Re: Movie review thread...



  • Also check out the creepy Incubus (1965):

    [quote][b][color=#FF0000]Incubus[/color][/b] (Esperanto: Inkubo) is a black and white horror film originally released in 1965 and later restored in 2001. Incubus was directed by Leslie Stevens, creator of The Outer Limits, and stars a pre-Star Trek William Shatner. Its striking black and white cinematography was by Conrad Hall, who went on to win three Academy Awards for his work on the films Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Road to Perdition, and American Beauty. The film was performed entirely in the constructed language Esperanto. This was done to create an eerie, other-worldly feeling, and the director has prohibited dubbing into other languages.

    The film was lost for many years because the original print of the film burned in a fire and all copies reported lost, destroyed, or worn away. A copy of the film was found in France where it played with French subtitles in the permanent collection of the Cinémathèque Française in Paris. The Sci Fi Channel funded the restoration from the found print and released a DVD in 2001 that included subtitles in English and French.

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incubus_(1965_film)[/url][/quote]

    Two-minute Sci Fi Channel "Incubus" trailer:

    [youtube:2tqy2la3]AW7AuyIwN2A[/youtube:2tqy2la3]



  • Yeah, his background is surprising. He's a Broadway theatre actor, with lots of great reviews and Shakespeare performances in his history, not to mention live TV performances. His autobiography is bloody interesting.



  • [quote name='Kirwan']Yeah, his background is surprising. He's a Broadway theatre actor, with lots of great reviews and [b]Shakespeare performances[/b] in his history, not to mention live TV performances. His autobiography is bloody interesting.[/quote]

    I was never a big Star Trek junkie like my brother, but have a perverse fascination with Shatner. I live very close to a small town (Stratford, Ontario) that has an annual Shakespeare Festival where Shatner performed a couple seasons in the 1950s before heading south to the Howdy Doody Show on American TV (!!). I go to local flea markets and yard sales and am always coming across vintage Festival programs and promotional material with young Shatner photographed and marqueed. I should start collecting the stuff.



  • Slumdog Millionaire; quite enjoyed it, maybe suffered a little because of the rave reviews and expectation, but worth the watch - 7.5/10

    Outlander; James Caviezel (who I like as an actor) pretty average Sci-Fi film where Caviezel lands on Earth in the time of the Vikings and brings another alien being with him that starts killing villages. 5.4/10



  • Life imitates art:

    [youtube:wutsa8er]cEnjiGwVw6o[/youtube:wutsa8er]

    Ricky Gervais is genius.



  • Am watching Zack and Miri Make A Porno. About half way though. It has some really funny moments but also some parts that drag abit. Oh yuck, bad scene...bad ! But hillarious xzxrofl Also some great lines in this movie, not quite like Clint's but pearls in their own right.

    Watched the Zodiac film for the second time the other evening, I really like that movie and the suspense that they came close to catching the guy but could never prove it.



  • The Mist; average 'horror' film, had heard good things about it. 5.9/10

    Thick as Thieves - Morgan Freemen & Antonio Banderas, crime thriller/drama. Not too bad, twist at the end is reasonably easy to see coming. 6.4/10

    Wall-E - finally watched right through (son stops, starts it often) pretty good film, 7.4/10



  • AICN has news that they are remaking Total Recall, hopefully by using the Phillip K. Dick source material more closely but I doubt it.

    And in Arnold news, he's joined the cast of Sly's The Expendables as a cameo as governor. Jean Claude got asked as well but turned it down! What a moron, Sly almost had all the 80s action icons in one film. His reason was he wanted to see a script. A script?!? Has he not seen any of his OWN films????

    The cast list for that film is getting incredible, for those keeping track;

    Mickey Rourke, Jason Statham, Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jet Li, Eric Roberts, Dolph Lundgren, Forest Whitaker and with Sandra Bullock and Ben Kingsley still rumoured.



  • [i]Demon Seed[/i]. Julie Christie gets imprisoned and raped by an intelligent super computer. Donald Cammell film. 7/10.

    [i]Colossus: The Forbin Project [/i]was better.



  • [quote name='taniwharugby'][b]The Mist; average 'horror' film, had heard good things about it. 5.9/10[/b]

    Thick as Thieves - Morgan Freemen & Antonio Banderas, crime thriller/drama. Not too bad, twist at the end is reasonably easy to see coming. 6.4/10

    [b]Wall-E - finally watched right through (son stops, starts it often) pretty good film, 7.4/10[/b][/quote]

    Your a harsh critic, thought both were very good films especially Wall-E
    The Mist was enjoyable, have read Stephen Kings original story and it was right on except the ending. Which was Hollywooded.



  • [quote name='Virgil'][quote name='taniwharugby'][b]The Mist; average 'horror' film, had heard good things about it. 5.9/10[/b]

    Thick as Thieves - Morgan Freemen & Antonio Banderas, crime thriller/drama. Not too bad, twist at the end is reasonably easy to see coming. 6.4/10

    [b]Wall-E - finally watched right through (son stops, starts it often) pretty good film, 7.4/10[/b][/quote]

    Your a harsh critic, thought both were very good films especially Wall-E
    The Mist was enjoyable, have read Stephen Kings original story and it was right on except the ending. Which was Hollywooded.[/quote]

    I thought the Mist was alright, no great masterpiece though and wouldn't bother seeing it again. Couldn't quite understand why the AJ's suicided by the way.



  • [quote name='Virgil'][quote name='taniwharugby'][b]The Mist; average 'horror' film, had heard good things about it. 5.9/10[/b]

    Thick as Thieves - Morgan Freemen & Antonio Banderas, crime thriller/drama. Not too bad, twist at the end is reasonably easy to see coming. 6.4/10

    [b]Wall-E - finally watched right through (son stops, starts it often) pretty good film, 7.4/10[/b][/quote]

    Your a harsh critic, thought both were very good films especially Wall-E
    The Mist was enjoyable, have read Stephen Kings original story and it was right on except the ending. Which was Hollywooded.[/quote]

    will clarify on The Mist, average HORROR, not sure how youd categorise it, but a horror it was not. So despite the pretty good story (loved the psycho religious woman) and the shite end, I did like it, just not a horror.



  • Watched Even Money, not bad but can't imagine any guy being so patient when his wife regularly stays out late at a 'coffee shop' to write and, doesnt check his bank balance until $65,000 is whittled away on the pokies. This is particulalry the case when the guy is played by Ray Liotta .I kept expecting him to go ballistic and the mafia to show up. He's typecast for me I'm afraid.

    I liked The Duchess, I like well crafted period pieces and this one is based on a true story which adds to the plot. Once again though Kiera Knightley is typecast for me so I couldn't quite take her seriously. The real Duchess must have been an extraordinary woman.



  • Just rewatched Pride and Prejudice. I liked Knightley in this which is of a similar time period to the Duchess. The only other movies I've seen her in ( from memory) are Bend It Like Beckam, Love Actually and Pirates of the Caribbean. Didn't really like her acting in Bend It and Love Actually-she seemed self concious in both those roles but seemed much more in character in Pirates and P & P. On reflection she wasn't too bad in The Duchess.



  • [quote name='Virgil'][quote name='taniwharugby'][b]The Mist; average 'horror' film, had heard good things about it. 5.9/10[/b]

    Thick as Thieves - Morgan Freemen & Antonio Banderas, crime thriller/drama. Not too bad, twist at the end is reasonably easy to see coming. 6.4/10

    [b]Wall-E - finally watched right through (son stops, starts it often) pretty good film, 7.4/10[/b][/quote]

    Your a harsh critic, thought both were very good films especially Wall-E
    The Mist was enjoyable, have read Stephen Kings original story and it was right on except the ending. Which was Hollywooded.[/quote]

    I havent read the book, but thats not what i would call a hollywood ending at all.

    [spoiler:s6zwd0of]A hollywood ending would have seen the car of peops getting rescued. The guy killing everyone, running out of bullets and then seeing salvation come around the corner was as far from hollywood as you could get imo[/spoiler:s6zwd0of]



  • [quote name='phoenetia'][quote name='Virgil'][quote name='taniwharugby'][b]The Mist; average 'horror' film, had heard good things about it. 5.9/10[/b]

    Thick as Thieves - Morgan Freemen & Antonio Banderas, crime thriller/drama. Not too bad, twist at the end is reasonably easy to see coming. 6.4/10

    [b]Wall-E - finally watched right through (son stops, starts it often) pretty good film, 7.4/10[/b][/quote]

    Your a harsh critic, thought both were very good films especially Wall-E
    The Mist was enjoyable, have read Stephen Kings original story and it was right on except the ending. Which was Hollywooded.[/quote]

    I havent read the book, but thats not what i would call a hollywood ending at all.

    [spoiler:3studnhx]A hollywood ending would have seen the car of peops getting rescued. The guy killing everyone, running out of bullets and then seeing salvation come around the corner was as far from hollywood as you could get imo[/spoiler:3studnhx][/quote]

    I disagree, I think it was a very Hollywood ending (much like I am Legend) drama for the sake of drama.



  • [quote name='taniwharugby'][quote name='phoenetia'][quote name='Virgil'][quote name='taniwharugby'][b]The Mist; average 'horror' film, had heard good things about it. 5.9/10[/b]

    Thick as Thieves - Morgan Freemen & Antonio Banderas, crime thriller/drama. Not too bad, twist at the end is reasonably easy to see coming. 6.4/10

    [b]Wall-E - finally watched right through (son stops, starts it often) pretty good film, 7.4/10[/b][/quote]

    Your a harsh critic, thought both were very good films especially Wall-E
    The Mist was enjoyable, have read Stephen Kings original story and it was right on except the ending. Which was Hollywooded.[/quote]

    I havent read the book, but thats not what i would call a hollywood ending at all.

    [spoiler:kmol00cr]A hollywood ending would have seen the car of peops getting rescued. The guy killing everyone, running out of bullets and then seeing salvation come around the corner was as far from hollywood as you could get imo[/spoiler:kmol00cr][/quote]

    I disagree, I think it was a very Hollywood ending (much like I am Legend) drama for the sake of drama.A big giant creature they cant see properly walks over them.
    [/quote]
    Its quite a good story, one of Kings best IMHO

    Yep that sort of Hollywood ending, not the feel good everything works out kind, but the 'how do we make it a real kick in the guts one you will never forget type ending'
    The Book doesnt have that all, basically the last act never takes place, they just [spoiler:kmol00cr]leave the supermarket and drive on[/spoiler:kmol00cr]



  • [url="

    "]

    TR2N goodness



  • I saw Watchmen tonight - hugely, hugely disappointing. It was a movie that had good ideas and a good setup/beginning but that just completely lost its way. At times it seemed like it was directed by four different directors all with competing visions. The look of the early scenes are great, but the hammy CGI near the end completely takes away from it.
    Worst movie I've watched this year. 4/10. Would have been 4.5 but there's way too much blue penis in the film.



  • I caught "Let the right one in" in the States last week. If you haven't heard of it, it's a Swedish (w/English subtitles) film about a bullied 12yo boy who hooks up with a "12yo vampire" girl.

    O for awesome (thanks Kirwan!) film. Really, really disturbing, dark and scary, and some of the characters and events are seriously twisted and a bit sickening. But I couldn't tear my eyes away and left the theatre completely blown away. A word of warning, it hasn't got a single gram of horror film campiness, so if you're after an entertaining slashfest this isn't your movie. A really horrifying and unsettling film. BTW, I believe it's already scheduled for the obligatory Hollywood dumbed down remake.



  • [quote name='Nepia']I saw Watchmen tonight - hugely, hugely disappointing. It was a movie that had good ideas and a good setup/beginning but that just completely lost its way. At times it seemed like it was directed by four different directors all with competing visions. The look of the early scenes are great, but the hammy CGI near the end completely takes away from it.
    Worst movie I've watched this year. 4/10. Would have been 4.5 but there's way too much blue penis in the film.[/quote]

    Please qualify. Do you hate because as a film it sucks, or does it fail as an adaptation of a beloved book? (Are you a fan of Alan Moore's Watchmen? Like all filmed adaptations of Moore's work, he refuses to attach his name to this one too.)



  • I am, I'm seeing it tomorrow. The rabid fanboys are only complaining about one thing, but even then not so much.



  • 160 mins. Think I'll be watching it at home. With whiskey.



  • Good-or-bad, The Watchmen is a movie I [i]will[/i] be seeing and [i]have[/i] to see on a big screen. It's a big-screen experience, I suspect, much like the directors' previous "300," which is an alright film in a home theater but looked spectacular on a huge screen.



  • [quote name='Virgil'][quote name='MN5'][quote name='Kirwan'][quote name='MN5'][quote name='Kirwan']Just back from seeing the awesomeness of Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino. Only he could get away with playing just a bastard and be so damn likable.

    A very clever film that plays with your expectations of what a Clint movie will be. If that's his final performance, it's a tour de bloody force.

    Get Off My Lawn indeed.[/quote]

    VERY pissed off that I still haven't seen this. I need to persuade the wife that she'll want to see it.[/quote]

    I took my wife and she loved it. Sounds weird but it's actually kind of sweet and in that grey area of chick/guy flick. Very funny too.[/quote]

    Well I'm trying to persuade her to go tomorrow night for valentines day but so far a forlorn exercise, she says "go with your mates" but everyone knows how dodgy a group of guys at the movies is !! She loved Thunderbolt and Lightfoot and Million Dollar Baby, not so keen on the Dollars trilogy or Dirty Harry series.[/quote]

    The Mrs and i watched Gran Torino lastnight, great movie with a wonderful performance from the great man. As previously mentioned some great lines from Clint, but more often its his expressions on that wrinkled old face of his that said more then words could.
    A great story, a must for a Clint fan like you MN5.[/quote]

    Thanks to a fellow ferner ( you know who you are ! xzxgood ) I finally got to see Gran Torino and as a movie to go out on I think its an absolute masterpiece. Clints racist, jaded grumpy old man is a delight to watch in a performance that only he could pull off. Clint is never gonna win an oscar for best actor but who gives a fuck, maybe his "range" isn't up there with others but as an icon and presence he is absolutely second to none. Top notch performances from the supporting actors ( all previously unknowns ) as well. Sue was a crack up, not intimidated by "Wally" in the slightest. As an aside the "pussy" kid who tries to be matey with the black dudes is Clints own real life son Scott. Once you actually know the resemblance is uncanny.

    Aw and my wife loved it too despite telling herself that she'd hate it ! xzxgood



  • [quote name='red terror'][quote name='Nepia']I saw Watchmen tonight - hugely, hugely disappointing. [b]It was a movie that had good ideas and a good setup/beginning but that just completely lost its way. At times it seemed like it was directed by four different directors all with competing visions. The look of the early scenes are great, but the hammy CGI near the end completely takes away from it[/b].
    Worst movie I've watched this year. 4/10. Would have been 4.5 but there's way too much blue penis in the film.[/quote]

    Please qualify. Do you hate because as a film it sucks, or does it fail as an adaptation of a beloved book? (Are you a fan of Alan Moore's Watchmen? Like all filmed adaptations of Moore's work, he refuses to attach his name to this one too.)[/quote]

    Film sucks. I'm not a fanboy but went out and read the graphic novel when I heard they were making a movie. I thought the highlighted bit above clearly showed that I thought it was the movie that was crap.
    Moore cracks me up though - I bet he happily spends the cash that he recieves for the adaptions.

    If you're not a fanboy I'd suggest wait for the DVD, if you are, well you wont be listening to me anyway.



  • Well, it's hard to know where to start with Nepia's opinion on The Watchmen. I'll start with the film does not suck at all, it's not perfect but it's a bloody entertaining comic book film. Perhaps if you were a little bit less focused on Dr Manhatten's penis like some 14 year old moron, you could have enjoyed the film a bit more?

    I didn't see any hammy CGI as well, the effects were pretty good IMO. The fact that most of the CGI was showing a glowing blue guy is just part of the story. From the trailers I was worried about too much slo mo, but that was used well throughout as well.

    It's very close to the book right up until the end, which doesn't change enough to detract from what the comics were trying to get across. So much detail was in many of the shots it would be worth re-reading the graphic novel inbetween seeing it again.

    They bloody nailed Rorschach too, loved the "You're locked in here with me!" section. Very happy they didn't dumb down the story or the more adult themes for the midwest. Or Nepia.



  • Whats CGI ? Tried to guess but Closed Graphic Image doesnt sound right.

    This movie is being advertised on tele here at the moment. I might just hit my daughter (works at BC&C) up for some cheap tickets tomorrow and go watch it for myself.



  • [quote name='allblackfan']Whats CGI ? Tried to guess but Closed Graphic Image doesnt sound right.
    [/quote]

    Computer generated imagery.



  • Ah, thanks. If it's anything like the graphics in 300 than it will be awesome. xzxgood



  • [attachment=0:112j945p]dr-manhattan.jpg[/attachment:112j945p]

    Much better than the CGI in 300.



  • Watched The Darjeeling Limited today, quite enjoyable. Not a big fan of Owen Wilson but its a light quirky little film.
    A fun way to spend 90 mins, give it a solid 7.48 out of 10.



  • [quote name='Virgil']Watched The Darjeeling Limited today, quite enjoyable. Not a big fan of Owen Wilson but its a light quirky little film.
    A fun way to spend 90 mins, give it a solid 7.48 out of 10.[/quote]

    Fun ? I didn't like it at all, it's along the same lines as The Royal Tannenbaums which could be described as 'quirky'. At least The Darjeeling Limited is set in an interesting location when they are off the train and wandering the countryside.



  • Yep enjoyed the location of the film, India looked fantastic.
    Have never seen The Royal Tannenbaums.



  • [quote name='Kirwan']Well, it's hard to know where to start with Nepia's opinion on The Watchmen. I'll start with the film does not suck at all, it's not perfect but it's a bloody entertaining comic book film. [b]Perhaps if you were a little bit less focused on Dr Manhatten's penis like some 14 year old moron, you could have enjoyed the film a bit more?[/b]

    I didn't see any hammy CGI as well, the effects were pretty good IMO. The fact that most of the CGI was showing a glowing blue guy is just part of the story. From the trailers I was worried about too much slo mo, but that was used well throughout as well.

    It's very close to the book right up until the end, which doesn't change enough to detract from what the comics were trying to get across. So much detail was in many of the shots it would be worth re-reading the graphic novel inbetween seeing it again.

    They bloody nailed Rorschach too, loved the "You're locked in here with me!" section. Very happy they didn't dumb down the story or the more adult themes for the midwest. Or Nepia.[/quote]

    Nice one dude, focus on the jokey part of my post. Anyway, I guess I should have expected a backlash from the fanboys. xzxhang1
    Agree that Rorschach was all good but still think movie was poor. That was most disappointing, unfulfilled promise. The pacing was all over the show. The CGI was ho hum in the [spoiler:33gsl3gi]city destroying[/spoiler:33gsl3gi] section - kind of 2002 effects to me.
    It was the adult themes I thought were most successful - If you read my post properly it was craftsmen shift I had a problem with, the story is great (especially in the graphic novel.)
    But what would I know, I'm too dumb for it, I'll have to go back to watching Epic Movie. xzxsarcastic



  • [quote name='allblackfan'][quote name='Virgil']Watched The Darjeeling Limited today, quite enjoyable. Not a big fan of Owen Wilson but its a light quirky little film.
    A fun way to spend 90 mins, give it a solid 7.48 out of 10.[/quote]

    Fun ? I didn't like it at all, it's along the same lines as The Royal Tannenbaums which could be described as 'quirky'. At least The Darjeeling Limited is set in an interesting location when they are off the train and wandering the countryside.[/quote]

    The olds gave me a copy of Darjeeling, I watched about 45 minutes and then had to go out. This was about two months ago and I've never felt the need to watch anymore. Just didn't have anything going for it in my opinion.



  • [quote name='MN5'][quote name='allblackfan'][quote name='Virgil']Watched The Darjeeling Limited today, quite enjoyable. Not a big fan of Owen Wilson but its a light quirky little film.
    A fun way to spend 90 mins, give it a solid 7.48 out of 10.[/quote]

    Fun ? I didn't like it at all, it's along the same lines as The Royal Tannenbaums which could be described as 'quirky'. At least The Darjeeling Limited is set in an interesting location when they are off the train and wandering the countryside.[/quote]

    The olds gave me a copy of Darjeeling, I watched about 45 minutes and then had to go out. This was about two months ago and I've never felt the need to watch anymore. Just didn't have anything going for it in my opinion.[/quote]
    2nd that - pretty boring movie i thought, The Royal Tannenbaums was more interesting.



  • [quote name='Nepia']I saw Watchmen tonight ...

    4/10. Would have been 4.5 but there's [b]way too much [color=#0000FF]blue penis[/color] in the film[/b].[/quote]

    I still haven't seen it, but was thinking about your comment and had a chuckle when I read this:

    [quote]And sure enough, a number of my fellow midnight film patrons passed the verdict of [color=#0000FF]"too much [b]penis[/b] for me."[/color] But getting worked up over the [color=#0000FF]blue penis[/color] is a failure to notice the rest of the film. [color=#FF0000]A female superhero, Silk Spectre II, is outfitted in a [b]latex body suit with perma-hard nipples[/b][/color], there's a horribly cheesy sex scene set to "Hallelujah," and your overshare problem is the glowing [color=#0000FF][b]blue penis[/b][/color]?

    [url]http://tinyurl.com/ae8kqk[/url][/quote]



  • Watched the documentary "King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters" last weekend, then saw it again yesterday.

    Rating: 9/10

    The documentary is about gamers setting world records at Donkey Kong.

    It looks like it was made on a shoestring budget, but it's just a terrific fascinating story with compelling obsessive-compulsive personalities and tension.

    I highly recommend this movie to any sports fan. I am not a "gamer" by any stretch, I don't own computer games and I never had any interest in the arcade games when I was younger. Nevertheless, my eyes were glued to the film.

    Trailer here...

    [youtube:2fmoi75e]xMJZ-_bJKdI[/youtube:2fmoi75e]



  • [quote name='Kirwan']I didn't see any hammy CGI as well, the effects were pretty good IMO. The fact that most of the CGI was showing a glowing blue guy is just part of the story.[/quote]

    The reference to CGI doesn't mean much to me anymore. We have to accept that virtually every film, even small indie documentaries with simple Illustrator graphic text titles, uses the technology to some degree to tell a story. CGI means pretty much the same thing these days as "animation," employing animated vectors and pixels. Pixar is considered an animation company, but all Pixar films are CGI, every single frame, and nobody complains that every frame and cell isn't painted by hand. Those guys have the art and science of animation down to photo-realism, and live-action movies are doing the same.


Log in to reply