N
nebbit
Guest
Thanks, will give this one a miss
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Day 46: June 15th, 2010
Chopping Mall
At Least They Got The Mall Part Of The Title Right.
8 teenagers decide to spend some extra time in the mall after it closes. They party it up in one of the stores, drinking beer and having sex. What they don't know though, is that the mall has a new security team. A team of robots, which have coincidentally, had their mother computer struck by lightning and thus rewiring their system. They are set to kill. And kill they do...in lame and uninteresting ways.
Chopping Mall is one of the numerous horror films that I would see sitting on the shelf of a local video store when I was a kid and I would be intrigued by the great, at the time, VHS cover. A robot like hand holding a shopping bag with body parts in it. With the tag line"Where Shopping Can Cost You An Arm And A Leg". Unfortunately, Chopping Mall suffers from too many things to even make it a pleasurable B horror movie.
The killer robots, or killbots, looks pretty ancient. Even for the 80's. They look like a mix between Short Circuit, the Daleks and every other robot. Nothing too imaginative here. The deaths, with the exception of one awesome head explosion, are tame and lame. With a title like Chopping Mall, I was surprised too see not one chop. At least they got the mall part of the title right.
The acting is horror cheese, as expected. The special effects are horror cheese, also expected. The suspense, is nonexistent. The main problem this film has, are the villains. These robots are not threatening in the least. They look like toys. The film doesn't even feel like a horror film. Instead it plays out like an action sci/fi.
The continuity is appalling. In a film like The Evil Dead the continuity mistakes propel the film to a better level of awesomeness. It helped that they were trapped and going crazy from the evil demons. Here, it is too distracting. One hand holding a propane tank, cut to close up and both hands are on gun. Cut between the two shots 5 or 6 times and it is jarring.
Chopping Mall is a poor film, it's poor even by cult film standards. I can see myself giving this film two ratings. A film rating, and a trashy horror rating. One would be better than the other.
[rating]1.5[/rating]
Trash Rating
[rating]3[/rating]
Chopping Mall
At Least They Got The Mall Part Of The Title Right.
8 teenagers decide to spend some extra time in the mall after it closes. They party it up in one of the stores, drinking beer and having sex. What they don't know though, is that the mall has a new security team. A team of robots, which have coincidentally, had their mother computer struck by lightning and thus rewiring their system. They are set to kill. And kill they do...in lame and uninteresting ways.
Chopping Mall is one of the numerous horror films that I would see sitting on the shelf of a local video store when I was a kid and I would be intrigued by the great, at the time, VHS cover. A robot like hand holding a shopping bag with body parts in it. With the tag line"Where Shopping Can Cost You An Arm And A Leg". Unfortunately, Chopping Mall suffers from too many things to even make it a pleasurable B horror movie.
The killer robots, or killbots, looks pretty ancient. Even for the 80's. They look like a mix between Short Circuit, the Daleks and every other robot. Nothing too imaginative here. The deaths, with the exception of one awesome head explosion, are tame and lame. With a title like Chopping Mall, I was surprised too see not one chop. At least they got the mall part of the title right.
The acting is horror cheese, as expected. The special effects are horror cheese, also expected. The suspense, is nonexistent. The main problem this film has, are the villains. These robots are not threatening in the least. They look like toys. The film doesn't even feel like a horror film. Instead it plays out like an action sci/fi.
The continuity is appalling. In a film like The Evil Dead the continuity mistakes propel the film to a better level of awesomeness. It helped that they were trapped and going crazy from the evil demons. Here, it is too distracting. One hand holding a propane tank, cut to close up and both hands are on gun. Cut between the two shots 5 or 6 times and it is jarring.
Chopping Mall is a poor film, it's poor even by cult film standards. I can see myself giving this film two ratings. A film rating, and a trashy horror rating. One would be better than the other.
[rating]1.5[/rating]
Trash Rating
[rating]3[/rating]
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Day 69: July 8th, 2010
From Beyond
Humans are such easy prey.
Scientist create a device that stimulates the pineal gland, making it possible to see these abnormal creatures living among us and interact with them. These creatures are vicious and will most likely bite your head off, like Combs says in the film "like a gingerbread man."
This cheesy and campy flick was gross and surprisingly fun. The plot is ridiculous and the events that happen are even more so, yet you are there cheering it all on. Jeffery Combs, the creepiest bastard alive, is the lead scientist. He's famous for the role of Dr. Herbert West in another Gordon flick, Re-Animator.
The first experiment goes wrong, obviously and the boss unfortunately gets his head bitten off, Combs he is thrown in an institution. They think he is schizophrenic, but one woman wants to hear his case. She believes him and along with Ken Foree (shout out to my boy) go back to the house to confront this machine and the monsters it brings out.
Of course she gets sucked in by the perverse power of it all and flips the switch back on numerous times. Resulting in a scene in which she is almost raped by this half man half creature while Combs is in the basement getting eating alive, only to be saved by Foree. His head is in this creatures mouth and when he is saved, his hair is all gone. Okay, I'll roll with it.
As I mentioned earlier this is a Stuart Gordon film, his horror style is present here at all times. The perverse sexuality, the violence, the comedy, everything fits this film nicely. The special effects in this film take you back to the days before computer generated images. It feels real, looks fake and is 100% disgusting. Perfect for this type of film.
This film is not for everyone, it's a genre piece. Most Gordon films have a dedicated audience, you know you'll like it or not. It doesn't go out of it's way to explore this realm of reality that these creatures live in. It's a drawback because they could have gotten really creative with some of the images and story structure.
This is a horror film that doesn't have many jump scares that try and scare people. The film is more grotesque and in your face. It wants you to feel uncomfortable, not scared. It wants you reaching for the barf bag. Sometimes it works, sometimes it unfortunately doesn't. It does blend the genres of sci/fi and horror rather well and will most likely get you talking. The only problem is getting into a conversation with someone else who has seen it.
[rating]3[/rating]
From Beyond
Humans are such easy prey.
Scientist create a device that stimulates the pineal gland, making it possible to see these abnormal creatures living among us and interact with them. These creatures are vicious and will most likely bite your head off, like Combs says in the film "like a gingerbread man."
This cheesy and campy flick was gross and surprisingly fun. The plot is ridiculous and the events that happen are even more so, yet you are there cheering it all on. Jeffery Combs, the creepiest bastard alive, is the lead scientist. He's famous for the role of Dr. Herbert West in another Gordon flick, Re-Animator.
The first experiment goes wrong, obviously and the boss unfortunately gets his head bitten off, Combs he is thrown in an institution. They think he is schizophrenic, but one woman wants to hear his case. She believes him and along with Ken Foree (shout out to my boy) go back to the house to confront this machine and the monsters it brings out.
Of course she gets sucked in by the perverse power of it all and flips the switch back on numerous times. Resulting in a scene in which she is almost raped by this half man half creature while Combs is in the basement getting eating alive, only to be saved by Foree. His head is in this creatures mouth and when he is saved, his hair is all gone. Okay, I'll roll with it.
As I mentioned earlier this is a Stuart Gordon film, his horror style is present here at all times. The perverse sexuality, the violence, the comedy, everything fits this film nicely. The special effects in this film take you back to the days before computer generated images. It feels real, looks fake and is 100% disgusting. Perfect for this type of film.
This film is not for everyone, it's a genre piece. Most Gordon films have a dedicated audience, you know you'll like it or not. It doesn't go out of it's way to explore this realm of reality that these creatures live in. It's a drawback because they could have gotten really creative with some of the images and story structure.
This is a horror film that doesn't have many jump scares that try and scare people. The film is more grotesque and in your face. It wants you to feel uncomfortable, not scared. It wants you reaching for the barf bag. Sometimes it works, sometimes it unfortunately doesn't. It does blend the genres of sci/fi and horror rather well and will most likely get you talking. The only problem is getting into a conversation with someone else who has seen it.
[rating]3[/rating]
N
nebbit
Guest
Nice reviews Sussy Thanks
B
Brodinski
Guest
I like that you've watched Blood Simple! It's one of my favourite films and whenever anyone asks me to recommand them a film, I always name Blood Simple. Now, I'm just gonna discuss some of the things you mentioned in your review. This is not to criticise you in any way, just to point out the way I perceive things...
I won't reveal much as to the plot because it's so wonderfully smart and one of the main reasons why I tremendously enjoy watching this film over and over. The plot is so in line with the movie's pace. Yes, it starts off very slow, because there is not a whole lot to tell. Bartender hires a private eye to follow his wife because he suspects she's cheating on him. His suspicion is confirmed, he gets angry and orders the private detective to kill them in exchange for 10k. Up to that point, everything is very simple and clear-cut. But then things get so complicated and the movie picks up the pace a little as the story develops into this convoluted maze of errors and mistakes made by all of the main characters. I wish I could reveal more, but I can't cause i'd ruin it for others.
The opening scenes you're complaining about are used to set the tone, they're deliberately slow. There's a lot of similarities with a little film you may have heard of, as it only won like a billion prizes: No Country For Old Men. That one also starts rather slow and then picks up the pace.
Hmm, this is naturally a personal preference, but I beg to differ. This film is so beautifully crafted in such a variety of ways. Every piece of the puzzle fits. The movie's style is hauntingly gorgeous, especially the night scenes. I admit that not everything is perfectly done camera-wise, but some of the scenes are great, especially [spoilers="Blood Simple"]the scene where Ray tries to dispose of Marty[/spoilers]. Not to mention the cinematography in the movie's climax. And it's just so in tune with the movie's bleak story. Then there's the theme by Carter Burwell which is downright perfect for this movie. It's so gripping and mesmerizing, and fits so well with the dark plot, cinematography and camera work.
This was a true tour de force by the Coens. I dare say Blood Simple is up there with The Maltese Falcon and Night of the Hunter (and probably a few others that don't come to mind now) as one of the best directorial debuts ever.
@ everyone: watch this piece of early brilliance by the Coens. You will not be dissapointed.
I won't reveal much as to the plot because it's so wonderfully smart and one of the main reasons why I tremendously enjoy watching this film over and over. The plot is so in line with the movie's pace. Yes, it starts off very slow, because there is not a whole lot to tell. Bartender hires a private eye to follow his wife because he suspects she's cheating on him. His suspicion is confirmed, he gets angry and orders the private detective to kill them in exchange for 10k. Up to that point, everything is very simple and clear-cut. But then things get so complicated and the movie picks up the pace a little as the story develops into this convoluted maze of errors and mistakes made by all of the main characters. I wish I could reveal more, but I can't cause i'd ruin it for others.
The opening scenes you're complaining about are used to set the tone, they're deliberately slow. There's a lot of similarities with a little film you may have heard of, as it only won like a billion prizes: No Country For Old Men. That one also starts rather slow and then picks up the pace.
Hmm, this is naturally a personal preference, but I beg to differ. This film is so beautifully crafted in such a variety of ways. Every piece of the puzzle fits. The movie's style is hauntingly gorgeous, especially the night scenes. I admit that not everything is perfectly done camera-wise, but some of the scenes are great, especially [spoilers="Blood Simple"]the scene where Ray tries to dispose of Marty[/spoilers]. Not to mention the cinematography in the movie's climax. And it's just so in tune with the movie's bleak story. Then there's the theme by Carter Burwell which is downright perfect for this movie. It's so gripping and mesmerizing, and fits so well with the dark plot, cinematography and camera work.
This was a true tour de force by the Coens. I dare say Blood Simple is up there with The Maltese Falcon and Night of the Hunter (and probably a few others that don't come to mind now) as one of the best directorial debuts ever.
@ everyone: watch this piece of early brilliance by the Coens. You will not be dissapointed.
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
I do too, probably my favourite Hughes film.
H
honeykid
Guest
Damn, Nebs! Surely even in New Zealand there must've been something better to do than that?
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Day 83: July 22nd, 2010
Rear Window
So Simple and Yet So Effective.
Bart Simpson breaks his leg when the family gets a new swimming pool. He is stuck in his room with a cast on his leg and he is bored out of his mind....oops wrong synopsis. Sub Jimmy Stewart for Bart Simpson and you have your story of Rear Window. L.B. 'Jeff' Jeffries suspects his neighbour has killed his own wife and tries to solve the mystery while stuck in his wheelchair. The premise is pretty simple, yet Hitchcock gives us something more with this film, he gives us exactly what our society craves voyeurism. Even to this day we can't go by without thinking or wanting or actually trying to peak into the lives of others.
Rear Window marks my fourth Hitchcock film I've seen, yet it sneaks into my favourite spot. Is it boring for someone to say that one of the more popular Hitchcock films is currently his favourite? I don't care, I know a good film when I see one and Rear Window is just that. More than 50 years later this film manages to still be relevant today and hold up successfully well in the suspense department. The recent Shia LaBeouf remake Distrubia, while a good thriller, suffers from the technology syndrome. Years from now the film will be dated with that ankle bracelet technology holding Shia in, just like the giant cell phone Zack Morris carries with him everywhere. Rear Window doesn't feel dated and this is credited to Hitchcock and his attention to detail.
I absolutely love, adore and cherish the art direction in this film. How beautiful is the set design? Knowing that they used the basement as part of the set design only heightens my enjoyment of it. The second floor of the apartments was actually the stage floor. Stunning in my opinion. The opening scene giving us a glimpse into the lives of the people who live in the apartments around Stewart is marvelous. We never go into their lives, we just see it from Stewarts (and our) viewpoint. We never leave his room, save for the ending and a scene that involves the death of a dog. Those close ups of the people listening to the lady yelling seem out of place because we immediately jump out of Stewart's room and into the open area. It's alarmingly jarring and seems out of place for no apparent reason.
Hitchcock ones again proves us that a good story (he most certainly had his hand in crafting the story) trumps everything else. How suspenseful can a film be when our hero never leaves his room, hell he never really leaves his wheelchair. Hitchcock manages to pull it off gracefully. It's nice to see where films today get their inspiration from. When the lights in the hallway go out at Stewart's apartment, I thought of No Country For Old Men. Hitchcock truly was the master of suspense.
Grace Kelly is absolutely stunning. I never really cared for the looks of the actresses of the old 50's or 60's. None of them caught my eye, Grace Kelly think is the first one to do so. I don't even think Marilyn Monroe did. Her introduction shot is graceful and most certainly memorable. I can't finish this review without mentioning Thelma Ritter. She was hilarious and everything she did felt so natural. I absolutely loved her character.
Rear Window is more suspenseful today than most thrillers that come to theatres. The little glimpses into the lives of the people around the setting is what really drew me in though, the song writer, Miss Torso, Miss Hearing Aid, and the balcony couple. These are nice little addition from the master himself, Alfred Hitchcock.
[rating]4[/rating]
Rear Window
So Simple and Yet So Effective.
Bart Simpson breaks his leg when the family gets a new swimming pool. He is stuck in his room with a cast on his leg and he is bored out of his mind....oops wrong synopsis. Sub Jimmy Stewart for Bart Simpson and you have your story of Rear Window. L.B. 'Jeff' Jeffries suspects his neighbour has killed his own wife and tries to solve the mystery while stuck in his wheelchair. The premise is pretty simple, yet Hitchcock gives us something more with this film, he gives us exactly what our society craves voyeurism. Even to this day we can't go by without thinking or wanting or actually trying to peak into the lives of others.
Rear Window marks my fourth Hitchcock film I've seen, yet it sneaks into my favourite spot. Is it boring for someone to say that one of the more popular Hitchcock films is currently his favourite? I don't care, I know a good film when I see one and Rear Window is just that. More than 50 years later this film manages to still be relevant today and hold up successfully well in the suspense department. The recent Shia LaBeouf remake Distrubia, while a good thriller, suffers from the technology syndrome. Years from now the film will be dated with that ankle bracelet technology holding Shia in, just like the giant cell phone Zack Morris carries with him everywhere. Rear Window doesn't feel dated and this is credited to Hitchcock and his attention to detail.
I absolutely love, adore and cherish the art direction in this film. How beautiful is the set design? Knowing that they used the basement as part of the set design only heightens my enjoyment of it. The second floor of the apartments was actually the stage floor. Stunning in my opinion. The opening scene giving us a glimpse into the lives of the people who live in the apartments around Stewart is marvelous. We never go into their lives, we just see it from Stewarts (and our) viewpoint. We never leave his room, save for the ending and a scene that involves the death of a dog. Those close ups of the people listening to the lady yelling seem out of place because we immediately jump out of Stewart's room and into the open area. It's alarmingly jarring and seems out of place for no apparent reason.
Hitchcock ones again proves us that a good story (he most certainly had his hand in crafting the story) trumps everything else. How suspenseful can a film be when our hero never leaves his room, hell he never really leaves his wheelchair. Hitchcock manages to pull it off gracefully. It's nice to see where films today get their inspiration from. When the lights in the hallway go out at Stewart's apartment, I thought of No Country For Old Men. Hitchcock truly was the master of suspense.
Grace Kelly is absolutely stunning. I never really cared for the looks of the actresses of the old 50's or 60's. None of them caught my eye, Grace Kelly think is the first one to do so. I don't even think Marilyn Monroe did. Her introduction shot is graceful and most certainly memorable. I can't finish this review without mentioning Thelma Ritter. She was hilarious and everything she did felt so natural. I absolutely loved her character.
Rear Window is more suspenseful today than most thrillers that come to theatres. The little glimpses into the lives of the people around the setting is what really drew me in though, the song writer, Miss Torso, Miss Hearing Aid, and the balcony couple. These are nice little addition from the master himself, Alfred Hitchcock.
[rating]4[/rating]
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Day 70: July 9th, 2010
Year One
Meet your ancestors
It seems odd to break up two Ramis films with the dry Panic Room and such a polarizing film like From Beyond, but that's what this is all about. Any movie, any day, any genre.
Here we have Year One, the pairing of Jack Black and Michael Cera. An odd choice for sure, but they do end up complimenting each other's comedy style. Once one of them gets banished from their tribe, the two of them go on a journey through our biblical history. Their journey involves rescuing the women they love and their tribe from the city of Sodom.
So the whole pitch behind this film was to have today's style of comedy, which is the dead-pan, let's point out the obvious, talk to ourselves, modern humour to an ancient historical film. It will be hilarious, someone thought. ?Having Jack Black run around, doing his physical funny stuff he does and someone else, someone who is currently hot and in with the popular crowd. That kid from Superbad, Michael Cera.
As a comedy film, the movie stinks. It's script tries for some pretty basic laughs and the only ones you'll get are from the two actors trying their best to save this deadweight material. The intrusion of these two into biblical history is funny once, but overdone later on. The relationship they seem to have with the women they love is typical they fall in love for no reason fare.
The laughs are few and far between and only from two people who try their hardest to get some humour from a humourless script. Ramis direction is sub-par and nothing stands out. It's hard to watch a film like groundhog day and love it so much, then see something like this from the same guy.
The cameos are expected and some are lame. We don't need to see McLovin'. His inclusion in this film is only because he was McLovin'. I thought Year One was funny the first time I saw the trailer. I should have stuck with that one trailer and skipped the film. Two comedians can only hold up a film for so long before it falls from underneath them. They need the material to further the comedy, this had nothing.
[rating]1.5[/rating]
Year One
Meet your ancestors
It seems odd to break up two Ramis films with the dry Panic Room and such a polarizing film like From Beyond, but that's what this is all about. Any movie, any day, any genre.
Here we have Year One, the pairing of Jack Black and Michael Cera. An odd choice for sure, but they do end up complimenting each other's comedy style. Once one of them gets banished from their tribe, the two of them go on a journey through our biblical history. Their journey involves rescuing the women they love and their tribe from the city of Sodom.
So the whole pitch behind this film was to have today's style of comedy, which is the dead-pan, let's point out the obvious, talk to ourselves, modern humour to an ancient historical film. It will be hilarious, someone thought. ?Having Jack Black run around, doing his physical funny stuff he does and someone else, someone who is currently hot and in with the popular crowd. That kid from Superbad, Michael Cera.
As a comedy film, the movie stinks. It's script tries for some pretty basic laughs and the only ones you'll get are from the two actors trying their best to save this deadweight material. The intrusion of these two into biblical history is funny once, but overdone later on. The relationship they seem to have with the women they love is typical they fall in love for no reason fare.
The laughs are few and far between and only from two people who try their hardest to get some humour from a humourless script. Ramis direction is sub-par and nothing stands out. It's hard to watch a film like groundhog day and love it so much, then see something like this from the same guy.
The cameos are expected and some are lame. We don't need to see McLovin'. His inclusion in this film is only because he was McLovin'. I thought Year One was funny the first time I saw the trailer. I should have stuck with that one trailer and skipped the film. Two comedians can only hold up a film for so long before it falls from underneath them. They need the material to further the comedy, this had nothing.
[rating]1.5[/rating]
M
mark f
Guest
WTF?
Where's Midnight Cowboy? Little Big Man? Cabaret? Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Casablanca? Raging Bull? Rear Window? Paths of Glory? Or even, God forbid, Elmer Gantry?
Where's Midnight Cowboy? Little Big Man? Cabaret? Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Casablanca? Raging Bull? Rear Window? Paths of Glory? Or even, God forbid, Elmer Gantry?
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Day 6: May 6th, 2010
Dead Snow
The second half of this film is brilliant.
On a trip up to a cottage in the snowy mountain tops a group of friends encounter some mean nasty Nazi zombies. That's right Nazi zombies. Can they survive? Will we care? Why are we watching a film about Nazi zombies?
There was a lot of hype around this film, simply for those two words. Nazi Zombies. The only other film I remember having hype around it based on a few words was Snakes On A Plane. Dead Snow is a Norwegian horror film that plays up the comedic aspect of actually having Nazi zombies in the film. The entire first half of this film is rubbish, but I couldn't help but have a smile on my face once the sh*t hit the fan.
The film falters on many accounts. Let's see, the acting is atrocious, the characters are dumb and clich
Dead Snow
The second half of this film is brilliant.
On a trip up to a cottage in the snowy mountain tops a group of friends encounter some mean nasty Nazi zombies. That's right Nazi zombies. Can they survive? Will we care? Why are we watching a film about Nazi zombies?
There was a lot of hype around this film, simply for those two words. Nazi Zombies. The only other film I remember having hype around it based on a few words was Snakes On A Plane. Dead Snow is a Norwegian horror film that plays up the comedic aspect of actually having Nazi zombies in the film. The entire first half of this film is rubbish, but I couldn't help but have a smile on my face once the sh*t hit the fan.
The film falters on many accounts. Let's see, the acting is atrocious, the characters are dumb and clich
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Day 56: June 25th, 2010
Near Dark
I'd rather see a burnt and bloody Bill Paxton, than a white face glittery Robert Pattinson.
I was actually suppose to watch The Wolfman, but lost to a vote and people wanted to watch Near Dark instead.
Well, a young good looking cowboy gets bitten by a vampire and he soon becomes a member of the psychotic gang of vamps. The problem is that he doesn't want to be a vampire and he tries to fight the seductive urges of the blood thirst.
The vampire trend is nothing new, it's just made a comeback for this certain phase. Twilight is raking in the cash in the theatres and true blood is reigning HBO. It's good to be a vampire right now. But back in the day, 1987 to be exact. Vampires were not all glittery and award winning, they were mean, cut throat and cruel.
The problem this film has, right from the gate, is two uninteresting leads. The male and the female are boring, wooden actors (before he became a Hero) and it's always hard to stay invested in a film where the leads make you cringe from time to time. Enter Bill Paxton and Lance Henriksen, two characters that rise above what is needed and make the film entertaining and scary.
The two are a part of a vampire family. These characters are far more interesting than our cowboy here. I would much rather watch a film following them. Every little line of dialogue is interesting and their look is unmatched. Bill Paxton is a great psycho, he is off the wall nuts and he looks to be having a great time doing it. Three of the cast members also appeared in Aliens, directed by James Cameron, ex-husband of Bigelow, who directed Near Dark.
The shootout in the motel sequence is really neat and drives the film into high gear. the special effects are too shabby either. Sun can be deadly to these guys and it is quickly proven many times. The death scenes are gruesome and to me are what true vampire films are about.
I watched this on bluray and the one thing that annoyed me is the new cover. They are obviously going for that twilight crowd as they have the female appear to be human and the male be the vampire. Even the bloody make-up, which has no reference in this film. This is false advertising, give me a burnt and bloody Bill Paxton over that trash any day.
[rating]3.5[/rating]
Near Dark
I'd rather see a burnt and bloody Bill Paxton, than a white face glittery Robert Pattinson.
I was actually suppose to watch The Wolfman, but lost to a vote and people wanted to watch Near Dark instead.
Well, a young good looking cowboy gets bitten by a vampire and he soon becomes a member of the psychotic gang of vamps. The problem is that he doesn't want to be a vampire and he tries to fight the seductive urges of the blood thirst.
The vampire trend is nothing new, it's just made a comeback for this certain phase. Twilight is raking in the cash in the theatres and true blood is reigning HBO. It's good to be a vampire right now. But back in the day, 1987 to be exact. Vampires were not all glittery and award winning, they were mean, cut throat and cruel.
The problem this film has, right from the gate, is two uninteresting leads. The male and the female are boring, wooden actors (before he became a Hero) and it's always hard to stay invested in a film where the leads make you cringe from time to time. Enter Bill Paxton and Lance Henriksen, two characters that rise above what is needed and make the film entertaining and scary.
The two are a part of a vampire family. These characters are far more interesting than our cowboy here. I would much rather watch a film following them. Every little line of dialogue is interesting and their look is unmatched. Bill Paxton is a great psycho, he is off the wall nuts and he looks to be having a great time doing it. Three of the cast members also appeared in Aliens, directed by James Cameron, ex-husband of Bigelow, who directed Near Dark.
The shootout in the motel sequence is really neat and drives the film into high gear. the special effects are too shabby either. Sun can be deadly to these guys and it is quickly proven many times. The death scenes are gruesome and to me are what true vampire films are about.
I watched this on bluray and the one thing that annoyed me is the new cover. They are obviously going for that twilight crowd as they have the female appear to be human and the male be the vampire. Even the bloody make-up, which has no reference in this film. This is false advertising, give me a burnt and bloody Bill Paxton over that trash any day.
[rating]3.5[/rating]
I
Iroquois
Guest
Pfft, you don't expect him to watch old movies, do you?
M
mistique
Guest
I wish I could give you ten points instead of just one for your review on Inception.
C
Classicqueen13
Guest
Interesting stuff, Suspect! I like it
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Day 15: May 15th, 2010
The Taking Of Pelham 123
It Was A Nice Try...
Pelham 123 is taken over by John Travolta is his posse. Denzel Washington is the poor guy who's working the day this happens and he is stuck in the middle of it all. Travolta doesn't want to speak with the hostage negotiator, he wants to speak with Washington. Demands are made, people are killed and this remake lacks what I wanted from a hostage film. That would be suspense.
Travolta is the bad guy, I dig it. He's been bad before. In Face/Off he had a lot of fun impersonating Nic Cage, I had fun with him too. In Broken Arrow he is up against Christian Slater, this time Travolta plays it cool. Pulp Fiction, he gained his respect back as Vincent the hit-man. In this one he cut his hair short and crew out a goatee. He looks really ridiculous, but that's besides the point. He is not terrifying here and for some odd reason it sounded really awkward when he would start swearing. Like it was some kind of forced material, it did not flow like in his other films.
Washington is the good guy, he is the loser, not knowing what to do, yet gets it done. He doesn't go above and beyond, he plays it regular. His pairing with Tony Scott here is very ho- hum. He doesn't command the screen and he shouldn't because it's not that type of character. But then again, Travolta doesn't either, when he really should have.
The suspense is no where to be found. I appreciate the gratitude the film puts the hostages in. A lot of films are scared to kill off some hostages, this one isn't. Usually we would also get to know some of the hostages, maybe find interest in the characters. Not here, they are on the back burner. So we could care less about them living or dying.
There is a subplot involving Washington possibly taking a bribe or not, doesn't do much for me, or the story. The direction is as expected from Tony Scott. It gels with the same crowed as Domino, Man on Fire and Deja Vu. I do give it a little more respect than some of those I mentioned though because it doesn't have the same colour tinted editing that really got old fast. Domino and Man on Fire are guilty.
This remake is an okay way to spend 2 hours, it doesn't suck. But it doesn't really stay with you either, or turn up on your best of lists. What it boils down to is, this is mediocre and is full of characters that I just couldn't essentially care about. I haven't seen the original either, but that doesn't matter. Washington is more convincing than Travolta. Actually, when I look back and think about it, it wasn't all bad...until the last 20 or so minutes. Then it gets really out of hand.
[rating]2.5[/rating]
The Taking Of Pelham 123
It Was A Nice Try...
Pelham 123 is taken over by John Travolta is his posse. Denzel Washington is the poor guy who's working the day this happens and he is stuck in the middle of it all. Travolta doesn't want to speak with the hostage negotiator, he wants to speak with Washington. Demands are made, people are killed and this remake lacks what I wanted from a hostage film. That would be suspense.
Travolta is the bad guy, I dig it. He's been bad before. In Face/Off he had a lot of fun impersonating Nic Cage, I had fun with him too. In Broken Arrow he is up against Christian Slater, this time Travolta plays it cool. Pulp Fiction, he gained his respect back as Vincent the hit-man. In this one he cut his hair short and crew out a goatee. He looks really ridiculous, but that's besides the point. He is not terrifying here and for some odd reason it sounded really awkward when he would start swearing. Like it was some kind of forced material, it did not flow like in his other films.
Washington is the good guy, he is the loser, not knowing what to do, yet gets it done. He doesn't go above and beyond, he plays it regular. His pairing with Tony Scott here is very ho- hum. He doesn't command the screen and he shouldn't because it's not that type of character. But then again, Travolta doesn't either, when he really should have.
The suspense is no where to be found. I appreciate the gratitude the film puts the hostages in. A lot of films are scared to kill off some hostages, this one isn't. Usually we would also get to know some of the hostages, maybe find interest in the characters. Not here, they are on the back burner. So we could care less about them living or dying.
There is a subplot involving Washington possibly taking a bribe or not, doesn't do much for me, or the story. The direction is as expected from Tony Scott. It gels with the same crowed as Domino, Man on Fire and Deja Vu. I do give it a little more respect than some of those I mentioned though because it doesn't have the same colour tinted editing that really got old fast. Domino and Man on Fire are guilty.
This remake is an okay way to spend 2 hours, it doesn't suck. But it doesn't really stay with you either, or turn up on your best of lists. What it boils down to is, this is mediocre and is full of characters that I just couldn't essentially care about. I haven't seen the original either, but that doesn't matter. Washington is more convincing than Travolta. Actually, when I look back and think about it, it wasn't all bad...until the last 20 or so minutes. Then it gets really out of hand.
[rating]2.5[/rating]
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
I don't know if anyone's noticed but there seemed to have been some days that have gone by with no reviews.
Well, I was up at a cottage for some much needed vacation time and forgot to post it here. No worries though, still going strong on the movie front.
Although, I did watch some flicks I have seen many times before.
We have this bet with a friend of ours in which he has to watch 20 films in one year. So we brought up some films for him to watch. Two of them I had already seen. The days there, every film we watched I have previously seen. No biggie though, it was going to be an entire year seeing new films.
I will have the reviews up tomorrow after work, for now I'm getting some more needed sleep.
Brodinski - I'm glad you took the time to give us your thoughts on Blood Simple. I agree with pretty much everything you've said, yet I just felt different about it. A slow movie can still hold my interest and I found myself struggling a bit with this one. It's not until the characters make those mistakes do things take an interesting turn. The set up is all there, but it's the confused pay-off scenes that I was more in tune with.
Well, I was up at a cottage for some much needed vacation time and forgot to post it here. No worries though, still going strong on the movie front.
Although, I did watch some flicks I have seen many times before.
We have this bet with a friend of ours in which he has to watch 20 films in one year. So we brought up some films for him to watch. Two of them I had already seen. The days there, every film we watched I have previously seen. No biggie though, it was going to be an entire year seeing new films.
I will have the reviews up tomorrow after work, for now I'm getting some more needed sleep.
Brodinski - I'm glad you took the time to give us your thoughts on Blood Simple. I agree with pretty much everything you've said, yet I just felt different about it. A slow movie can still hold my interest and I found myself struggling a bit with this one. It's not until the characters make those mistakes do things take an interesting turn. The set up is all there, but it's the confused pay-off scenes that I was more in tune with.
H
honeykid
Guest
Nah, you're not alone, TUS. Lots of people like The Untouchables. I, of course, am not one of them.
If you like true crime though, do take a look at the Black Dahlia case. It's really interesting stuff. This film really should've felt something like L.A. Confidential.
If you like true crime though, do take a look at the Black Dahlia case. It's really interesting stuff. This film really should've felt something like L.A. Confidential.
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Day 7: May 7th, 2010
In The Loop
Political Satire Done Right.
Simon Foster, the British Minister for International Development accidentally states that war is unforeseeable. This ignites people from both the United States and the U.K. to bring out their political strategies for pro/anti war projects.
That's the best I could come up with regarding this film. I had a hard time following who was responsible for what, how much power they had and what was actually being done. Despite this confusion, the film was still funny and very well written. This is a smart comedy, maybe it was too smart for me, but I was still able to get the jokes because they were at a certain level of just the right amount of crudeness.
The humour is mostly dry, the typical British stuff you would expect. The film doesn't really have any laugh out loud moments, but there is enough smirking and smiling that I was happy with it. To describe the film, I would have to say it felt like Dr. Strangelove mixed with The Office. In content, style and even humour. I can, to an extent, include This Is Spinal Tap. I read one reviewer saying that what This Is Spinal Tap did for heavy metal, In The Loop will do for politics. I completely agree with this statement.
Despite your political views, you will still be able to enjoy In The Loop, although some people always have to find something and complain. It's relatively fast paced and if you don't pay attention, you might get lost in the plot. I got the end game, but how they get there was a bit muddy for me. I don't really reflect this in the writing, but my grasp of politics in general.
The cast is great and work well off each other. It was nice seeing how hectic the British side of things were. From clueless at some points and downright belligerent at others. I really dug James Gandolfini square off against Peter Capald. The whole scene was a who has the bigger pair of you know what.
If your looking for a smart comedy that doesn't involve sex jokes, teens or poop humour, then In The Loop is the adult sophisticated comedy you should check out. It sure has it's crude moments, but it feels appropriate in a weird way. I liked it, I just wish I was able to grasp it more so I could love it.
[rating]3[/rating]
In The Loop
Political Satire Done Right.
Simon Foster, the British Minister for International Development accidentally states that war is unforeseeable. This ignites people from both the United States and the U.K. to bring out their political strategies for pro/anti war projects.
That's the best I could come up with regarding this film. I had a hard time following who was responsible for what, how much power they had and what was actually being done. Despite this confusion, the film was still funny and very well written. This is a smart comedy, maybe it was too smart for me, but I was still able to get the jokes because they were at a certain level of just the right amount of crudeness.
The humour is mostly dry, the typical British stuff you would expect. The film doesn't really have any laugh out loud moments, but there is enough smirking and smiling that I was happy with it. To describe the film, I would have to say it felt like Dr. Strangelove mixed with The Office. In content, style and even humour. I can, to an extent, include This Is Spinal Tap. I read one reviewer saying that what This Is Spinal Tap did for heavy metal, In The Loop will do for politics. I completely agree with this statement.
Despite your political views, you will still be able to enjoy In The Loop, although some people always have to find something and complain. It's relatively fast paced and if you don't pay attention, you might get lost in the plot. I got the end game, but how they get there was a bit muddy for me. I don't really reflect this in the writing, but my grasp of politics in general.
The cast is great and work well off each other. It was nice seeing how hectic the British side of things were. From clueless at some points and downright belligerent at others. I really dug James Gandolfini square off against Peter Capald. The whole scene was a who has the bigger pair of you know what.
If your looking for a smart comedy that doesn't involve sex jokes, teens or poop humour, then In The Loop is the adult sophisticated comedy you should check out. It sure has it's crude moments, but it feels appropriate in a weird way. I liked it, I just wish I was able to grasp it more so I could love it.
[rating]3[/rating]
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Day 71: July 10th, 2010
Natural Born Killers
The Media Made Them Superstars.
You can always make a bad movie from a great script and you can always make a good movie from a bad script. Both are hard to do, because...
A: If you have a really great and tightly written script, it should be hard for the director to screw it up.
B: If the script is wooden, full of plot holes and overall poorly written, you have no material to work with.
Natural Born Killers is somewhat of a conundrum to me, personally. I love the script and the idea that Stone wanted to accomplish. So the two should go hand in hand, but the final product is some kind of acid trip that a student filmmaker with a budget would produce. It's got no sense of direction, it weaves in and out of every possible direction and film stock.
Natural Born Killers is in your face and brutal with it's message. Mission accomplished Mr. Stone. Let me ask you this though, even though you've accomplished your goal, does it make it a good/successful film. Successful in your eyes, yes, because you've invoked some kind of emotion out of the viewer. Good? That's highly debatable. Natural Born Killers has the underlining of a good film, the overcoat is what is disturbing.
This film gives me headaches. This is surprisingly, the third time I've seen it. One was for school though, which ignited a hot debate. The class was virtually split down the middle of like/hate it. There was no one in the middle. I think NBK is a perfect example of one of those types of movies whether you love it or hate it. I wouldn't go as far as saying I hate it, but I'm definitely not found of it.
Woods is great and Lewis has her trailer trash look down pat. Her performance is annoying, yet perfect for the character. The film itself starts off really well, sets a tone that I expected to be followed throughout. Stone enters into some dark comedy bits, cartoon animation, documentary/reality television/horror/everything. The film literally gave me a headache the first time I watched it because it is so disjointed. Yet here I am watching it again for a third time. Is Stone secretly a genius? Or am I a glutton for punishment?
The film is something to watch though, at least once. For anyone interested in film, listen to Stone's commentary on this film. Everything he did he had a reason behind it. There is a reason there is close to 18 different film formats present here. Take it as a quick film lesson, for what not to, or to do. Which ever way you look at it. His ideas are good, his presentation is there, but it's all a mess. He tries way too much for a film that doesn't really call for it.
[rating]2.5[/rating]
Natural Born Killers
The Media Made Them Superstars.
You can always make a bad movie from a great script and you can always make a good movie from a bad script. Both are hard to do, because...
A: If you have a really great and tightly written script, it should be hard for the director to screw it up.
B: If the script is wooden, full of plot holes and overall poorly written, you have no material to work with.
Natural Born Killers is somewhat of a conundrum to me, personally. I love the script and the idea that Stone wanted to accomplish. So the two should go hand in hand, but the final product is some kind of acid trip that a student filmmaker with a budget would produce. It's got no sense of direction, it weaves in and out of every possible direction and film stock.
Natural Born Killers is in your face and brutal with it's message. Mission accomplished Mr. Stone. Let me ask you this though, even though you've accomplished your goal, does it make it a good/successful film. Successful in your eyes, yes, because you've invoked some kind of emotion out of the viewer. Good? That's highly debatable. Natural Born Killers has the underlining of a good film, the overcoat is what is disturbing.
This film gives me headaches. This is surprisingly, the third time I've seen it. One was for school though, which ignited a hot debate. The class was virtually split down the middle of like/hate it. There was no one in the middle. I think NBK is a perfect example of one of those types of movies whether you love it or hate it. I wouldn't go as far as saying I hate it, but I'm definitely not found of it.
Woods is great and Lewis has her trailer trash look down pat. Her performance is annoying, yet perfect for the character. The film itself starts off really well, sets a tone that I expected to be followed throughout. Stone enters into some dark comedy bits, cartoon animation, documentary/reality television/horror/everything. The film literally gave me a headache the first time I watched it because it is so disjointed. Yet here I am watching it again for a third time. Is Stone secretly a genius? Or am I a glutton for punishment?
The film is something to watch though, at least once. For anyone interested in film, listen to Stone's commentary on this film. Everything he did he had a reason behind it. There is a reason there is close to 18 different film formats present here. Take it as a quick film lesson, for what not to, or to do. Which ever way you look at it. His ideas are good, his presentation is there, but it's all a mess. He tries way too much for a film that doesn't really call for it.
[rating]2.5[/rating]