What Movie Did You Just Watch - The Silly Subtitle Edition
-
Disney-Fan
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3381
- Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 8:59 am
- Location: Where it's flat and immense and the heat is intense
- Contact:
-
PeterPanfan
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4553
- Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:43 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
-
Lazario
May 31-July 7
<img src="http://image.allmusic.com/00/adg/cov200 ... 8xdgxv.jpg" width="150" height="215" border="0">
It wasn't what I was hoping it would be. I was hoping that it would be either a hag-horror film or a black comedy with some really tasty evil... Unfortunately, it turned out to be more like a Hitchcock classic-Suspense tale. Not my sort of thing, on the whole. But... it was smart and well-made. And overall, I was able to enjoy most of it because it took place in a really beautiful Arizona desert place. So, even scenes that would be boring, like women going to a little outdoors cafe to have lunch, were more visually interesting here than in most other movies. I liked the cinematography. But as for the plot of the movie, I wasn't exactly on the edge-of-my-seat. The end is good, though. When the 2 women confront each other.
<img src="http://image.allmusic.com/00/adg/cov200 ... 2f0s5m.jpg" width="150" height="215" border="0">
This one was quite a surprise! I heard it was good, I expected it to be interesting. What I got was a full-blown horror masterpiece. One that functions effectively whether what you're looking for is shock-value, genuinely frightening images, atmosphere, intelligence, ambition... It's equally touching and very disturbing at the same time. There's a lot of power here and it makes one hell of a statement!
<img src="http://image.allmusic.com/00/adg/cov200 ... 3jjmxx.jpg" width="150" height="215" border="0">
Okay, I have no experience with blaxploitation. All I know is- they love to do really shocking things in their films. For instance, Pam Grier laying waste to an entire bar full of white lesbians - clearly strikes me as homophobic (as well as how absurdly the lesbians were portrayed). And of course, I vaguely remember a scene where Grier taunts another woman with the severed penis of her lover before either killing her or beating her to a pulp. This film is no different- it's a possession-tale about a man who is possessed by the spirit of some kind of criminal, and now that he's in the body of this cab driver, he makes him viciously beat up his girlfriend. As if having to watch that weren't bad enough, what follows are a series of scenes where what he did is treated as not very serious, ala- The Burning Bed. And basically, the woman begins to forgive him like he wasn't psychotically abusive at the time he savagely attacked her!
However, the film is technically well-made if a little boring. And the only serious flaw other than the misogyny is the offensively sitcom-oriented ending that practically ends with a CHiPS-style freeze-frame (and might very well have, I don't recall for sure).
<img src="http://image.allmusic.com/00/adg/cov200 ... 4h8r3n.jpg" width="150" height="215" border="0">
Has anyone else seen this? If you haven't... there's only one thing to tell anyone who hasn't seen it- HOLY COW, that's a horror movie ending! Completely unpredicted! Most of the movie is pretty boring and it's almost 2 hours long. And some of the horror scenes (especially those in the pool and the casket sliding in the room) are really badly put together. But some of the story is a little interesting. And it's a little over the top in a way that makes it more compelling. When the father isn't acting like he's becoming possessed. Instead- when it's the mother acting strange - for whatever reason - the movie is more interesting. Karen Black definitely gives this one all she's got. The thing that kind of tilts it toward the "should see it" is, well- Bette Davis, who if nothing else is at least better here than in Wicked Stepmother. You really care about her (which is perhaps funny since at this point she was a famous horror hag known for playing lots of villains), especially when she feels like she has to defend her age. A very powerful moment for her as an actress. I'd say it's worth sitting through for the ending. And Burgess Meredith has never been creepier than he is here.
<img src="http://image.allmusic.com/00/adg/cov200 ... 9b981o.jpg" width="150" height="215" border="0">
It's a lot better than I first said when I saw it. It still has a huge problem with writing. But the music score is excellent. And the special effects are first-rate. I was both involved in the feel of the movie and seriously put off by the story. That scene in the attack when we see what's underneath those doll faces... the little doll faces... that's freaking gross. If you haven't seen it yet and you want something a little creepy, something to make the hair on the back of your neck stand up, you might want to check it out. These dolls are really creepy. But also, despite the huge problem with the motivation of the killer doll-makers, the movie boasts tremendous atmosphere (good for the film's fairy-tale vibe), good scares, several unforgettable images, and a wickedly evil performance by Carolyn Purdy Gordon as Mommie Dearest meets Cruella DeVil. In fact, Stuart Gordon even mentions on the audio commentary that she was intentionally dressed up with the fur coat to look like Cruella.
<img src="http://image.allmusic.com/00/adg/cov200 ... 9kivq0.jpg" width="150" height="215" border="0">
Boy, am I glad I didn't blind-buy this DVD when it came out, like I originally wanted to. This movie sucks. I couldn't believe my eyes and ears!! How could someone who's actually made a movie before like this director (William Wesley) know so little about how to make a movie? The acting is unbelievably bad, the music score stinks and is completely the wrong music for the mood this story should have, nothing scary happens at all, nothing interesting happens at all, the "characters" are all annoying - because they're bad actors, not necessarily because they were playing unlikable "characters"... This thing is like a How-To guide on how to make a bad movie. Every possible mistake is here. In fact, here are the only things that kept me from turning the movie off - the dog is adorable and the guys have amazing butts. That's it. This thing sucks on a level I didn't know this kind of movie could suck on. Avoid it at all costs!
<img src="http://image.allmusic.com/00/adg/cov200 ... 1j4t1t.jpg" width="150" height="215" border="0">
An unfortunately below average movie with some good ideas behind it. It's seriously damaged by a few very bad casting choices, completely flat death scenes (the girl in the semi-famous escalator scene lives) with little to no blood and no gore, the plot lacks precise direction (making you feel like they're just copying The Omen a lot), and the creature FX look really crappy. But it was made on a decent-sized budget, so there is some style (mainly stuff with a pool, some shots of the house with leaves blowing, the sun shining down, a schoolyard playground at night) about the way they shoot the suburban neighborhood where the story takes place. The movie just doesn't cut it, overall.
<img src="http://image.allmusic.com/00/adg/cov200 ... 6ignwj.jpg" width="150" height="215" border="0">
With a movie like this, you really have to think in metaphor and search for a message, or else watching people walk around and talk about dreams and flowers, you're not going to have a clue what's going on. I think the message had something to do with being an orphan. The maid seems to make the point that most of the girls were drifters in life, aimless. That they were going nowhere. So, they die. A group of the girls disappear in the rock, and the other standout orphan character kills herself. While the 4th girl, Edith seems spoiled and shrill-mannered. So, she clearly seems to have been one of the richer girls and most likely the two who never came back were orphans.
Now, if only there were some kind of explanation for the fact that they all took off their shoes and socks (considered incredibly shocking for 1900, when the story takes place). The film is incredibly beautiful and dreamlike. The music is amazing. The sound design is strange. I don't know if I get what this movie is about, but it's damn well made. Lucky McKee clearly wanted The Woods to be a copy of this film. With Picnic's character of Sara being the girl he got his main character in The Woods from.
<img src="http://image.allmusic.com/00/adg/cov200 ... 0brqhu.jpg" width="150" height="215" border="0">
Another entry in the "most disturbing horror film I've ever seen in my life" contest. I'm convinced at this point that 'how good it is' doesn't matter. The movie doesn't really focus on story telling. It's just pure brutal horror. And for all the hype I have heard about so-called brutal American or French torture films, none of them struck me as knowing how to portray their subject matter. This film actually takes suicide and gives it the power to actually strike the viewer as hard as watching a very violet murder taking place. The movie wants to really nail the viewer. And it nailed me. I hate that feeling, but I can't lie and say the movie didn't work. I also didn't know about the movie until I bumped into it by accident on YouTube and wondered what kind of a horror movie could be made from suicides. Anyway, it does go too far at one point and incorporates a scene of animal torture for cheap shock purposes. And I had to fight through my urge to dismiss the film entirely for doing that. But the scene does have a slight point, if you focus on what you see shortly after the scene.
<img src="http://image.allmusic.com/00/adg/cov200 ... 826q66.jpg" width="150" height="215" border="0">
Well... It didn't totally suck. But it wasn't really good either. The one truly good thing about it other than the special effects (which are okay - except for that scene in the Phone Booth, which was truly excellent), is the stuff with that weird Priest guy. That ending with him and his "congregation"... Well, that was better than the whole cult subplot in The Dead Next Door.
But, if you've seen Ghostbusters 2, you've already seen a better horror movie about creepy plasma that stalks people and lives in the sewers, going through the drains and pipes. Plus, if you've seen C.H.U.D., you see they already did the "people trapped in the sewer because a government conspiracy has closed all the manholes" thing. Not to mention the government conspiracy thing's already been done - Piranha. And the part where the guy says - "they're expendible," that happened in Alien.
So, how was the movie in technical terms? Well, the acting is... okay. The writing sucks. The characters are uninteresting. The music score is awful. But- I will give it credit for killing Donovan Leitch as early as they did. Remember him from Cutting Class? God is he a terrible actor. And after this movie kills 2 or 3 people you don't expect them to, that scene killing the kid is not a shock or surprise! Or the sheriff's deputy. Or the woman at the diner. Or the evil black guy running the evil toxicologists group.
<img src="http://image.allmusic.com/00/adg/cov200 ... 8xdgxv.jpg" width="150" height="215" border="0">
It wasn't what I was hoping it would be. I was hoping that it would be either a hag-horror film or a black comedy with some really tasty evil... Unfortunately, it turned out to be more like a Hitchcock classic-Suspense tale. Not my sort of thing, on the whole. But... it was smart and well-made. And overall, I was able to enjoy most of it because it took place in a really beautiful Arizona desert place. So, even scenes that would be boring, like women going to a little outdoors cafe to have lunch, were more visually interesting here than in most other movies. I liked the cinematography. But as for the plot of the movie, I wasn't exactly on the edge-of-my-seat. The end is good, though. When the 2 women confront each other.
<img src="http://image.allmusic.com/00/adg/cov200 ... 2f0s5m.jpg" width="150" height="215" border="0">
This one was quite a surprise! I heard it was good, I expected it to be interesting. What I got was a full-blown horror masterpiece. One that functions effectively whether what you're looking for is shock-value, genuinely frightening images, atmosphere, intelligence, ambition... It's equally touching and very disturbing at the same time. There's a lot of power here and it makes one hell of a statement!
<img src="http://image.allmusic.com/00/adg/cov200 ... 3jjmxx.jpg" width="150" height="215" border="0">
Okay, I have no experience with blaxploitation. All I know is- they love to do really shocking things in their films. For instance, Pam Grier laying waste to an entire bar full of white lesbians - clearly strikes me as homophobic (as well as how absurdly the lesbians were portrayed). And of course, I vaguely remember a scene where Grier taunts another woman with the severed penis of her lover before either killing her or beating her to a pulp. This film is no different- it's a possession-tale about a man who is possessed by the spirit of some kind of criminal, and now that he's in the body of this cab driver, he makes him viciously beat up his girlfriend. As if having to watch that weren't bad enough, what follows are a series of scenes where what he did is treated as not very serious, ala- The Burning Bed. And basically, the woman begins to forgive him like he wasn't psychotically abusive at the time he savagely attacked her!
However, the film is technically well-made if a little boring. And the only serious flaw other than the misogyny is the offensively sitcom-oriented ending that practically ends with a CHiPS-style freeze-frame (and might very well have, I don't recall for sure).
<img src="http://image.allmusic.com/00/adg/cov200 ... 4h8r3n.jpg" width="150" height="215" border="0">
Has anyone else seen this? If you haven't... there's only one thing to tell anyone who hasn't seen it- HOLY COW, that's a horror movie ending! Completely unpredicted! Most of the movie is pretty boring and it's almost 2 hours long. And some of the horror scenes (especially those in the pool and the casket sliding in the room) are really badly put together. But some of the story is a little interesting. And it's a little over the top in a way that makes it more compelling. When the father isn't acting like he's becoming possessed. Instead- when it's the mother acting strange - for whatever reason - the movie is more interesting. Karen Black definitely gives this one all she's got. The thing that kind of tilts it toward the "should see it" is, well- Bette Davis, who if nothing else is at least better here than in Wicked Stepmother. You really care about her (which is perhaps funny since at this point she was a famous horror hag known for playing lots of villains), especially when she feels like she has to defend her age. A very powerful moment for her as an actress. I'd say it's worth sitting through for the ending. And Burgess Meredith has never been creepier than he is here.
<img src="http://image.allmusic.com/00/adg/cov200 ... 9b981o.jpg" width="150" height="215" border="0">
It's a lot better than I first said when I saw it. It still has a huge problem with writing. But the music score is excellent. And the special effects are first-rate. I was both involved in the feel of the movie and seriously put off by the story. That scene in the attack when we see what's underneath those doll faces... the little doll faces... that's freaking gross. If you haven't seen it yet and you want something a little creepy, something to make the hair on the back of your neck stand up, you might want to check it out. These dolls are really creepy. But also, despite the huge problem with the motivation of the killer doll-makers, the movie boasts tremendous atmosphere (good for the film's fairy-tale vibe), good scares, several unforgettable images, and a wickedly evil performance by Carolyn Purdy Gordon as Mommie Dearest meets Cruella DeVil. In fact, Stuart Gordon even mentions on the audio commentary that she was intentionally dressed up with the fur coat to look like Cruella.
<img src="http://image.allmusic.com/00/adg/cov200 ... 9kivq0.jpg" width="150" height="215" border="0">
Boy, am I glad I didn't blind-buy this DVD when it came out, like I originally wanted to. This movie sucks. I couldn't believe my eyes and ears!! How could someone who's actually made a movie before like this director (William Wesley) know so little about how to make a movie? The acting is unbelievably bad, the music score stinks and is completely the wrong music for the mood this story should have, nothing scary happens at all, nothing interesting happens at all, the "characters" are all annoying - because they're bad actors, not necessarily because they were playing unlikable "characters"... This thing is like a How-To guide on how to make a bad movie. Every possible mistake is here. In fact, here are the only things that kept me from turning the movie off - the dog is adorable and the guys have amazing butts. That's it. This thing sucks on a level I didn't know this kind of movie could suck on. Avoid it at all costs!
<img src="http://image.allmusic.com/00/adg/cov200 ... 1j4t1t.jpg" width="150" height="215" border="0">
An unfortunately below average movie with some good ideas behind it. It's seriously damaged by a few very bad casting choices, completely flat death scenes (the girl in the semi-famous escalator scene lives) with little to no blood and no gore, the plot lacks precise direction (making you feel like they're just copying The Omen a lot), and the creature FX look really crappy. But it was made on a decent-sized budget, so there is some style (mainly stuff with a pool, some shots of the house with leaves blowing, the sun shining down, a schoolyard playground at night) about the way they shoot the suburban neighborhood where the story takes place. The movie just doesn't cut it, overall.
<img src="http://image.allmusic.com/00/adg/cov200 ... 6ignwj.jpg" width="150" height="215" border="0">
With a movie like this, you really have to think in metaphor and search for a message, or else watching people walk around and talk about dreams and flowers, you're not going to have a clue what's going on. I think the message had something to do with being an orphan. The maid seems to make the point that most of the girls were drifters in life, aimless. That they were going nowhere. So, they die. A group of the girls disappear in the rock, and the other standout orphan character kills herself. While the 4th girl, Edith seems spoiled and shrill-mannered. So, she clearly seems to have been one of the richer girls and most likely the two who never came back were orphans.
Now, if only there were some kind of explanation for the fact that they all took off their shoes and socks (considered incredibly shocking for 1900, when the story takes place). The film is incredibly beautiful and dreamlike. The music is amazing. The sound design is strange. I don't know if I get what this movie is about, but it's damn well made. Lucky McKee clearly wanted The Woods to be a copy of this film. With Picnic's character of Sara being the girl he got his main character in The Woods from.
<img src="http://image.allmusic.com/00/adg/cov200 ... 0brqhu.jpg" width="150" height="215" border="0">
Another entry in the "most disturbing horror film I've ever seen in my life" contest. I'm convinced at this point that 'how good it is' doesn't matter. The movie doesn't really focus on story telling. It's just pure brutal horror. And for all the hype I have heard about so-called brutal American or French torture films, none of them struck me as knowing how to portray their subject matter. This film actually takes suicide and gives it the power to actually strike the viewer as hard as watching a very violet murder taking place. The movie wants to really nail the viewer. And it nailed me. I hate that feeling, but I can't lie and say the movie didn't work. I also didn't know about the movie until I bumped into it by accident on YouTube and wondered what kind of a horror movie could be made from suicides. Anyway, it does go too far at one point and incorporates a scene of animal torture for cheap shock purposes. And I had to fight through my urge to dismiss the film entirely for doing that. But the scene does have a slight point, if you focus on what you see shortly after the scene.
<img src="http://image.allmusic.com/00/adg/cov200 ... 826q66.jpg" width="150" height="215" border="0">
Well... It didn't totally suck. But it wasn't really good either. The one truly good thing about it other than the special effects (which are okay - except for that scene in the Phone Booth, which was truly excellent), is the stuff with that weird Priest guy. That ending with him and his "congregation"... Well, that was better than the whole cult subplot in The Dead Next Door.
But, if you've seen Ghostbusters 2, you've already seen a better horror movie about creepy plasma that stalks people and lives in the sewers, going through the drains and pipes. Plus, if you've seen C.H.U.D., you see they already did the "people trapped in the sewer because a government conspiracy has closed all the manholes" thing. Not to mention the government conspiracy thing's already been done - Piranha. And the part where the guy says - "they're expendible," that happened in Alien.
So, how was the movie in technical terms? Well, the acting is... okay. The writing sucks. The characters are uninteresting. The music score is awful. But- I will give it credit for killing Donovan Leitch as early as they did. Remember him from Cutting Class? God is he a terrible actor. And after this movie kills 2 or 3 people you don't expect them to, that scene killing the kid is not a shock or surprise! Or the sheriff's deputy. Or the woman at the diner. Or the evil black guy running the evil toxicologists group.
-
PixarFan2006
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 6166
- Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:44 am
- Location: Michigan
Well they're not all movies but over Xmas I saw (highlights only):
First Disney:
Enchanted
I was a huge supporter of Enchanted pre-release (and even post release) but... now I've seen it, I'm not so sure. Somehow, I expected it to be a little cleverer, more post-modern. Oh well... 6/10
Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause
Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. And I actually thought The Santa Clause 2 was better than The Santa Clause 1. And I was so hoping Martin Short would make this. 2/10
Now the TV Specials:
Doctor Who: The Next Doctor
Sometimes I don't know if I should slap RTD or hug him. What a strange story this was. The main story was all but flawless, and surprisingly emotional. You could nit-pick odd issues, but in context that's all they are - nit-picks.
Until the Cyber-King arises and then... well, I suppose the kids liked it, and its split fandom (and I'm all for splitting fandom) but sadly, due to the Cyber-King, The Christmas Invasion is still the best Doctor Who X-Mas special to date. 8/10
Jonathan Creek: The Grinning Man
Excellent. After a wait of 5 years (I guess, 5 years was mentioned in the story) Jonathan Creek returns for a Christmas Special and its as superb as the best of the previous series. Wonderful writing. Wonderful acting. A plot which all comes together in the end neater than any other mystery writers I know and a nice leisurely pace throughout, allowing the viewer to absorb everything, enjoy the character interplay, hunt for clues and mull over the mystery. Wonderful. 10/10.
The Royale Family: The New Sofa
I'm not a big Royale Family fan, but I don't dislike them either. I feel this special suffered somewhat by being somewhat far-fetched. The Royale Family works better when its "real" - some of the stupidity on display here spoilt that - letting you know that ultimately, despite its style, its still a sit-com. 7/10
All-New Shooting Stars
What a shame. You can never go back. The documentary before this all new episode reminded me just how great, mental and funny Shooting Stars was. But it was a product of the time, and now, 15 years on from its start, you just cannot reproduce the crazyness on cue. Maybe if a new series was filmed you could capture some of its inventive improvisations, but for now its something best left as nostalgia. The documentary vox-pops with some of Vic and Bob's creations (new and old) makes me wish for a new vehicle for the pair away from Shooting Stars. 6/10
Wallace and Gromit: A Matter of Loaf and Death
Well, Nick Park said it himself on the Simon Mayo radio show before this was screened. It's hard to do anything new with W&G because not only did he do everything he wanted to do in The Wrong Trousers, but he absolutely nailed it. So sadly, The Wrong Trousers is still the peak of W&G perfection. Any new W&G suffers from not being The Wrong Trousers. This wasn't bad by any means... but sadly I do think it was weaker than A Close Shave too - somehow it just never seemed to capture the mood of the duo. 8/10
First Disney:
Enchanted
I was a huge supporter of Enchanted pre-release (and even post release) but... now I've seen it, I'm not so sure. Somehow, I expected it to be a little cleverer, more post-modern. Oh well... 6/10
Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause
Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. And I actually thought The Santa Clause 2 was better than The Santa Clause 1. And I was so hoping Martin Short would make this. 2/10
Now the TV Specials:
Doctor Who: The Next Doctor
Sometimes I don't know if I should slap RTD or hug him. What a strange story this was. The main story was all but flawless, and surprisingly emotional. You could nit-pick odd issues, but in context that's all they are - nit-picks.
Until the Cyber-King arises and then... well, I suppose the kids liked it, and its split fandom (and I'm all for splitting fandom) but sadly, due to the Cyber-King, The Christmas Invasion is still the best Doctor Who X-Mas special to date. 8/10
Jonathan Creek: The Grinning Man
Excellent. After a wait of 5 years (I guess, 5 years was mentioned in the story) Jonathan Creek returns for a Christmas Special and its as superb as the best of the previous series. Wonderful writing. Wonderful acting. A plot which all comes together in the end neater than any other mystery writers I know and a nice leisurely pace throughout, allowing the viewer to absorb everything, enjoy the character interplay, hunt for clues and mull over the mystery. Wonderful. 10/10.
The Royale Family: The New Sofa
I'm not a big Royale Family fan, but I don't dislike them either. I feel this special suffered somewhat by being somewhat far-fetched. The Royale Family works better when its "real" - some of the stupidity on display here spoilt that - letting you know that ultimately, despite its style, its still a sit-com. 7/10
All-New Shooting Stars
What a shame. You can never go back. The documentary before this all new episode reminded me just how great, mental and funny Shooting Stars was. But it was a product of the time, and now, 15 years on from its start, you just cannot reproduce the crazyness on cue. Maybe if a new series was filmed you could capture some of its inventive improvisations, but for now its something best left as nostalgia. The documentary vox-pops with some of Vic and Bob's creations (new and old) makes me wish for a new vehicle for the pair away from Shooting Stars. 6/10
Wallace and Gromit: A Matter of Loaf and Death
Well, Nick Park said it himself on the Simon Mayo radio show before this was screened. It's hard to do anything new with W&G because not only did he do everything he wanted to do in The Wrong Trousers, but he absolutely nailed it. So sadly, The Wrong Trousers is still the peak of W&G perfection. Any new W&G suffers from not being The Wrong Trousers. This wasn't bad by any means... but sadly I do think it was weaker than A Close Shave too - somehow it just never seemed to capture the mood of the duo. 8/10
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
PixarFan2006
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 6166
- Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:44 am
- Location: Michigan
-
PixarFan2006
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 6166
- Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:44 am
- Location: Michigan
-
my chicken is infected
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1048
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:55 pm
- Contact:
-
dvdjunkie
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5613
- Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:05 am
- Location: Wichita, Kansas
At the movie theater we saw:
Four Christmases - starring Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon as a young couple who try to visit all four parents in one day. Great supporting cast with Mary Steenburgen, Jon Voight, Sissy Spacek, and Robert Duvall as the parents. Very funny movie. 4/5.
Disney's Bedtime Stories - Adam Sandler stars in this delightful family gem. Great story, and just a lot of pure fun. 5/5.
Gran Torino - Clint Eastwood is back!! This is a remarkable performance for the one-time 'Dirty Harry Callahan' as he portrays an aging old man who doesn't like people messing with him, his lawn, or his car. And he dislikes the fact that the neighborhood just went down hill when they let some "slant eyes" move in next door. Great role for the ageless Eastwood. 5/5.
Four Christmases - starring Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon as a young couple who try to visit all four parents in one day. Great supporting cast with Mary Steenburgen, Jon Voight, Sissy Spacek, and Robert Duvall as the parents. Very funny movie. 4/5.
Disney's Bedtime Stories - Adam Sandler stars in this delightful family gem. Great story, and just a lot of pure fun. 5/5.
Gran Torino - Clint Eastwood is back!! This is a remarkable performance for the one-time 'Dirty Harry Callahan' as he portrays an aging old man who doesn't like people messing with him, his lawn, or his car. And he dislikes the fact that the neighborhood just went down hill when they let some "slant eyes" move in next door. Great role for the ageless Eastwood. 5/5.
The only way to watch movies - Original Aspect Ratio!!!!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!
-
Jack Skellington
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1230
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:07 am
- Location: Dubai
I agree, the potential was there, the script and screenplay was really good, but IMO the director didn't know how to make us sympathise with the characters.Disney-Fan wrote:The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Gotta say I came out underwhelmed. I don't even know how to rate it yet. I loved it at parts and at the same time was completely indifferent to other moments.
But I still would recommend anyone to watch it coz it still is a good movie anyway. (I still think Changeling is better, but I'm gonna have to watch Doubt first.)
-
TheSequelOfDisney
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5263
- Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:30 pm
- Location: Ohio, United States of America
Little Miss Sunshine - I had never seen this before and have wanted to watch it for some time now. I caught it on USA on Friday and fell in love with it. I watched it again (because it was on again) today and I can't wait to see it again. I don't know why I like it, but I just do. And I looked up to see how much the DVD of it costs and noticed that it will be out on Blu-ray on the 3rd of February, so I've decided to pick that up and watch it again. Overall, it's a 10 out of 10!
The Divulgations of One Desmond Leica: http://desmondleica.wordpress.com/
-
DisneyFreak5282
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:41 pm
- Location: U.S.A.
Halloween (2007) - Horrible. Absolutely horrible. This remake should not have ever been made. The whole white trash family made me cringe, and I wanted to punch the kid who played Michael Myers. He was so disgusting and the whole time I just wanted to take a pair of scissors to that nasty, greasy hair (no, the hair wasn't like that for the role. He's in Hancock and his hair is nasty and long and greasy in that too).
Halloween II - I really liked the original 1978 version of the first movie (which I had seen for the first time around 3 months ago), and I picked this one up and really enjoyed it.
Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story - Eh, not one of Judd Apatow's best. Maybe someday I will get around to watching the Unrated cut. It wasn't that good, but it had its moments.
Mamma Mia! The Movie - Ok, I'm not gonna lie. When I saw this in the theaters I fell asleep. I thought the music was Ok, so I got the soundtrack, and the more I listened to it, the more I became interested in this movie. I picked it up on DVD and watched it again, and I enjoyed it more the second time around.
Juno - My friend lent me the DVD and I watched it today. I didn't think I would like it because most movies that literally EVERYONE talks about for months after its release (*Superbad*), usually turn out to be a disappointment. I will probably pick up the DVD next weekend. Oh, also, don't get me wrong, I LOVED Superbad, I just thought it would be better than it was.
Halloween II - I really liked the original 1978 version of the first movie (which I had seen for the first time around 3 months ago), and I picked this one up and really enjoyed it.
Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story - Eh, not one of Judd Apatow's best. Maybe someday I will get around to watching the Unrated cut. It wasn't that good, but it had its moments.
Mamma Mia! The Movie - Ok, I'm not gonna lie. When I saw this in the theaters I fell asleep. I thought the music was Ok, so I got the soundtrack, and the more I listened to it, the more I became interested in this movie. I picked it up on DVD and watched it again, and I enjoyed it more the second time around.
Juno - My friend lent me the DVD and I watched it today. I didn't think I would like it because most movies that literally EVERYONE talks about for months after its release (*Superbad*), usually turn out to be a disappointment. I will probably pick up the DVD next weekend. Oh, also, don't get me wrong, I LOVED Superbad, I just thought it would be better than it was.
UDer #3495
-
PeterPanfan
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4553
- Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:43 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
-
slave2moonlight
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4427
- Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:33 pm
- Location: TX
- Contact:
The Black Cat.
I don't like Italian horror that much. My favorite styles are Hammer/Amicus, classic Universal, and random American stuff like An American Werewolf in London, Romero's zombie films, and others. However, I thought this was one of the better Italian horror films I've seen, probably largely because it felt a little like a Hammer or Amicus film. Maybe because it starred Patrick Magee and was set in England, but I think also the story itself, though it's loosely based on Poe, ha. I thought it was more story focused than gore focused for Italian horror, though it still left me with a feeling of too little explained. Not as bad as usual with Italian horror though.
I don't like Italian horror that much. My favorite styles are Hammer/Amicus, classic Universal, and random American stuff like An American Werewolf in London, Romero's zombie films, and others. However, I thought this was one of the better Italian horror films I've seen, probably largely because it felt a little like a Hammer or Amicus film. Maybe because it starred Patrick Magee and was set in England, but I think also the story itself, though it's loosely based on Poe, ha. I thought it was more story focused than gore focused for Italian horror, though it still left me with a feeling of too little explained. Not as bad as usual with Italian horror though.
-
Lazario
I have nothing in Hammer to compare this film to. I'm not a big fan of Hammer's films, mostly because I haven't seen more than 2 of them. And I haven't seen Fulci's Cat movies yet. (the other is Cat in the Brain)slave2moonlight wrote:The Black Cat.
I don't like Italian horror that much. My favorite styles are Hammer/Amicus, classic Universal, and random American stuff like An American Werewolf in London, Romero's zombie films, and others. However, I thought this was one of the better Italian horror films I've seen, probably largely because it felt a little like a Hammer or Amicus film. Maybe because it starred Patrick Magee and was set in England, but I think also the story itself, though it's loosely based on Poe, ha. I thought it was more story focused than gore focused for Italian horror, though it still left me with a feeling of too little explained. Not as bad as usual with Italian horror though.
Do you have any experience with Fulci apart from this movie? I saw the trailer to The Black Cat and was repulsed. That really gross looking corpse covered in what looks like thick cobwebs makes me want to vomit. A lot.
Thankfully, Argento is a lot more artful and creative in his horror. Stick with Argento and you'll never go wrong. At least, not until 1998.
-
slave2moonlight
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4427
- Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:33 pm
- Location: TX
- Contact:
Well, like I said, a lot of what made it feel like a Hammer and probably even moreso an Amicus film was the setting, the mood, having Patrick Magee...
I've seen a handfull of Italian horror films so far, and I have often felt they were more about being gory than anything else, which I'm not really into. I guess my only real experience with Fulci specifically is with Zombi 2, which I didn't love or anything.
As for that scene in the trailer with the corpse, yeah, I saw that and I believe they show it more graphically in the trailer than in the actual film. I found that to be the only really gross part of the film, unless I'm forgetting something, and the only other graphic scenes were of people getting badly scratched by the cat. Seemed more story driven than the other Italian flicks I'd seen, though not truly great or anything.
I think the only Argento-directed one I've seen was Suspiria, which was some time ago but I remember liking it. I've seen some that he wrote/produced though and I've liked them alright as well, but in general I get more pleasure from that stuff I mentioned. Really love the Amicus anthology films, though I still need to buy them on DVD. I don't see them often in stores but I hate to order stuff online because I have no credit card and don't want one. A lot of places don't even let you order anymore without a credit card.
I've seen a handfull of Italian horror films so far, and I have often felt they were more about being gory than anything else, which I'm not really into. I guess my only real experience with Fulci specifically is with Zombi 2, which I didn't love or anything.
As for that scene in the trailer with the corpse, yeah, I saw that and I believe they show it more graphically in the trailer than in the actual film. I found that to be the only really gross part of the film, unless I'm forgetting something, and the only other graphic scenes were of people getting badly scratched by the cat. Seemed more story driven than the other Italian flicks I'd seen, though not truly great or anything.
I think the only Argento-directed one I've seen was Suspiria, which was some time ago but I remember liking it. I've seen some that he wrote/produced though and I've liked them alright as well, but in general I get more pleasure from that stuff I mentioned. Really love the Amicus anthology films, though I still need to buy them on DVD. I don't see them often in stores but I hate to order stuff online because I have no credit card and don't want one. A lot of places don't even let you order anymore without a credit card.