|
Post by Chunky Brewster on Oct 10, 2015 20:01:40 GMT -5
Watched "Mad Love" on TCM last night. One of Peter Lorre's first American films, very fun. The director was the cinematographer for Metropolis, Dracula and Key Largo. Worth a watch at a running time a little over an hour.
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Oct 16, 2015 0:47:40 GMT -5
Unfriended
Oddball social media horror film chronicles a group of Skyping friends haunted by an active account of a friend who committed suicide.
The long and short of it is that it's not a good movie, but at least it's trying something different. It bends over backwards to craft a horror movie with a limiting concept and at its heights it's only competent. When it goes for a jump scare, the format isn't suitable to it and it winds up underwhelming. It has moderately more success with suspense, but as it unfolds itself in real time watching endless text messages and filling out message bars grows tedious.
The film has a somewhat smart idea by playing with social media and using cyberbullying as a jumping point, and I want to give it props just for being ambitious. But overall it's just too boring, and stunningly awkward moments in order to keep the format of the film relevant as to what happens onscreen (the random chat for help scene was just godawful). But there's not a lot I could recommend that could make the movie better since it's kind of unique, even if it isn't great. It feels like there was a vision for the setting, but there was no vision for the plot. It's cute, but not much else can be said for it.
|
|
|
Post by Crowfan on Oct 18, 2015 7:19:50 GMT -5
Crimson Peak. The new Guillermo Del Toro movie about Edith Cushing,(Mia Wasikowska) an aspiring author who, after a family tragedy, decides to marry Thomas Sharpe(Tom Hiddleston)and go to England with him. She is trying to escape her unhappiness but the problem is that the house of the Sharpe family has a history and a long memory.
I don't want to give too much away, but it's a pretty creepy movie. More of a traditional ghost/suspense story and not a slasher film. The ghost special effect are creepy as is the house Edith moves into. It will keep you entertained. Highly recommended.
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Oct 23, 2015 18:52:54 GMT -5
Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension Stuff moves in a house. It ends with everyone dying and the camera being turned off. No I haven't spoiled anything. That's the basic outline of every movie in this series. Paranormal Activity is a bit of an easy target mostly because it's an acquired taste. Found footage is an over-saturated horror subgenre that are cheap to produce but are very rarely any good. One of the better ones that came along was the original Paranormal Activity, which was actually just an independent movie made for fun (which kind of was part of its appeal in the first place). After Paramount acquired it and it became a smash hit they decided to turn it into a franchise of its own, prompting hipsters online to spend many hours staring angrily at their computer screens and saying "WHY?" (the answer: because it makes money from a fanbase you're obviously not apart of, you knob). It happens. It always happens. Lionsgate did it with the Saw franchise in the 2000, New Line did it with Nightmare on Elm Street in the 80s, and it even dates way back to Universal churning out Dracula/Frankenstein/Wolf Man/Mummy movies in the 1940s. Hell, Paramount isn't new to this. They did the same with Friday the 13th, and even in it's worst moments I fail to see how the Paranormal Activity is the weaker option (it never did anything and ding-a-lingly stupid as Jason Lives, at any rate). Why anybody is surprised or offended that a horror movie whores itself out at this point is what really takes me off guard. It seems like The Conjuring or The Purge is next on the list of annual pile of crap for fans, maybe Unfriended too, though I'm not sure how popular that one turned out. I saw the first movie on the recommendation of my co-workers, and while I wasn't glowing about it, I liked the idea of it. The camera tricks were neat and some of the tension moments were excellent, even if the acting was amateurish. I saw the second film in a huge horror crowd and I thought that movie held up much better. The story beats made it more of a successful movie in general, even if it never really did anything new. The most memorable thing I can say about the third and fourth film is that when I saw the third one a man had a seizure in the theater and the audience was evacuated. Other than that, it was a massively boring movie, while I don't recall anything happening in the fourth movie at all. I enjoyed the "spin-off" film (what makes it so much of a spin-off, I'm not sure), The Marked Ones, because unlike the last two movies stuff actually happened in it. After a long wait in which I had almost nearly forgotten about the series, a non-spin-off (I guess) fifth film (?) is finally here. I was actually looking up listings at my local dollar theater and was shocked that this movie was playing there on it's release day. Further research indicates that major chains were refusing to show the movie since Paramount is releasing it digitally in a few weeks. I didn't really care about any digital release, because I got to see it in full-3D for about three bucks. Suck it, internet. The idea of a found footage film in 3D is kind of unique, but the extra charge doesn't really seem worth it. For one, the film only becomes 3D with a certain camera, and even then it's only for select shots. And most of the time it's just used for the same jump scare over and over in which a shapeless black mass jumps at the camera. By the fifth time that happened I had deduced that they didn't really know what they were doing with the format. But they use it as an opportunity to let the audience "see the activity," as the poster proudly declares. I do understand that they are making an attempt to let the series evolve to try and not make the same movie over and over again (they're failing), but what we "see" of the activity is unimaginative, and leaving it to the imagination left a more impressionable mark. At least it did in the first movie anyway. We do finally get a glimpse at the demon, who the sequels of the series seem to christen "Toby." I'm sorry, I just can't take a horror villain named "Toby" seriously since all I can think about when I hear that name is Toby from The Office. If you ever watch Paranormal Activity, whenever you hear all that thumping around, imagine it's this guy doing it. You're welcome. What does he look like? Kind of a cross between Lord Voldemort and Jackie Earle Haley's Freddy Krueger surrounded in black floaty nothingness. As far as I'm concerned, Toby from The Office is scarier. The Ghost Dimension is also advertised as the finale in the series, and as far as horror series finales go it's probably the best. Keep in mind that it's competition is Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare, Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday, and Saw 3D. This isn't exactly praise, because it's pretty doofy itself. While a few loose ends are tied up, it largely ignores portions that supposedly seemed like plot points in the previous films. Hell, the fourth film largely seems pointless after this film (even more so than it felt at the time) and what happens to the main characters in The Marked Ones seems to be something else entirely. The idea they're presenting is that Toby has a Pinocchio complex and wishes to be a real boy. The film tries to have us believe that he needs the blood of two children born on the same day in order to do so. One is Hunter from the second film and the other is the little girl from this film. And for some reason they need to transport both children to 1992 in order to do this. The movie never bothers to explain why. It just happens because why wouldn't it? The movie does have a massive missed opportunity in that it doesn't bring Katie Featherson back so we can see her massive, jiggling jugs in three glorious dimensions. They try to compensate by having a random busty blonde woman, who is literally in the movie for no damn reason at all, thrust tight cleavage into the 3D camera whenever possible. But it's not the same. I've grown attached to Featherson's knockers. Though truth be told I do kind of miss the demonic Katie character. Granted there may not be an actual role in the story for her, but she's kind of the Freddy/Jason/Michael Myers of this series, and doing one without her just seems wrong (not meant as a knock to Friday the 13th V or Halloween III, though both are dreadful movies in their own right). What might have been neat is a throwaway line that after the forth film she had been transported in time back to 2007 where she had been hit by an Asain woman's car, adopting the unofficial Paranormal Activity: Tokyo Night into the franchise. Doesn't seem any dumber than a lot of the other things this movie has us believe, at any rate. If nothing else, The Ghost Dimension stands as proof that most franchises who linger audience members with little plot threads on an annual basis are most likely just making it up as they go along. I highly doubt this movie is the ending the people who worked on Paranormal Activity 2 had in mind when they introduced the Hunter storyline. Hours after seeing the movie, the more I think about it, the less coherent it becomes. Like a lot of horror sequels, it's a movie that thrives to work in the moment and tries to prevent the audience from thinking too hard about the direction it's going because it doesn't have any clue itself. To be fair, the movie does work in the moment fairly often, the climax being particularly effective if nothing else. But in the end I'm just thankful circumstances led to it being at the dollar theater instead of a regular one.
|
|
|
Post by Mod City on Oct 30, 2015 11:56:00 GMT -5
Mad Max: Fury Road
That...was f*cking awesome.
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Nov 7, 2015 2:02:59 GMT -5
Boring day off, so off to Redbox and the theater I went...
Pixels
I haven't seen an Adam Sandler movie since...I really don't remember. Click maybe. I don't hate the guy, as I always felt that Happy Gilmore was a very funny movie. But as time went on his movies either stopped looking interesting or funny at all (Hotel Transylvania) or just looked terrible (That's My Boy). Pixels came out, and as an 80's gamer I was fascinated by the idea, but the trailer just didn't make me laugh. So I skipped it in theaters with the mental note to rent it some day. Finally watched it today and am glad I didn't put too much money into it.
There's not much storyline except an excuse to get live action interpretations of arcade games for action sequences. It's some bull about how aliens saw a video recording of an gaming championship and decided to challenge the Earth for the fate of our planet. Why the aliens are so fascinated by the concept of video games, the movie never bothers to explain. And why exactly they have to win to destroy our world, I'm not even sure the filmmakers know that. The movie isn't about working as a story, it's about working barely enough to throw a concept out there. It seemingly knows it's stupid, but throws itself so lovingly at this idea that it almost works. Not quite, but there's a likable movie at it's core. It's just frustratingly lazy.
Director Chris Columbus seems gung-ho on giving this movie the flavor of an 80's adventure comedy akin to something like Ghostbusters. Unfortunately what could be the movie's strongest moments feel like it's pulling its punches in order to cater to Adam Sandler's brand of humor, and it feels bland and out of place. Sometimes something clicks (Peter Dinklage is dependable for a laugh if nobody else is), but often the film feels like pretty visuals but with brief glimpses of entertainment, but never delivering anything it promises.
Poltergeist (2015)
I admit I have no nostalgic attachment to the original Poltergeist. I saw it for the first time last year and didn't really think much of it. The remake came out this year and a lot of people tore it a new one, but here I watch it now, and maybe it's my lack of caring for the original speaking, but I have no clue why anybody flew off their rocker over this movie. It seemed fine to me. It's fairly respectful to the original, decently creepy at moments, and has a few moments of visual creativity. Does it hinge on the fact that it's a remake and deserves to be hated to honor the original? That's kind of a really stupid reason to hate a movie. Especially one that works on it's own merits.
Take the Nightmare on Elm Street Remake for example. That one deserves to be hated because it's a genuinely terrible movie.
I don't know. I liked it well enough. I couldn't tell you how it compares to the original because for the most part I don't remember much of the original at all. Maybe if I did, I'd be rougher, but I'm going to give this one a passing grade. It's definitely on of the better horror movies I've seen this year.
Spectre
It seems to be an unwritten rule in Hollywood where if you're franchise gets struck by lightning, always try to make lightning strike twice. On the flipside, it seems to be an unwritten rule in moviegoing that any attempt to make lightning strike twice is to be met with a resounding sigh. Avengers: Age of Ultron was an example earlier this year, as another Joss Whedon-fueled adventure seemed to be what the audience wanted yet not all agreed. The Bond franchise famously hounded Sam Mendes to return for another film after Skyfall, hands down the best Bond film since Connery, and in the end successfully lassoed him into this film. It seemed to catch everyone off-guard that reaction was more muted than the last film, though personally I was not surprised. I always felt Skyfall wasn't going to be matched and just felt that the movie needed to be allowed to be its own entity.
Spectre is a spectacular action movie. The set-pieces are bar none not to be missed. If Skyfall was Sam Mendes shaking up the Bond formula into something unexpected, Spectre is him delivering us a more traditional Bond adventure, and it makes you thirst for Mendes making as many of these as possible. The man knows how to use that camera. (of course that reportedly insane $300 million production budget may have had something to do with how awesome the movie looks)
On the flipside, the film's attempt to make the story "personal" to Bond is lackluster. The character of Oberhauser, head of the SPECTRE organization, is portrayed as some sort of adopted brother Bond had in the past but had supposedly lost. Then in the future Bond became a secret agent and Oberhauser became the head of a secret organization that opposed MI-6, sending these two characters on a collision course. It's the wackiest of wacky coincidences, but the movie is so intent on puckering up it's butthole and playing it straight that for a while you don't really care. Christoph Waltz helps too, because the guy is amazing in everything.
As far as Daniel Craig's tenure as Bond goes, Skyfall is the best no doubt. Spectre is a distant second. Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace have different issues that really bother me about both, though as time goes by I find Casino Royale to be the better film overall (dreadful third act aside).
Minor side note: Jesus the theme song to this one is WRETCHED. My ears were bleeding listening to that emo screeching. Tops godawful tunes like Live and Let Die, All Time High, and The World is Not Enough as the worst theme Bond has ever had.
|
|
|
Post by SoCalChevy on Nov 27, 2015 22:25:04 GMT -5
Bad Santa
Liked the movie, because it was so wrong. Willie shouldn't be allowed around children.
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Nov 30, 2015 18:51:24 GMT -5
The Good Dinosaur
Pixar released their best movie this year with Inside Out. And now several months later they have released their worst.
There was a lot of hoopila about Cars 2 when it came out as Pixar's first stinker and personally I didn't see it that way. I thought that while it was clear it was a heartless merchandising movie, as far as merchandising movies go it was more entertaining than most. Then it became a (unwarranted) dogpile on Brave and Monsters University, two wonderful films that just got kind of trailed with it.
The Good Dinosaur, however, is one that I can't really defend. It's already fairly notorious as the Pixar film that was supposed to come out last year, but creative disagreements caused the movie to be overhauled and delayed a year and a half. If this rather lifeless film is the final product, then that original one truly must have been a disaster. More time seems to have been spent on making the environments lush and realistic than there seems to have been on the story, which bears familiarity with films like Ice Age and Brother Bear. The animation comes off weird as well, as the spongy and squishy character designs don't really mesh with the world that has been created. The western frontier tone of the film doesn't exactly gel with the movie either.
Ultimately maybe I would have enjoyed it more if there had been a more likable character at the center of it. I understand that the movie is about Arlo's conquering of his vices and fears, but that doesn't really change that we spend almost the entire movie with a short fuse that spends his most of his time pissy and whining. Imagine if Sara were the main character of Land Before Time and you might have a rough idea.
I keep wondering if maybe I'm being hard on the film because I expect a better product from Pixar. Overall I'm of the opinion that a good movie is a good movie no matter if the person who made it has done better. It's still hard to shake the fact that Inside Out was an emotional rollercoaster ride while The Good Dinosaur even in its best moments doesn't really make you feel anything at all, even though it does try. What I keep coming back to is that while I liked parts of it, I didn't enjoy the whole thing. And it's true that those parts show that the film probably could have been better, the moments that aren't up to snuff just aren't very good. Like a lot of Pixar's output, it has a heart, this time it's just borrowed from other movies and it can't really express it all that well.
Kids might enjoy it. Adults will be bored stiff.
|
|
|
Post by crowschmo on Dec 2, 2015 19:48:14 GMT -5
I saw Victor Frankenstein yesterday. They may as well have just called it Igor. The focus was mainly on him. The monster was in there for all of one minute. It was basically a character study piece, but really? One quick scene with the infamous monster? Why bother? And even though Igor is narrating that people will remember the monster, not the man, they just decide to reduce that to: no one really even so this thing except for those who died, so who's left to remember it? And the monster was completely CGI. It was supposed to be a character study, I guess, but we don't get much back story of Victor or Igor except what's inferred through conversation. This basically sucked.
|
|
|
Post by afriendlychicken on Dec 4, 2015 19:39:01 GMT -5
Shaun the Sheep Movie
I love silent film comedy and I love Wallace and Gromit so this film was a no miss for me. It's sweet, it's lovable and it has heart. I loved the small plot to the film: Shaun is bored with routine, wants a change and tries to make a change so all hell breaks loose. There's been mention in the reviews of homages in this film to The Night of the Hunter and Silence of the Lambs but there's also a brilliantly wonderful and funny homage to Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
It's a film that'll make you feel happy after it's done. All I can say is "Shaun, you 'da Sheep!"
|
|
|
Post by Crowfan on Dec 13, 2015 7:53:03 GMT -5
What We Do In The Shadows. Age old vampires try to adjust to the 21st century. A documentary film crew follows around some vampire roommates(or flatmates, since movie is from New Zealand)as they try to relate to modern life. One of the funniest bits is where the vampires try to get into a trendy nightclub, and they can't because the bouncers at the door won't invite them in. It's a very funny movie and I'd recommend it if you like vampires, real vampires, not the sparkly ones.
|
|
|
Post by SoCalChevy on Dec 21, 2015 18:40:38 GMT -5
Just rewatched Better Off Dead. It's definately ''80s but I think it's still very funny!
|
|
|
Post by Skyroniter on Dec 22, 2015 16:37:52 GMT -5
In the Heart of the Sea
Watched it in 3D in theater. I don't think the 3D added anything. Decent story. Lot's of action. Enjoyed it but am in no hurry to see Sea again.
|
|
|
Post by Crowfan on Dec 23, 2015 17:39:02 GMT -5
In the Heart of the Sea Watched it in 3D in theater. I don't think the 3D added anything. Decent story. Lot's of action. Enjoyed it but am in no hurry to see Sea again. If that's the story that influenced Melville for Moby Dick, that makes sense. That book is so boring I don't know how Melville stayed awake long enough to write it.
|
|
|
Post by Crowfan on Dec 24, 2015 18:47:24 GMT -5
Silent Night, Deadly Night. One of my guilty pleasure movies, my Mom took me to see this one in theaters. Young Billy watches his family get murdered by Santa Claus, and then he is sent to a Catholic orphanage. Billy is naturally scarred because of what happened, and when he gets older he dresses as Santa Claus and goes on his own killing rampage. This film caused a huge scandal when it was released in 1984, because the ads for it showed in prime time when kids were watching. Many parents picketed the theaters. When I saw it with my Mom, the start was delayed, because someone had called in saying they planted a bomb in the theater(a false threat, as it turned out). The movie itself is a straightforward 80's slasher flick, but like I said, it is a guilty pleasure.
|
|