an unexpected one and one that is hugely anticipated.
Unexpected? What? Are you high? The Marvel movies have been one big cocktease after the credits after another, put after rather weak films. I enjoyed the first Iron Man and thought The Incredible Hulk was excellent, but after Iron Man 2 and Thor's disappointing nature(s) I won't even bother to see Captain America and as far as I can tell it was the right call so far.
One of my new favorite films. 100% hilarity.
This is to vampires what Young Frankenstein is to...Frankenstein.
And the main character looks like Silverwolfpet's Gustav.
11/11
Alfred Hitchcock. Cary Grant. Ingrid Bergman. Claude Rains. Nazis. Ingredients for one of the greatest movies of all time.
9/11
A pretty cool film aesthetically. Creates the Lemony Snicket feel better than the Lemony Snicket film did. Great great sets, lovely art direction, great score by Angelo Badalamenti of David Lynch fame, and great acting and costume design.
-100000000000000/11
OH MY FOOKIN FOOK. BEWARE. BEWARE! STAY AWAY!
6/11
An entertaining sci-fi time travel film, with cool hair and a neat 1950s style B movie robot. Nothing amazing, but it's worth a look.
4/11
Boring Sellers comedy. The first and hopefully last time I'll ever say this about any film. Could have been so much more.
6/11
My least favorite of the series that I've seen, but still enough to make me laugh out loud. Bravo, Sellers. Bravo, Lom.
Movies I want to finish today:
I wish I could get more in depth about all of these films like I usually do but I'm horrendously tired by now.
I was dragged off to go see it by my mom and it was actually quite enjoyable. A terrific view of the civil rights movement from the point of view of the maids working in the houses of upper middle class Southern white women. And it was absolutely hilarious. The type of drama that makes you absolutely horrified by something...and then follows it up a bit later with a moment that makes the entire theater start busting up.
In short, I really hope this movie wins an Academy award for something and I'm going to go see it again tomorrow.
A pretty good horror flick, in that the characters are the kind you don't want to die and the effects are great, and the gore is gross, and it's scary in some parts. The effects are VERY The Thing-ish, which fits Lovecraft to a tee.
But I really did not need to see a guy eat someones eyeball out of their face while they were conscious. BLEURGH!
Hmm, From Beyond sounds like it's right down my street, particularly the eyeball eating scene. I'll have to check it out soon.
Also, The Fearless Vampire Killers is a film I grew up watching and I confirm that it's made of awesome. It features a Jewish vampire, a gay vampire and some great scenes involving a small window, a cannon and a wall of mirrors. If you've never watched it before then for the love of all that is good; do so now.
My latest personal recommendation comes in the form of Bunny and the Bull. It's essentially The Mighty Boosh meets Withnail & I. Seriously, more people need to watch this wonderful slice of brilliance. Here's a clip...
Hmm, From Beyond sounds like it's right down my street, particularly the eyeball eating scene. I'll have to check it out soon.
The worst part of it was that the woman who got it made a face like having her eyeball gored and eaten out of her socket was giving her an orgasm...I mean DAYUM. And not a good DAYUM. Bad DAYUM. I was horrified though, so good job, Stuart Gordon.
^That's me with a headache trying to figure out a score for this movie.
I don't know how to score up-and-coming director Jason Eisener's film. It...um....well, I think that's basically how a true Grindhouse film should feel, isn't it. Grindhouse is that cult, underground sort of film that leaves most viewers uncertain of what they just saw. A lot of people would say it's badass, a lot of people would be repulsed, a lot of people would think it's awesome, and a lot of people would think it's lame.
So where do I fit...to be honest I...hmm...I love films like this. I loved Black Dynamite with a passion, and I plan to watch Machete, which I'm sure I'll love. I loved Kill Bill, Sin City, and Inglourious Basterds, which were all shock films in their own way as well. I love pulp, I love action, I love Death Wish-style films, and I love Rutger Hauer.
This is a Death Wish style film, intercut with some of the 80s and a bit of the modern day feeling of films as well. Another film this reminds me a lot of is Defendor. The movie opens with a stark bright overly-saturated look giving everything a warm, happy glow. Then we're introduced to the film's villain, a Joe Pesci wannabe in a white suit with a Bob Hope face who informs nearby citizens that he is going to chop a man's head off with a barb wire noose, and he will kill anyone who looks away. Our hobo witnesses this, and many other atrocities, and eventually comes to the conclusion he wants to clean the shit out of the city...with a shotgun. Along the way he befriends an innocent, sweet, kind whore named Abby, who develops a non-sexual friendship with him, a nearly carbon-cut plot segment from Defendor. It's better done in Defendor. There the whore questions Defendor's sanity and methods, but here she just casually shrugs off not only seeing a guy turned to hamburger by her cuddly hobo buddy, but also shrugs off the fact that she gets covered in the dead guy's intestinal blood and shit thanks to his newfound murderous rampage. Well, okay, she questions it for five seconds because the director isn't an idiot and obviously knew this would come off as very strange if she didn't, but that's it. It still comes off as strange. Later, she doesn't even get angry or show any real emotion about the fact that being friends with this cuddly wuddly hobo gets her THROAT SAWED OPEN. Yet, perhaps there is a logic to it. The town she's always lived in is shit, and everyone wants to screw her or kill her...well usually both. The biggest stupid part of the plot for me though, was the advice the Drake, the villain of the film, gives to his son. He tells his son he's not intimidating, and that he must do something that will scare the shit out of the city. Something he'll always be remembered for. So what he does is, commendably, one of the most memorable scenes of the film. But really, it doesn't hold a candle to the sick shit he did BEFORE that in the film. It doesn't even come close. Am I supposed to believe that bursting heads apart with bumper cars wasn't enough to scare the shit out of the city? I wouldn't care so much about plot holes in this movie if it was taking itself less seriously, but there's a point where the film just stops being tongue-in-cheek. It has all the ingredients of tongue-in-cheek, like over the top death scenes, epic one liners, and even villains straight out of a Japanese manga or video game, but I always felt like the movie was taking every single element too seriously. And once it did that, the plot began to fall apart in a way that it wouldn't have otherwise. Example of a better done version of this sort of thing: Hot Fuzz. Never took itself seriously even for a second.
The entire movie is nonstop gory, bloody, messy, gut-wrenching carnage. I never knew what a baseball bat covered in razorblades could do to a man's stomach, and I didn't really need to, but by America Hobo With a Shotgun showed it to me in full detail. The cinematography is pretty good, and reminiscent of John Carpenter, but the lighting and palette the film has is absolutely gorgeous. It takes urban neons, and blends them seamlessly into the film in a stylistic way that would make Sin City green. Sin City could have used a little more green...
The soundtrack, again, sounds like it was done by John Carpenter, although it was actually done by three guys who haven't worked on much else. Impressive. It's a great 80s synth-techno soundtrack. I loved listening to the music. The acting is very very good, especially for a grindhouse style film, as the actors knew how to cheese it up just right. Especially Brian Downey as the sick, twisted Drake. He felt like he stepped right out of a Dick Tracy story. The entire film is a wonderfully made, well designed, well created, well directed, well acted adaption of a half shitty half okay script, which...is really what Grindhouse films really are....except usually way worse.
I've seen a few really dark, violent films with bleak outlooks, such as Fist of the North Star and Shinjuku Incident, but this one tops many of them. To a point where the film was actually incredibly unpleasant and hard to watch at times. Still, that's another thing that Grindhouse is. It'll thrill, it'll disgust, it'll make your eyebrows arch, and it'll make you go "OOOOOH SHIT DAMN".
So, the film succeeded. So, did I love it? No, in spite of all the praise I heaped upon it, I didn't love Hobo With a Shotgun. It's kind of like a Playboy magazine. You pull it out to see something exciting, and it's guilty fun and thrilling while it's there, but you don't favor the magazine itself and you don't give a shit about the articles.
I remember Hobo with a Shotgun. Back about 5 years ago my friend came up with an idea for that movie. Talked about it non-stop for like 3 months described it a lot how the movie seems to be. NExt thing you know, 4-5 years later they make the movie. He still thinks someone stole the idea from him.
This is what a Silent Hill movie SHOULD be like if it were done right. Hauntingly beautiful. Eerily grotesque. Emotionally distraught. A downward spiral of madness, filled with disturbing images, melancholic energy, and frightening spirit of hopelessness covered in the thickest blanket of atmosphere and overpowering, foreboding evil. It's no surprise that the director, self-proclaimed greatest director of all time Lars von Trier, viewed Japanese horror films to prepare for this movie, because it's rife with the sort of atmospheric horror and mentally incomprehensible events that Japanese horror revels in.
I've never seen a von Trier film before this one, so I'm not familiar with his work. So, all I can draw from is what I've seen in terms of comparisons. This feels absolutely like if David Lynch decided to write a story in the universe of Silent Hill. There is a large, underlying revelation behind the film, but I don't want to give it away. Reading up on it should provide it if you choose, and even though it was mostly written out of the film, the traces are still there enough that it still fits like a glove. However, the film's most apparent revelation is one that has garnered a lot of criticism for being too misogynistic. I think it depends on how you interpret the film.
The movie begins with a gorgeously shot slow motion montage set to beautiful music. A happy time where the main character, named He, and the female character She have sex in various areas of a house. As they're distracted, their child falls to his death out of a window. The mother is distraught and begins going through harsh fazes of grief. Her husband tries his best, as a therapist, to console her and help her through her grief. To help her get over her anxiety and recover from her trauma, he takes her to the place she fears most, in order to help her conquer her fear. However, they both discover revelations that are shocking, horrifying, and bring their entire relationship down into a hell of despair and madness. This movie does the slow descent of a relationship in an isolated space differently than The Shining, but also much much much better. Then again, I've already made my opinion of The Shining quite clear.
This movie is filled with brilliant, gorgeous lighting, cinematography, camera tricks, directing tricks, and strange, fragmented, foreboding editing that makes the entire movie feel dark and otherworldly. The acting and chemistry between Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg is absolutely phenomenal. At no point did I ever question their characters, relationship, thoughts, or actions. These incredible performances made the film so much more terrifying and tense. The last half of the film literally made my back and joints SORE from how tense I got in my chair. My body still hurts. You are forewarned, this fabulous movie is not for the faint of heart. You're in seriously disturbing territory with this one, people. However, the violence and other mature content that fills the film is never there for no reason. It always makes sense, and always has a definite purpose.
At first I swore the music was done by Angelo Badalamenti, but I was wrong. Still, the resemblance to his work is insane. If you've seen Rabbits by David Lynch, you know what to expect the score to sound like. Oh, and one more thing, if you do plan to watch this movie, don't read about it beforehand. You'll either thank me or hate my guts, but don't ruin the tension.
There was a planned video game with a sequel story, but sadly it was cancelled. It's too bad, because playing a story like this would have been truly different and frightening. Here's looking forward to von Trier's next frightening film, Melancholia. Look it up. It's great.
It did the book justice, but there were bits that annoyed me. The son of Remus and Nymphadora wasn't even mentioned until the Resurrection Stone scene. Hell, it wasn't even acknowledged that Remus and Nymphadora were killed until that point. They never acknowledged that Harry was the child's godfather. The whole interaction with Lupin about his son was pointless.
But other than that, it managed to not really annoy me. It did a pretty good job, It just could have been a bit better. Not perfect, but ended well. Loved hearing the old Philosophers stone/Chamber of Secrets music at the end.
Hell, it wasn't even acknowledged that Remus and Nymphadora were killed until that point. They never acknowledged that Harry was the child's godfather. The whole interaction with Lupin about his son was pointless.
Actually, while Harry was walking into the castle to view Snape's memories, there was a bit of a montage where they showed dead Fred and dead Lupin and Tonks. I'm very certain about that. The Resurrection Stone scene happened after this.
And earlier, in the beach house, I believe, there was a very short interaction where Lupin mentioned that Harry was his son's godfather. I'm less sure about that though because I might just be remembering the books but I think it was there.
And earlier, in the beach house, I believe, there was a very short interaction where Lupin mentioned that Harry was his son's godfather. I'm less sure about that though because I might just be remembering the books but I think it was there.
I don't remember him in that scene, that might be the books.
Yep, sure was. And Shell Cottage was greatly cut down, so Lupin never appeared there. The Lupin plot thread was omitted completely from both movies with the exception of the death scene and the brief mention during the Resurrection Stone scene.
In Part 1 there was a throwaway line where he mentioned that he was married to Tonks. But yeah, since they never mentioned any of the Tonks stuff in the sixth movie it was sorta out of the blue.
I guess they're counting on people like me who imagine a movie being acted out as they read the books and thus forget what actually appeared in the movies...
Am I seriously the only person who finds a werewolf named "Lupin" to be so horribly, gag-inducingly corny and/or cheesy that the character can't be discussed with a straight face?
HIS NAME IS LUPIN. YOU MIGHT AS WELL NAME A VAMPIRE DRACUL.
Am I seriously the only person who finds a werewolf named "Lupin" to be so horribly, gag-inducingly corny and/or cheesy that the character can't be discussed with a straight face?
HIS NAME IS LUPIN. YOU MIGHT AS WELL NAME A VAMPIRE DRACUL.
Am I seriously the only person who finds a werewolf named "Lupin" to be so horribly, gag-inducingly corny and/or cheesy that the character can't be discussed with a straight face?
HIS NAME IS LUPIN. YOU MIGHT AS WELL NAME A VAMPIRE DRACUL.
Well, quite a lot of the characters in Harry Potter have very telling names.
Lupin's first name is also a reference: Remus, twin of Romulus, the founder of Rome, both who were raised by a wolf.
Also, Sirius, named for the Dog Star.
And Ludo Bagman, Head of International Sports, who's first name is derived from ludos, the Latin word for "game".
And don't even get into Lestrange, Diagon Alley, Nocturn Alley and the host of other verbal puns that litter the books.
Thing is, it's part of the series. I don't find anything particularly special about Lupin since half of the cast of characters have names that are references to things.
Edit: Oh, also Bellatrix is Latin for "female warrior". I'll stop now.
Actually, I watched it on my own...after hearing him say how much he liked it. A couple months ago. Shortly after that short discussion about the film, I saw it was going to be on while I was flipping channels, so I set the DVR to record it and just barely got around to watching it now.
By the way, I'm vastly underexposed to the work of Ricky Gervais, so this is the first time I've actually seen Stephen Merchant in anything, so it was a little weird hearing Wheatley's voice coming out of a human. A little weird, but awesome.
Actually, I watched it on my own...after hearing him say how much he liked it. A couple months ago. Shortly after that short discussion about the film, I saw it was going to be on while I was flipping channels, so I set the DVR to record it and just barely got around to watching it now.
So, he told you he liked it and that made you watch it. Totally counts!
Well, he posted it in a public forum without directing it towards me at all, so I'd say it doesn't really count as him telling me to watch it. But then that makes me even more of a sheep for watching it because of that.
Well, he posted it in a public forum without directing it towards me at all, so I'd say it doesn't really count as him telling me to watch it. But then that makes me even more of a sheep for watching it because of that.
Meh. It's a natural reaction. There are some people whose opinion on certain subjects you just trust without needing more than their word for it, you know? Dashing and movies, that's definitely one such case.
Caught it on TV and I thought I'd watch it a wee bit to amuse myself a little.
But I ended up watching it all the way through.
I normally hate Westerns. I guess I just don't "get" them.
Normally they follow the same templates, and while there are plenty of cliches in this one, it does show some interesting premises and a lot of promise.
For a start, though there is plenty of action in this western, it definately doesn't overshadow the other elements.
Dempsey Rae, (played by Kirk Douglas) is a great hero.
He has a good balance of strengths and flaws.
He's brave, smart and caring, but has a dark edge and a few skeletons in his closet.
(That throughout the movie he ends up dealing with)
Kirk Douglas does an excellent job of displaying those wild mood swings, that even for a western look pretty sinister.
Reed Bowman (played by Jeanne Crain), makes a fascinating antangonist.
She's sexy, she smart, and she is absolutely, unashamably ruthless.
She will do anything to get what she wants and she doesn't play fair.
I think this Western would be perfect for a gritty modern adaption, because its all there, and it would work.
The premise is refugee aliens in South Africa - first alien movie that's had me pause 5 minutes in to go read up on apartheid. Very well done with some powerful themes. I guess like many sci fi films, it says a hell of a lot more about the humans than it does about the aliens. Definitely recommended.
Lion King 3D A
Still as good as I remember. Original would be a plus, 3D is only an A because it was just "ok" 3D though still pretty good for the kind of 3D a 2D-animated movie would produce anyway. Also, they left those crappy new crocodiles for the Can't Wait to Be King sequence which I guess I can't fault them for but I still miss the old crocs. They left out "Morning Report" though (THANK YOU DISNEY) so I won't take it down to a minus.
Rango A-
God damn this was good. Figures it'd have to involve desert critters to actually make me like a western. (shut up True Grit doesn't count) I think a lot of people miss the hidden meaning to the tale, understandably since there shouldn't be much to look for in all that nice, stylistic animation. Which is, in a nutshell, that Vegas takes a crapload of water from the already-dry deserts, thereby screwing over a bunch of hombr- err, animals and plants? Also maybe it was just me and my thrist for clever allegory, but I totally saw a similarity between the mayor and T. Boone Pickens.
I brought it down to a minus because of the forced jokes for kids, even though it was clearly not meant to be watched by them in particular. I'm still surprised it was Nickelodeon that produced it, really.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 B+
It was certainly better than I expected. I didn't like part 1 all that much nor did I particularly like the book, mostly because of the sudden grimdark elements that are kind of a shock to read when you read the first few books in succession recently, but I guess it translated a lot better to film.
Rio C
It was a uh, animated film, with birds and dancing (gee where have I seen that before) where some predictable things happened, I guess?
Insidious D
It was a uh, horror film with ghosts where uh, things happened I guess?
Rating: Fifty bazillion out of ten...or something like that.
Basically, it boils down to the fact that I absolutely adore this movie and I can't really pin down the reason why. Maybe it's the wide expanses of desert, that I seem to have an obsession with, or the fascinating characters, or maybe it was the fact that I just really liked Prince Faisal's beard. Who can say? All I know is that if I didn't have these papers to fix up, I would be watching it again right now.
Let me start by saying I'm a huge fan of the 80's film. The gore and creature effects were amazing and still hold up today in my opinion. The new film ops out of the animatronics though and goes full CGI. This is my only complaint about the new film and it's not a major one.
Most people don't know this and I still don't know why (Maybe because the title is the same?) but The Thing is actaully a prequel to the 80's film. It takes place at the Norwegian camp that the 80's film visits. It tells the story of how they first find The Thing and how it destroys the Norwegian camp.
Overall, this is a great movie. If you are a fan of the 80's film I just don't see how you can not like this movie. The creatures (even if they are fully CGI) look great and are really intense. The scenes where they were attacking the character were all very well done. There are reviewers who say that the characters are under devoloped and to that I say "So what?"
The original characters from the 80's film weren't exactly deep characters either. You don't learn about their past, you don't learn much about them at all. It was a movie about a group of men being very paranoid and very scared about what was going on around them. That was it. This prequel does the same exact thing. It gives you characters and keeps you guessing about who might be the "thing". Granted, they're more obvious in this movie than in the 80's film but its still really cool to see these characters freaking out and turning on each other to try and save themselves.
The best thing about this movie is how well it ties in to the 80's film. You can actually edit the two films together and they would fit perfectly together as one film. Everthing that Kurt Russle found at the camp in the 80's film happens in this film. Everything ends up in it's place.
Overall, I really enjoyed it and it is a worthy addition to the 80's film. I'm ready for more and I hope they do make more.
Let me start by saying I'm a huge fan of the 80's film. The gore and creature effects were amazing and still hold up today in my opinion. The new film ops out of the animatronics though and goes full CGI. This is my only complaint about the new film and it's not a major one.
Most people don't know this and I still don't know why (Maybe because the title is the same?) but The Thing is actaully a prequel to the 80's film. It takes place at the Norwegian camp that the 80's film visits. It tells the story of how they first find The Thing and how it destroys the Norwegian camp.
Overall, this is a great movie. If you are a fan of the 80's film I just don't see how you can not like this movie. The creatures (even if they are fully CGI) look great and are really intense. The scenes where they were attacking the character were all very well done. There are reviewers who say that the characters are under devoloped and to that I say "So what?"
The original characters from the 80's film weren't exactly deep characters either. You don't learn about their past, you don't learn much about them at all. It was a movie about a group of men being very paranoid and very scared about what was going on around them. That was it. This prequel does the same exact thing. It gives you characters and keeps you guessing about who might be the "thing". Granted, they're more obvious in this movie than in the 80's film but its still really cool to see these characters freaking out and turning on each other to try and save themselves.
The best thing about this movie is how well it ties in to the 80's film. You can actually edit the two films together and they would fit perfectly together as one film. Everthing that Kurt Russle found at the camp in the 80's film happens in this film. Everything ends up in it's place.
Overall, I really enjoyed it and it is a worthy addition to the 80's film. I'm ready for more and I hope they do make more.
Grr, you're so lucky! I've been awaiting this film with almost the same level of fevered anticipation as I have Ridley Scott's Prometheus. However, it's not getting released in the UK until next month. I frequent the Outpost 31 forum and I now have to endure people talking about the ins and outs of the prequel. It's incredibly frustrating.
By the way, I heard people saying that the dog-thing looks nothing like Jed from the '82 film. Is that accurate? If so, that's surely going to make my geek blood boil due to the glaring continuity issue.
Comments
Unexpected? What? Are you high? The Marvel movies have been one big cocktease after the credits after another, put after rather weak films. I enjoyed the first Iron Man and thought The Incredible Hulk was excellent, but after Iron Man 2 and Thor's disappointing nature(s) I won't even bother to see Captain America and as far as I can tell it was the right call so far.
11/11
One of my new favorite films. 100% hilarity.
This is to vampires what Young Frankenstein is to...Frankenstein.
And the main character looks like Silverwolfpet's Gustav.
11/11
Alfred Hitchcock. Cary Grant. Ingrid Bergman. Claude Rains. Nazis. Ingredients for one of the greatest movies of all time.
9/11
A pretty cool film aesthetically. Creates the Lemony Snicket feel better than the Lemony Snicket film did. Great great sets, lovely art direction, great score by Angelo Badalamenti of David Lynch fame, and great acting and costume design.
-100000000000000/11
OH MY FOOKIN FOOK. BEWARE. BEWARE! STAY AWAY!
6/11
An entertaining sci-fi time travel film, with cool hair and a neat 1950s style B movie robot. Nothing amazing, but it's worth a look.
4/11
Boring Sellers comedy. The first and hopefully last time I'll ever say this about any film. Could have been so much more.
6/11
My least favorite of the series that I've seen, but still enough to make me laugh out loud. Bravo, Sellers. Bravo, Lom.
Movies I want to finish today:
I wish I could get more in depth about all of these films like I usually do but I'm horrendously tired by now.
I was dragged off to go see it by my mom and it was actually quite enjoyable. A terrific view of the civil rights movement from the point of view of the maids working in the houses of upper middle class Southern white women. And it was absolutely hilarious. The type of drama that makes you absolutely horrified by something...and then follows it up a bit later with a moment that makes the entire theater start busting up.
In short, I really hope this movie wins an Academy award for something and I'm going to go see it again tomorrow.
8/11
A pretty good horror flick, in that the characters are the kind you don't want to die and the effects are great, and the gore is gross, and it's scary in some parts. The effects are VERY The Thing-ish, which fits Lovecraft to a tee.
But I really did not need to see a guy eat someones eyeball out of their face while they were conscious. BLEURGH!
Also, The Fearless Vampire Killers is a film I grew up watching and I confirm that it's made of awesome. It features a Jewish vampire, a gay vampire and some great scenes involving a small window, a cannon and a wall of mirrors. If you've never watched it before then for the love of all that is good; do so now.
My latest personal recommendation comes in the form of Bunny and the Bull. It's essentially The Mighty Boosh meets Withnail & I. Seriously, more people need to watch this wonderful slice of brilliance. Here's a clip...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBycEyNZ3BQ
The worst part of it was that the woman who got it made a face like having her eyeball gored and eaten out of her socket was giving her an orgasm...I mean DAYUM. And not a good DAYUM. Bad DAYUM. I was horrified though, so good job, Stuart Gordon.
Score:
^That's me with a headache trying to figure out a score for this movie.
I don't know how to score up-and-coming director Jason Eisener's film. It...um....well, I think that's basically how a true Grindhouse film should feel, isn't it. Grindhouse is that cult, underground sort of film that leaves most viewers uncertain of what they just saw. A lot of people would say it's badass, a lot of people would be repulsed, a lot of people would think it's awesome, and a lot of people would think it's lame.
So where do I fit...to be honest I...hmm...I love films like this. I loved Black Dynamite with a passion, and I plan to watch Machete, which I'm sure I'll love. I loved Kill Bill, Sin City, and Inglourious Basterds, which were all shock films in their own way as well. I love pulp, I love action, I love Death Wish-style films, and I love Rutger Hauer.
This is a Death Wish style film, intercut with some of the 80s and a bit of the modern day feeling of films as well. Another film this reminds me a lot of is Defendor. The movie opens with a stark bright overly-saturated look giving everything a warm, happy glow. Then we're introduced to the film's villain, a Joe Pesci wannabe in a white suit with a Bob Hope face who informs nearby citizens that he is going to chop a man's head off with a barb wire noose, and he will kill anyone who looks away. Our hobo witnesses this, and many other atrocities, and eventually comes to the conclusion he wants to clean the shit out of the city...with a shotgun. Along the way he befriends an innocent, sweet, kind whore named Abby, who develops a non-sexual friendship with him, a nearly carbon-cut plot segment from Defendor. It's better done in Defendor. There the whore questions Defendor's sanity and methods, but here she just casually shrugs off not only seeing a guy turned to hamburger by her cuddly hobo buddy, but also shrugs off the fact that she gets covered in the dead guy's intestinal blood and shit thanks to his newfound murderous rampage. Well, okay, she questions it for five seconds because the director isn't an idiot and obviously knew this would come off as very strange if she didn't, but that's it. It still comes off as strange. Later, she doesn't even get angry or show any real emotion about the fact that being friends with this cuddly wuddly hobo gets her THROAT SAWED OPEN. Yet, perhaps there is a logic to it. The town she's always lived in is shit, and everyone wants to screw her or kill her...well usually both. The biggest stupid part of the plot for me though, was the advice the Drake, the villain of the film, gives to his son. He tells his son he's not intimidating, and that he must do something that will scare the shit out of the city. Something he'll always be remembered for. So what he does is, commendably, one of the most memorable scenes of the film. But really, it doesn't hold a candle to the sick shit he did BEFORE that in the film. It doesn't even come close. Am I supposed to believe that bursting heads apart with bumper cars wasn't enough to scare the shit out of the city? I wouldn't care so much about plot holes in this movie if it was taking itself less seriously, but there's a point where the film just stops being tongue-in-cheek. It has all the ingredients of tongue-in-cheek, like over the top death scenes, epic one liners, and even villains straight out of a Japanese manga or video game, but I always felt like the movie was taking every single element too seriously. And once it did that, the plot began to fall apart in a way that it wouldn't have otherwise. Example of a better done version of this sort of thing: Hot Fuzz. Never took itself seriously even for a second.
The entire movie is nonstop gory, bloody, messy, gut-wrenching carnage. I never knew what a baseball bat covered in razorblades could do to a man's stomach, and I didn't really need to, but by America Hobo With a Shotgun showed it to me in full detail. The cinematography is pretty good, and reminiscent of John Carpenter, but the lighting and palette the film has is absolutely gorgeous. It takes urban neons, and blends them seamlessly into the film in a stylistic way that would make Sin City green. Sin City could have used a little more green...
The soundtrack, again, sounds like it was done by John Carpenter, although it was actually done by three guys who haven't worked on much else. Impressive. It's a great 80s synth-techno soundtrack. I loved listening to the music. The acting is very very good, especially for a grindhouse style film, as the actors knew how to cheese it up just right. Especially Brian Downey as the sick, twisted Drake. He felt like he stepped right out of a Dick Tracy story. The entire film is a wonderfully made, well designed, well created, well directed, well acted adaption of a half shitty half okay script, which...is really what Grindhouse films really are....except usually way worse.
I've seen a few really dark, violent films with bleak outlooks, such as Fist of the North Star and Shinjuku Incident, but this one tops many of them. To a point where the film was actually incredibly unpleasant and hard to watch at times. Still, that's another thing that Grindhouse is. It'll thrill, it'll disgust, it'll make your eyebrows arch, and it'll make you go "OOOOOH SHIT DAMN".
So, the film succeeded. So, did I love it? No, in spite of all the praise I heaped upon it, I didn't love Hobo With a Shotgun. It's kind of like a Playboy magazine. You pull it out to see something exciting, and it's guilty fun and thrilling while it's there, but you don't favor the magazine itself and you don't give a shit about the articles.
Oh, all right, I loved it.
Anyway-
Trailer
9/11
This is what a Silent Hill movie SHOULD be like if it were done right. Hauntingly beautiful. Eerily grotesque. Emotionally distraught. A downward spiral of madness, filled with disturbing images, melancholic energy, and frightening spirit of hopelessness covered in the thickest blanket of atmosphere and overpowering, foreboding evil. It's no surprise that the director, self-proclaimed greatest director of all time Lars von Trier, viewed Japanese horror films to prepare for this movie, because it's rife with the sort of atmospheric horror and mentally incomprehensible events that Japanese horror revels in.
I've never seen a von Trier film before this one, so I'm not familiar with his work. So, all I can draw from is what I've seen in terms of comparisons. This feels absolutely like if David Lynch decided to write a story in the universe of Silent Hill. There is a large, underlying revelation behind the film, but I don't want to give it away. Reading up on it should provide it if you choose, and even though it was mostly written out of the film, the traces are still there enough that it still fits like a glove. However, the film's most apparent revelation is one that has garnered a lot of criticism for being too misogynistic. I think it depends on how you interpret the film.
The movie begins with a gorgeously shot slow motion montage set to beautiful music. A happy time where the main character, named He, and the female character She have sex in various areas of a house. As they're distracted, their child falls to his death out of a window. The mother is distraught and begins going through harsh fazes of grief. Her husband tries his best, as a therapist, to console her and help her through her grief. To help her get over her anxiety and recover from her trauma, he takes her to the place she fears most, in order to help her conquer her fear. However, they both discover revelations that are shocking, horrifying, and bring their entire relationship down into a hell of despair and madness. This movie does the slow descent of a relationship in an isolated space differently than The Shining, but also much much much better. Then again, I've already made my opinion of The Shining quite clear.
This movie is filled with brilliant, gorgeous lighting, cinematography, camera tricks, directing tricks, and strange, fragmented, foreboding editing that makes the entire movie feel dark and otherworldly. The acting and chemistry between Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg is absolutely phenomenal. At no point did I ever question their characters, relationship, thoughts, or actions. These incredible performances made the film so much more terrifying and tense. The last half of the film literally made my back and joints SORE from how tense I got in my chair. My body still hurts. You are forewarned, this fabulous movie is not for the faint of heart. You're in seriously disturbing territory with this one, people. However, the violence and other mature content that fills the film is never there for no reason. It always makes sense, and always has a definite purpose.
At first I swore the music was done by Angelo Badalamenti, but I was wrong. Still, the resemblance to his work is insane. If you've seen Rabbits by David Lynch, you know what to expect the score to sound like. Oh, and one more thing, if you do plan to watch this movie, don't read about it beforehand. You'll either thank me or hate my guts, but don't ruin the tension.
There was a planned video game with a sequel story, but sadly it was cancelled. It's too bad, because playing a story like this would have been truly different and frightening. Here's looking forward to von Trier's next frightening film, Melancholia. Look it up. It's great.
8/10
It did the book justice, but there were bits that annoyed me. The son of Remus and Nymphadora wasn't even mentioned until the Resurrection Stone scene. Hell, it wasn't even acknowledged that Remus and Nymphadora were killed until that point. They never acknowledged that Harry was the child's godfather. The whole interaction with Lupin about his son was pointless.
But other than that, it managed to not really annoy me. It did a pretty good job, It just could have been a bit better. Not perfect, but ended well. Loved hearing the old Philosophers stone/Chamber of Secrets music at the end.
Actually, while Harry was walking into the castle to view Snape's memories, there was a bit of a montage where they showed dead Fred and dead Lupin and Tonks. I'm very certain about that. The Resurrection Stone scene happened after this.
And earlier, in the beach house, I believe, there was a very short interaction where Lupin mentioned that Harry was his son's godfather. I'm less sure about that though because I might just be remembering the books but I think it was there.
I don't remember him in that scene, that might be the books.
Alrighty then, sometimes I get them mixed up. But the death montage was totally there.
I guess they're counting on people like me who imagine a movie being acted out as they read the books and thus forget what actually appeared in the movies...
HIS NAME IS LUPIN. YOU MIGHT AS WELL NAME A VAMPIRE DRACUL.
Or Alucard maybe?
Well, quite a lot of the characters in Harry Potter have very telling names.
Lupin's first name is also a reference: Remus, twin of Romulus, the founder of Rome, both who were raised by a wolf.
Also, Sirius, named for the Dog Star.
And Ludo Bagman, Head of International Sports, who's first name is derived from ludos, the Latin word for "game".
And don't even get into Lestrange, Diagon Alley, Nocturn Alley and the host of other verbal puns that litter the books.
Thing is, it's part of the series. I don't find anything particularly special about Lupin since half of the cast of characters have names that are references to things.
Edit: Oh, also Bellatrix is Latin for "female warrior". I'll stop now.
Wow.
Ah, I guess Dashing made you watch it too?
9/10
Takes it's sweet time getting to the big action scene.
Actually, I watched it on my own...after hearing him say how much he liked it. A couple months ago. Shortly after that short discussion about the film, I saw it was going to be on while I was flipping channels, so I set the DVR to record it and just barely got around to watching it now.
By the way, I'm vastly underexposed to the work of Ricky Gervais, so this is the first time I've actually seen Stephen Merchant in anything, so it was a little weird hearing Wheatley's voice coming out of a human. A little weird, but awesome.
So, he told you he liked it and that made you watch it. Totally counts!
Meh. It's a natural reaction. There are some people whose opinion on certain subjects you just trust without needing more than their word for it, you know? Dashing and movies, that's definitely one such case.
WH40k ULTRAMINES: 1/10
Hobo with a shotgun: 9/10.
An amazing film. I'll buy the rest of the Indy films soon.
8/10
Caught it on TV and I thought I'd watch it a wee bit to amuse myself a little.
But I ended up watching it all the way through.
I normally hate Westerns. I guess I just don't "get" them.
Normally they follow the same templates, and while there are plenty of cliches in this one, it does show some interesting premises and a lot of promise.
For a start, though there is plenty of action in this western, it definately doesn't overshadow the other elements.
Dempsey Rae, (played by Kirk Douglas) is a great hero.
He has a good balance of strengths and flaws.
He's brave, smart and caring, but has a dark edge and a few skeletons in his closet.
(That throughout the movie he ends up dealing with)
Kirk Douglas does an excellent job of displaying those wild mood swings, that even for a western look pretty sinister.
Reed Bowman (played by Jeanne Crain), makes a fascinating antangonist.
She's sexy, she smart, and she is absolutely, unashamably ruthless.
She will do anything to get what she wants and she doesn't play fair.
I think this Western would be perfect for a gritty modern adaption, because its all there, and it would work.
Cowboys and Aliens - 5/5
They where both a blast!
The premise is refugee aliens in South Africa - first alien movie that's had me pause 5 minutes in to go read up on apartheid. Very well done with some powerful themes. I guess like many sci fi films, it says a hell of a lot more about the humans than it does about the aliens. Definitely recommended.
Still as good as I remember. Original would be a plus, 3D is only an A because it was just "ok" 3D though still pretty good for the kind of 3D a 2D-animated movie would produce anyway. Also, they left those crappy new crocodiles for the Can't Wait to Be King sequence which I guess I can't fault them for but I still miss the old crocs. They left out "Morning Report" though (THANK YOU DISNEY) so I won't take it down to a minus.
Rango A-
God damn this was good. Figures it'd have to involve desert critters to actually make me like a western. (shut up True Grit doesn't count) I think a lot of people miss the hidden meaning to the tale, understandably since there shouldn't be much to look for in all that nice, stylistic animation. Which is, in a nutshell, that Vegas takes a crapload of water from the already-dry deserts, thereby screwing over a bunch of hombr- err, animals and plants? Also maybe it was just me and my thrist for clever allegory, but I totally saw a similarity between the mayor and T. Boone Pickens.
I brought it down to a minus because of the forced jokes for kids, even though it was clearly not meant to be watched by them in particular. I'm still surprised it was Nickelodeon that produced it, really.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 B+
It was certainly better than I expected. I didn't like part 1 all that much nor did I particularly like the book, mostly because of the sudden grimdark elements that are kind of a shock to read when you read the first few books in succession recently, but I guess it translated a lot better to film.
Rio C
It was a uh, animated film, with birds and dancing (gee where have I seen that before) where some predictable things happened, I guess?
Insidious D
It was a uh, horror film with ghosts where uh, things happened I guess?
It's ok, the alien is bad, again...dated CGI...
It was ok...I've seen better. The child actor is rather strange too.
Slams people with a interest in UFOLOGY...
But...it's an ok movie.
Hmmm, 9 out of 9, but I don't like it that much...
Rating: Fifty bazillion out of ten...or something like that.
Basically, it boils down to the fact that I absolutely adore this movie and I can't really pin down the reason why. Maybe it's the wide expanses of desert, that I seem to have an obsession with, or the fascinating characters, or maybe it was the fact that I just really liked Prince Faisal's beard. Who can say? All I know is that if I didn't have these papers to fix up, I would be watching it again right now.
Let me start by saying I'm a huge fan of the 80's film. The gore and creature effects were amazing and still hold up today in my opinion. The new film ops out of the animatronics though and goes full CGI. This is my only complaint about the new film and it's not a major one.
Most people don't know this and I still don't know why (Maybe because the title is the same?) but The Thing is actaully a prequel to the 80's film. It takes place at the Norwegian camp that the 80's film visits. It tells the story of how they first find The Thing and how it destroys the Norwegian camp.
Overall, this is a great movie. If you are a fan of the 80's film I just don't see how you can not like this movie. The creatures (even if they are fully CGI) look great and are really intense. The scenes where they were attacking the character were all very well done. There are reviewers who say that the characters are under devoloped and to that I say "So what?"
The original characters from the 80's film weren't exactly deep characters either. You don't learn about their past, you don't learn much about them at all. It was a movie about a group of men being very paranoid and very scared about what was going on around them. That was it. This prequel does the same exact thing. It gives you characters and keeps you guessing about who might be the "thing". Granted, they're more obvious in this movie than in the 80's film but its still really cool to see these characters freaking out and turning on each other to try and save themselves.
The best thing about this movie is how well it ties in to the 80's film. You can actually edit the two films together and they would fit perfectly together as one film. Everthing that Kurt Russle found at the camp in the 80's film happens in this film. Everything ends up in it's place.
Overall, I really enjoyed it and it is a worthy addition to the 80's film. I'm ready for more and I hope they do make more.
Grr, you're so lucky! I've been awaiting this film with almost the same level of fevered anticipation as I have Ridley Scott's Prometheus. However, it's not getting released in the UK until next month. I frequent the Outpost 31 forum and I now have to endure people talking about the ins and outs of the prequel. It's incredibly frustrating.
By the way, I heard people saying that the dog-thing looks nothing like Jed from the '82 film. Is that accurate? If so, that's surely going to make my geek blood boil due to the glaring continuity issue.