etc, and slowly reduce it to yet another franchise doomed to flop in the end. It's also more cartoonish, more like an episode of Scooby Doo, which has already been mentioned, it also steals from The Shining, like Wilson's rather embarrassing attempt at echoing Jack Nicholson just for starters. Another steal is Carol Anne from "Poltergeist" talking from the other side through a TV, is done this time through a tin can phone, and there's even a Psycho 1960 moment which i'll not say anything more about.

These are my main gripes, and may make you think it's a shit film well,I strangely enough actually enjoyed it, not as much as his other two films, but enough for me to say yes give it a go, but not if you have not seen the first, as this is full of major spoilers, as we uncover the truth about the first haunting. And this is it's main strength, for here is a more complex story, a origin story if you like, that has some great twists, some good chills, and great direction as you'd expect from Wan, but just no where near as scary, but still fun to watch. 6/10





6 out of 10 sounds about right for me, it was enjoyable, some of the back story was good, bits of it looked great and the od jolt worked, but it just wasn't scary or even tense enough, and as you say it rehashed so much from other films.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 15180
Page:   <<   < prev  504 505 [506] 507 508   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Favourite Films >> RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? Page: <<   < prev  504 505 [506] 507 508   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

0.203