Mini Movie Reviews 2 - The Reviewening

[freddythebig]

I watched Centurian last week, thought it was ok...no better or worse that many historical based films.
If I had particular scruples with historical accuracy in films I would probably end up watching very few indeed.

[Still Standing]

I have watched all the Star Trek movies recently. I will caveat this by saying I am NOT a Trekkie. They have a lot of bad press, and even my Trekkie friends say that only every other movie is good. However, I found the first 6 movies (the ones based on the original Star Trek with James T Kirk and Spock) were actually very good. Ok, sure, the stories were often aweful (even if they were original), but there is a lot of love gone in to those movies, and the actors seemed to massively enjoy their parts, making for a very good cinema experience.

[Killmaimburn]

Once upon a time in the West 1968
First time I've watched this since my voice broke (I'm old) and really appreciated it- got most of what everything was trying to be. After the long atmospheric setting it could easily IMo have 40 minutes of (non tense) walking shots and stares to distance removed and still be the same film..you do feel the 175 minute runtime.
but really very watchable

Hot Fuzz 2007
Can't remember why but didn't enjoy the pacing of this first time I saw it, might have been a bad cinema experience (I know I missed the first 2 minutes of dialogue) few years later watched it again(with drink) loled throughout.
Very watchable.

Babylon A.D 2008
WTF...I started being negative about this film very quickly..It seemed to be children of men, but with added pitfighting and car chases to make sure no kids would fall asleep.
Burn with fire and then watch children of men instead.

The Omen 1976
Watched it again (fairly familiar with it) with my wife, awesome.She really appreciated how events kept chipping away at Gregory Peck , I relaxed and played name the bit part superstars since they are all awesome.
I'd list this as a must watch film (mainly because how much of it we reference around the place without noticing)


976-Evil1988
Really good film length tales from the crypt style tale. Done in overindulgent 80s horror style (lots of pink and green lighting all over the place).
Sort of in the vein of stephen kings christine. Sad beta male starts ringing up a prophetic phone line that taps into the dark arts.Slowly raises up to fight with alpha male, alpha male has to save world from beta male by throwing him into hell. Directed by Freddy Kruger( but he doesn't appear onscreen), lead guy is "evil" from fright nightPretty much the same role for him, but this time he is the centre.
Watch out for the owner of all the sex lines,( its the doctor from voyager/leader of the bureucrats in stargate but with hair and evil)
Currently on the zone horror cycle (along with a really bad crop of rubbish)
This stands out from the rest of that channel this month as highly enjoyable..although there are more awesome things in life.

House of wax 2005
Slasher pic of the newer generation with a bit of torture here and there.
Enjoyable I saw most of the twists coming a mile off, but appreciated them when they happened.
Watchable-if you watch those films.

[Arnizipal]

House of wax 2005
Slasher pic of the newer generation with a bit of torture here and there.
Enjoyable I saw most of the twists coming a mile off, but appreciated them when they happened.
Watchable-if you watch those films.

Extra points for killing Paris Hilton
Too bad it's a rather unoriginal killing.

[Easy E]

The only thing I remember from The Omen 1976 was a decapitation by plate glass window.

[sigur]

I found House of Wax incredibly boring. The Vincent Price House of Wax on the other hand is very cool. (and inTHREEDEE ).

The Omen 1976

Of this one, the 2006 remake is pretty darned good by the way. I liked Lief Schreiber in this one and Mia Farrow can be surprisingly creepy. Julia Stiles does what the usually does - looks good and acts once in a while. I don't know if it's a shame or a blessing how limited her part is, eventhough I like how she comes over as a pretty bad person.

[Killmaimburn]

@arnizpal- It kind of demanded an Arnie quip.(as she slides down,leatherface variant takes off mask and says "look pa, she a pole dancing")

Shes actually acceptable in repo, where at the end she thinks shes won and her face falls off and she gets booed off stage

@easy E...shame on you, although if your going to remember one scene, one with David Warner in is..acceptable(his voice is my audio honey). Terry Prattchett based most of a book on bits of the film that seeped into us.
@ sigur..I got lost on the mid naughties remakes to be honest,If I did see the omen reimagining all I can think of is the exorcist the beginning (total memory failure)
Haven't seen much Vincent Price of late..think the last time was when the house on haunted hill2 came out I sought the originals.

To me, house of wax has a well played out moment, where boyfriend template A has been inwaxened, and someone tries to take the wax off(like we all do with a loose bit of wallpaper) and collapses his jaw..that silent scream in his eyes was worth 90 minutes of a dull evening I reckon.

Oh I also saw the pit,or the hole..or whatever the caving horror one is.
Has a lt. Ripley(inc that she's just getting over the loss of her daughter). Baddy creatures are fairly well imagined, atmosphere is good (made me squirm at some of the confined angles), tension amongst characters evolves from templates as story progresses..

Edit oh it was the descent2005 was OK.
Apparently there is a sequel- anyone know if its more of the same/better/worse?

[Nocculum]

I loved the Descent, one of the few films in recent years I've genuinely been scared of (to the extent of nightmares).

The sequel is a cash cow, relish the original for all it's glory!

[Burnthem]

If you liked The Descent, read the original book, it's fantastic, and probably why i was unimpressed with the film, as movies rarely live up to the books they are based on.

[Nocculum]

I didn't realise it was a book, thanks Burnthem, I'll Kindle me a copy this evening .

[biggreengribbly]

I didn't realise it was a book, thanks Burnthem, I'll Kindle me a copy this evening .

Shows how much of a technalogical dinosaur I am my first thought was you were going to use it to light a fire

[sigur]

Machete (2010)

So I just returned from the cinema 20 minutes ago and my current thoughts about the film: Meh. I have to admit that I have yet to see a film by Robert Rodriguez that really, really impresses me. Granted, I was very impressed with Desperado back in the day of course and I actually liked Once upon a Time in Mexico but they didn't really strike me as "great movies".

Anyway, Machete still is something to see simply because of the INCREDIBLY COOL cast. Robert DeNiro (he's the man. Always was, always will be), Michelle Rodriguez (gorgeous; I still don't get why she doesn't do more serious, big roles. She's versatile, able to express emotions with her facial expressions, beautiful and has a great screen presence. And time after time, I see her showing up in movies like SWAT and car movies. What a waste of talent.), Don Johnson (mainly just for novelty), Steven Seagal (so awesome to see the man on a big screen and he makes for a very good bad guy.) and so on and so on. Yes, there's Jessica Alba and Linsay Lohan too but I'm not that great a fan of the first and really don't care about the latter at all (in that movie and outside of that movie). Lohan is pretty much playing herself.

During the first half of the film, I thought to myself that this is a helluva entertaining movie. Towards the end it's falling apart due to basically the same reason I don't like the ending of Once upon a Time in Mexico very much.

Some people don't like the fact that Robert Rodriguez crams politics into this film; and lots of it. At least as a theme, not really. I don't mind such things at all but this guy always fails to connect his movies with the themes he touches in a sensible manner. I'm aware that this is supposed to be a homage to 70s exploitation film and it exploits the hell out of everything. Still, I won't let this point make the film invincible to criticism (as in "it's supposed to be bad"). It's just a weird mix of a silly joy ride and politics, especially as I can't spot any message. It touches sensible topics but just uses them to launch a wild shootout scene from it. But then, I guess that's what this exploitation thing is about. I just think that maybe some people may get it completely wrong.

ANYWAY, there actually isn't much to say about the film. Watch it if you like three or more people from the cast. It's the main merit of the film. Don't get me wrong, it's massively entertaining but towards the end, you just start scratching your head.

[Nocculum]

The Green Hornet

Tantalisingly funny and surreal DC adaptation, which promises, and delivers on the action, wit and charm. Though Seth Rogen is becoming type cast, he plays his role well (and Kato is astonishingly awesome) and the unravelling and somewhat 'in your face Dark Knight' plot is satisfying. Excellent use of guns, gangster clichés and set pieces make it a watchable film - the ever increasing complexity of 3D cinema is at work through out, and I didn't get a headache, so a result all aboard the satisfaction train.

Verdict: Cinema viewing.

127 Hours

This was so much better than I imagined. The controversy over that scene failed to mention the captivating suspense and tension that builds up throughout, the fantastic use of stop-motion (which is Darren Aronofsky's trademark, but Boyle is permitted this once to use it...) and the rocking soundtrack draw you into the paranoia and desperation of the main character.

It's horrifyingly bleak and well portrayed, and my nerves were so shot by the end scene (which deserves universal italicisation) that I felt numb to it, but it was gritty and poignant enough to deliver on it's promise.

Really is a surprisingly accomplished work that surpassed all expectation.

The storm sequence actually tricked me into thinking he was free, and I felt a pang of sorrow and depression when it clicked that he was hallucinating - this was the start of the build up that made the bone snap easier to take, though my friend couldn't watch that scene at all.

Verdict: See It, Watch It

The King's Speech

Oscar winner.

That is all.

I find it hard to believe you will not love the stellar performances and quality of film making at work here, and the little slice of history slipped in makes it more rewarding than I expected.

Cinema was absolutely rammed too .

Verdict: Must see, though if like me you waited three years to see The Queen, it'll be worth it no matter how you see it .

[The Dude]

The storm sequence actually tricked me into thinking he was free, and I felt a pang of sorrow and depression when it clicked that he was hallucinating - this was the start of the build up that made the bone snap easier to take, though my friend couldn't watch that scene at all.

I actually missed the bit where the rock "floated" free, otherwise I would have probably twigged earlier. I thought he was at least going to get a drink though.

[Easy E]

3,000 Miles to Graceland

All style and high body count. Some surprisingly interesting stylistic flourishes, that were never set-up properly or pay-off correctly.

Kurt Russel does a fine job, as does Courtney Cox. Kevin Costner is Kevin Costner only with awesome sideburns!

Things I learned in this movie...
1. Chicks get hot from Elvis Impersonators
2. .... sorry, I never got past the first learning....

That being said, I was entertained. Plus it had a huge ensemble cast, even if Thomas Hayden Church (The Church) is criminally underused.

Rent

Despicable Me
Your enjoyment of this movie is directly related to your ability to take humor from the minions. If you do not find them cute, or entertaining this movie will lose a lot.

That said, the set-up is okay. However, it is never delivered on in a satisfying way. The "super" villainy on display is less than super or villanous. Perhaps that's part of the gag, but I didn't find that in itself funny.

Overall, I couoldn;t help but compare it to the Incredibles, and the movie fails utterly when going up against that yardstick.

Pass

[Hellebore]

Just watched Short Circuit 1 & 2. Still love them and not entirely for nostalgic reasons. They're entertaining. They may not have much depth (although there is some here and there where we are nudged about what it is to be alive), but they entertain.

The scene in 2 when J5 gets assaulted and hacked up is surprisingly gruesome despite the robotic victim. When they tip him over and start chopping at him with an axe it got quite upsetting.

Then of course there is 'Holding out for a Hero' at the end of 2, which is a song I love (especially the Jennifer Saunders version from Shrek 2 - the accent you see).

Anyway, they're 80s films from a time when they didn't have flashy visuals to keep you hypnotised through 2 hours of 0 story, so they had to rely on some intelligence in plot. I also find the sequal as good as the first, but they are both very different films. But then I like Predator 2 for similar reasons, different to the first film but entertaining.

Hellebore

[Coasty]

Inception: -

Pretty good, raised some good things you never think about when you dream (why you always seem to end up right at the action bit, time passingly fast etc. The special effects were good aswell, especially the weightless parts.

Very enjoyable - Buy it

I rented it with the A-Team, review to follow.

And what did they think of it?

EDIT: Oops, I see they're still writing their review...

[Killmaimburn]

Anyway, they're 80s films from a time when they didn't have flashy visuals

An 80s hollywood film that could afford steve gutenberg at peak and had a whole bunch of futuristic robots going around is not flashy visuals?
I find them acceptable (apart from the beegees strange robot love dance scene drag-on in 1).. but just because its dated doesn't mean it wasn't flashy eyecandy back in the day.
(I would do a srly eyebrow raise but I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill)

edit a quick wiki says they drained funding from all the other elements of the film to have all the robots designed to the highest (believable) spec by the dude from bladerunner and tron.

[Hellebore]

An 80s hollywood film that could afford steve gutenberg at peak and had a whole bunch of futuristic robots going around is not flashy visuals?
I find them acceptable (apart from the beegees strange robot love dance scene drag-on in 1).. but just because its dated doesn't mean it wasn't flashy eyecandy back in the day.
(I would do a srly eyebrow raise but I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill)

edit a quick wiki says they drained funding from all the other elements of the film to have all the robots designed to the highest (believable) spec by the dude from bladerunner and tron.

I wouldn't call them 'flashy' visuals, no. The robots certainly don't fill up the scenes they're in and they aren't in every scene. Unless you define Steve Guttenburg as 'flashy visuals', in which case you and I have very different definitions of the term...

The only flashy visuals in the 1st one are the laser effects which are only used a few times and consist of a red line and some sparks. There weren't any in the 2nd one at all, unless you count him hang gliding.

All they did was make the puppet more realistic, but the setting was mundane, there were no glamourous backgrounds. They spent a lot making the robots articulate, but that doesn't mean spending a lot of money on something like that produced 'flashy visuals'.

In fact it helped to ground the story in reality, removing the unbelieveable and making it seem plausible. It was workmanlike and entirely unflashy.

Hellebore

[Killmaimburn]

Take this with a pinch of salt-it has been several years since I last saw them..I just have some time to kill right now, thats all

The robots certainly don't fill up the scenes they're in and they aren't in every scene.

But they are the purpose of the film, its selling point.If it was a sock puppet with staples on it you'd have "dark star" rather than "alien".(or metal mickey...I can't easily think of crap robots that bombed in 80s cinema and still bomb today lets just assume I thought of an awesome one for comparison )

Unless you define Steve Guttenburg as 'flashy visuals', in which case you and I have very different definitions of the term...

On a different level- but bringing him up yes,of its day it was like sticking Robert Pattinson/jim carrey in mid 90s, in. (Its really weird looking back at previous zeitgeist bankable box office golds,)

The only flashy visuals in the 1st one are the laser effects which are only used a few times and consist of a red line and some sparks. There weren't any in the 2nd one at all, unless you count him hang gliding.

Well the hanggliding is total black screening for a large chunk isn't it, so yes I do count that. Also they hired helocopters and a few armoured vehicles in 1 for some chase sequences..They blew up a few (albeit in the style of any cheap TV program of its age, I don't think they invented any new special effects).But IIRC don't they have a lot of arcing blue electricity around him (for his moment of gaining sentience and possibly other bits) if you class flashy as only special effects (ruling out puppeteers and robots) they still have some flash.

I agree their use of the city and population works well grounding the films (especially 2), but I counter that that works well in gremlins also.Do you rule out all things pre green screening as creating "flash"?

I love how in 1 the baddy from the police academy films is the baddy and frankly the only person who responds in anything like a sane manner to the unanthropomorphised eyes, e.g. the terminator has just broken programming,escaped with a sack load of machine guns and bombs from a military base, it could do anything.."well I think we best ought to kill it then."-- that guy is the baddy? = awesome.