|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Oct 27, 2022 14:36:25 GMT
There is a new version of “All Quiet on the Western Front” out. This one is a German Netflix production, spoken in German. It’s currently having a limited theatrical release, presumably so that it is eligible for the Oscars, and it will be available on Netflix starting tomorrow. I thought it would be worth watching on the big screen, so that’s what I did yesterday. Wow! What an incredible movie. I don’t know if there is a better WWI movie out there. 1917 was fantastic, but this one has a bigger scope, not being limited by the concept of the single take. It’s brutal and it’s brilliant. Highly recommended. Go see it in theatres if at all possible.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 27, 2022 14:51:03 GMT
I gave up on season 1 about halfway through. The characters were shallow and dumb and the S&M latex gimp ghost guy thing was just so lame. It felt like they were trying so hard to be weird and 'extreme.' I gave it a shot, but I found it to be really stupid and really dull. Pretty similar, I really wanted to like S1 but just felt very underwhelmed by it. Seasons 2 and 3 both started off terrific before both totally fizzling out in the back half. I haven't watched it since. You want to watch something different? Check out Barbarian on HBOMax. It's a horror comedy (more horror than comedy) that relies on completely subverting expectations. It's not the best horror movie I've seen and some aspects work better than others, but it's definitely worth checking out due to its sheer inventiveness. I've been wanting to check out Barbarian. I've heard that it's wild, but have mostly been successful in avoiding spoilers. I was sorry to have missed it in the theater, but I'm glad it's streamable now.
|
|
|
Post by tristramshandy on Oct 28, 2022 17:20:27 GMT
There is a new version of “All Quiet on the Western Front” out. This one is a German Netflix production, spoken in German. It’s currently having a limited theatrical release, presumably so that it is eligible for the Oscars, and it will be available on Netflix starting tomorrow. I thought it would be worth watching on the big screen, so that’s what I did yesterday. Wow! What an incredible movie. I don’t know if there is a better WWI movie out there. 1917 was fantastic, but this one has a bigger scope, not being limited by the concept of the single take. It’s brutal and it’s brilliant. Highly recommended. Go see it in theatres if at all possible. I think I read All Quiet in ninth grade - - great novel.
|
|
|
Post by tristramshandy on Oct 28, 2022 17:23:19 GMT
Haven't seen it yet (because I can't) . . . but I will.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 28, 2022 19:09:23 GMT
Haven't seen it yet (because I can't) . . . but I will. Is this where Bart wanting the elephant from the radio station contest comes from?
|
|
|
Post by tristramshandy on Oct 28, 2022 22:19:59 GMT
Haven't seen it yet (because I can't) . . . but I will. Is this where Bart wanting the elephant from the radio station contest comes from? And the reason why we all have to see lines of text on commercials that 99.99% of us already understand.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Oct 28, 2022 22:23:03 GMT
Haven't seen it yet (because I can't) . . . but I will. Is this where Bart wanting the elephant from the radio station contest comes from? Animals are a lot like people. Some of them act badly because they've had a hard life or have been mistreated - but, like people, some of them are just jerks.
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Oct 29, 2022 10:13:57 GMT
Halloween Mararthon in the background - Dracula Frankenstein The Wolf Man Blair Witch House of 1,000 Corpses Trick 'R Treat Halloween Night of the Living Dead
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 30, 2022 5:04:43 GMT
It's late and I'm tired, but I wanted to get a few reviews in before Halloween and I'm running out of time. So here goes.
Let's start off with something awful. I, Frankenstein (2014)
So I was one of nine people to see this movie in theaters, so I was already in a select group. Having watched it again on demand the other night, I have to be the only living person to have seen this movie twice. The big question you're probably asking yourself (as I pretend anyone is still reading this), is why? I'll get there.
Apparently this was based on a web comic, created by a guy who was also a co-creator and star of the Underworld movies. The first Underworld was decent forgettable schlock I suppose, I never did see any of the sequels...or maybe I did see one of them, honestly I don't know and it doesn't matter. It certainly wasn't pedigree of any of the involved creative minds that had me interested in this flick.
Simply put, I like Frankenstein's Monster as a character. In just about any form from his more traditional old Hollywood movie monster take in The Monster Squad to the artful brooding lost soul in Penny Dreadful, he's always a fascinating character in a similar but still separate way from other cinematic artificial life forms. Hell, I even enjoyed the character in Van Helsing (2004), a movie equally as shitty as this one. In fact, he was easily the best part of that movie.
Again, he's similar to androids in this sense, but I truly appreciate not only his pale reflection of humanity and mortality, but his understanding of it. He has an awareness and an appreciation for life in a way few others possibly could, and even the worst writers can tap into that and extract something worth seeing. My favorite scene in Van Helsing is the monster coming face to face with a room full of undead and showing utter contempt for this mockery of life before him.
So you're starting to understand why the premise of this flick pulled me in. Frankenstein's Monster as an action hero? Starring Aaron Eckhart?! Ridiculous and 99% sure to be garbage, but you had me at hello.
Right off the bat, it's as terrible as you'd expect. The writing, specifically the dialog is borderline criminal in its ineptitude, as the backstory of the monster and his circumstances are fast tracked to the modern day and we're introduced to the demon villains and gargoyle heroes within five minutes. The movie looks and feels like a video game, right down to the lack of depth, story, characterization and shit narration by Eckhart, who is clearly collecting a paycheck and cannot believe the words coming out of his own mouth. You can practically hear the director/producer/some studio mouthpiece saying, "No, Aaron. More brooding. Brood like you've never brooded before. Brood like there was a God of brooding, and you're doing a parody sketch of that."
Maybe the wildest thing about this movie is the cast. Eckhart isn't an A-lister, but he's a solid B-lister. I'd also put Bill Nighy on that list, and he plays the big bad. Miranda Otto of LOTR (among others) fame is the lead gargoyle (and I've always had an appreciation for gargoyles as well, which was probably another draw), Yvonne Strahovski as the scientist/love interest. This was also the era where they were throwing Jai Courtney into everything, in the hopes that audiences wouldn't notice he can't act.
Look, I'm not going to bother you much with the story, because basically there isn't one. The demons want Adam (as the gargoyle queen named the Monster) because they think he's the secret to animating corpses for demonic possession. The gargoyles obviously want to stop this. Everybody fight.
Do you want to know how lazy the production of this movie was? Other than the flashbacks of Frankenstein's early years, and the flash forward to modern days as Franky is hunting down demons in a nightclub and a cop is killed in the ensuing battle, all of which happen in the first five minutes of the movie, there are only two normal humans in the entire rest of the film, Strahovski and her colleague. Literally every other character is a demon or a gargoyle. The movie largely takes place in a modern city, yet there are never any people walking the streets, living their lives, showing up anywhere at all on screen. It makes the world feel small. Empty. Nothing is at stake. Why couldn't they hire a few extras to walk down the street, or be living in or adjacent to one of the multiple buildings destroyed in this movie?
This is perhaps ironic since the gargoyles are upset with 'Adam' for openly fighting demons when their struggle is supposed to be secret. Of course this doesn't stop the gargoyles from transforming from stone statues to humanoid creatures en masse and fighting in the sky and in the streets on multiple occasions. And oddly, the gargoyles are adept in all manner of medieval weaponry while the possessed humans inexplicably just seem to charge, hissing and swarming like insects, largely unarmed. Stranger still is the fact that the gargoyles show Adam how to make holy weapons capable of slaying demons by carving their symbol onto them; yet Adam never thinks to get an assault rifle, mark up a few boxes of ammo and go to town. (Also, if you carve the symbol on the magazine, would that be enough? Or would you have to do it to each round?) This movie somehow degenerates further into farce yet becomes slightly more watchable if he just gets a damn gun.
There are a few nonsensical plot holes toward the end of the movie, but really, it doesn't matter. The whole thing is garbage. What's hilarious is that the creator apparently wanted to franchise this concept and connect it to the Underworld franchise. So...why did you cast Bill Nighy and yourself in this movie, when you're both already in the Underworld franchise as different characters? I don't think I should ask such complex questions when it comes to I, Frankenstein.
There's a single line I enjoyed in this movie. The gargoyles have Adam captured at one point, as the demons are descending on their headquarters. Adam is chained up, and says to the gargoyles, "Let me fight for my life!" He could've just said let me fight, or some hokey comment about kicking ass or something. But the fact that they deliberately had Adam reference his life made me feel like, for the briefest of moments, they understood why this character resonates with audiences for two centuries now. Or I'm giving them too much credit. Yeah, it's probably that.
Anyway, TL;DRs of shitty movies is kind of my thing. If you read this, you can't get that time back and you have my condolences. But at least you didn't sit through this movie...twice.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 30, 2022 5:32:41 GMT
Rewatched Halloween 2018 on Friday night, and I really enjoyed it. It has its share of inconsistencies, but it's a much better closing chapter for the franchise than the next two films were. As much as I appreciated the hunted becoming the hunter angle with Laurie's family, this has to be one of the best scenes in the entire franchise:
The fucking music blaring as he steps into view, all menacing. Literally the stuff of nightmares for three generations of this family, here in the flesh. Her scream feels genuine. For a guy that doesn't ever talk, whose mind you cannot know, one thing is very clear: sometimes he just loves fucking with people.
I'm not sure about the purpose of the podcasters. The doctor could've served the same purpose to the script, particularly if he was just going to go berserk and try to become Michael or whatever later, anyway. They could just be a random couple at the gas station, not sure why they needed to be involved at the beginning.
It's a minor nitpick, but I found myself criticizing Laurie's choice of firearms in every scene. She used a pistol when she should've used a rifle, a rifle when she should've used a shotgun, and never an assault rifle, which I'm assuming was a conscious choice by the filmmakers, because then it becomes more of an action flick, but again these are just nitpicks.
The fight with Laurie is epic, including her pulling a Michael on him after she falls out the window but then disappears on him when he looks away for a second. Karen (the movie is only four years old, but if they made it today, do they name her Karen? The internet has effectively killed that name forever, yeah?) psyching out Michael was an awesome moment, but it does beg the question, how much of her reaction throughout the film and leading up to that moment during the final fight was genuine? Was she secretly as crazy as Laurie but just better at hiding it?
The movie does end in a kind of random place with them riding off after burning Michael to a crisp, but I'll take that over having to accept the next two films ever happened (which I don't).
I have one more horror (-ish) review to make, but it's too late and I need to get to bed. I'll get to it Sunday night.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Oct 30, 2022 11:21:41 GMT
Rey Kahuka I haven't seen either of these movies (I'll get to Halloween one day; can't say the same about I, Frankenstein) but wanted to give you much-deserved props for the reviews. Keep 'em up!
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Oct 30, 2022 11:56:38 GMT
It's late and I'm tired, but I wanted to get a few reviews in before Halloween and I'm running out of time. So here goes. Let's start off with something awful. I, Frankenstein (2014) So I was one of nine people to see this movie in theaters, so I was already in a select group. Having watched it again on demand the other night, I have to be the only living person to have seen this movie twice. The big question you're probably asking yourself (as I pretend anyone is still reading this), is why? I'll get there. (…) Anyway, TL;DRs of shitty movies is kind of my thing. If you read this, you can't get that time back and you have my condolences. But at least you didn't sit through this movie...twice. I don’t think I was even aware of the existence of this movie, but I enjoyed reading your review.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 30, 2022 12:52:07 GMT
It's late and I'm tired, but I wanted to get a few reviews in before Halloween and I'm running out of time. So here goes. Let's start off with something awful. I, Frankenstein (2014) So I was one of nine people to see this movie in theaters, so I was already in a select group. Having watched it again on demand the other night, I have to be the only living person to have seen this movie twice. The big question you're probably asking yourself (as I pretend anyone is still reading this), is why? I'll get there. (…) Anyway, TL;DRs of shitty movies is kind of my thing. If you read this, you can't get that time back and you have my condolences. But at least you didn't sit through this movie...twice. I don’t think I was even aware of the existence of this movie, but I enjoyed reading your review. Thanks, guys. Yeah as you can see, you weren't missing anything. As long as I didn't convince you to try watching the movie, my conscience is clear!
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Oct 30, 2022 16:10:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Horselover Fat on Oct 30, 2022 17:57:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 31, 2022 1:42:09 GMT
Almost watched this again last night, maybe next year. An absolute classic.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 31, 2022 2:33:24 GMT
Alright, so for my final horror review of the season, I'm doing a personal favorite.
Cemetery Man (1994)
It's fitting that I'm doing this review the night before Halloween, as that was the night I originally saw it, many years ago in the late 90s. It was on cable at like 1 in the morning. The title intrigued me, and once I started watching, I couldn't look away. I actually want to keep the details to a minimum because I recommend anyone reading this to find a way to watch this movie. I couldn't find it streaming anywhere, luckily I own the DVD. (As an aside, the DVD is loaded with previews that look like imaginary movies playing in the background of a Tarantino film. Great table setters for what you're about to watch.)
Cemetery Man is part zombie horror, part dark comedy (maybe even a bit of a sex comedy?), part philosophical commentary that shouldn't work as a film; and surely it doesn't for everyone. But it certainly works for me. Rupert Everett plays Francesco, a cemetery caretaker who spends his spare time killing those who return from the dead. He is seduced/obsessed/haunted by the same woman (Anna Falchi, playing several different roles, and gets naked a bunch, in case you needed more encouragement to check this out) again and again, and slowly drifts into madness over the course of the film. His dialog is poetic and farcical all at once, whether he's waxing philosophical or delivering one liners while on a killing spree. And he sells the insanity of the script in such an effortless manner that you can't help but go along with his character, set adrift in this sea of madness.
In fact, it's difficult, if not impossible, to discern dream from reality in this film; arguably rendering the entire narrative completely incoherent. That said, I think that's the entire point of the film. You really need to give up on trying to understand where it's going and accept that maybe there isn't a point; and that maybe that is exactly the point; and is that a metaphor for life and death? If it sounds absurd, IT IS! There are some truly gonzo sequences in this flick involving not only the main character, but several minor characters as well. The movie starts off strange and only gets wilder as it goes, and if it's resolution you're looking for...
A couple of anecdotes I found interesting. It's a joint Italian/French/German production, which probably explains everything that's great about this movie. (Don't let that scare you away if you don't like foreign stuff, it's an English language film). Apparently an American studio was willing to make the film, but only if Matt Dillon was the star. The movie would've sucked. Oddly, when Rupert Everett gained fame in the mid to late 90s, he expressed interest in remaking an 'American' version for a wider audience. This movie also would've sucked. Cemetery Man doesn't need megastars, big budgets and explosions. The small scale, dreamworld feel of it all, accompanied by Everett's deadpan delivery, were the glue that held this movie together; and both of those would be stripped away in a louder, over the top, contrived three act version of this story.
François Hadji-Lazaro, whom you may know from The City of Lost Children (1995), plays Francesco's assistant Gnaghi. This is especially fun for me, because he also has a cameo in another of my all-time cult classic faves, Brotherhood of the Wolf (2001).
Maybe the best review I saw said:
Hey, what more do you want from a zombie movie?! So yeah, I highly recommend this film to anyone who wants to have a good laugh at our perception of love, sex, life and death.
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Oct 31, 2022 23:03:51 GMT
Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) - 'Abbott and Costello, as railroad baggage clerks, receive a strange shipment the last remains of Dracula and Frankenstein's monster. But this deadly duo is still very much alive. So when the shipment arrives at the House of...' Let's Do It!
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Nov 1, 2022 12:18:12 GMT
WOO-HOO! Christmas Holiday movies have started! EPIX DRIVE-IN - on now! 'A Christmas Carol' (1984) - 'Dickens London miser Ebenezer Scrooge (George C. Scott) meets the ghosts of Christmas past, present and yet to come.' 74% Popcorn Score Let's Do It! Might as well get Planes, Trains and Automobiles going after this
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Nov 1, 2022 20:26:22 GMT
I watched “The Sand Pebbles” last night, a 1966 movie starring Steve McQueen that takes place in 1920s China at a time when American military presence in the country, ostensibly to protect American interests and citizens, was being increasingly contested by the ungrateful locals. Big epic 3-hour classic movie that somehow I had never watched before.
It’s a pretty good movie. Interesting story with a historical background that I was only vaguely aware of, and that I don’t think I had ever seen before in a movie. There was one plot element that I didn’t like so much, about a sailor who falls hopelessly in love with a Chinese girl and tries to buy her freedom before she is forced into prostitution, but aside from that it was mostly good stuff, with tension, action and drama. Steve McQueen demonstrates well why he was such a big star.
|
|