It is currently Wed Nov 21, 2018 12:50 pm



Reply to topic  [ 72147 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1436, 1437, 1438, 1439, 1440, 1441, 1442, 1443  Next
 Recently Seen 
Author Message
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Vampire's Kiss

Perhaps the quintessential Nic Cage film?

I am convinced that Nic Cage is actually a performance artist whose performance isn't acting, but disrupting (and ultimately defining) the essence of every film he's in. But the true genius of his act is that occasionally, without warning, he commits to great acting -- so you're never really sure what to think of him.

_________________
Ma`crol´o`gy
n. 1. Long and tedious talk without much substance; superfluity of words.


Sun Oct 14, 2018 1:20 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Wooley wrote:
Ooooh, man, I been wantin' to watch this for years. Psyched.

It's really great, and it definitely improves with re-watches.

_________________
Top 30 Favorite Films of All Time


Sun Oct 14, 2018 1:24 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Rock wrote:
I enjoy musicals but have never made it more than five minutes into Grease. Something about that movie's aesthetic bugs the hell out me.

In terms of aesthetics, Moulin Rouge! turns me off more than most musicals I've seen.

_________________
Top 30 Favorite Films of All Time


Sun Oct 14, 2018 1:26 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Macrology wrote:
Vampire's Kiss

Perhaps the quintessential Nic Cage film?


Yes.


Sun Oct 14, 2018 1:30 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Wooley wrote:
Ooooh, man, I been wantin' to watch this for years. Psyched.


It is a great film. Absolutely loved it. Been meaning to rewatch it for a while.

_________________
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---


Sun Oct 14, 2018 11:36 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Takoma1 wrote:
I'm really not that into musicals. Or romances.


I've never been that much into musicals either, even though I loved Moulin Rouge!, which was one of the first that I saw, from the get go. I've also been a fan of the Little Shop of Horrors remake since I saw it, but never ventured too far into the genre.

To this day, I've never seen Grease, but I wasn't a huge fan of West Side Story. However, the TCM course on Musicals I took this year brought up a couple of nice surprises. An American in Paris and Singin' in the Rain were two examples, My Fair Lady really took me by surprise also.

_________________
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---


Sun Oct 14, 2018 11:41 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors (1964) - 8/10

This film succeeds due to the myriad of visual pleasures it comes with. Some segments of the film are color coded to represent Ivan's emotionally distant mental state while other fast swooping shots which quickly go from one location to another provide energy and wonder to the environment. Parajanov's distinct and unconventional style causes this film to feel like ancient folklore. The story is pretty simple and there isn't a whole lot to be said on it, but I think Parajanov was more concerned with the visuals, and there were more than enough of them to carry the film. Sure, a couple of them may have went a bit overboard such as the red horses leaping across the screen, but those moments were very few and far in between.

_________________
Top 30 Favorite Films of All Time


Mon Oct 15, 2018 1:40 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Winchester, 2018 (D)

It's pretty dumb.


Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:50 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

The Conformist - 9/10

Five Easy Pieces - 8/10

_________________
State of Siege |Gavras, 1972| +
Deadpool |Miller, 2016| +
Z |Gavras, 1969| -
The Confession |Gavras, 1970| +
Missing |Gavras, 1982| +
The Revenant |Inarritu, 2015| +
The Hateful Eight |Tarantino, 2015| +

+ Recommended


Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:48 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

First Man - 6.5/10

Fine work on the handful of depicted missions, but most of the film is bogged down in TV drama, terrible dialogue and an incessant shaky-cam overkill. A kinetic camera is ideal for the frantic, tense cockpit scenes, but why are all of the quieter domestic scenes suffocated with jerky close-ups? I don't think I saw a single non-wide shot in the film that wasn't handheld, and they don't even have the good sense to use a steadycam, making it all ugly, unfocused and nausous. Like bad television, defaulting to the handheld only dilutes its effect in scenes where it is most appropriate.

Aside from the awful camerawork and shitty dramatic cliches, the film almost works in its moments of visually emulating Right Stuff and 2001, but it doesn't offer the kind of transportative "thereness" of something like Gravity. It feels as if Spielberg (a producer here) were to have made this film, it'd be seen as another mediocre Spielberg film. I don't see why I should give Chazelle credit for making a mediocre Spielberg film.


Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:25 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Phobia 2, 2009 (B+, C, C, C, A+)

A Thai horror anthology. The first short is good horror, 2, 3 and 4 are somewhat directionless and I don't really know what was the point of any of them. The fifth short is absolutely excellent horror comedy, holy shit.

There's also not a real strong undertone of phobia in any of them. Maybe you have to look for it, I dunno.


Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:42 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Daredevil - Season 1 - 10/10

_________________
By the time we got to Woodstock we were half a million strong
And everywhere was a song and a celebration
And I dreamed I saw the bomber death planes riding shotgun in the sky
Turning into butterflies above our nation


Sat Oct 20, 2018 7:27 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Death Proof wrote:
Daredevil - Season 1 - 10/10

Yeah, it's pretty good television.


Sat Oct 20, 2018 9:12 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Wooley wrote:
Yeah, it's pretty good television.



I love the way they wrote Kingpin. And Deborah Ann Woll is adorable.

Only disappointment was that Owlsley didn't have any mutant powers. Unless they do it with his son in a future episode.

_________________
By the time we got to Woodstock we were half a million strong
And everywhere was a song and a celebration
And I dreamed I saw the bomber death planes riding shotgun in the sky
Turning into butterflies above our nation


Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:04 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Death Proof wrote:


I love the way they wrote Kingpin. And Deborah Ann Woll is adorable.

Only disappointment was that Owlsley didn't have any mutant powers. Unless they do it with his son in a future episode.

Kingpin turned out really well. I think it would have been hard to make him like in the comics, although I actually did kinda like Michael Clarke Duncan's version, maybe the only good thing in that movie other than the scene in the rain (I also didn't mind the costume). But I think this spin on him is a really interesting take on the idea, more than just the ultimate mobster.
I thought Deborah Woll was great, although it was not an attraction thing for me as she's just not my type, it was really her performance and the way the character was written, which is great.
Who was Owlsley?


Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:00 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Wooley wrote:
Who was Owlsley?



I liked MCD as the Kingpin but the TV version is a much more complex character. No offense to Duncan (RIP) but the TV version is written much better.



Owlsley was the accountant. His most well known role was the warden in The Shawshank Redemption.

In the comics, Owlsley is another New York-based crime boss. He also has a minor mutant power in that he can glide. Not fly, but glide. He eventually takes a shitload of drugs and gets cybernetics to make him more owl-like and fucks himself up pretty good.

He also wields a pair of razor sharp metal "claws" similar to Wolverine's under his coat.


But they did say that Leland had a son in the TV show, so I'm hoping maybe he becomes The Owl to
get vengeance against Kingpin for killing his father.

I was quite taken aback by Ben Urich's death. He was in the comics for years... I didn't think they'd scrag him.


Image

_________________
By the time we got to Woodstock we were half a million strong
And everywhere was a song and a celebration
And I dreamed I saw the bomber death planes riding shotgun in the sky
Turning into butterflies above our nation


Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:50 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

I can't remember what thread we discussed the cliche "hand stroking a field of wheat"

But i just found another...

I'm not Scared (2003) :P

Image


Sun Oct 21, 2018 4:16 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

I quite enjoyed Bad Times at El Royale a great deal. It’s got pacing issues and sets the tone for unexpected violence early, so the relatively tame climax doesn’t hit as hard as it seems it should. It does hit though. Far more often than it misses and it makes great use of its setting to inform the conflicts between the characters and all the performances are more than serviceable. It’s just a nice bottle thriller.

It’s no Cabin in the Woods though... but it isn’t trying to be. I think expectations of this playing with the tropes of a thriller and deconstructing it harmed reception a little because Goddard seems to be primarily interested in carving out quality genre. Not destroying it.


Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:13 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Death Proof wrote:
Owlsley was the accountant. His most well known role was the warden in The Shawshank Redemption.

In the comics, Owlsley is another New York-based crime boss. He also has a minor mutant power in that he can glide. Not fly, but glide. He eventually takes a shitload of drugs and gets cybernetics to make him more owl-like and fucks himself up pretty good.

He also wields a pair of razor sharp metal "claws" similar to Wolverine's under his coat.

I was quite taken aback by Ben Urich's death. He was in the comics for years... I didn't think they'd scrag him.[/spoiler]

Image

I gotta say, I'm really glad they did not do that with Owlsley. It just doesn't fit into this world, at least not as it is framed in the first season.
I also was shocked with Ben's death, really stunned me, but also let me know they meant business. I kinda wish they hadn't though, I thought he was a great character.


Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:19 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

The Others - 8/10 - Hadn't seen this in years. I had it on my DVR since July of last year and I figured this time of year was a good time to revisit it. I remembered the big reveal but had forgotten the particulars. Good solid ghost story with a great performance by Nicole Kidman and commendable supporting work from Fionnula Flanagan and the two child actors. Spanish director Alejandro Amenabar is responsible for this along with two more of my favorites Mar Adrento and Abre los Ojos.


Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:41 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

boojiboyhowdy wrote:
The Others - 8/10 - Hadn't seen this in years. I had it on my DVR since July of last year and I figured this time of year was a good time to revisit it. I remembered the big reveal but had forgotten the particulars. Good solid ghost story with a great performance by Nicole Kidman and commendable supporting work from Fionnula Flanagan and the two child actors. Spanish director Alejandro Amenabar is responsible for this along with two more of my favorites Mar Adrento and Abre los Ojos.


I think that it's a beautiful, haunting, and rewarding film with qualities that go far beyond the big reveal.

The two parts I most remember are: first, the scene where she's in the room and you see a figure behind her and then
you realize it's a man in a painting out of focus behind her
. I can remember the tension building with the group I was watching it with as it was like "Do you see that?"

The second one is when they discover the death portraits.

It's just got so many beautiful images and striking emotional beats.


Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:00 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Whelp, looks like A Star Is Born just became my #1 film of the year to date...

:oops:

_________________
Recently Reviewed


Sun Oct 21, 2018 2:32 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Stu wrote:
Whelp, looks like A Star Is Born just became my #1 film of the year to date...

:oops:

Wait, really?


Sun Oct 21, 2018 2:40 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

boojiboyhowdy wrote:
The Others - 8/10 - Hadn't seen this in years. I had it on my DVR since July of last year and I figured this time of year was a good time to revisit it. I remembered the big reveal but had forgotten the particulars. Good solid ghost story with a great performance by Nicole Kidman and commendable supporting work from Fionnula Flanagan and the two child actors. Spanish director Alejandro Amenabar is responsible for this along with two more of my favorites Mar Adrento and Abre los Ojos.


This is a great film. I saw it in theaters and it blew me away then, and it blows me away every time I've seen it since I bought it. Beautifully haunting.

I'm also a huge fan of Abre los Ojos, but haven't seen Mar Adentro yet.

_________________
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---


Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:04 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

The Last Detail - 8.5/10

I like 70s Hal Ashby.

_________________
State of Siege |Gavras, 1972| +
Deadpool |Miller, 2016| +
Z |Gavras, 1969| -
The Confession |Gavras, 1970| +
Missing |Gavras, 1982| +
The Revenant |Inarritu, 2015| +
The Hateful Eight |Tarantino, 2015| +

+ Recommended


Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:47 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Wooley wrote:
Wait, really?
Really :P Part of that is probably due to me not being able to check out every movie I wanted to so far this year, but Cooper really surprised me with the way Star managed to transcend its tired showbiz/addiction cliches to become a surprisingly emotional, affecting story in the end, so be open-minded and check it out sometime, Wool!

_________________
Recently Reviewed


Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:50 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Stu wrote:
Really :P Part of that is probably due to me not being able to check out every movie I wanted to so far this year, but Cooper really surprised me with the way Star managed to transcend its tired showbiz/addiction cliches to become a surprisingly emotional, affecting story in the end, so be open-minded and check it out sometime, Wool!


Between reviews and word-of-mouth I have heard nothing but good stuff about A Star is Born.

Also, the music from it that they've posted on YouTube is quite good. Especially "Shallow".


Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:54 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Stu wrote:
Really :P Part of that is probably due to me not being able to check out every movie I wanted to so far this year, but Cooper really surprised me with the way Star managed to transcend its tired showbiz/addiction cliches to become a surprisingly emotional, affecting story in the end, so be open-minded and check it out sometime, Wool!

No, I mean, "really" like "I hope you're not fucking with me 'cause I really wanna see it."


Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:02 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

I just finished Hold the Dark and I feel like I need about 65% of it explained to me.

Dude really knows how to build a foreboding atmosphere and create a permanent sense of impending violence, but I felt like the narrative structure was kind of shaky in this one.


Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:04 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Takoma1 wrote:
I just finished Hold the Dark and I feel like I need about 65% of it explained to me.

Dude really knows how to build a foreboding atmosphere and create a permanent sense of impending violence, but I felt like the narrative structure was kind of shaky in this one.


I loved it. I think it makes brilliant use of foreshadowing and visual storytelling. I can probably help with questions on the thing as I feel i have a pretty solid handle on it.

I think the film’s greatest strength is what makes it vulnerable to criticism as it chooses to place extreme violence in the realm of an epistemological nightmare that I think at once makes it very real but also very subversive to narrative structures normal in cinema. Basically, if the point of juxtaposing men and wolves is to point out that our beliefs in our ability to know one another is as inherently faulty as our assumption to know the mind of a wolf, then the specifics and clarity of motive can’t be shown/explicit or they enter the realm of the knowable. I think there’s more than enough implication to remove it from lazy or incompetent characterization it it’s been an uphill battle explaining that much on the net. Reddit HATED that film.


Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:20 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

ThatDarnMKS wrote:

I loved it. I think it makes brilliant use of foreshadowing and visual storytelling. I can probably help with questions on the thing as I feel i have a pretty solid handle on it.

I think the film’s greatest strength is what makes it vulnerable to criticism as it chooses to place extreme violence in the realm of an epistemological nightmare that I think at once makes it very real but also very subversive to narrative structures normal in cinema. Basically, if the point of juxtaposing men and wolves is to point out that our beliefs in our ability to know one another is as inherently faulty as our assumption to know the mind of a wolf, then the specifics and clarity of motive can’t be shown/explicit or they enter the realm of the knowable. I think there’s more than enough implication to remove it from lazy or incompetent characterization it it’s been an uphill battle explaining that much on the net. Reddit HATED that film.


I guess just fundamentally I do not understand why
Vernon went on his killing spree. Was it just to throw things into such chaos that it would be easier for him to find his wife before the police did?

I felt like the actual killing of the child has very solid grounding in what they talk about in terms of the "savaging" with the wolves, her mentioning the child was sick, and the piece about wolves killing their young when resources run thin.

But why do we see Vernon save the woman who is being raped? Like, thematically what was the point of the whole sequence with him in the war? Is it to contrast "permissible" violence with what he later does? Is it done to complicate him by showing a scene of seeming empathy?

There's the whole bit about Vernon being "wrong" when he's young. Does that mean that their son was also "wrong"? Were both Vernon and his wife possessed by some sort of evil wolf spirits? Did she become possessed through her relationship with him? Why save the body of the child?


My reference to the narrative structure was more to do with the fact that I didn't care so much for the timing of the cutting between the different characters. I found it kind of jarring.


Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:09 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

The Canal, 2014, 2nd watch (A)

There's a lot of interesting things about this movie, I'm not sure what to think of it all. I also don't quite get how little of an impression it left on me the first time I saw it. It is definitely memorable.


Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:03 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Charles wrote:
The Canal, 2014, 2nd watch (A)

There's a lot of interesting things about this movie, I'm not sure what to think of it all. I also don't quite get how little of an impression it left on me the first time I saw it. It is definitely memorable.


It pulls on a few too many cliches for my taste, but I did like it. And the ending makes a really strong impression.


Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:14 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Takoma1 wrote:

I guess just fundamentally I do not understand why
Vernon went on his killing spree. Was it just to throw things into such chaos that it would be easier for him to find his wife before the police did?

I felt like the actual killing of the child has very solid grounding in what they talk about in terms of the "savaging" with the wolves, her mentioning the child was sick, and the piece about wolves killing their young when resources run thin.

But why do we see Vernon save the woman who is being raped? Like, thematically what was the point of the whole sequence with him in the war? Is it to contrast "permissible" violence with what he later does? Is it done to complicate him by showing a scene of seeming empathy?

There's the whole bit about Vernon being "wrong" when he's young. Does that mean that their son was also "wrong"? Were both Vernon and his wife possessed by some sort of evil wolf spirits? Did she become possessed through her relationship with him? Why save the body of the child?


My reference to the narrative structure was more to do with the fact that I didn't care so much for the timing of the cutting between the different characters. I found it kind of jarring.


Okay, I figured it was something about Slone as his actions are intentionally jarring and supposed to feel obtuse. That said, there does to be some logic behind it, even if it’s a fairly alien logic:

1. His morality transcends societal codes. The military scene shows him passively gun down enemies and a comrade take celebratory pictures. He stabs another fellow soldier when he catches him raping the girl. Not only does this juxtapose the accepted insanity and inhumanity of war with later crimes, it also introduces an underlying “rule” that Slone adheres to and respects: helping others.

2. Everyone he kills victimized his family in some way, either culturally or through neglect. His family was poisoned with notions of being wolf creatures which led to the murder of the old man and the old woman. They called his wife evil and she grew to believe it. The police only showed up when they could arrest and give his wife a shot at execution, promising it. They did not “help.”

3. He spares Core and shakes his hand because he’s the only one that came to help. This is also why he is spared by the spree shooter subsequently.

4. Slone is insane. I don’t think he clearly understands his mission, whether it be to kill or save his wife/sister until they reach the cave. The only thing that’s clear is that if anyone else gets her, they will either take his wife or his vengeance so he kills to “protect what is his.”

5. They both were brainwashed to believe themselves possessed by wolf spirits. When the wife writes to Core, she is asking him to not have mercy and kill her for what she did. This is why she comes to him naked in the wolf mask then leaves subsequently. I also suspect, this is why she leaves the mask for Slone, because he would understand what this meant to and for her.

6. Her killing the son was a combination of sparing him of their darkness and making Slone keep his promise to return to her. Then keeping the body has implications that they believe themselves to be able to resurrect the dead and reunite their family. “Can you resurrect the dead?” Their belief in this mysticism is part of their madness. I don’t think it’s literal but it’s fun to tease the idea.

7. Keluute is the name of the town and a mythological dog monster. Thought that was neat.


Hope this wasn’t too long a ramble. Loved the film.


Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:02 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Halloween - 7.5/10

I'd rank it as the 3rd best part deux behind Rosenthal's II and even though I haven't watched it recently, even whatever Zombie's II was suppose to be. Not a bad movie with a few good parts and my audience had a fun time.

_________________
State of Siege |Gavras, 1972| +
Deadpool |Miller, 2016| +
Z |Gavras, 1969| -
The Confession |Gavras, 1970| +
Missing |Gavras, 1982| +
The Revenant |Inarritu, 2015| +
The Hateful Eight |Tarantino, 2015| +

+ Recommended


Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:39 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

ThatDarnMKS wrote:

Okay, I figured it was something about Slone as his actions are intentionally jarring and supposed to feel obtuse. That said, there does to be some logic behind it, even if it’s a fairly alien logic:

1. His morality transcends societal codes. The military scene shows him passively gun down enemies and a comrade take celebratory pictures. He stabs another fellow soldier when he catches him raping the girl. Not only does this juxtapose the accepted insanity and inhumanity of war with later crimes, it also introduces an underlying “rule” that Slone adheres to and respects: helping others.

2. Everyone he kills victimized his family in some way, either culturally or through neglect. His family was poisoned with notions of being wolf creatures which led to the murder of the old man and the old woman. They called his wife evil and she grew to believe it. The police only showed up when they could arrest and give his wife a shot at execution, promising it. They did not “help.”

3. He spares Core and shakes his hand because he’s the only one that came to help. This is also why he is spared by the spree shooter subsequently.

4. Slone is insane. I don’t think he clearly understands his mission, whether it be to kill or save his wife/sister until they reach the cave. The only thing that’s clear is that if anyone else gets her, they will either take his wife or his vengeance so he kills to “protect what is his.”

5. They both were brainwashed to believe themselves possessed by wolf spirits. When the wife writes to Core, she is asking him to not have mercy and kill her for what she did. This is why she comes to him naked in the wolf mask then leaves subsequently. I also suspect, this is why she leaves the mask for Slone, because he would understand what this meant to and for her.

6. Her killing the son was a combination of sparing him of their darkness and making Slone keep his promise to return to her. Then keeping the body has implications that they believe themselves to be able to resurrect the dead and reunite their family. “Can you resurrect the dead?” Their belief in this mysticism is part of their madness. I don’t think it’s literal but it’s fun to tease the idea.

7. Keluute is the name of the town and a mythological dog monster. Thought that was neat.


Hope this wasn’t too long a ramble. Loved the film.


I guess my basic problem is that
while I understand that people who are insane can have their own internal logic, I didn't like that the film seems to alternate between Slone believing in the wolf stuff and seeing it as just a story. I also understand, thematically, the idea that you can't know the purpose of creatures like wolves. But wolves kill out of necessity.

Also, it bothered me that Slone is so indiscriminate in killing the police. I can understand maybe killing some of the old timers who were decision makers, but he also shoots the young deputy who is trying to understand what happened (the one who talks sympathetically about post-partum depression, which is at odds with the idea of just wanting to kill her) and later the other young officer. I guess he's blaming the police as a monolith institution, but that bothered me.

I may need to watch it again to process my thoughts. I feel like there are three different possibilities in films with these types of plots: (1) the supernatural stuff is real, (2) the supernatural stuff is not real and is just being used as an excuse, or (3) the supernatural stuff is not real, but is manifested to a degree by the belief of the characters. The film clearly spends most of its time in (3), but I wish there had been more insight into Slone. Clearly his wife has totally bought into the mythology. Slone, though, too often seems to be living in the "real" world. There just seemed to be something a bit inconsistent about his character's actions and motivations.

I did pick up on what you say about the way they treat Core. As an empathetic-but-pragmatic witness, there is a purity to his character that separates him from the menace or callous disregard of the other characters.


Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:18 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Takoma1 wrote:

It pulls on a few too many cliches for my taste, but I did like it. And the ending makes a really strong impression.


Oh yeah. It almost bumped it a full letter for me.

What clichés did you find bothering?


Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:46 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Takoma1 wrote:

I guess my basic problem is that
while I understand that people who are insane can have their own internal logic, I didn't like that the film seems to alternate between Slone believing in the wolf stuff and seeing it as just a story. I also understand, thematically, the idea that you can't know the purpose of creatures like wolves. But wolves kill out of necessity.

Also, it bothered me that Slone is so indiscriminate in killing the police. I can understand maybe killing some of the old timers who were decision makers, but he also shoots the young deputy who is trying to understand what happened (the one who talks sympathetically about post-partum depression, which is at odds with the idea of just wanting to kill her) and later the other young officer. I guess he's blaming the police as a monolith institution, but that bothered me.

I may need to watch it again to process my thoughts. I feel like there are three different possibilities in films with these types of plots: (1) the supernatural stuff is real, (2) the supernatural stuff is not real and is just being used as an excuse, or (3) the supernatural stuff is not real, but is manifested to a degree by the belief of the characters. The film clearly spends most of its time in (3), but I wish there had been more insight into Slone. Clearly his wife has totally bought into the mythology. Slone, though, too often seems to be living in the "real" world. There just seemed to be something a bit inconsistent about his character's actions and motivations.

I did pick up on what you say about the way they treat Core. As an empathetic-but-pragmatic witness, there is a purity to his character that separates him from the menace or callous disregard of the other characters.


I think the problem is that if you spend too much time clarifying Slone, the thematic crux of the film disintegrates. It’s entire point is to place us in the realm of the unknowable, something of which we can only bear witness and give our interpretation. If Slone makes too much sense, we can compartmentalize him and “understand.” The way this operates through hints and implications but with frustrating complications very much works for me because it is how I feel when trying to understand many of the worst real world analogs to this. It’s a theme I think was well worth exploring and while it may not do so quite as well as No Country for Old Men, I think it differentiates itself well enough.


Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:48 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Charles wrote:

Oh yeah. It almost bumped it a full letter for me.

What clichés did you find bothering?


It's been a few years, but certain shots and angles in the canal scenes felt overly familiar. I'd also just watched a different "ghosts appearing in cameras" film, and so many of the techniques there just didn't feel fresh. Also, I thought it was pretty obvious that
it would turn out that he was possessed and had killed her, though that element and the way that final act plays out was stronger than I expected it would be.


ThatDarnMKS wrote:
I think the problem is that if you spend too much time clarifying Slone, the thematic crux of the film disintegrates. It’s entire point is to place us in the realm of the unknowable, something of which we can only bear witness and give our interpretation. If Slone makes too much sense, we can compartmentalize him and “understand.”


I sort of get this, but I also feel like we are denied some basic information about Slone (and his wife) that does tend to give you a sense of people. I know that the film wants to maintain an aura of mystery around him, but I found it frustrating to spend so much time with a character and yet be held at arm's length for all of it. Core, as essentially a surrogate character for the audience, is given a handful of chances to interrogate the motives of the couple, but it was just too much time spent watching a person for me to feel good about "Welp, some things are just unknowable. *shrug*".

I didn't even need some sort of "ultimate answer" about the wolf stuff, just a bit more about Slone's thought process.


Tue Oct 23, 2018 12:45 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

The Debt Collector(2018)

This is a nice throwback to the many Tarantino ripoffs you had in the '90s, but thankfully without the annoying pop culture references or non-linear storytelling those often suffered from.

This movie has a simple but really effective structure: Scott Adkins teams up with a burned out veteran (a wonderful Louis Mandylor) to collect payments for the local crime boss. Each stop on their way through sunny L.A. (this partially explains the Tarantino vibe) introduces a new environment in which to stage a set piece, and where they (but especially Adkins) can kick some ass and, most importantly, get their ass kicked. It's a perfect way to regularly show some action scenes without making it feel forced. And those action sequences are delightfully rough and very physical. People are thrown through walls and some bones get broken. It is clear our two (anti?)heroes are far from untouchable.

Once Tony Todd shows up in the second half and a "plot" kicks in, the movie starts taking itself way more seriously. That stuff is still good, just not as fun. It's on Netflix for those who think this might appeal to them.

3/5


Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:54 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

The Curse of Frankenstein - 7/10 - This was made in 1957 and filmed in color by Hammer Studios and is credited with not only putting the studio on the map but revitalizing the horror genre in general. It stars Peter (more Cushing for the pushin') Cushing as Baron Frankenstein and Christopher Lee as the monster. It was such a financial success that five other movies followed with Cushing reprising his role in all of them while sometimes pulling double duty as Van Helsing in the studios Dracula films. It certainly isn't Hammer's best but for a time it was the most profitable movie ever released by a British studio.


Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:39 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Tak- I think you’re not supposed to get a sense of him as a person but as an animal. I just can’t surmise how to make that work if more solid answers are given. As I said, it’s a messy, slippery slope where if you show too much, the themes die. If you give too little, it becomes far too random. I think the film masterfully foreshadows information before giving it context so I imagine it will be particularly fruitful on rewatches.

Slen- I thought the Debt Collector was okay but that it was lacking in the action department compared to the other collaborations between Johnson and Adkins. I think centering the drama around someone not present until the end was a mistake but one I would have forgiven with proper action. I enjoyed Accident Man quite a bit more as a low budget Tarantino/Ritchie homage.

Boo- Have you seen the other Frankenstein or Dracula Hammer horrors? I was disappointed how rarely Cushing played Helsing opposite Lee (only for one film properly, then an ancestor in the last two) and found both Brides of Dracula and Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires to be enjoyable, but harmed by the lack of Lee. I think Cushing is used better in the Frankenstein films and love the direction they go with his character. Even if the films overall have inconsistent quality, his interpretation gains in complexity with each entry.


Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:58 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Boo- Have you seen the other Frankenstein or Dracula Hammer horrors? I was disappointed how rarely Cushing played Helsing opposite Lee (only for one film properly, then an ancestor in the last two) and found both Brides of Dracula and Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires to be enjoyable, but harmed by the lack of Lee. I think Cushing is used better in the Frankenstein films and love the direction they go with his character. Even if the films overall have inconsistent quality, his interpretation gains in complexity with each entry.
Oh yes. I need to watch the other two I have DVR'd, Frankenstein Created Woman and Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed as well as The Horror of Frankenstein (which stars Ralph Bates in place of Cushing) and Frankenstein and the Monster From Hell. But I have watched The Curse of Frankenstein, The Revenge of Frankenstein and The Evil of Frankenstein.

Cushing does do an outstanding job as the Baron and he and Lee as life long friends did seem to bring out the best in each other.

As far as the Dracula Hammer films go I've seen Dracula (1958), The Brides of Dracula, Dracula: Prince of Darkness, Dracula Has Risen from the Grave, Taste the Blood of Dracula and Dracula A.D. 1972.

I still need to catch Scars of Dracula, The Satanic Rites of Dracula and The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires.


Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:54 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

boojiboyhowdy wrote:
The Curse of Frankenstein - 7/10 - This was made in 1957 and filmed in color by Hammer Studios and is credited with not only putting the studio on the map but revitalizing the horror genre in general. It stars Peter (more Cushing for the pushin') Cushing as Baron Frankenstein and Christopher Lee as the monster. It was such a financial success that five other movies followed with Cushing reprising his role in all of them while sometimes pulling double duty as Van Helsing in the studios Dracula films. It certainly isn't Hammer's best but for a time it was the most profitable movie ever released by a British studio.

One of my favorite horror movies ever but there's so much nostalgia-factor and Hammer-factor and all, I can't say that you're wrong.


Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:54 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Boo- Have you seen the other Frankenstein or Dracula Hammer horrors? I was disappointed how rarely Cushing played Helsing opposite Lee (only for one film properly, then an ancestor in the last two) and found both Brides of Dracula and Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires to be enjoyable, but harmed by the lack of Lee. I think Cushing is used better in the Frankenstein films and love the direction they go with his character. Even if the films overall have inconsistent quality, his interpretation gains in complexity with each entry.

Man, I think Brides is a rock-solid little vampire movie. Agree with you on Cushing and the character-direction.


Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:56 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Bound for Glory - 8/10

_________________
State of Siege |Gavras, 1972| +
Deadpool |Miller, 2016| +
Z |Gavras, 1969| -
The Confession |Gavras, 1970| +
Missing |Gavras, 1982| +
The Revenant |Inarritu, 2015| +
The Hateful Eight |Tarantino, 2015| +

+ Recommended


Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:36 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Wooley wrote:
Man, I think Brides is a rock-solid little vampire movie. Agree with you on Cushing and the character-direction.

Brides may not be the best of Hammer's Dracula films but I bet it's the one I've watched the most. Love it.

_________________
Captain's Log


Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:40 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Captain Terror wrote:
Brides may not be the best of Hammer's Dracula films but I bet it's the one I've watched the most. Love it.
Same here. Even without Christopher Lee it's intrinsically entertaining. And it also features an enthusiastic and steadfast performance by Cushing as Van Helsing.


Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:00 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

boojiboyhowdy wrote:
The Satanic Rites of Dracula

Urgh, yuck.


Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:59 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Jinnistan wrote:
Urgh, yuck.


In addition to my samurai movie night, a friend (who is a far better cook than me, hard as I try) has started a Good Food Bad Movie night on a mostly-weekly basis. This is one of the first ones we watched.
We have also watched Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (while very high), Judge Dredd, the remake of The Wicker Man, Vampire's Kiss, and Road House. Accompanied by his chili, ragu bolognese, eton mess, and beef bourguignon, all of which are the best versions of those dishes that I've ever tasted.

As for samurai movie night, we've gone on to watch/eat:
Zatoichi's Revenge - Thai chicken curry (weak recipe, unfortunately) and sticky rice for dessert (this time made with an actual steamer basket)
Zatoichi and the Doomed Man - Okinawa soba (I was really pleased with this dish)
Zatoichi and the Chess Expert - Slow cooked honey garlic chicken with broccoli

_________________
Ma`crol´o`gy
n. 1. Long and tedious talk without much substance; superfluity of words.


Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:58 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 72147 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1436, 1437, 1438, 1439, 1440, 1441, 1442, 1443  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ergill, Jinnistan and 28 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.