|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Nov 16, 2021 6:05:16 GMT
8/10This is a film that gets better with multiple viewings. Its a solid Saw follow up.
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Nov 16, 2021 6:14:00 GMT
1/10
Seems like half of the people who saw this film sees it as a disturbing masterpiece and the other half sees is as a horrible waste of time. Im one who sees this as a waste. The film runs for 4 and a half hours! I admit I did forward parts of the film. Its mostly scenes of extreme torture. Its about the history of Unit 731 and the Chinese prisoners of war that were experimented on. Its just pure exploitation at its worst.
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Nov 16, 2021 6:16:53 GMT
2/10
Weird thriller about a shaddy doctor who movies into a odd neighborhood. Terrible but I like Nia Peeples. Shes the only positive.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous Andy on Nov 16, 2021 13:27:11 GMT
![](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZjJlMWJhMDktZmM2Zi00ZjJkLThkM2EtMTAwNmFiZWViYTc1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTQxNzMzNDI@._V1_.jpg) The first of many Amicus anthologies. Well paced with a game cast (young Donald Sutherland!) and a lovely widescreen technicolor presentation. A bit tame compared to later Amicus productions and some of the effects work is downright laughable, but a good time nevertheless. 7/10
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 18, 2021 4:06:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gspdude on Nov 18, 2021 13:54:28 GMT
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8kKa7sXsAAUv4r?format=jpg&name=small) Red Scream Vampyres(2009) Kind of a very loosely (and poorly) done remake of Vampyres(1974). 3/10.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 19, 2021 3:27:37 GMT
Prometheus (2012, dir. Ridley Scott). ![“](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMzQ1NTQ2Mjk3NF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODQ1MDYxNw@@._V1_.jpg) Y’know, oddly enough, I didn’t like this movie much at all—“oddly enough” because it seems right up my alley. I like thought-provoking science fiction, musings on what makes humans human, and Ridley Scott’s Alien, to which this movie is a sorta-kinda-not-really prequel. And I positively love Scott’s Blade Runner. Also, much of the movie looks nice, if CGI-heavy, the horror scenes are scary, and Michael Fassbender gives a magnificent, Blade Runner-esque performance as the robot (or android, or replicant, or what have you). But, I hate to say it, I think the movie’s genuinely bad. The script is a mess, and the only glue that holds the story together is pretension. Plot points go nowhere, characterizations are nonexistent (I couldn’t care about any of these people, except for Fassbender’s robot), and grown-up scientists act like teenage girls in slasher movies who run upstairs instead of calling the police. Now, critics would tear apart a less pretentious movie with these flaws, but with this budget and Scott’s cachet this movie can allude to mystery and wonder to cover up the flaws. And, sorry, that doesn’t cut it. Mystery and wonder usually work in conjunction with a story. Blade Runner, for example, has a linear storyline you can follow—and the mystery and wonder underneath, waiting to be discovered, puzzled over, talked about. Here we have big neon signs, the equivalent of “MAYBE DECKARD IS A REPLICANT. HUH? HUH? HUH? OR DOES HIS JOB MAKE HIM LESS HUMAN THAN THE PEOPLE HE’S HUNTING?” In other words, Prometheus’s wonder is only skin-deep—much like the other big sci-fi epics of its ilk, Interstellar and Gravity and Avatar. It’s better than Avatar, I’ll give it that. But emotional emptiness and perpetual pretension are mortal sins in any movie.
|
|
|
Post by gspdude on Nov 19, 2021 14:22:25 GMT
![](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/9c/43/c0/9c43c0ab6c7b7938134aca8a9b0d9a3e--horror-posters-theatre-posters.jpg) Daughters of Satan (1972) Tom Selleck buys an old painting of witches being burned at the stake because one of the witches looks like his wife. Could his wife be a reincarnation of said witch? What are the odds? Never quite transcends unbelievability, but several topless scenes and Tani Guthrie's supporting performance raise the score a bit. 5.5/10.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 20, 2021 4:08:10 GMT
The General’s Daughter, 1999, dir. Simon West. ![“](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-udI10XwaQas/WKGlRBtspII/AAAAAAAACtQ/L3L1ajPDGOYFxmf1Yu_b1ot-mUV2tw4qQCEw/s640/generals%2Bdaughter.jpg) Tough movie to judge. Despite the dull title, this is a beautifully made thriller: So many performances, so many scenes, so many sequences genuinely excited me. The direction is splendid, with southern gothic atmosphere and clever, imaginative shots and montages. The screenplay—cowritten by and with the fingerprints of Butch Cassidy- All the President’s Men- Princess Bride scribe William Goldman—crackles, with one exchange between John Travolta and a fabulous, funny James Woods full of the verbal pyrotechnics I love. So why do I feel vaguely disappointed by this movie? For one thing, the mystery stinks: I don’t think there’s a single clue to the culprit, whose identity seems pulled from a hat. (Travolta has a hilarious flashback that clues him into whodunit— hilarious because the flashback doesn’t show anything incriminating.) Kudos, I guess, to source-material author Nelson DeMille and the screenwriters for not going with the most obvious suspect, an unsurprising surprise I really thought they were building up to. But the killer they chose is just as disappointing as if they’d chosen to go with the obvious, so those kudos aren’t that strong. But also, how do I say this, I can’t think of any way to end this movie that would satisfy. It’s a mystery that is tackling larger themes, and a writer would have to choose a culprit who connects to those larger themes. The only surprising killer I can think of would be Woods’s boyfriend, who has no real role, but how would he connect to all the what-is-honor, can-you-oppose-an-immoral-commanding-officer, what-does-the-military-do-to-people themes? I’m sure someone cleverer than I could come up with a fitting and surprising ending to this story—but unfortunately the screenwriters’ ending is neither fitting nor surprising. And in such a well-made movie, with so many good parts, that’s a fatal flaw.
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Nov 21, 2021 11:06:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 22, 2021 4:18:19 GMT
Black Christmas, 1974, dir. Bob Clark. ![“](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CyXub6GuciY/TYTJ-8X21xI/AAAAAAAAAlY/iJ2cpCDeZAo/s400/black_christmas2.jpg) Ehh. I don’t really know what to say about this movie. It’s just kinda generic and dull. Yes, it gets a lot of credit for being one of the first slashers and inspiring Halloween, but Halloween does everything—even, amazingly, the acting—better. Zero Christmas atmosphere; you could set this in July and keep almost everything the same. The characters—especially the cops—are all comically stupid, and I don’t think that comically was intended.
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Nov 22, 2021 20:29:47 GMT
6/10I have mixed feelings on this film. I seen it once before. The first hour of this film is good but in the third act is where it gets messy and predictable.
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Nov 22, 2021 20:35:53 GMT
4/10
Basically this follow up to the 1992 film feels really flat. There is one great scene involving some girls in a high school summoning Candyman. That one scene is pretty scary. And thats really the only good scene in this film.
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Nov 22, 2021 20:37:42 GMT
2/10
As dumb as it sounds.
|
|
|
Post by gspdude on Nov 23, 2021 15:11:30 GMT
![](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/40/b9/90/40b9906f7851d901f6c9346100fe5f2d.jpg) Darkside Witches(2015) 6 witches burned at the stake have new bodies in the present day and seek revenge. Some gore and some nudity and an early sex scene is borderline hard-core, but the often chaotic mixture of scenes made it hard to follow and I can't say I enjoyed it. 3.5/10
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 24, 2021 18:10:14 GMT
Better sequel than I remember. ![](https://image.invaluable.com/housePhotos/Ewbank/41/672341/H0472-L209534304.jpg) Just as barmy as I remember. ![](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BM2QwYjhiMzQtN2RiYS00MzgxLThmNzItMmJlNmMyMmQyYTA3XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTQxNzMzNDI@._V1_.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Nov 26, 2021 18:29:52 GMT
The Cat and the Canary 1978, directed by Radley Metzger and based on a play by John Willard. The director made a career as a soft porn director and this was his only mainstream movie. They managed to assemble and interesting cast, that becomes too theatrical in length. Most of the movie was made at the same mansion used in The Omen 1976, but without furniture and rugs or mats there is sometimes so much echo I had a hard time hearing what the actors said, making the sound very amateurish. A stormy night a will is read from a rich ancestor, on the same night crazy person has escaped from an asylum, called the cat. There is a few bright scenes when the cat person suddenly appears, but they all come in the last 20 minutes. I prefer the old silent version and the Bob Hope version. ![](https://resizing.flixster.com/xqYxPp6wMg_Os_XSp9Tf6t4COsk=/300x300/v2/https://flxt.tmsimg.com/assets/p584_i_h9_ab.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by theravenking on Nov 27, 2021 17:03:28 GMT
![](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNTU4OGY5MjYtNTg5Zi00NGEyLTlhYTgtMTU3NzBmYmMzYWU4L2ltYWdlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTAyODkwOQ@@.jpg) The Raven (2012; James McTeigue) I remembered this not being very good, and unfortunately my memory did not deceive me this time. It's a fictionalized account of the last days of Edgar Allan Poe's life, a time which is shrouded in mystery. A serial killer has been inspired by Poe's work, committing his crimes in a way to resemble the author's stories. Suspicion falls on Poe himself and in order to extricate himself from the accusations he starts investigating alongside a detective played by Luke Evans. Actors like Johnny Depp and Robert Downey Jr. were originally rumored for this project with Brad Anderson slated to direct. Anderson would go on to make his own version of an E. A. Poe story later with the disappointing Stonehearst Asylum. Eventually James McTeigue took over, but the movie looks so vanilla that it could've been directed by the caterer. Optically John Cusack would at least make for a convincing Poe, but his exuberant performance is all light and very little shadow. His Poe is an annoying busybody instead of the melancholic, tortured genius one would expect. This might've worked had the filmmakers attempted to do a light-hearted action comedy like Guy Rithcie's Sherlock Holmes films, but The Raven is so po-faced that the few comical moments seem unintentional. There is precious little suspense and despite some good production and costume design it lacks atmosphere. The script by Ben Livingston and Hannah Shakespeare is so shallow that anyone could've written it after just skimming over Poe's wikipedia entry. As a whodunit it's rather poor with the killer seemingly randomly pulled out of a hat during the final reveal. Overall The Raven fails to say anything new or worthwile about Poe's life and work and even as a piece of entertainment it remains a failure. Hopefully the upcoming adaptation of Louis Bayard's excellent Poe-themed mystery novel The Pale Blue Eye with Christian Bale will turn out to be better. 4.5/10
|
|
|
Post by gspdude on Nov 28, 2021 13:42:24 GMT
![](https://randommusingsmovie.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/schizoid_1.jpg?w=546&h=774) Schizoid(1980) A serial killer, who-done-it with the usual hapless victims, incompetent police, a little nudity, and less blood. 4.5/10.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 29, 2021 3:16:22 GMT
Two different sorts of movies, as seems to be my wont. _____________________________________________________________________________ First up, The Verdict, 1946, dir. Don Siegel. ![“](https://prod-images.tcm.com/Master-Profile-Images/theverdict1946.2856.1.jpg) No, this has nothing to do with the Paul Newman movie, and, yes, this was the first film directed by the Dirty Harry guy! I’ve seen it before, but I recorded and rewatched because it’s one of the best whodunit movies ever made—just lots of fun, with rare leading roles for Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre as an ersatz Holmes and Watson. The budget seems low, but Siegel gets fog banks of atmosphere out of his gothically lit 1890s setting. (The movie is not a noir. It has nothing to do with noir. Those of us who post here can already guess that, but Wikipedia and Google keep reporting it as “noir.”) The screenplay, by seeming mystery specialist Peter Milne ( The Kennel Murder Case, The House of Fear), actually improves on its source material, Israel Zangwill’s 1892 novella “The Big Bow Mystery,” by cutting Zangwill’s padding and putting the focus on our unusual crime-solving duo. Interestingly enough, Milne comes up with a few clues that weren’t in the source material but doesn’t have Greenstreet mention them in his summing-up. Not sure if that’s wasted virtue, as no one was rewatching this movie in 1946, but interesting nonetheless. Definitely recommended. _____________________________________________________________________________ Then Live Free or Die Hard, 2007, dir. Len Wiseman. ![“](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2007/07/03/arts/03jame600.jpg) I rewatched the original Die Hard last night and, as always, marveled at it. Every line, every performance, every scene, every nuance is so finely crafted—that script is a thing of beauty, a model for how screenplays should be written. It deserves every plaudit it receives, and it’s so much fun to boot. Also, Die Hard 2 is fun, though clearly not as good as the first, and Die Hard with a Vengeance is, amazingly, almost as good as the first. Live Free or Die Hard is an ehh movie. It’s not bad, it’s not irritating or stupid, but it’s just—ehh. The screenplay is not a model of anything, it’s a serviceable summer blockbuster screenplay. The characters are unmemorable. (Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a cutie who gives a good performance, and Maggie Q is always attractive, but memorable characterizations? Nope.) Timothy Olyphant, as the villain, is good-looking and bland and remarkably boring. He comes off as a tech-savvy 12-year-old who hacks into his school’s computer system to make it seem like the principal is making fart noises on the loudspeaker. Hans Gruber would eat him for breakfast. Bruce is fun and gives a good performance, but he’s saddled by having nothing funny or even interesting to say. The original has so many amazing lines that almost every single character says something clever. Here, Bruce just says post-kill one-liners, and they’re weak one-liners. I kept being reminded of At the Circus, in which Groucho Marx—Mr. “Will you marry me? Did he leave you any money? Answer the second question first”—says jokes like “Why don’t you trade your head for a bowling ball?” Some of the lines sound better than they are because of Bruce’s readings, but they’re still weaker than anything in the first three Die Hards. I think that lack of good lines is because of my usual complaint, that screenwriters no longer write (or know how to write) witty dialogue. Maybe because screenwriting classes are so obsessed with realistic-sounding dialogue? Or because fewer and fewer scenarists nowadays come from the theater, where wit and cleverness are prized? I don’t know, but whatever the reason, it makes movies less joyful. The weirdest thing about this movie, for me, is that it doesn’t feel like a Die Hard movie at all. It comes off as a blockbuster thriller into which John McClane was shoehorned—and, according to Wikipedia, that’s exactly what it is. As a blockbuster thriller, it’s all right—not memorable in the slightest, but a decent summer popcorn movie. As a Die Hard movie, it stinks. And I’ve heard the next entry is even worse; quelle joie!
|
|