ilnino
Disembodied Voice
Posts: 473
|
Post by ilnino on Apr 22, 2013 1:23:09 GMT -5
Just waiting on my cousin coming to pick me up then am heading off to watch Evil dead 2.... In the woods.. Im expecting it to be all sorts of cool. The weather seems pretty good which is very strange... Well, whats the verdict? Really enjoyed it, fun to experience it in that situation.. it also helped that its been maybe 10 years from ive seen the film, so I really got into it. Ive never been to any "unusual" screenings before but I'll be keeping an eye out in future for more, not that they happen that often around these parts. Next time I 'll wrap up warmer too lol
|
|
|
Post by delbertgrady on Apr 26, 2013 11:51:21 GMT -5
John Dies at the End, the latest from Don Coscarelli (Phantasm films, Bubbu Ho-Tep) was really enjoyable. It contains all the facets from a typical Coscarelli film: inventive, funny, free wheeling, bizarre, cool practical effects, and weird creatures. I didn't always know what exactly what was going on, I just kind of enjoyed the ride and look forward to re-visiting it.
|
|
yddy
Ghost in the Graveyard
Posts: 568
|
Post by yddy on Apr 26, 2013 20:49:35 GMT -5
I felt the same way with the book, Delbertgrady. I think that's just how the story is.
|
|
|
Post by bishop746 on May 6, 2013 18:33:35 GMT -5
I watched Rottweiler, a 2004 Spanish/ Horror/Sci-fi/Post-Apocalyptic/ Love Story about an idiot who escapes from a Spanish prison in the near future and is hunted by a robotic Rottweiler all the while remembering his past life with his girlfriend told through confusing flashbacks. This film may hold the record outside of the porn industry for the longest sequence of male nudity on-screen. The hero of the film spends at least ten minutes buck-naked running from this dog before he is captured by a woman and the little girl from Pans Labyrinth. At gun point he is finally given pants to wear but they are almost instantly ripped from him and he is forced to have sex with the woman. Because, she explains, she was once a sex slave and began to "like it." Yep, that's the kind of movie we have here. It is shortly after this point in the film that we have the Greatest Performance By A Chicken in a Film, Spanish or Otherwise. It must be seen to be believed; I'm not sure if Director Brian Yuzna meant it as a joke but it is funny and the internet is in agreement with me as its the one scene that gets discussed on the web. Look for a brief appearance by Paul Nashy and the aforementioned girl from Pan's Labyrinth and a midget wearing a glow in the dark diaper. Thankfully, not in the same scene. Confusing, poorly edited, bad CGI and practical effects add up to a completely unwacthable 1 hour and 40 minutes of 80's crap filmed in 2004. And I couldn't bring myself to stop watching.
|
|
|
Post by Stuart on May 7, 2013 3:36:50 GMT -5
Living Dead Girl. Dead girl returns to life following a toxic spill and her childhood friend sets about providing her with victims to munch on. An unusual and classy French film from the early 80s.
Revenge of the Living Dead Girls. It’s French, there’s toxic fluids involved and there are naked zombie chicks but it has little else in common with LDG. It’s trashy, exploitative fare with some pretty explicit gore scenes. The plot is shambolic, the zombies are silly (shrivelled faces but normal bodies?) and the ending is ludicrous. I quite liked it ;D
Die Monster Die! One of Karloff’s later films, based on the Lovecraft story The Colour Out of Space. An AIP production. Rich colour photography and quite atmospheric but sluggish. Doesn’t do the Lovecraft story justice and plays out like an early Dr Who episode with Triffids. Nice opening credits and score.
|
|
|
Post by evanseconds on May 12, 2013 11:48:01 GMT -5
I saw The Great Gatsby last night. It was pretty ballin'.
|
|
|
Post by delbertgrady on May 16, 2013 10:39:07 GMT -5
I borrowed the Superman boxset from a buddy and re-watched the whole saga (except Supergirl which wasn't in the set) Superman-4/5 The original from 1978, after this viewing I think it is overall the best of the bunch. The production values hold up pretty well, the origin story is well told, and it's well over 2 hr. runtime never lags. The turn back time by reversing the Earth's rotation climax still doesn't work though. Superman II-3/5 Five years ago I would have said this was my fav. Superman movie because of the action, but watching it now there isn't as much action as I remembered until the last half hour. It's too goofy at times and there's some shakey plot points. But the villians are great and the film is still fun. Superman II Director's cut-3.5/5 First time seeing the director's cut and it's an improvement. The scenes between Brando & Reeve are edited back into the film and give it a much needed dramatic edge. The film is slightly more serious and less goofy. Superman III-2/5 Richard Pryor was a very funny man but in this I didn't find his bits comical in the least and there's A LOT of Pryor in this film. The villians are not memorable and the action isn't exciting except for the Superman vs Clark Kent fight which was fun. The scenes between Clark and Lana Lang is the other positve aspect from this mostly lackluster film. Superman IV-1.5/5 The budget was slashed for the 4th installment and it shows, there's many "not so special" effects. The dialogue doesn't crackle, and the film is visually ugly. Superman Returns-3/5 I think this movie needs a fan edit, there's a mix of good and bad in this 2006 film. The good: Brandon Routh was solid as Clark/Superman, the advancements in green screen technology & special effects result in some cool Superman-in-action flying scenes, and the set & production design stands out as a positive. The bad: The Clark/Lois drama is not fleshed out in a particular interesting way, there seems to a certain charm/sense of fun missing the first two Superman movies had, the movie isn't compelling enough to earn it's 2 1/2 hr. running time, and this might be controversial but Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor isn't really a memorable villian.
|
|
|
Post by bishop746 on May 18, 2013 18:42:39 GMT -5
Watched Repulsion recently and really found it interesting. I would be hesitant to recommend this movie to other people unless I knew that they enjoyed slow burn films. Hell, it's not even a slow burn during the first 45 minutes; more like a smolder. I mean absolutely nothing occurs during the first act.
I realized something after I watched the film and went online to read other people's comments. Like myself, they all assumed that the main characters mental state was caused by a rape sometime in her past because we see a repeated rape scene. However, we also see walls cracking and arms coming out of the walls. Why is the rape scene any more reliable than the other delusions. I don't think its a mistake it just makes for an interesting film that should be discussed after viewing.
|
|
|
Post by bishop746 on May 27, 2013 13:20:09 GMT -5
Based on the Jack Ketchum episode I watched Red this weekend. I know, few of us can live such a crazy life but I do my best. I really enjoyed it except for the three "fade to reds" that happened. Bad idea by one of the two directors. It wasn't as bloody as I was expecting but it was a very thoughtful film. As a parent I have dealt with those types of parents who refuse to admit that it's even possible that their precious little snowflake would do anything wrong. Once, my oldest teenager spent the night with a friend and they both slipped out of the house. We busted him the next day and made him go back and apologize to the kid's parents. The parent turned to the kid and asked him if he had left the house and he lied and said "Nope". The parent shrugged and said "Well, nothing to apologize for, you didn't do anything wrong". So much for lessons learned.
Anyway, back to Red. It really is a good film and for any of you worried that the violence that occurs to the dog will be graphic don't worry. The dog is out of frame when it happens.
|
|
bigmac
Revolting Revenant
You mean the movie lied!?!?!?
Posts: 1,508
|
Post by bigmac on May 29, 2013 18:18:55 GMT -5
Ted, this one's for you..... Saw Star Trek Into Darkness last night and loved the first hour, but after Khan was captured, the film degraded into solid "Meh" territory. Okay, I will block out the major spoilers (though, if you watched the international trailer, a few big plot points were spoiled for you BY THE STUDIO!), but beware, I might not catch them all. Now, I understand the characters have changed from the original timeline, thanks to the first film, so I was willing to give the film some leeway concerning how one character has morphed into an action hero. However, I had a severe problem with the final battle just outside of Earth's gravitational field. I suspect the screenwriters forgot about the events of the reboot, or were just hoping the audience had a short attention span. Either one of those reasons are the only explanation for two ships dropping out of warp so close to Earth, yet all of Starfleet is taken by surprise one one of the ships crashes into San Fran. Seriously, after an attack by a time traveling Romulan, and now at the brink of war with the Klingons, Starfleet didn't think to set up an early warning system of some type? You know, to detect ships trying to launch another attack? For gods sake, the Enterprise is pulled into the Earth's atmosphere, yet everyone on the ground is oblivious to anything until they see a ship coming? And it's not like it was sudden. The ships were in the Moon's orbit for at least 30 minutes. Yet no one, not even the people on the orbiting dry dock, noticed a warp signature, or transporter signals or even the explosions during the battle? Man, the Klingons will have an easy time taking down Starfleet if they can't detect a massive battle happening RIGHT OVER THEIR HEADS!!!!!!! And why freeze Khan again at the end of the movie? I mean, the guy killed 41 people in the opening attack, then thousands more at the end of the film, yet Starfleet decides to put him back in his popsicle tube and lock him up like The Ark of the Covenant. It's a very lazy way to say, "I'll be back," probably during the upcoming Federation/Klingon conflict. On a positive note, the red shirts are singing the praises of Dr. McCoy after he developed a serum to revive the dead from Khan's blood . You'd think that means a lot more of those poor suckers will make it home, but I suspect that little tidbit will be forgotten in the next movie. Add in the fact that the final chase was just a quick rewrite of Star Trek: The Search for Spock (with the characters reversed and a crumbling city subbing for a crumbling planet) and you have one of the weakest final acts in the Trek franchise. Yea, Trek 5 was bad, but at least it had Kirk questioning why god needed a space ship. Oh, and why did the film have to come to a grinding halt to show Carol Marcus in her undies? I can't deny, she looks smashing in her black bra and panties, but really? The scene serves no purpose, other than offering up some irrelevant eye candy to the drooling, basement dwelling fanboys out there. I like seeing a hot gal in her undies as well as the next hetero guy, but not when the scene doesn't serve the plot and destroys the pace and tension the film has built up to that point. Weren't the two Thule aliens enough eye candy for the filmmakers? Had this been a Syfy channel Saturday night film, I could have glossed over these little nit picks, but damn it, this is Star Trek and we deserve better. Not going to buy it, not going to see it again. In fact, I'm pretending it never happened. See Ted, you're not the only nit picker out there. ;D Oh, and these were my thoughts during the movie, not after mulling things over. The reason for my late post is that I work at 6:30 am, and the movie didn't get out until 9:45 pm last night, so I was a bit more concerned with sleep rather than sharing my thoughts at the time. So, if a bloated action film has me thinking these things DURING THE RUNNING TIME, I think it failed miserably.
|
|
bigmac
Revolting Revenant
You mean the movie lied!?!?!?
Posts: 1,508
|
Post by bigmac on Jun 2, 2013 21:48:51 GMT -5
|
|
bigmac
Revolting Revenant
You mean the movie lied!?!?!?
Posts: 1,508
|
Post by bigmac on Jun 2, 2013 21:58:30 GMT -5
Have caught up with all the current episodes of Hannibal on Hulu and, at this point, not too impressed. I know part of my problem with the series is, at this point, the script has broken continuity with the film series in such a matter that it seems incompatible at this point. But a bigger problem is the script seems to be trying to set things up for the second season, rather than present a coherent story.
The series has some great gore scenes (which push the TV-14 rating), but that's not enough for me to invest in a second season, especially as NBC is picking it up as a midseason replacement. Sounds like, if the station gets a couple of break out hits, Hannibal will be left out to dry.
Anyone else have thoughts about the series?
|
|
|
Post by johnjohnny on Jun 3, 2013 0:07:21 GMT -5
I borrowed the Superman boxset from a buddy and re-watched the whole saga (except Supergirl which wasn't in the set) Superman-4/5 The original from 1978, after this viewing I think it is overall the best of the bunch. The production values hold up pretty well, the origin story is well told, and it's well over 2 hr. runtime never lags. The turn back time by reversing the Earth's rotation climax still doesn't work though. Superman II-3/5 Five years ago I would have said this was my fav. Superman movie because of the action, but watching it now there isn't as much action as I remembered until the last half hour. It's too goofy at times and there's some shakey plot points. But the villians are great and the film is still fun. Superman II Director's cut-3.5/5 First time seeing the director's cut and it's an improvement. The scenes between Brando & Reeve are edited back into the film and give it a much needed dramatic edge. The film is slightly more serious and less goofy. Superman III-2/5 Richard Pryor was a very funny man but in this I didn't find his bits comical in the least and there's A LOT of Pryor in this film. The villians are not memorable and the action isn't exciting except for the Superman vs Clark Kent fight which was fun. The scenes between Clark and Lana Lang is the other positve aspect from this mostly lackluster film. Superman IV-1.5/5 The budget was slashed for the 4th installment and it shows, there's many "not so special" effects. The dialogue doesn't crackle, and the film is visually ugly. Superman Returns-3/5 I think this movie needs a fan edit, there's a mix of good and bad in this 2006 film. The good: Brandon Routh was solid as Clark/Superman, the advancements in green screen technology & special effects result in some cool Superman-in-action flying scenes, and the set & production design stands out as a positive. The bad: The Clark/Lois drama is not fleshed out in a particular interesting way, there seems to a certain charm/sense of fun missing the first two Superman movies had, the movie isn't compelling enough to earn it's 2 1/2 hr. running time, and this might be controversial but Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor isn't really a memorable villian. Superman 3 was a terrible movie but it had a strangely scary scene where a woman is transformed into a robot. I remember she kept screaming and when the screaming stopped ... she was no longer human. She was a thing. That's what I remembered from that film. I'll see the new film, but I don't like the director and I don't understand why we need to see yet another Superman origin story. I think everyone knows Superman's origin story by now.
|
|
|
Post by johnjohnny on Jun 3, 2013 0:18:21 GMT -5
Ted, this one's for you..... Saw Star Trek Into Darkness last night and loved the first hour, but after Khan was captured, the film degraded into solid "Meh" territory. Okay, I will block out the major spoilers (though, if you watched the international trailer, a few big plot points were spoiled for you BY THE STUDIO!), but beware, I might not catch them all. Now, I understand the characters have changed from the original timeline, thanks to the first film, so I was willing to give the film some leeway concerning how one character has morphed into an action hero. However, I had a severe problem with the final battle just outside of Earth's gravitational field. I suspect the screenwriters forgot about the events of the reboot, or were just hoping the audience had a short attention span. Either one of those reasons are the only explanation for two ships dropping out of warp so close to Earth, yet all of Starfleet is taken by surprise one one of the ships crashes into San Fran. Seriously, after an attack by a time traveling Romulan, and now at the brink of war with the Klingons, Starfleet didn't think to set up an early warning system of some type? You know, to detect ships trying to launch another attack? For gods sake, the Enterprise is pulled into the Earth's atmosphere, yet everyone on the ground is oblivious to anything until they see a ship coming? And it's not like it was sudden. The ships were in the Moon's orbit for at least 30 minutes. Yet no one, not even the people on the orbiting dry dock, noticed a warp signature, or transporter signals or even the explosions during the battle? Man, the Klingons will have an easy time taking down Starfleet if they can't detect a massive battle happening RIGHT OVER THEIR HEADS!!!!!!! And why freeze Khan again at the end of the movie? I mean, the guy killed 41 people in the opening attack, then thousands more at the end of the film, yet Starfleet decides to put him back in his popsicle tube and lock him up like The Ark of the Covenant. It's a very lazy way to say, "I'll be back," probably during the upcoming Federation/Klingon conflict. On a positive note, the red shirts are singing the praises of Dr. McCoy after he developed a serum to revive the dead from Khan's blood . You'd think that means a lot more of those poor suckers will make it home, but I suspect that little tidbit will be forgotten in the next movie. Add in the fact that the final chase was just a quick rewrite of Star Trek: The Search for Spock (with the characters reversed and a crumbling city subbing for a crumbling planet) and you have one of the weakest final acts in the Trek franchise. Yea, Trek 5 was bad, but at least it had Kirk questioning why god needed a space ship. Oh, and why did the film have to come to a grinding halt to show Carol Marcus in her undies? I can't deny, she looks smashing in her black bra and panties, but really? The scene serves no purpose, other than offering up some irrelevant eye candy to the drooling, basement dwelling fanboys out there. I like seeing a hot gal in her undies as well as the next hetero guy, but not when the scene doesn't serve the plot and destroys the pace and tension the film has built up to that point. Weren't the two Thule aliens enough eye candy for the filmmakers? Had this been a Syfy channel Saturday night film, I could have glossed over these little nit picks, but damn it, this is Star Trek and we deserve better. Not going to buy it, not going to see it again. In fact, I'm pretending it never happened. See Ted, you're not the only nit picker out there. ;D Oh, and these were my thoughts during the movie, not after mulling things over. The reason for my late post is that I work at 6:30 am, and the movie didn't get out until 9:45 pm last night, so I was a bit more concerned with sleep rather than sharing my thoughts at the time. So, if a bloated action film has me thinking these things DURING THE RUNNING TIME, I think it failed miserably. If the Carol Marcus underwear shot was in the Wrath of Kahn, I wonder if anyone would have questioned it back in the 80s? Thanks have changed. As far as the magic Kahn blood goes, why did they need him alive when they had 60-plus specimens on board the Enterprise that they could have used. Maybe I missed something in the explanation.
|
|
bigmac
Revolting Revenant
You mean the movie lied!?!?!?
Posts: 1,508
|
Post by bigmac on Jun 3, 2013 0:35:01 GMT -5
If the Carol Marcus underwear shot was in the Wrath of Kahn, I wonder if anyone would have questioned it back in the 80s? Thanks have changed. As far as the magic Kahn blood goes, why did they need him alive when they had 60-plus specimens on board the Enterprise that they could have used. Maybe I missed something in the explanation. As for the underwear shot, it would have caused a stir in the original, as Bibi Besche was 42 when she played Carol Marcus in Wrath of Khan. A middle aged woman in her underwear, when we can have young, nimble green alien babes seducing Kirk? Outrageous!!! ;D And please insert a healthy dose of sarcasm into those last two sentences. Thank you. Anyway, my point was that the scene was pointless concerning the overall plot. If that sequence was eliminated, it wouldn't make any difference to the story, yet some bozo decided the film needed another shot of a sexy young woman in her underwear to sell the film (and place that moment in the trailer for maximum effect). It adds nothing to the movie, yet takes away too much, from stopping the build to the climax to reducing an important character in the movie to little more than a T and A shot. Oh, and the magic blood? Skip that, who has time to question it when the filmmakers need to build up a rousing climax, making the one rational character take a rather silly turn into badassery. God, I dislike this film even more the longer I think about it.
|
|