Batman-Online.com

The title for this thread says it all, sharing recommendations for all these films to each other.

If anybody is looking for some surreal science fiction, check out Ex Machina and Annihilation, directed by Alex Garland. Ex Machina is about a computer programmer who studies a female AI and becomes infatuated by her. Annihilation is the Netflix movie where Natalie Portman plays a scientist who joins thre other women exploring this strange landmass created by some alien infestation that absorbs living DNA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYGzRB4Pnq8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89OP78l9oF0

Both films are bizarre, but fascinating to watch.

The Bank Job. This little gem from 2008 got a little overlooked. Between TDK, Iron Man, that Star Wars- Clone Wars bit of business and some other odds and ends, The Bank Job never really got its due. Which a damn shame if you ask me because it's a fun-loving good time.

It starts off as a pseudo-spy thriller then it becomes a caper comedy and then it becomes a crime film. The shifting of all these gears is smooth as glass and a lot of that is due to the slick directing. Very well done.

There are some real laughs, a riff or two on a kinda sorta real life James Bond figure, some boobies for those who like that sort of thing and, best of all, Jason Statham in the kind of movie that he does best. This movie won't change your life but you do run the risk of forgetting about your problems from beginning credits to end credits.

Highly recommended!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdiWAhlVOBY&t=29s

This one is freaking awesome, y'all should totally check it out....

(https://www.movieartarena.com/imgs/batmanreturnssnow.jpg)

Seriously though, I'm going to recommend a racing movie by Ron Howard. This is about a real life rivalry in F1 in the 1970s when the sport was super, super dangerous (which is a key point of the story). Even if you don't like racing (I do of course but I'm not very fond of F1, it's all politics and technology where I prefer simpler battles of men and machines like NASCAR and Indy) this movie is epic. It blends so many elements together beautifully. The title is perfect because I got a literal "rush" as I was watching it.

(https://cdn.traileraddict.com/content/universal-pictures/rush2013-4.jpg)

Trailers. Holy f*** I want to watch it again right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzNbGH1oZJc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnr9TtTbg4Q

YES! Rush is an underrated gem, and prove Chris Hemsworth is capable of doing more than only Thor. My favourite scene was when Niki Lauda calls boldly everybody at a party assholes.

If you're into buddie cop movies, you might want to try out Running Scared. The comedic chemistry between Billy Crystal and Gregory Hines is spot on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTigZuLkptw

The Big Lebowski. Such a quotable movie with lots of laughs. I can watch it anytime.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  1 Apr  2018, 02:28
The Big Lebowski. Such a quotable movie with lots of laughs. I can watch it anytime.

Careful man, there's a beverage in here!  8)

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

The mystery. The darkness. The comedy. The fun. The creativity.

Gene Wilder brought to life one of the best cinematic characters of all time.

I'm in the mood for this one. :)

(https://s18.postimg.org/epn4ohvnt/6c4d253e8e7baad60259a6a1aecad8bd.jpg)

What can you tell me about it Edd?

I second the recommendations for The Big Lebowski and Running Scared.

Remember this awesome song from the latter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-xetxYwyak (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-xetxYwyak)

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun,  8 Apr  2018, 17:31
What can you tell me about it Edd?

A good fantasy film with a lot of charm and solid performances from the main actors.  I definitely recommend it.

With baseball season getting into the swing (pun totally intended) of things and me being the biggest baseball fan here (I'll fight any of you for that title), I wanted to recommend my favorite baseball movie. No, not "A League of Their Own" though that's up there.

(https://images.justwatch.com/backdrop/10944209/s1440/bull-durham)

Premise from IMDb: A fan who has an affair with one minor-league baseball player each season meets an up-and-coming pitcher and the experienced catcher assigned to him.

It stars Kevin Costner and Susan Sarandon (obviously based off the pic lol) as the "experienced catcher" and "fan who has an affair with one minor league ballplayer each season" but also Tim Robbins (the up and coming pitcher) and a guy we all know and love here, Knox himself, Robert Wuhl as the team's pitching coach. This was released in 1988, he has a couple TV credits in between but it's his last movie released before Batman. I adore him in everything he's in (Batman connection, he was in another baseball movie called Cobb with Tommy Lee Jones as Ty Cobb that's really good too) but he's great here.

The movie is hilarious, minor league baseball and especially Single A where the Durham Bulls played at the time (I think they are AAA now which is one step down from "The Show") and are shown in the movie is a looooong way away from the big leagues which makes it the perfect setting for a movie like this.

Couple hilarious clips, Robert is a supporting character but he's in all three of these. This doesn't BEGIN to scratch the surface of how funny this movie is or the plot itself so check it out yourselves :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85RZMIAL7vM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDaFcQJC4z8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8olTfKZnFiM

Clip of Robert Wuhl from a few years ago talking about the mound visit scene (the one called "You're a Cocksucker!" lol) above

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqVq7uWTld8

If you're curious about foreign cinema and eager to explore something that's bizarre and artistic, it wouldn't be bad idea to check out Federico Fellini's Amarcord; which is an an exploration of Italian society under Benito Mussolini's regime.

My favourite scene is this eccentric, hot-headed lunch between a mother and father as the rest of the family looks on awkwardly. :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEtaM_WdStw

Normally, I stay far away from romantic comedies, but this 1991's L.A. Story starring Steve Martin is underrated. Funny, charming and bizarre, it's about a weatherman who gets advice to improve his life by an electronic billboard. As I said, it's bizarre. I love how it makes fun of upper class people.  :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eCSmfP4g2c

By the way, if you've noticed John Lithgow, don't expect him to show up in the movie. His role was cut for some reason.

The Elephant Man by David Lynch is one of the saddest, yet touching films I've ever seen, and a great exploration into the best and worst of people. The scene where Dr. Treves tells his wife he's unsure about his own moral character, because he couldn't tell if he was truly compassionate to help John Merrick or if he had exploited his deformed condition, is heartbreaking.

You'd be hard pressed to find a film like this made today.

https://youtu.be/JQJdFwVXBTs

This Boy's Life

A movie I have liked ever since I first saw it on HBO way back in the day. The movie captures, what I would imagine, living in a small town during the 1950's would have been like thru it's direction, score, and soundtrack. Leonardo Dicaprio certainly has acting chops at a very young age playing Tobias Wolf. Someone who yearns for self improvement, along with a ideal father figure, but realizes that transforming one's basic character is not a simple matter. Robert Deniro is also effective in playing Dwight, Tobey's stepfather. A man who constantly asserts his dominance via insults and psychological/physical abuse.

Very much a coming of age during the 1950's film, and if you don't mind that, I would recommend it.

Speaking of Robert De Niro, I watched Taxi Driver again for the first time in over fifteen years.

A chilling character study about a Vietnam War veteran disillusioned by modern day New York City. He sounds like the embodiment of all of those US soldiers who came back home feeling isolated and misunderstood. But in Travis Bickle's case, he doesn't quite recognise his own poor social etiquette isn't doing him any favours. His fate could've taken an opposite turn had been for certain coincidences. But I guess that's reflective of his unsteady frame of mind.

I'm just babbling on of course, but if anybody hasn't seen this classic by Martin Scorsese, please do so.

I've watched a crapton of Scorsese films lately. Gangs Of New York, The King Of Comedy, The Departed, Cape Fear, The Wolf Of Wall Street, etc. A different one every night for a while now.

Hands down, my favorite was easily Taxi Driver. The city's grit, sweat and grime practically fell off the screen as I watched. It's gorgeously ugly to look at, I couldn't get enough of it. I'd never seen the thing start to finish. Just a few scenes here and there over the years. But watching it uninterrupted from beginning to end was one of the great cinematic experiences of my entire life.

The writing, the performances, the directing, the cinematography, this is a true FILM and you're only hurting yourself if you never watch it.

On a broader note, most directors would spend the rest of their careers coasting off Taxi Driver's awesomeness. And they probably wouldn't get much criticism over that either. But Scorsese has arguably the strongest and most consistent output for my personal enjoyment of any filmmaker from his generation. Taxi Driver is probably my favorite of his work but he's directed a sort of ridiculous number of amazing movies. None of them are bad and quite a few of them are truly GREAT.

If you only ever see one Scorsese film, make sure it's Taxi Driver. And if you haven't seen Taxi Driver yet, FFS what are you waiting for?!

And it would appear that I'm not the only Taxi Driver lover in this thread...

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 14 Jun  2019, 20:28
On a broader note, most directors would spend the rest of their careers coasting off Taxi Driver's awesomeness. And they probably wouldn't get much criticism over that either. But Scorsese has arguably the strongest and most consistent output for my personal enjoyment of any filmmaker from his generation.

I can agree with that. I can count about five or six movies directed by Scorsese that I really enjoy, unlike most directors. There's some stuff of his I think didn't live up to the hype, but the good films he makes ARE really good. It's no surprise De Niro thrived under Scorsese, Taxi Driver and Cape Fear ranks as his best performances. Which is more that can be said for his film roles nowadays.

But as good as Taxi Driver is, my favourite Scorsese film is GoodFellas. I think it's still the grittiest mob movie to date. Now yes, The Godfather trilogy doesn't shy away from the terrifying and tragic world of organised crime, but at the same time, it does feel too romantic. It makes sense I suppose, because it reflects the highs and lows of Michael Corleone's life.

In GoodFellas though, the seriousness of the story doesn't shy away how crime really doesn't pay. It feels dirty and it stays dirty. As time goes by, that adrenaline rush Henry Hill gets for committing crimes gets lost and spends the rest of his life always looking over his shoulder, and realises the wiseguys he had always looked up to growing up will quickly turn on him. Even among people he had been good friends with for many years. I just think it captures the ruthlessness of organised crime exceptionally well, and it's THE one reason why I never dreamed to be a gangster, unlike Henry Hill.

The performances from De Niro, Joe Pesci, Ray Liotta, Lorraine Bracco, Paul Sorvino really sell the laughter, the terror, the tears, and the tension that goes on. I got to say, the narration style of storytelling is a favourite of mine, which is why I was glad to see it again in Casino.

Quality filmmaking. (https://www.batman-online.com/forum/Themes/batmanonlinecom_default/images/post/thumbup.gif)

Yeah, I'm the guy in the room who doesn't get into Goodfellas as much. It comes down to a distaste for Ray Liotta and, to a greater extent, Lorraine Bracco. They have always irritated me in everything I've ever seen them in and Goodfellas has tons of them running around and being annoying. Just not for me.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 15 Jun  2019, 08:11
Yeah, I'm the guy in the room who doesn't get into Goodfellas as much. It comes down to a distaste for Ray Liotta and, to a greater extent, Lorraine Bracco. They have always irritated me in everything I've ever seen them in and Goodfellas has tons of them running around and being annoying. Just not for me.

Let me guess...not a fan of Liotta's psychotic laughter?  ;D

https://youtu.be/zdJ8x6lyrfo

I watched David Ayer's Fury for the first time in five years. A great war film, that details the struggles of a tank battalion squad in their final moments together during WWII. As good as Brad Pitt and Jon Bernthal were in Fury, and they were very good, the one actor who impressed me the most would have to be Shia LaBeouf. I was very surprised to see this guy is capable of playing character actor roles. Reminded me a little bit of John Cazale.

The scene where the squad takes a break in the local German women's home before that place gets blown up to bits is gutwrenching. That whole sequence was a fascinating combination between peace and quiet, tension and tragedy rolled into one - a great reminder of the brutality of war.

I watched The Irishman a couple of nights ago.

Although I don't think it's in my top 3 Scorsese films of all time, it's still better than most of the crap that's out in theaters nowadays. It's great to see Joe Pesci once again, but the highlight for me was Al Pacino as Jimmy Hoffa. Superb.

But if Scorsese is genuine what he is saying, this might very well the last film he'll ever make in this superhero-dominated climate. It's a shame. The Irishman deserved to be seen in theaters.

Quote
Your intervention over Marvel and superhero films this year turned into a major news story. How calculated was it?

Obviously, we have been discussing this a lot, that theatres have been commandeered by superhero films – you know, just people flying around and banging and crashing, which is fine if you want to see it. It's just that there's no room for another kind of picture. I don't know how many more I can make – maybe this is it. The last one. So the idea was to at least get it made and maybe show it for one day at the NFT, maybe one day at the Cinémathèque in Paris. I'm not kidding.

We are in a situation now where the theatres are only showing the latest superhero films. You have 12 screens – and 11 are the superhero film. You enjoy superhero films, fine, but you need 11 screens? It's crazy for a picture like, you know, Lady Bird or The Souvenir. Those films may not necessarily be hugely commercial, but there are films that are modest and genuine and find a large audience. Just because a film is commercial doesn't mean it can't be art. What has consumed the theatres is product. A product is to be consumed and thrown away. Look at a commercial film like Singin' in the Rain. You can watch it again and again. So the question is: how are we going to protect the art form?


Now, you don't have to like the picture, but you couldn't get The Aviator made today. You could not get Shutter Island made today, even with me and Leo [DiCaprio]. The Departed got made despite itself – the star power helped. We realised when we were taking this project around that the doors are closing. So what's going on? I looked over at the theatres right down the block – 10 screens showing the same picture.

People comment that we've only shown this film in theatres for four weeks. We tried to get more, but the theatre owners and Netflix couldn't come to terms. But you know, I've had pictures play only one week and get thrown out. In the US, The King of Comedy closed in a week. That film was ignored for 10 years.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/dec/20/martin-scorsese-maybe-the-irishman-is-the-last-picture-ill-make

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 27 Dec  2019, 01:30
I watched The Irishman a couple of nights ago.

Although I don't think it's in my top 3 Scorsese films of all time, it's still better than most of the crap that's out in theaters nowadays. It's great to see Joe Pesci once again, but the highlight for me was Al Pacino as Jimmy Hoffa. Superb.

But if Scorsese is genuine what he is saying, this might very well the last film he'll ever make in this superhero-dominated climate. It's a shame. The Irishman deserved to be seen in theaters.

Quote
Your intervention over Marvel and superhero films this year turned into a major news story. How calculated was it?

Obviously, we have been discussing this a lot, that theatres have been commandeered by superhero films – you know, just people flying around and banging and crashing, which is fine if you want to see it. It's just that there's no room for another kind of picture. I don't know how many more I can make – maybe this is it. The last one. So the idea was to at least get it made and maybe show it for one day at the NFT, maybe one day at the Cinémathèque in Paris. I'm not kidding.

We are in a situation now where the theatres are only showing the latest superhero films. You have 12 screens – and 11 are the superhero film. You enjoy superhero films, fine, but you need 11 screens? It's crazy for a picture like, you know, Lady Bird or The Souvenir. Those films may not necessarily be hugely commercial, but there are films that are modest and genuine and find a large audience. Just because a film is commercial doesn't mean it can't be art. What has consumed the theatres is product. A product is to be consumed and thrown away. Look at a commercial film like Singin' in the Rain. You can watch it again and again. So the question is: how are we going to protect the art form?


Now, you don't have to like the picture, but you couldn't get The Aviator made today. You could not get Shutter Island made today, even with me and Leo [DiCaprio]. The Departed got made despite itself – the star power helped. We realised when we were taking this project around that the doors are closing. So what's going on? I looked over at the theatres right down the block – 10 screens showing the same picture.

People comment that we've only shown this film in theatres for four weeks. We tried to get more, but the theatre owners and Netflix couldn't come to terms. But you know, I've had pictures play only one week and get thrown out. In the US, The King of Comedy closed in a week. That film was ignored for 10 years.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/dec/20/martin-scorsese-maybe-the-irishman-is-the-last-picture-ill-make

The simple fact of the matter is that most of Scorsese's filmography has considerable merit on artistic grounds. Some movies are better than others, to be sure. But the average quality level is remarkably high. And even on that basis, he's been on a serious winning streak for about 10 or 15 years now. Shutter Island is probably the weakest of the bunch, and it's still light years beyond what most films aspire to.

I don't have much regard for Marvel films, as I've said zillions of times now. There's nothing wrong with them. But I don't think there's really anything right with them either. And on the best day Endgame could've ever had, it's still only worth the smallest fraction of what Scorsese is worth as an artist and storyteller. I'll take one "flawed" Shutter Island over a hundred "perfect" Endgames any day of any week in any lifetime ever.

I hope Scorsese isn't forced out. But honestly, if the alternative is knuckling under to all this corporate product then maybe it's best that he retire on his terms rather than someone else's. Or worse yet, that he knuckle under and make comic book films himself just to continue working.

Many people have attempted to create an alternative community to Hollywood. George Lucas famously went down in flames over it because none of his Hollywood buddies (including Scorsese, sadly) were willing to follow him. And (even more sadly) it looks like they're not reaping what they failed to sow. It bugged the f**k out of Lucas that same faceless, unaccountable corporation could control a filmmaker's artistic freedom. He TRIED. I'll give him that much. And he wasn't completely unsuccessful either. But he was not even close to a complete success.

But if Lucas, Spielberg, Scorsese, Redford, DePalma and others had launched a mass exodus from Hollywood forty years ago and spent the intervening decades developing a true alternative to Hollywood, we might be in a better place these days. At a minimum, I don't see how it could be worse. For all the "democratization" that the Internet promised new generations of aspiring filmmakers, so far there haven't been any breakout successes or game-changing filmmakers to come out of YouTube or where-TF-ever. The oasis of creative freedom glimpsed in the distance has been, to date, a mirage.

If The Irishman truly is Scorsese's swan song... well, he had a helluva run. We all have to go out sometime. But this is all so undignified.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 27 Dec  2019, 04:09
I'll take one "flawed" Shutter Island over a hundred "perfect" Endgames any day of any week in any lifetime ever.

Same. You make me want to go watch Shutter Island now. Last time I saw was when it first came out nearly ten years ago. It may be the most unlikely type of film Scorsese would do, but it shows he's capable of shooting scenes with such a creepy disturbing atmosphere. The style of that film reminds me a little bit like David Fincher.

I agree with everything else you said too. Hollywood has always been profit first, but now the big studios are too invested in IPs and franchises more than ever, it seems. To the point studios like Warner are now investing less in director-driven projects other than brand name directors. To the point they're now withholding films from public access for believing they won't be commercially viable in the current trendy climate for mass audiences i.e. Zack Snyder's Justice League or The New Mutants. In that sense, film-making is less imaginative than ever. I'd go far to say it's worse than ever.

I really doubt the critics care what Scorsese says about superhero or Marvel movies; in fact, I wouldn't put it past them they secretly agree with him. But I suspect they get incentivised for the good reviews by Disney, as the company has shown to have a monopoly on the whole industry. You look at Disney, you can see the MCU has dominated the landscape. But even their other properties take up much of the cinema market, such as Pixar and Star Wars (you might say it's diminishing returns, sure, but they still make some money because of the brand). I remember reading about Disney pressuring smaller theater chains to keep showing screenings of Last Jedi or they'd get, basically, financially penalised: https://www.inverse.com/article/37976-star-wars-the-last-jedi-box-office-theaters-disney-rules-wsj

In that sense, Scorsese's original "theme park" comments can be extended to Disney's entire monopoly.

Then, you have greedy bastards like Bob Iger who says he wants to "talk" to Scorsese about his Marvel criticism. As if such a personal opinion on superhero movies are really that important, or deserve any sort of rebuke. Get f***ed, Iger.  ::)

On the plus side, at least streaming appears to come to the rescue, as far as cinematic, dramatic storytelling is concerned. On the downside, could it be possible its emergence has given the studios the comfort to focus on the franchises? I can't say. But according to the director of Red Sparrow, the industry is changing so rapidly that he doesn't even believe that movie could get made today. And that movie was released nearly two years ago!

Quote from: Francis Lawrence
It was already a different world from the moment we decided to make 'Red Sparrow' to when 'Red Sparrow' came out. I mean, for many reasons. One in terms of what people were going to the theaters to see, but also in terms of sexual politics. So it was a very different world that movie was released into. I certainly would not make that movie now or expect anybody to allow me to make it now at a studio for a theatrical release. I do believe that you could get a movie like that made at Netflix or Apple or maybe HBO or HBO Max or one of the other streamers. Not Disney+, clearly. But I feel like you can make that movie.

I just don't think any studio is doing it. I don't think Fox is doing it. I don't think Warner Brothers is doing it. I feel like they're all so kind of desperate for IP-driven movies because they're so afraid of what people are actually going to see that they're just not doing it. And that's the great thing about streaming is that you can do all kinds of stories.

https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2019/12/red-sparrow

Never saw First Blood all the way through before. So I thought tonight would be a good night to correct that little situation.

I. Freaking love. That movie.

If you've never seen it before, do yourself a favor and watch it. Satisfaction guaranteed.

PS- David Caruso is in the movie, how tf did I never know that?

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 16 Feb  2020, 05:21
Never saw First Blood all the way through before. So I thought tonight would be a good night to correct that little situation.

I. Freaking love. That movie.

If you've never seen it before, do yourself a favor and watch it. Satisfaction guaranteed.

PS- David Caruso is in the movie, how tf did I never know that?

I saw the modern masterpiece LAST BLOOD during a flight in January.

Like JOKER, it's very much a film for the here and now. Rambo is a man of few words, but his words are truthful. The plot is simplistic because the situation is what it is. As Rambo says, there are bad people in the world who do bad things, cannot be redeemed and only get worse.

The secret to a good film is having a good villain, and LAST BLOOD more than satisfies that criteria. We are given a realistic depiction of what the cartels are capable of. Kidnapping, drugging, killing and cutting without remorse. It's confronting stuff and it should be.

When Rambo leads these savages to his barn it's one of the most satisfying sequences put to film. You hate what they've done and what they represent. You want him to GET them. Violence is the only language they understand, and Rambo speaks it better than they ever could.

Forget all the cliches such as 'only light can drive away the darkness'. That means nothing. In reality, you must be badder than the bad guys. For THEM to feel fear and grief. Lives are forever ruined by these animals - they rip out the hearts of families. Thus they deserve the same treatment, and not symbolically. Stallone is never going to be praised for this movie, but that doesn't change how I feel about it.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 16 Feb  2020, 11:56

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 16 Feb  2020, 05:21
Never saw First Blood all the way through before. So I thought tonight would be a good night to correct that little situation.

I. Freaking love. That movie.

If you've never seen it before, do yourself a favor and watch it. Satisfaction guaranteed.

PS- David Caruso is in the movie, how tf did I never know that?

I saw the modern masterpiece LAST BLOOD during a flight in January.

Like JOKER, it's very much a film for the here and now. Rambo is a man of few words, but his words are truthful. The plot is simplistic because the situation is what it is. As Rambo says, there are bad people in the world who do bad things, cannot be redeemed and only get worse.

The secret to a good film is having a good villain, and LAST BLOOD more than satisfies that criteria. We are given a realistic depiction of what the cartels are capable of. Kidnapping, drugging, killing and cutting without remorse. It's confronting stuff and it should be.

When Rambo leads these savages to his barn it's one of the most satisfying sequences put to film. You hate what they've done and what they represent. You want him to GET them. Violence is the only language they understand, and Rambo speaks it better than they ever could.

Forget all the cliches such as 'only light can drive away the darkness'. That means nothing. In reality, you must be badder than the bad guys. For THEM to feel fear and grief. Lives are forever ruined by these animals - they rip out the hearts of families. Thus they deserve the same treatment, and not symbolically. Stallone is never going to be praised for this movie, but that doesn't change how I feel about it.

One thing I've came to appreciate during the 2010's is how little respect I ever had for Stallone compared to how much he actually deserves. To put it plainly, I sold the man short far too many times. Even after the masterpiece that was Rocky Balboa, I didn't completely appreciate the man's talent. But The Expendables series along with a deep dive into his 70's and 80's work has put everything into clearer focus for me.

Stallone is awesome, simple as that.

The Stallone posts in this thread has got me in the feels right now.

I watched Falling Down for the first time last night.

Very good film, one of Joel Schumacher's best. In my opinion, Michael Douglas put in one of his best performances here. He really sold the tension as a disillusioned, psychotic man trying to visit his daughter for her birthday. As an old-fashioned man who looked like he belonged in Norman Rockwell's America, you can feel his outrage and disgust as he walks through the urban decay in modern day Los Angeles and how each incident contributes to his madness, in addition to his failed marriage. Robert DuVall was quite good as the retiring cop who finds the courage back in getting off his desk duty to investigate the case, but Douglas is without a doubt the MVP here.

Schumacher gets a lot of sh*t thrown at him, but on his best day, he definitely can direct something of true quality. I really doubt this movie could ever get made today though.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon,  9 Mar  2020, 02:40
I watched Falling Down for the first time last night.

Very good film, one of Joel Schumacher's best. In my opinion, Michael Douglas put in one of his best performances here. He really sold the tension as a disillusioned, psychotic man trying to visit his daughter for her birthday. As an old-fashioned man who looked like he belonged in Norman Rockwell's America, you can feel his outrage and disgust as he walks through the urban decay in modern day Los Angeles and how each incident contributes to his madness, in addition to his failed marriage. Robert DuVall was quite good as the retiring cop who finds the courage back in getting off his desk duty to investigate the case, but Douglas is without a doubt the MVP here.

Schumacher gets a lot of sh*t thrown at him, but on his best day, he definitely can direct something of true quality. I really doubt this movie could ever get made today though.

I would compare Falling Down to Fight Club from standpoint that Schumacher and Fincher both had a certain intent with those stories. But certain key elements of the audience took a rather different message from the films than was likely intended.

In the case of Falling Down, I think Schumacher and the screenwriters* were essentially looking down their noses at D-FENS. But that's not the only way to interpret the story. I have seen some rather visceral interpretations of the film and those are a bit Too Hot For TV to get into here. Suffice it to say, I see D-FENS as a confused, disillusioned man who tried earnestly to make sense of a world that had basically abandoned him and so one day he just snapped and decided to force the world to make sense, knowing that his efforts were ultimately futile.

I have no doubt that Falling Down could get made today. Some narrative elements would be played up more heavily in 2020's FD than the original FD. But the same movie, more or less, could easily get made today.

* Yes, I do think Schumacher was creatively sneering at the likes of D-FENS. That is a criticism of Schumacher. It doesn't diminish my appreciation of various of his films. But in the case of FD, I simply think there's no denying that Schumacher has absolutely zero compassion or affection for D-FENS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yfIoHXOO9E

Thirteen Days is one of those criminally underrated films that come around sometimes and somehow get lost in the shuffle. Idk why the YouTube trailer says "2001" because the movie came out in December 2000.

Originally, I assumed that 2000 was just a weak year for film. In my defense, this is the year of Dungeons & Dragons. In what I can only now categorize as some truly epic historical irony, D&D came out the same day as Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. History only looks back fondly at one of those movies with "Dragon" in the title. Battlefield: Earth is not exactly a highpoint of 2000 either.

But seriously, look at some of the other movies from 2000: Traffic, American Psycho, Almost Famous, Erin Brockovich, Mission: Impossible 2, Gladiator, Dinosaur, Virgin Suicides, The Perfect Storm, X-Men, High Fidelity, Cast Away and probably others I'm forgetting about. I guess I can see why Thirteen Days might've gotten overlooked.

Anyway. Thirteen Days. Those thirteen days. Strange to think how close the USA and the USSR came to blowing the entire world up. The movie ends on a positive note that tends to undercut the propaganda of the American and Soviet news media of the sixties. Specifically, that the US isn't always the hero cowboy in the white hat and the Soviets weren't always the villain in the black hat. Good men and bad men existed in both countries. And it was good men on both sides who prevented a cataclysmic war. Dumb luck was an unindicted co-conspirator in saving the world too.

The movie mostly consists of guys in suits in rooms talking to each other. That either works for you or it doesn't. But I welcome the movie's deliberate pace and relative lack of unnecessary thrills and frills.

Highly recommended!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY6mC4I4SWk

One more. Snow Falling On Cedars. This movie came, it saw... it tanked at the box office. To be fair tho, a lot of stuff was going on in 1999 when this movie came out.

It's funny. You hear a lot about "the director's original vision" and other trash talk. But the fact is, for a lot of movies out there, there's usually only two or three money shots where "the director's vision" actually matters. For everything else, it could be released in craptacular Betamax for all the difference it would make.

But Snow Falling On Cedars is GORGEOUS, where virtually every shot is a money shot. Amazingly beautiful camera work. The story either works for you or it doesn't. But even if it doesn't, I'd still recommend checking this thing out because of how beautiful the compositions are. This is like film school in 127 minutes. Gorgeous cinematography and a great cast. It's worth checking.

I may have more to say about American Psycho as a whole (novel and film) at some point later, particularly about ambiguities. But I'll focus on this scene because I love music montages, and this is one of the best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ruw9fsh3PNY

"You might think I'm crazy, but I don't even care...."

That's my favorite part. The music peaks along with Bateman's axe swinging as the lyrics comment on his true personality, which is physically expressed.

Bale's expression from 1.44-1.45, how he opens his mouth in cathartic release of pent up energy, is incredible in its realism. And then, satisfied the job is done, he reaches a level of zen. The body on the floor while he smokes the cigar is perfect. As if this scene is commonplace, akin to sitting on the lounge and watching TV.

The upbeat Hip To Be Square playing in the background, juxtaposed with his brooding persona, makes this scene top tier. What I also love is that without that music playing in the background this house is completely silent and lifeless. Just Bateman getting to be himself, alone with his trophy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jErbT03WXc

A lot of you are European. So I imagine you probably aren't terribly familiar with how school is done over here in the States. Bear with me while I make a point.

Our history classes are like most, I suppose. We have to prioritize our own history ahead of others. That becomes a problem because our history lessons stop covering Europe once the lessons reach around 1700 or so. America's colonial period, iow. From there, European history is gradually phased out and replaced with American history. It's unfortunate but necessary.

Now yes, our history classes in school do make brief stopovers again in Europe. The World Wars, the Cold War, the Berlin Wall, etc. But mostly, stuff between 1700'ish to 1939 or so largely gets skipped.

One consequence of this is that most Americans don't know very much about twentieth century Europe in general, Ireland, Michael Collins, the civil war, their Troubles and all that. Basically, if Dolores O'Riordan didn't write a song about it, our knowledge might be a bit sketchy.

Which is why Michael Collins is so fascinating to me. It's history that I never knew that I never knew.

Aside from that, it's a damn good movie. Obviously, Liam Neeson has a personal investment in the character and he gives it his all here. Which, for him, is saying quite a lot. The whole cast is good and this is worth another look for those who have seen it before.

Idk if I've ever said so around here before but I've been trying like hell for the past year or so to avoid superhero films. At one point, I was doing a deep dive through Martin Scorsese's filmography.

Michael Collins is also good counter-programming for all this superhero stuff. Definitely worth checking out.

The Bounty (1984) is one of the most underrated films ever made and a picture I would strongly recommend to everyone on this site. Don't let the mixed critical reception put you off – it's the most historically accurate screen version of the Bounty story and a damn good film to boot. After first seeing it a few years ago, I developed a fascination with the subject matter that prompted me to read several books and articles on the topic, including An Account of the Mutiny of HMS Bounty by Lieutenant William Bligh. The film takes some dramatic license in depicting Bligh's obsession with rounding Cape Horn, but other than that it sticks closer to real events than the earlier film versions. Some of the dialogue, such as Fletcher Christian's "I am in hell" line, are taken directly from firsthand accounts.


The script was written by Robert Bolt, who also wrote Lawrence of Arabia (1962), Doctor Zhivago (1965) and A Man for All Season (1966). Bolt's scripts often focus on a central moral dilemma where the protagonist must stand up for what they believe to be right against a majority who disagree with them. The Bounty is a good example of this. It challenges the viewer to ask what they would do if they were in the same situation: would you go in the lifeboat with Bligh or stay on the ship with Christian and the other mutineers?


Unlike earlier screen versions of the story, which tended to portray Bligh with broadly villainous strokes, this one instead presents him more accurately as a flawed but honourable man. He was obviously a great seaman, as demonstrated by the way he navigated the lifeboat containing him and his loyal crewmen to safety. But he was also clearly an imperfect leader. The fact he was subjected to a coup d'état during the Rum Rebellion of 1808 is further proof of this. But he wasn't the evil tyrant some versions of the story depict him as. At the same time though, Fletcher Christian is portrayed sympathetically, and the viewer can understand his desire to remain in the tropical Tahitian paradise with his beloved wife. There is no clear hero or villain dynamic here, and I find such stories often make for the most compelling.

David Lean was originally meant to direct, but it was ultimately helmed by Roger Donaldon, who also directed the movie Thirteen Days (2000) mentioned earlier in this thread. The impressive cast includes Anthony Hopkins, Mel Gibson, Laurence Olivier, Daniel-Day Lewis, Bernard Hill, Edward Fox, Liam Neeson, Neil Morrissey and Dexter Fletcher. The score by Vangelis is moody, melancholic and beautiful. It's up there with his soundtracks for Chariots of Fire (1981) and Blade Runner (1982).


Give it a watch if you haven't already.

Has anyone else seen The Founder yet, aka the McDonald's biography? Michael Keaton was excellent as Ray Kroc, shows him as a salesman who is initially down on his luck, until he shows what a ruthless businessman he is and has no hesitation in screwing over people to make the most iconic fast-food brand ever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX2uz2XYkbo

I finally watched The Way Back recently, starring Ben Affleck. It is apparently regarded as one of the best films of 2020, and I can't disagree. A very good drama about a depressed alcoholic who reluctantly takes up coaching basketball for a Catholic school, and slowly but painfully works his way to find peace in his troubled life. In a way, you can't help but remind yourself of Affleck's real life troubles in the last few years and how the art imitates his life as he pulls himself together, and it does make it for heart-warming viewing. Perhaps it's not so surprising since this film was directed by Gavin O'Connor, who directed the excellent Warrior. It seems O'Connor knows how to make dramas that had a level of struggle and emotion you could relate to, without being overly sentimental.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzNJVSsjE-I

I'll check out The Founder tonight. Sounds interesting.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed,  9 Dec  2020, 13:05
Has anyone else seen The Founder yet, aka the McDonald's biography? Michael Keaton was excellent as Ray Kroc, shows him as a salesman who is initially down on his luck, until he shows what a ruthless businessman he is and has no hesitation in screwing over people to make the most iconic fast-food brand ever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX2uz2XYkbo

Watched the movie last night. He is shown to be pretty ruthless after a certain point. But honestly, I was more upset by his stealing the franchisee's wife. I mean, a bad business deal is a bad business deal. Kroc tried getting out of it fairly numerous times before he went nuclear on the McDonald brothers. You do what you gotta do. But stealing some other guy's wife, I can't look past that. Good movie about a not very good guy.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 10 Dec  2020, 12:41

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed,  9 Dec  2020, 13:05
Has anyone else seen The Founder yet, aka the McDonald's biography? Michael Keaton was excellent as Ray Kroc, shows him as a salesman who is initially down on his luck, until he shows what a ruthless businessman he is and has no hesitation in screwing over people to make the most iconic fast-food brand ever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX2uz2XYkbo

Watched the movie last night. He is shown to be pretty ruthless after a certain point. But honestly, I was more upset by his stealing the franchisee's wife. I mean, a bad business deal is a bad business deal. Kroc tried getting out of it fairly numerous times before he went nuclear on the McDonald brothers. You do what you gotta do. But stealing some other guy's wife, I can't look past that. Good movie about a not very good guy.

Yes, it was pretty scummy of him, but that sums up Ray Kroc's character. Pretty much embodies the attitude of "I get whatever I want", with zero remorse.

Another good drama I enjoyed watching recently was Richard Jewell, the latest directorial effort by Clint Eastwood. If you know the true story about the Atlanta bombing in 1996, you have a well-meaning (albeit awkward) security guard whose habit of strictly abiding by regulations saved many people from further injury and death, but gets wrongfully labeled a suspect by the CIA, based on an unproven criminal theory that gets leaked to the press. A good cautionary tale of how the media and government agencies can vilify people due to their own incompetence and personal ambitions getting in the way of judgement.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 10 Dec  2020, 12:41
Watched the movie last night. He is shown to be pretty ruthless after a certain point. But honestly, I was more upset by his stealing the franchisee's wife. I mean, a bad business deal is a bad business deal. Kroc tried getting out of it fairly numerous times before he went nuclear on the McDonald brothers. You do what you gotta do. But stealing some other guy's wife, I can't look past that. Good movie about a not very good guy.

It's a great movie and I saw it around the initial release. Ray Kroc is one of my business idols.

How do you create an iconic mega corporation? Is that process going to be clean, or do you need to push into uncomfortable areas and break eggs? Kroc was necessary evil and did what had to be done. Without him, McDonalds would not be what it is today. It would be a small local shop in California that closed long ago, or expanded but nothing like the global powerhouse we see now.

The Brothers were reluctant to push forward so they had to be left behind. Period. Kroc did the job asked of him - he just did it too well. Kroc is a hero of hard work, problem solving and determination, seeing an opportunity and taking it with both hands.

As a salesman he knew the grind of daily life. He's proof that success can come at any moment, even late in life. And that trying something once and failing isn't an excuse to not try again.

Honestly, screw the McDonald brothers. They just had to cooperate more fully with Kroc and see the enormity of what was happening. Because of their resistance, future family members miss out on millions. And that's their problem. Kroc outgrew them and holding himself back meant forgoing a once in a generation opportunity. He would've been a fool to restrain himself.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 10 Dec  2020, 13:11Another good drama I enjoyed watching recently was Richard Jewell, the latest directorial effort by Clint Eastwood. If you know the true story about the Atlanta bombing in 1996, you have a well-meaning (albeit awkward) security guard whose habit of strictly abiding by regulations saved many people from further injury and death, but gets wrongfully labeled a suspect by the CIA, based on an unproven criminal theory that gets leaked to the press. A good cautionary tale of how the media and government agencies can vilify people due to their own incompetence and personal ambitions getting in the way of judgement.

Is there something in the water? I just finished of Manhunt: Deadly Games, centering on that very same subject. I imagine it's probably different in the particular than Eastwood's movie.

It sort of ties in with my long-held theory that anybody can be made into an Oswald simply by living a quiet, ordinary life with a few juicy details of their private lives taken wildly out of context.

But since we're here, Manhunt is shaping up to be an enjoyable... whatever it is. Anthology show, miniseries, whatever.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 11 Dec  2020, 02:26
Is there something in the water? I just finished of Manhunt: Deadly Games, centering on that very same subject. I imagine it's probably different in the particular than Eastwood's movie.

It sort of ties in with my long-held theory that anybody can be made into an Oswald simply by living a quiet, ordinary life with a few juicy details of their private lives taken wildly out of context.

But since we're here, Manhunt is shaping up to be an enjoyable... whatever it is. Anthology show, miniseries, whatever.

That is weird. If watching films and TV shows that follow the same topic isn't coincidental enough, I'm up to the fourth episode of Manhunt: Unabomber.

Are we telepathic or something?

Anyway, the only gripe I have with Unabomber is the production quality feels a little like a bland CBS procedural, but the acting elevates it. Paul Bettany is absolutely creepy as Ted Kaczynski and Sam Worthington is solid as the bright but frustrated Agent Fitzgerald.

I've heard of stories about Kaczynski started off as the Zodiac killer and then he became the Unabomber, but I've also heard that serial killers don't tend to change their identities and MOs.

To change the subject, another drama I watched over the weekend was The Disaster Artist, based on the true story of the production for one of the worst films of all time, The Room. I'm not exactly a big fan of the Seth Rogen/Judd Apatow comedy troupe, but James Franco NAILED it as the incompetent Tommy Wiseau. ;D

It's probably one of the most meta films you will ever see. It's not exactly demeaning to Wiseau, but if you've seen him in interviews he wouldn't appear to care anyway. If anything, it celebrates how an independent film made by passionate but inept people, could gain such an appreciation because of how terrible it is.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 14 Dec  2020, 11:18That is weird. If watching films and TV shows that follow the same topic isn't coincidental enough, I'm up to the fourth episode of Manhunt: Unabomber.

That one is a real winner, if you ask me. Took a while for me to realize that Deadly Games is the follow up to Unabomber. Watched Unabomber last year and totally loved it.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 14 Dec  2020, 11:18Anyway, the only gripe I have with Unabomber is the production quality feels a little like a bland CBS procedural, but the acting elevates it. Paul Bettany is absolutely creepy as Ted Kaczynski and Sam Worthington is solid as the bright but frustrated Agent Fitzgerald.

It is kind of generic on a cinematic level but I don't mind that too much.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 14 Dec  2020, 11:18I've heard of stories about Kaczynski started off as the Zodiac killer and then he became the Unabomber, but I've also heard that serial killers don't tend to change their identities and MOs.

I'll say this, if not for the bombs themselves, Kaczynski would be viewed as a prophet these days. Ultimately, the maimings and deaths detract from what could've been a powerful message. Obviously, I cannot sanction the murder of innocents like that. But he still has a point even if he went about expressing it in the wrong way.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 14 Dec  2020, 11:18To change the subject, another drama I watched over the weekend was The Disaster Artist, based on the true story of the production for one of the worst films of all time, The Room. I'm not exactly a big fan of the Seth Rogen/Judd Apatow comedy troupe, but James Franco NAILED it as the incompetent Tommy Wiseau. ;D

It's probably one of the most meta films you will ever see. It's not exactly demeaning to Wiseau, but if you've seen him in interviews he wouldn't appear to care anyway. If anything, it celebrates how an independent film made by passionate but inept people, could gain such an appreciation because of how terrible it is.

I saw The Room ages ago at a midnight screening and couldn't believe my eyes. "Nuff said? And so, it makes sense to me that the Behind The Scenes story is even zanier than the movie itself. The Disaster Artist doesn't necessarily paint Wiseau in a flattering light (although neither do his public appearances) (and neither does The Room) but at the same time it's clear that Franco and all the rest do have a sincere affection for him and his movie.

The Disaster Artist is dedicated to such esoteric subject matter that I'm amazed that it even exists.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 10 Dec  2020, 19:57It's a great movie and I saw it around the initial release. Ray Kroc is one of my business idols.

I only watched it for the first time a few days ago because of this thread. Rly enjoyed it tho.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 10 Dec  2020, 19:57How do you create an iconic mega corporation? Is that process going to be clean, or do you need to push into uncomfortable areas and break eggs? Kroc was necessary evil and did what had to be done. Without him, McDonalds would not be what it is today. It would be a small local shop in California that closed long ago, or expanded but nothing like the global powerhouse we see now.

Agreed. Sooner or later (sooner, I think), someone would have been successful in stealing the brothers' fast food system. I see it as a question of when, not if. They were always going to get ripped off and left behind by somebody. In a certain sense, all you can rly blame Kroc for is being first on the scene.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 10 Dec  2020, 19:57The Brothers were reluctant to push forward so they had to be left behind. Period. Kroc did the job asked of him - he just did it too well. Kroc is a hero of hard work, problem solving and determination, seeing an opportunity and taking it with both hands.

Agreed. And even there, the brothers could've defended themselves if they'd used a stronger contract with Kroc. Hate to say it business is war and trusting a business partner too much usually only sets you up for betrayal later. The brothers were visionaries, but only up to a point. Stronger leadership obviously would've allowed them to expand their business. They simply were unwilling or unable to do what needed to be done.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 10 Dec  2020, 19:57Honestly, screw the McDonald brothers. They just had to cooperate more fully with Kroc and see the enormity of what was happening. Because of their resistance, future family members miss out on millions. And that's their problem. Kroc outgrew them and holding himself back meant forgoing a once in a generation opportunity. He would've been a fool to restrain himself.

Kroc wasn't out to make friends, that much is clear. He understood the power of branding and being firstest with the mostest, and he had the will to act. Sure, he had some lucky breaks along the way and he hired the right team to get the job done. Kroc himself said others undoubtedly tried copying the McDonald's formula. But in the end, he succeeded where (probably) everyone else had failed because he had the will to do what needed to be done. The brothers were very good process thinkers but Kroc's gift was being able to see the big picture. That's why he ultimately won, if you ask me. The brothers didn't rly understand what to do with their system.

On a side note, I guess I never thought much about how McDonald's totally rewrote the rules of the food service industry. Those scenes where Kroc goes to drive-in restaurants and disaster strikes endlessly were very educational. Even tho Kroc has all my sympathies in the movie, I still admire the McDonald brothers for recognizing every single problem the drive-in dining model had and then systematically fixing them one-by-one. They were visionaries when it comes to customer service. It's their business acumen that was lacking.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 10 Dec  2020, 19:57

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 10 Dec  2020, 12:41
Watched the movie last night. He is shown to be pretty ruthless after a certain point. But honestly, I was more upset by his stealing the franchisee's wife. I mean, a bad business deal is a bad business deal. Kroc tried getting out of it fairly numerous times before he went nuclear on the McDonald brothers. You do what you gotta do. But stealing some other guy's wife, I can't look past that. Good movie about a not very good guy.

It's a great movie and I saw it around the initial release. Ray Kroc is one of my business idols.

How do you create an iconic mega corporation? Is that process going to be clean, or do you need to push into uncomfortable areas and break eggs? Kroc was necessary evil and did what had to be done. Without him, McDonalds would not be what it is today. It would be a small local shop in California that closed long ago, or expanded but nothing like the global powerhouse we see now.

The Brothers were reluctant to push forward so they had to be left behind. Period. Kroc did the job asked of him - he just did it too well. Kroc is a hero of hard work, problem solving and determination, seeing an opportunity and taking it with both hands.

As a salesman he knew the grind of daily life. He's proof that success can come at any moment, even late in life. And that trying something once and failing isn't an excuse to not try again.

Honestly, screw the McDonald brothers. They just had to cooperate more fully with Kroc and see the enormity of what was happening. Because of their resistance, future family members miss out on millions. And that's their problem. Kroc outgrew them and holding himself back meant forgoing a once in a generation opportunity. He would've been a fool to restrain himself.

Rly not trying to beat this thing to death. But the bit in the bathroom is an amazing scene. Hell, I'd say every scene "with" Ray and the McDonald brothers in the last maybe twenty minutes of the movie is great. But the bathroom scene is THE scene, it lays out the entire agenda. No idea if it actually happened this way but it's a f****** great scene.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB-PRuHxbOs

Read Ray's book Grinding It Out if you're really interested in the man.

The McDonald brothers couldn't get past the mentality of 'this was our idea, and we started the first restaurant'. I could understand that thinking if this was going to remain a local store and nothing much beyond that. But keeping that mentality long term was to their detriment.

They tried to franchise the brand themselves and failed. Ray was insistent on expanding the business, but nonetheless, the brothers did agree to that. After that point he was making it happen. Why put limitations on greatness? I think their own past failure held them back.

I love the cold hearted brilliance of using their family name and leaving them in the dust.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 10 Dec  2020, 13:11
Another good drama I enjoyed watching recently was Richard Jewell, the latest directorial effort by Clint Eastwood. If you know the true story about the Atlanta bombing in 1996, you have a well-meaning (albeit awkward) security guard whose habit of strictly abiding by regulations saved many people from further injury and death, but gets wrongfully labeled a suspect by the CIA, based on an unproven criminal theory that gets leaked to the press. A good cautionary tale of how the media and government agencies can vilify people due to their own incompetence and personal ambitions getting in the way of judgement.

Your recommendation about The Founder paid off in a big way so I've got Richard Jewell up on HBO Max.

So far, I'm thinking I like the Manhunt version of this story better. This is okay tho.

I didn't see an appropriate thread and didn't want to start another, so I'm posting this here. A trailer for an upcoming project, The Beatles: Get Back, which I would recommend people see in any case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UocEGvQ10OE

I was smiling the whole time. To see this new footage is amazing and it looks like it could've been filmed last week, rather than 50 years ago. It's crazy the footage has been sitting there the whole time, untouched until now, similar to the recent Michael Jordan documentary 'The Last Dance' which enthralled the world. Just seeing them interact in their place of work, right near the end of their time together as a band, will be special to see. That dynamic is what created the magic.

Peter Jackson is a big fan and I have faith in him to deliver a strong final edit. The Beatles deserve a proper studio movie like this, and while the original Let It Be film has its place, this can be more expansive and more of a celebration. Really looking forward to it. 

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 22 Dec  2020, 03:03
I didn't see an appropriate thread and didn't want to start another, so I'm posting this here. A trailer for an upcoming project, The Beatles: Get Back, which I would recommend people see in any case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UocEGvQ10OE

I was smiling the whole time. To see this new footage is amazing and it looks like it could've been filmed last week, rather than 50 years ago. It's crazy the footage has been sitting there the whole time, untouched until now, similar to the recent Michael Jordan documentary 'The Last Dance' which enthralled the world. Just seeing them interact in their place of work, right near the end of their time together as a band, will be special to see. That dynamic is what created the magic.

Peter Jackson is a big fan and I have faith in him to deliver a strong final edit. The Beatles deserve a proper studio movie like this, and while the original Let It Be film has its place, this can be more expansive and more of a celebration. Really looking forward to it.

colors- "Smile? How is watching Beatles footage supposed to make anyone smile?"
*John and Ringo ventriloquist-sing their way through "Two Of Us"*
colors- *smiles*

So I wouldn't recommend WW84, because holy sh*t, was that a terrible movie. I really liked the first one, this.......was bad.

You have been warned.

Quote from: Travesty on Sat, 26 Dec  2020, 14:25
So I wouldn't recommend WW84, because holy sh*t, was that a terrible movie. I really liked the first one, this.......was bad.

You have been warned.

Heed this warning. Anyone who gave this a  positive review was obviously paid off. There's a lot of denial going on but it's easily going down as one of the worst comic book movies ever.

Quote from: Travesty on Sat, 26 Dec  2020, 14:25
So I wouldn't recommend WW84, because holy sh*t, was that a terrible movie. I really liked the first one, this.......was bad.

You have been warned.

That bad, huh? I guess Snyder's warrior influence was sorely missed.  :-[

Let's hope this will be the last time Geoff Johns writes a script for a DC adaptation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELeMaP8EPAA

Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood

Finally watched Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood near the end of December. Missed it in theaters because reasons but I saw the price had dropped way down on iTunes after Christmas and knew I had to check it out.

My thing has been Cape-Free Cinema in recent times. That means no superheroes. I want to watch FILMS. Priority is given to period pieces, true stories/autobiographies and the cinematic works of David Fincher (for whom Mank was all of the above, btw).

Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood. Rly enjoyed it. Rick Dalton is obviously a composite but the movie is better for that, if you ask me. I don't think using an irl has-been actor as the lead character would've worked. Esp considering that jaw-dropping ending.

Probably my favorite scene is where Cliff half-spars/half-rly fights Bruce Lee. There are apocryphal tales of Bruce Lee getting owned by westerners and this seems to fit in that milieu. I remind myself that Bruce Lee was his own best publicist so there might be something to those stories of Lee getting his ass kicked.

For me, the promise of the premise of Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood is Hollywood as it was in the late Sixties. The founders of Hollywood from the Twenties and Thirties were retiring and selling their movie studios to corporations. The industry was radically shifting, the tastes and preferences of wide audiences were moving away from all those plot-free beach movies of the early Sixties and basically nobody rly knew what to do or which direction to go in.

That aimlessness along with the general insanity of the late Sixties personified by the Manson family are what rly give Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood its mojo.

Tarantino claims he's retiring after his tenth movie. But if you ask me, stuff like Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood is proof that he should reconsider that. I'm not a big Tarantino guy. Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, the Kill Bills and, now, Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood are the only movies of his I've seen. But Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood was so enjoyable that I lament his choice to call it a day after the tenth movie.

Either way tho, Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood is a no-brainer recommendation, if you want to avoid superheroes, this is the movie for you.

I am a big Tarantino guy. He's neck and neck with Snyder with me. They are macho men who understand the power of cinema and go the whole way with their vision, provoking debate and controversy.

They're the best in the business. No doubt about that whatsoever.

I am very nostalgic about Pulp Fiction. The dialogue is hilarious and the moments are unforgettable. Chopping the film up out of sequence makes it so much better. So much more thought provoking and unique. Jackie Brown is a damn good film, y'all. I like Pulp a lot more, but I possibly prefer Samuel L in this compared to Pulp. What a badass role. I dig how he dies, too. Walks in, gets shot, and then silence. Following a character for two hours or more and then nothing. THAT is realism.

Inglorious Basterds is a near masterpiece, and if you like the alternate reality angle of Once Upon A Time you need to check it out. My relationship with Kill Bill isn't as strong but I still think they're a lot of fun.

Not a common choice, but The Hateful Eight is my fave from Tarantino because it has the simplicity of a stage play. Minimal locations powered purely by the script and the strength of the performances. I love that simplicity. Tarantino's greatest asset is mounting and releasing tension, and that gets a good workout here. It's a slow burn but so rewarding when it all comes together. Stay with it. Let the atmosphere build. If you haven't seen the movie what the hell are you waiting for?

Once Upon A Time is another slow build but it's one I like. It's about BEING in that era. Driving around the streets, walking the streets and letting that world envelope you. As someone fascinated by Manson and that time it was rewarding to see how Quentin spliced his universe in with the real world events. Visiting Spahn Ranch, seeing the girls out and about on the streets and all that stuff. Very cleverly done.

He's had some good endings, but Tarantino's last scene here is right up there. Satisfying, hilarious but also melancholic. I walked out of the cinema with goosebumps when I first saw it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTjG-Aux_yQ

For reasons I don't particularly understand myself, I've been on a big Vietnam war kick lately. I've been watching some documentaries about the war but mostly it's been movies. Obvious stuff, rly. Platoon. Full Metal Jacket.

And the granddaddy of them all, Apocalypse Now.

Now, I myself would quibble with that. I always saw Apocalypse Now as a war film. Specifically, an anti-war film. The insanity, the brutality, the sheer lack of mercy and compassion, the utterly blurred moral lines, that's all war. Whether it's Okinawa, Baghdad, Saigon, Berlin, Kabul, it's all the same, war brings out the worst in man. Pray for peace.

Now yes, the occasion of this film is Vietnam. No denying that. But the point is that it could've been anything and you'd have the same result.

Still, the insanity is what most people associate with Vietnam so it is a good fit. But I think the film is saying it all goes much deeper than one war in the late Sixties.

The weirdest thing about Apocalypse Now is that until Willard reaches the Kurtz compound, the film is a series of otherwise disconnected vignettes. The scenes all fit with the basic "war is always chaos" theme that the movie embraces with both arms. But I think one reason Coppola keeps recutting the thing is because the scenes don't necessarily relate to each other all that much. Willard gets his orders to go to the Kurtz compound and then Willard arrives at the Kurtz compound. You can have as many or as few scenes between those two events as you want. Because it's already insane enough that an Army captain is terminating an Army colonel. Everything that happens between those two events reinforces the basic craziness at the heart of the story and, indeed, at the heart of war itself.

I adore this film. More than most, I consider this to be a movie where you just savor the acting and performances. You get some Coppola all-stars like Robert Duvall and G. D. Spradlin strutting their stuff but you also get Dennis Hopper snorting who the hell even knows what before cameras start rolling.

Anyway. It's fair to ask which version you should watch. Maybe it's hypocritical of me to say considering I just pointed out how disconnected the scenes mostly are with each other. But I actually recommend the theatrical version. For me, this is the purest distillation of the "War is chaos" theme. The other cuts include scenes which tend to politicize Vietnam specifically. And for me, that detracts from the movie's comments about war in a more general way.

Still, there are three cuts: theatrical, Redux and Final Cut. So pick your poison, I guess.

I just rewatched this on 4K for the first time a few weeks ago. Every time I watch this movie I keep forgetting how the ending feels like a horror movie. It always makes me uncomfortable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aStYWD25fAQ

Kicked off my annual Lord Of The Rings rewatch tonight. It's a bit obvious to recommend The Fellowship Of The Ring. It's a true classic. History has spoken on that. And who am I to argue with history?

The performances in this outing never get old. That's praise I don't necessarily extend to the sequels, for the record. But here, the characters and the acting have mostly the right balance. It helps that FOTR has the fewest digital effects of all the movies. I read somewhere that The Battle Of Pelennor Fields from ROTK has more CG shots in it than the entirety of FOTR. That should tell you something. I'm not anti-CGI. Far from it. But there's a grit and an internal reality to FOTR that kind of gets lost in TTT and, to a larger extent, ROTK.

Still, I do have some quibbles with FOTR. There are times when things get a bit too melodramatic for my taste. Perhaps it's to be expected with two female writers being paired up with a director mostly known for gory creature features up to then. Peter Jackson seemed content to let the women write whatever emotional stuff they wanted while he focused his attention on production design, battle sequences, costume design, etc. But still, slow motion crying is a bit over the top.

I'm aware that some Tolkien purists despise the LOTR films. I can even sympathize with their reasons too. But I think I can be more pragmatic about it than they can. LOTR as a book was going to be adapted into film. That's an immutable fact. Inevitable. So, on that basis, I think it's fair to ask if Jackson's trilogy is worthwhile. And for me, the answer can only be yes. I shudder to think what might've happened if LOTR had been put through the Hollywood machinery with anybody besides Jackson to protect it and advocate for it.

Maybe a different filmmaker might've done even better with the source material. But I don't see how that's possible. And for damn sure, I don't know who that filmmaker might be.

So all in all, I find the LOTR films entertaining and engaging visualizations of the novel. Are they perfect? No. Are they better than the book? Please.

But for what they are, I find them to be a triumph. They're a testament that the people involved were 100% invested in doing the best job they possibly could in adapting LOTR in a way that works for film. Nobody phoned it in, nobody did anything half ass, everybody was completely committed. I understand that Christopher Tolkien didn't approve of the movies or some of the creative directions Jackson went in.

And Christopher Tolkien is the biggest Tolkien fan in history. He was allowed to say, do and think whatever he wants and I'll shut up and listen to him. He earned that loyalty from me a thousand times over during his life.

But I see tremendous value in the films and I think I always will.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 18 Feb  2021, 03:28
I'm aware that some Tolkien purists despise the LOTR films. I can even sympathize with their reasons too. But I think I can be more pragmatic about it than they can. LOTR as a book was going to be adapted into film. That's an immutable fact. Inevitable. So, on that basis, I think it's fair to ask if Jackson's trilogy is worthwhile. And for me, the answer can only be yes. I shudder to think what might've happened if LOTR had been put through the Hollywood machinery with anybody besides Jackson to protect it and advocate for it.

Re-reading the books again and taking my sweet time has reaffirmed their superiority. Tolkien's use of the English language, character development and plot progression is practically flawless. But Jackson did perhaps the best possible job I can imagine in terms of cinematography, soundtrack and casting. The general story is there, even though it lacks the depth of Tolkien's tome. But that's to be expected. Without the films the brand wouldn't be what it is today. Some see that in a negative and positive sense. Did the brand need the movies? No. But they created a brand new audience. I rank LOTR as the best fantasy genre in books and films.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emIHzg4VH8A

In the big scheme of things, Insomnia will probably not be considered Christopher Nolan's most memorable film or his masterpiece or whatever. Still, having just watched it for the first time, I have to say it's pretty good. It lacks a lot of the twists and turns that Nolan would go on to become famous for. But then, this wasn't his script. Back then, he was a lean and hungry director who was already refining his talents. Recurring visual motifs, a semi-irredeemable lead character, a mystery that unravels, reravels and unravels again, a lot of the hallmarks that would define his later work are already present here.

In a lot of ways, this is a less sophisticated film than Memento. I don't think anybody questions that. But at the same time, that doesn't mean Insomnia doesn't have merit. On the contrary, it has considerable merit.

It's an enjoyable film. It lacks the edge-of-your-seat suspense of Memento and the twist(s) of The Prestige. But at its core, it's the story of a guy who has been covering up for his misdeeds for far too long and it all finally comes back to haunt him. Will Dormer faces deserved justice. And for that novelty alone, I'd say that Insomnia is worth a watch.

(Most of you have probably already seen it tho)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZGcmvrTX9M

A coincidence, I guess. But I finally watched Tenet. I avoided spoilers but, somehow, picked up along the way that the movie's basic plot is sort of brain-melting stuff. And it is sophisticated, for sure. But it's not as incomprehensible as it's made out to be.

I like movies with ideas to them. So, even if Tenet was an incomprehensible mess (which I don't believe it was), it would still be worthwhile.

Anyway. Highly enjoyable movie. Well worth a watch.

I didn't think Tenet was incomprehensible, but I did find much of it to be inaudible. The audio mix on the Blu-ray I watched was terrible. I've only seen it once, but if I watch it again I'll probably do so with the subtitles switched on. Other than that, I thought it was decent. I knew nothing about the plot before seeing it, except that the narrative structure had something to do with palindromes. Based on that, I was able to predict certain plot twists early in the movie. But aside from the bad audio, I thought it was a solid thriller. The whole idea of inverted entropy was interesting and Nolan put it to creative use.

It's definitely not his best work, and I'd rank it alongside Following (1998) as one of his lesser films, but it's still pretty good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFMo3UJ4B4g

This is a movie where Amy Adams makes contact with an alien species and even goes on their ship at one point. :D

Srsly tho, rly good movie. Sort of a thinking man's first contact movie. Very talky but a highly logical storyline. Recommended.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 24 Mar  2021, 21:07
It's definitely not his best work, and I'd rank it alongside Following (1998) as one of his lesser films, but it's still pretty good.

Nolan's biggest weakness is making his films feel more like scripts with their wordy, sterile atmosphere. But nobody can deny he's passionate and gives a project everything he has. I admire his commitment to innovation and creating new stories, which has been alien to Hollywood for quite some time. I also enjoy films that require thought, long after they have been seen. Tenet is definitely one of those, and for those reasons I also put it in the good category.

I have a custom that at this time of year I like to re-watch some of my favourite German Expressionist films. I've been doing this around Easter for almost two decades now, and this year, out of sheer boredom, I decided to compile a list of my top twenty films from that cinematic movement. Rather than create a new thread, I thought I'd post it here. This isn't meant to be an objective ranking of the best German Expressionist films. Just a list of my personal favourites. The ordering changes from year to year, but here's how I rank them right now.


This drama is one of the earliest surviving films by director F. W. Murnau. Murnau would go on to make many vastly superior movies later in his career, but The Haunted Castle offers a glimpse of his earlier work. It's mostly of interest to his fans.


A supernatural horror film from Robert Wiene showcasing some of the most overtly expressionistic sets you'll see outside of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Not much depth, but visually arresting.


Chiaroscuro lighting is a staple of German Expressionist cinema, and few films utilise light and shadow more prominently than this one. The plot concerns a group of party guests who covet their host's wife one evening while a magician entertains them with shadow plays. The visions presented by the magician depict the possible outcomes that could result from the suitors' lust should their wicked ambitions go unchecked.


An anthology film about a bereaved woman who appeals to Death to release the soul of her recently deceased lover. Death then presents her with three stories about doomed lovers: the first takes place in the Middle East, the second in Venice and the third in China. The tales are mostly romantic tragedies, but the final story also incorporates elements of fantasy, as does the wraparound narrative.


The second entry in Fritz Lang's Dr. Mabuse crime trilogy sees the eponymous villain continuing his reign of terror from beyond the grave. This film was cited by Christopher Nolan as a major influence on The Dark Knight (2008), and nowhere is that influence more evident than in Mabuse's nihilistic desire to spread chaos and undermine social order.


Carl Theodor Dreyer's adaptation of Sheridan Le Fanu's writing ranks among the most unsettling films of the German Expressionist movement. Oneiric soft-focus photography, combined with experimental optical effects and clever use of light and shadow, make this a nightmarish experience from start to finish. I think I'm correct in saying that it was also the first film to depict a vampire being staked.


Remake of the 1913 film of the same name. This version stars Conrad Veidt as an impoverished student who sells his reflection to the Devil, portrayed by Werner Krauss. Veidt appears in a double role as both the title character and his evil doppelganger.


Fritz Lang's crime thriller centres on a child killer played by Peter Lorre who is being hunted by both the police and the criminal underworld. German Expressionism was a cinematic precursor to film noir, and that lineage is strongly evident in M. This was also Fritz Lang's first talkie.


The only surviving entry in Paul Wegner's Golem trilogy. Slow paced, but boasting impressive medieval sets and a spectacular finale in which a raging inferno sweeps through Prague's Jewish ghetto. Paul Wegener directs, writes and stars as the title monster.


This one's another anthology featuring three stories: the first is a comedic adventure with an Arabian Nights flavour, the second is a dark historical drama, and the third a surreal nightmarish horror story. The film's main problem is its uneven pacing. The first story comprises half the overall runtime, while the third story is less than ten minutes long. Some critics have also accused it of being superficial, arguing that it adopts the aesthetic of German Expressionism without actually expressing any underlying emotional truth. But I like it. It stars three of the biggest actors of Weimar cinema: Emil Jannings, Conrad Veidt and Werner Krauss.


Later remade as Mad Love (1935), this psychological drama stars Conrad Veidt as a concert pianist who undergoes a double hand transplant following a railway accident. He soon learns that his new appendages are those of a recently executed murderer and begins to suspect that his hands might exert a sinister influence over the rest of his body. This film is very slow, but rich in ambience.


F. W. Murnau's melodrama about a hotel doorman whose social status is closely tied with his job status, and the anguish that ensues when he is suddenly deprived of both. Many critics debate the preposterous ending that was foisted upon the film by the studio, but for me the ending is what makes the movie special. Emil Janning's performance is also excellent. This is one of several films on this list that I strongly recommend watching with the modern score by American composer Timothy Brock.


The first (and in my opinion best) instalment of Fritz Lang's Dr. Mabuse trilogy, an epic crime saga about a diabolical mastermind who promotes chaos just for the hell of it. Mabuse's ideological motives, which are elucidated in the sequel, are left obscure in this first film. But that just makes the evilness of his actions all the more hilarious - he's basically bad for the sake of being bad.


This is perhaps the most iconic German Expressionist movie of all. It's a psychological horror film about a travelling showman, played by Werner Krauss, who commands a somnambulist, played by Conrad Veidt, to murder his enemies at night. Look out for the twist ending.


This fantasy epic from Fritz Lang clocks in at almost five hours divided across two films: the first is titled Siegfried, the second Kriemhild's Revenge (I recommend The Masters of Cinema release which contains both films in a single set). The plot is based on the classic German poem that also inspired Richard Wagner's Ring cycle and influenced J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium. This cinematic duology is the closest thing you'll find to a 1920s version of The Lord of the Rings, showcasing innovative special effects and epic battle scenes that are still impressive almost a century later.


The animatronic effects on the dragon Siegfried fights in the first film are particularly outstanding.


The movie that inspired the Joker. This one was shot in Hollywood, but it was directed by Paul Leni (who also directed Waxworks), stars Conrad Veidt, and contains many of the visual and thematic characteristics of a German Expressionist film, so it qualifies for the list. Batman trivia aside, it's a superb gothic drama full of haunting imagery and twisted characters.


The earliest and arguably best adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula. I don't think it's quite as unsettling as Vampyr (1932), but I consider it a better film overall. One thing to look out for is the way director F. W. Murnau almost always frames Count Orlok (played by Max Schreck) within some form of architecture (a doorway, window, hatch, etc), suggesting that he is a liminal being occupying the threshold between the world of the living and the world of the dead. Also note how shadows are used to convey Nosferatu's predatory movements, even when the count himself remains hidden out of shot.


The top three films on this list could change order depending on my mood, but they are without doubt my three favourites. Sunrise was the first of several films that F. W. Murnau made in America, and it's really the last of his movies to bear the markings of the German Expressionist movement. The plot concerns a young couple experiencing a marital crisis after the husband is seduced by a wicked woman from a nearby city. The woman persuades the husband to murder his wife, and from there the plot takes several unexpected turns. It's very much a three-act story. The first act is a dark suspenseful drama about betrayal and guilt, the middle act is a sweet romantic comedy about renewed love, reconciliation and forgiveness, and the final act connects with the first by returning to the darker dramatic themes with which the story began. Ultimately it's a charming and uplifting romance that manages to be both suspenseful and funny. This is another film I recommend watching with the score by Timothy Brock.


Fritz Lang's futuristic epic remains one of the greatest science fiction films ever made, as well as the best speculative fiction movie of the silent era. The production design influenced far too many films to list, yet for me the depiction of the titular city remains unsurpassed. The standout performance is that of Brigitte Helm, who despite being only a teenager at the time of filming portrayed several different characters, including the heroic Maria and the villainous Maschinenmensch. This was one of the first German Expressionist films I ever saw back in my early teens, and I was fortunate enough to catch a theatrical screening of the 2010 restored print when it first came out. A genuine classic.


The fifth F. W. Murnau film to make this list, Faust is tied with Metropolis and Sunrise for the top spot. It's full of incredible imagery and set pieces, including Faust conjuring Emil Janning's Mephisto during a thunder storm, the Horsemen of the Apocalypse riding through the sky at night, a magic carpet journey over Europe, and the bookending scenes between Mephisto and the Archangel. The model work and optical effects are great, and there's tremendous pathos in the depiction of Gretchen's tragedy and Faust's redemption. This is yet another movie I definitely recommend watching with the score by Timothy Brock. There are two versions of Faust – domestic and international – and unfortunately Brock's score was written for the international cut, which is the inferior of the two. The Masters of Cinema release allows you to watch the domestic cut with Brock's music, and it mostly matches the action on screen except for the last fifteen minutes or so when it goes out of synch. Still, that's the version I recommend watching.



So those are my top twenty favourite German Expressionist films. I don't know if this list is of any use as far as recommendations go, but the top ten films are a good place for any newcomers to get started.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkAN5rGGP1M

The Running Man. I need to be careful with this recommendation. Because this rly isn't a great movie. Not even by brainless Eighties action movie standards.

Because that's the problem. It's not a brainless movie. It's actually got an idea behind it. Taking place in the far flung future of 2017, the movie is basically about a gang of rebels fighting back against an oppressive police state. It's too low tech to be the og Star Wars trilogy, it's not apocalyptic enough to be The Terminator, it's not esoteric enough to Blade Runner, etc. TRM exists in a weird middle ground, needless to say. But the basic kernel of the idea behind the movie ("Totalitarianism is bad, mmkay?") was relatively heady stuff for action cinema in 1987.

It's for those reasons that I'm still surprised that some kind of sequel or expanded universe or something were never created. I've criticized sequels in the past. And no doubt, I will do so again in the future. And I'm certainly not hypocritically wishing for a sequel. I'm just saying it's astounding to me that a fairly rich concept like TRM never got any real expansion.

It isn't a great movie. And yet, I would say that it's still worth watching. It's got an interesting sci-fi concept underlying it, with the requisite sci-fi critique of society of its time. As it stands, the direction is very meat and potatoes. Which is weird since the movie had a fairly lavish budget for its time. Nevertheless, it's true. The direction by Paul Michael Glaser is simply not all that impressive. It's fair game to question what Paul Verhoeven might've done with this material. More than once during my rewatch, I could just imagine Verhoeven going to town on some scenes or some concepts or what have you. A shame, rly.

Still, this movie merits a watch. Or even a rewatch. If nothing else, hearing the line "Get me the Justice Department, Entertainment Division" in context is worth it.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 11 Apr  2021, 18:50

4: Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror (1922)

The earliest and arguably best adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula. I don't think it's quite as unsettling as Vampyr (1932), but I consider it a better film overall. One thing to look out for is the way director F. W. Murnau almost always frames Count Orlok (played by Max Schreck) within some form of architecture (a doorway, window, hatch, etc), suggesting that he is a liminal being occupying the threshold between the world of the living and the world of the dead. Also note how shadows are used to convey Nosferatu's predatory movements, even when the count himself remains hidden out of shot.

(https://i.postimg.cc/02pkFCM9/nosferatu.png)

This is the only item on your list I've actually seen. Metropolis has been on my bucket list for a while now. But I've not made a big priority out of it.

I don't have a ton of experience with silent film. I enjoyed Nosferatu quite a lot because I was going through a major vampire kick at the time.

Still, I would add a note of caution. Modern audiences might tire of the sheer abundance of music in most silent films. The lack of dialogue can be a hurdle for people nowadays. I would advise anybody who watches the stuff on SN's list to do all they can to contextualize those movies. They're not "bad" simply because they're so different from what we're used to today. And there are some amazing visuals in those primitive films. Stick with it and it can be an amazingly rewarding experience.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 15 Apr  2021, 16:58Still, I would add a note of caution. Modern audiences might tire of the sheer abundance of music in most silent films.

The score can make or break the experience of watching a silent film. These movies were meant to be seen accompanied by music, and in some cases – such as Die Nibelungen and Metropolis – the original scores survive. But in most cases, the soundtracks originally written for the films of that era have been lost. When selecting a modern score, you ideally want a soundtrack that reflects the tone of the film, matches the action on screen and helps accentuate the emotions being expressed. There's nothing worse than trying to get into a silent film when the score is tonally mismatched, unsynchronised with the action, or randomly lifted from some public domain catalogue.

That's why I recommend the modern scores by Timothy Brock. I expect many of them will be remembered as the definitive soundtracks for their respective films. Here's a sample of his work on Faust. The Wagnerian tone suits the Germanic subject matter and matches every beat of what's happening on screen. It swells to a crescendo during the storm before adopting a quieter and more sinister tone during the sequence where Faust is being haunted by Mephisto. I think Murnau would have approved.


I might create a separate thread about silent movies at some point. Weimar cinema was IMO the best of that era, but there's also the early American comedies, Soviet montage cinema, French impressionist cinema and various other interesting works from that period, including the early British films of Alfred Hitchcock. It's a fertile pasture for film buffs, full of forgotten masterpieces and underrated treasures.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 15 Apr  2021, 16:53
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkAN5rGGP1M

The Running Man. I need to be careful with this recommendation. Because this rly isn't a great movie. Not even by brainless Eighties action movie standards.

Because that's the problem. It's not a brainless movie. It's actually got an idea behind it. Taking place in the far flung future of 2017, the movie is basically about a gang of rebels fighting back against an oppressive police state. It's too low tech to be the og Star Wars trilogy, it's not apocalyptic enough to be The Terminator, it's not esoteric enough to Blade Runner, etc. TRM exists in a weird middle ground, needless to say. But the basic kernel of the idea behind the movie ("Totalitarianism is bad, mmkay?") was relatively heady stuff for action cinema in 1987.

It's for those reasons that I'm still surprised that some kind of sequel or expanded universe or something were never created. I've criticized sequels in the past. And no doubt, I will do so again in the future. And I'm certainly not hypocritically wishing for a sequel. I'm just saying it's astounding to me that a fairly rich concept like TRM never got any real expansion.

It isn't a great movie. And yet, I would say that it's still worth watching. It's got an interesting sci-fi concept underlying it, with the requisite sci-fi critique of society of its time. As it stands, the direction is very meat and potatoes. Which is weird since the movie had a fairly lavish budget for its time. Nevertheless, it's true. The direction by Paul Michael Glaser is simply not all that impressive. It's fair game to question what Paul Verhoeven might've done with this material. More than once during my rewatch, I could just imagine Verhoeven going to town on some scenes or some concepts or what have you. A shame, rly.

Still, this movie merits a watch. Or even a rewatch. If nothing else, hearing the line "Get me the Justice Department, Entertainment Division" in context is worth it.

I'd compare The Running Man to Red Heat (1988) insofar as neither of them really measures up to Arnold's finest (Terminator, Predator, Total Recall, etc), but both are still very enjoyable movies that have aged surprisingly well. I've never read the Stephen King novel on which The Running Man is based, so I have no idea how successful it is as an adaptation. Still, it's a fun action movie that was worryingly prophetic in its depiction of reality TV and fake news. It also rivals Commando (1985) for the sheer number of Arnold puns.

As with many of the things predicted in Demolition Man, yesterday's satire...


...is today's reality.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 15 Nov  2020, 11:07
I may have more to say about American Psycho as a whole (novel and film) at some point later, particularly about ambiguities.

At some point later is now. American Psycho is a modern classic as relevant as Animal Farm and 1984.

The sex scenes which become mutilations treat humans like pieces of meat, rather than people. This is the detached reality of a pornography industry that pumps graphic material out into society for mass consumption.

Those in power look down upon those without it. The homeless are to be ignored or mocked because money and status matter most in the world. The rich have perfect skin and wear the best cologne, however their conduct does not rise beyond that of the vagrants they despise. Drugs and alcohol are rampantly used by both classes. However, the rich lifestyle still does not bring happiness. Superficial facades of suits and watches cloak hollow people set in a never-ending routine of gossip and one-upmanship at restaurants that amounts to nothing.

This is especially true of the current days in which we live. With social media people are more connected than ever, but this has brought numbness and social isolation. Consumption begets consumption and it is supercharged by peer pressure and groupthink which means people are never satisfied.

Most danger signs are missed because people are self absorbed and pay minimal attention to the world around them, forgetting each other's names in the monotony. Or on the flip side, danger signs are observed but ignored due to self preservation and the cold reality of business. A real estate agent reporting a series of murders inside one of their apartment isn't going to get it sold. So they say nothing.

There are about seven pages of violence in the book, and that's perfect for a character who holds a dark secret that nobody except his short lived victims become aware of. If readers get bored of the clothing and music descriptions and close the book, Ellis, through Bateman, has proven the effectiveness of this prolific serial killing career which the world has accommodated. Even when he confesses to the crimes on tape Bateman cannot escape his existence: as per the novel's final statement 'this is not an exit'.

The book is simply holding up a mirror to everyday life, showing the consequences of the signals that are sent throughout society and the cultural rot that has been created. By pushing it to the extreme the book shows how abhorrent reality really is, and the scarcity of meaningful connection with others.

In conclusion I quote the lyrics from one version of a demo song I admire: "All the little boys and girls, living in this crazy world, all they really needed from you, is maybe some love."

Less capes, more drama. That remains my mantra. And on that note, there's Chef. Here be spoilers, arr.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK-ZUFX5fnk

Somehow, I missed it all those years ago. But the, um, fictional subject matter seems awfully familiar somehow. I am not the first person to suggest that the entire movie is a metaphor of Favreau's relationship with Hollywood. The chef guy started out as an indie darling, he made it to the big leagues, got fed up with being micro-managed by his uncreative bosses, he struck out on his own, built his own thing and then reunited with the very establishment he once shunned, but on his own terms rather than theirs.

Favreau went back to Disney (and borderline obscene profits from the looks of things). The chef guy went into business with his harshest critic (and borderline obscene profits from the looks of things). I wouldn't go so far as to say that the movie is autobiographical. But I also won't say there's not a f**k ton of allegory going on there.

But rly, the core of the movie is Favreau's character learning how to truly be a father to his son. Because it's movies, resolving the personal conflict (father and son being alienated from each other) somehow solves the larger conflict (said father regains his career and passion).

This movie won't change your life and it won't be a religious experience. But if you're as burnt out on superheroes and conveyer belts of sequels as I am, movies like Chef will remind you (and Favreau, I gather) what it was that you loved about films and storytelling in the first place. Chef was made on a shoestring budget for love of the game and it had no real expectations attached to it.

And for me, there's a lot of value in a director making a movie because he fell in love with the material or because he has some personal connection to it.

I watched The Blues Brothers (Extended Edition) again recently, and this film is such a huge part of my childhood and therefore my soul. The absurdity and farce of it is genius, particularly in surviving ridiculous situations and carrying on as if it's commonplace.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JM40xLo3_s

As a youngster Jake and Elwood were the coolest dudes to me because nothing phases them. They're from a poor background but they're confident and capable. They're individuals who do their own thing and are so focused on their goal, which they do achieve. I think Elwood could outrun anything, and if he had access to a car and wasn't arrested, he still would've had a good chance of escaping the comical amount of police cars and helicopters.

It's just a fun time and I don't think there's a weak segment. It has stood the test of time. I've always felt it to be in the spirit of Quentin Tarantino. Funny dialogue and scenarios with great music.

They don't make them like this anymore.

For your consideration. .

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/76/The_Fisher_King_Poster.jpg)

I didn't think it was worth creating a separate thread for this, but I just recently watched the nineties Heisei Gamera trilogy for the first time and I wanted to comment on it. I'd only previously seen one or two of the older Gamera films from the sixties, which were fun but not terribly impressive, so I had low expectations going into this. But I have to say, I was pleasantly surprised by just how good all three of the nineties Gamera movies are. This is one of the most overlooked sci-fi movie trilogies out there, and it boasts a consistency of quality that's seldom found in the genre. All three films were directed by Shusuke Kaneko, who later went on to direct Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack (2001).


The first movie, Gamera: Guardian of the Universe (1995), is a hard reboot, so you don't need to worry about seeing the earlier films. Gamera is reintroduced for a new generation, along with an updated version of his old foe Gyaos. The central plot and human drama elements are surprisingly strong for a kaiju film, and I suspect the storyline may have influenced both the 1998 and 2014 American Godzilla films, as similar plot points are echoed in both. I also think Gamera '95 might in turn have been influenced by Q – The Winged Serpent (1982) and Jurassic Park (1993). All three films in the Gamera trilogy have strong narratives and each tells a sufficiently different story from the rest while at the same time adhering to the classic monster movie formula that fans expect. The first film introduces several characters who appear in the sequels, with the most notable being Asagi played by Ayako Fujitani, who in real life is the daughter of Steven Seagal! I've also got to mention that awesome catchy song that plays on the end credits.


Having been taken off guard by the quality of the first Gamera film, I was expecting the second to be a step down. Thankfully I was wrong. Gamera II: Attack of Legion (1996) is a very worthy sequel, taking a darker turn that draws influence from films like Aliens (1986) and Godzilla vs. Destoroyah (1995); failing to match the quality of the former, but comfortably surpassing the latter IMO. The scenes of the Legion monsters (which resemble the Arachnids from Starship Troopers (1997)) slaughtering passengers on the Sapporo underground are straight out of a horror movie, and the wintery setting further amplifies the bleak atmosphere to make this a more sombre experience than its predecessor. The human drama element isn't as strong as in the other two films of the trilogy, but the pervading sense of horror and panic evoked by the Legion's attacks goes some way towards compensating for that. The special effects are some of the best I've ever seen in a kaiju film, and the destructive spectacle of the battle scenes rivals that of Independence Day (which came out the same year), even though Gamera II was made on a much smaller budget.


The concluding entry in the trilogy, Gamera III: Revenge of Iris (1999), amps up the human drama element by presenting a monster that is emotionally fused to a teenage girl whose family was accidentally killed by Gamera during the events of the first film. The story touches on some of the same moral accountability themes as Batman v Superman and Captain America: Civil War, with the public questioning the agency of a hero in light of the collateral damage that's resulted from his battles. While the second film is the darkest visually, the third is the darkest from an emotional and thematic standpoint. It brings back several characters from the first film in such a way that ties the trilogy together as a whole. The special effects incorporate more CG than the previous two films, some of which inevitably looks dated. But overall the effects and sound design are just as impressive as the first two films, and the final battle in Kyoto Station (which I visited back in 2007) ends the trilogy on a suitably epic note.

Just to be clear, none of these movies individually is a great film. But each is a good movie in its own right, and collectively they form a very satisfying and consistent trilogy that represents a high point for the kaiju genre. Even if you're not normally a fan of kaiju movies, I still recommend checking these out simply because they form a solid sci-fi action trilogy that's better than 99% of the rubbish being pumped out of modern Hollywood. The entire trilogy is available on Amazon Prime, so give it a watch if you haven't already.

Looking back on it now, the nineties in general was a superb decade for Japanese cinema. Akira Kurosawa capped off his career with Dreams (1990) and Rhapsody in August (1991), both of which are criminally underrated in my opinion. Takeshi Kitano hit his directorial stride with films like Sonatine (1993), Hana-bi (1997) and Kikujiro (1999). The kaiju Heisei era gave us the Gamera trilogy and Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah (1991), and a new wave of J-horror commenced with Cure (1997), Ringu (1998) and Audition (1999). Hayao Miyazaki directed Porco Rosso (1992) and Princess Mononoke (1997), and Studio Ghibli also produced Only Yesterday (1991) and Whisper of the Heart (1995). Then there were all the adult anime films like Ninja Scroll (1993), Ghost in the Shell (1995) and Perfect Blue (1997). The forties, fifties and sixties represented the golden age of Japanese cinema, but the nineties was also a very respectable decade for the industry.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 22 Dec  2020, 05:13

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 22 Dec  2020, 03:03
I didn't see an appropriate thread and didn't want to start another, so I'm posting this here. A trailer for an upcoming project, The Beatles: Get Back, which I would recommend people see in any case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UocEGvQ10OE

I was smiling the whole time. To see this new footage is amazing and it looks like it could've been filmed last week, rather than 50 years ago. It's crazy the footage has been sitting there the whole time, untouched until now, similar to the recent Michael Jordan documentary 'The Last Dance' which enthralled the world. Just seeing them interact in their place of work, right near the end of their time together as a band, will be special to see. That dynamic is what created the magic.

Peter Jackson is a big fan and I have faith in him to deliver a strong final edit. The Beatles deserve a proper studio movie like this, and while the original Let It Be film has its place, this can be more expansive and more of a celebration. Really looking forward to it.

colors- "Smile? How is watching Beatles footage supposed to make anyone smile?"
*John and Ringo ventriloquist-sing their way through "Two Of Us"*
colors- *smiles*

New trailer. Amazing. It's going to be three parts, six hours in all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Auta2lagtw4

Michael Mann's Heat is a great crime drama for the way it explores the opposite sides of the law and how their private lives are impacted by what they do. Sounds straightforward, but it's very effective. Surprisingly, Heat is a remake of a TV movie that Mann made back in 1989 called LA Takedown. What's not so surprising is the original pales in comparison with the remake in every way thanks to its low budget, but I recommend to check it out for comparison's sake. You can even watch it for free on YouTube.

If you don't want to, you can check out this featurette of Mann describing the experience in making both movies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VML6MFGvrEg

I read Mann had envisioned to conceive LA Takedown as a TV show, similar to what he had already done for Miami Vice, but faced pushback by NBC. But I'm not sure LA Takedown as a show would've fared better, because NBC didn't sound very supportive.

I gotta say, LA Takedown's version of Vincent Hannah - Scott Plank - reminds me of Ben Affleck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vietnam_War_(TV_series)

I finished up The Vietnam War, the documentary series by Ken Burns a few days ago.

As background, I've been in a sort of Vietnam-related mood lately. I don't fully understand it. But I've been watching a lot of Vietnam war-related movies and shows. I've also been reading a lot of Garth Ennis Punisher comics because the Ennis Punisher is a Vietnam vet. So, my point is I've definitely been in that mindset lately.

Anyway, the doc is amazing. It's everything you heard about. It's basically a chronological examination of the wars in Vietnam (and America's war, specifically), starting in the nineteenth century ​and going right on through to the American withdrawal in 1975.

One thing that became clearer to me while watching the doc was my long held suspicion that America's war in Vietnam was imminently winnable, at least from a military perspective. The political ramifications were something else, of course. But we had the money, manpower, firepower and (for a while) DRIVE to do it. If America had pushed it all the way back in 1966 or 1967, communism in Vietnam would've died in the crib.

Would've, should've, could've. Obviously, that's not how things worked out.

Anyway. My point is this bad boy is definitely worth watching. Even so, it's ten "episodes" long and each one ranges from an hour and twenty minutes to nearly two hours. So, do the math. You need to set aside quite a bit of time to watch this thing. But I say it's worth it. Definitely recommended.

Four years ago, Zack Snyder directed a short film called Snow Steam Iron, months after leaving JL. Incredibly, he shot everything using an iPhone.

It looks much more cinematic than any of the Josstice League reshoots.

***WARNING: NSFW***
https://youtu.be/eta6duszRLc

Get Back is incredible and it could be my favorite movie. I love how you see things unfold naturally, with the guys just being themselves. If such a project was made today it would all be planned out and the songs already written, with a pretence of authenticity. But the guys just had the balls to make something happen in the studio from sheer inspiration and confidence in their ability.

Billy Preston is amazing in this. He would've fit in as a fifth member pretty seamlessly. His playing on Don't Let Me Down is sublime. I've known all the stories about this time period but it's something else to see it play out over six hours in pristine quality. Just look at Billy go here, and John's voice is just the best. Such raw emotion and grit. Lots of moments of wit from him too - I dig how you can tell he's out of it at times, but when it's time to really get down to business, his genius is there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=385eTo76OzA&list=RDMMWr-mY6qrvx4&index=3

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 11 Dec  2021, 00:47
Get Back is incredible and it could be my favorite movie. I love how you see things unfold naturally, with the guys just being themselves. If such a project was made today it would all be planned out and the songs already written, with a pretence of authenticity. But the guys just had the balls to make something happen in the studio from sheer inspiration and confidence in their ability.

Billy Preston is amazing in this. He would've fit in as a fifth member pretty seamlessly. His playing on Don't Let Me Down is sublime. I've known all the stories about this time period but it's something else to see it play out over six hours in pristine quality. Just look at Billy go here, and John's voice is just the best. Such raw emotion and grit. Lots of moments of wit from him too - I dig how you can tell he's out of it at times, but when it's time to really get down to business, his genius is there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=385eTo76OzA&list=RDMMWr-mY6qrvx4&index=3

I can't prove it, but I've always assumed that if the Beatles had continued, keeping Billy Preston around would've allowed the band to fit in with the musical trends of the early and mid Seventies pretty easily.

What a strange fate to be Billy Preston. One day, the Beatles call up and say they want you to sit in on one of their albums. Not just one or two songs either. An entire album. For now, put aside how weird the Get Back sessions ultimately became and just consider what even being there must've meant to Preston. Or what it would've meant to anybody.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 11 Dec  2021, 01:49

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 11 Dec  2021, 00:47
Get Back is incredible and it could be my favorite movie. I love how you see things unfold naturally, with the guys just being themselves. If such a project was made today it would all be planned out and the songs already written, with a pretence of authenticity. But the guys just had the balls to make something happen in the studio from sheer inspiration and confidence in their ability.

Billy Preston is amazing in this. He would've fit in as a fifth member pretty seamlessly. His playing on Don't Let Me Down is sublime. I've known all the stories about this time period but it's something else to see it play out over six hours in pristine quality. Just look at Billy go here, and John's voice is just the best. Such raw emotion and grit. Lots of moments of wit from him too - I dig how you can tell he's out of it at times, but when it's time to really get down to business, his genius is there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=385eTo76OzA&list=RDMMWr-mY6qrvx4&index=3

I can't prove it, but I've always assumed that if the Beatles had continued, keeping Billy Preston around would've allowed the band to fit in with the musical trends of the early and mid Seventies pretty easily.

What a strange fate to be Billy Preston. One day, the Beatles call up and say they want you to sit in on one of their albums. Not just one or two songs either. An entire album. For now, put aside how weird the Get Back sessions ultimately became and just consider what even being there must've meant to Preston. Or what it would've meant to anybody.

Billy was the finishing touch for these sessions. He spoke about his first meeting with the Beatles and the Get Back sessions during a July 1996 event, which gives a good perspective on things after much time had passed. He had demons during the last years of his life, but I choose to remember the man at his best. The sessions were clearly a big part of his life, and no matter how things ended for him, I'm glad that bright spark is front and centre again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHwyU6y0Y3A

I think if the four guys had a break, got their solo albums out of their systems (Plastic Ono Band and Imagine are undoubtedly John's best, even though I like them all), and regrouped afterwards, I could've seen them making more albums together throughout the 1970s. With Billy. I think he had the right temperament to be a member: easy going, musical ability and making the dynamic different enough to keep the others interested.

But honestly, breaking up was the best possible thing for their legacy. They were preserved as a perfect encapsulation of their time period. Robert Wuhl has said the same thing, and he's right. It gave them a mystique.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 11 Dec  2021, 00:47
Get Back is incredible and it could be my favorite movie. I love how you see things unfold naturally, with the guys just being themselves. If such a project was made today it would all be planned out and the songs already written, with a pretence of authenticity. But the guys just had the balls to make something happen in the studio from sheer inspiration and confidence in their ability.

Billy Preston is amazing in this. He would've fit in as a fifth member pretty seamlessly. His playing on Don't Let Me Down is sublime. I've known all the stories about this time period but it's something else to see it play out over six hours in pristine quality. Just look at Billy go here, and John's voice is just the best. Such raw emotion and grit. Lots of moments of wit from him too - I dig how you can tell he's out of it at times, but when it's time to really get down to business, his genius is there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=385eTo76OzA&list=RDMMWr-mY6qrvx4&index=3

I'm at 16:22 in the first episode. Basically, the band members are just hanging out and jamming "I've Got A Feeling". They smile at each other, cut up, tell jokes, improv obscene lyrics, etc. They're basically just having a good time.

It's an interesting moment before all the bs that you already know is coming. It's funny that when it was just about the music, they seemed to get along with each other just fine. But when you throw in entertainment industry complications, THAT is when things go sideways. It does a lot to shine a light on just how important Epstein was in terms of keeping the band focused on the songs while someone else took care of the business stuff.

I can understand that Epsteins don't exactly grow on trees. But still, you sort of have to wonder how things might've played out if either Epstein hadn't died or if the band had found a suitable replacement for him. Now, some things weren't meant to last forever. And when you think about it, it's a minor miracle that the Beatles lasted as long as they did. Even so, you have to figure that they might've had at least another two or three years (and an equal number of albums) in them if they could've found a realistic replacement for Epstein. The fact that they didn't probably hastened their demise.

Epstein was the glue that allowed the Beatles to simply write their music without distraction. Things would've been different if he lived, and perhaps there would've been a couple more albums. But I couldn't see them ever being long term rockers like the Rolling Stones. There were too many strong personalities who wanted to be independent, and those urges would've risen eventually even with Epstein. Just because Epstein was beloved when he died didn't mean he always would have been. People learn new things and change.

George Harrison as part of Anthology questioned Brian in terms of pure deal making and finances. As he said, "Brian didn't get very good deals on anything. For years EMI were giving us one old penny between us for every single and two shillings for every album. If we had known in 1962/3 what we know now, or even what we knew in 1967, it would have made a real difference."

Lennon seemed like he hated The Beatles at times in his post career, but his desire to move on preserved the myth. I can't help but think he had that mindset central to his thinking, even if the idea of a reunion even happening was remote due to personality clashes. There's a brief clip of John walking through Central Park in 1980 talking to a bunch of kids. They ask when The Beatles are getting back together. He walks away and flippantly says "tomorrow, tomorrow." The four members always had that extremely potent ace up their sleeve that could always be played regardless of how much time passed. Provided all four remained alive.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 15 Dec  2020, 00:56I love the cold hearted brilliance of using their family name and leaving them in the dust.

To revisit this briefly (man, I still love The Founder!), one thing everyone should admit is that the McDonald brothers didn't walk away emptyhanded.

In 2022, $1 million is a lot of money... but it's not THAT much money. If you get bought out for $1 million today, yeah, you're probably getting shafted.

But back in 1961, the average American income was $6,000. $1 million was enough to live 166 years on. The brothers did just fine.

I think I've said here and there that I've been moving away from superhero films for a few years now.

Where I've landed (in part) is horror movies. And I'm LOVING the old school Universal Monsters. I've been checking them out here and there for a year now and by now I've seen quite a few of them. Yes, some are better than others.

But what I enjoy is how the filmmakers swing for the fences in making the effects shots the best they can be with Thirties technology. The effects are rarely perfect. But they're amazing considering when they were created.

Lugosi's Dracula is probably my favorite of the bunch. But many of them are enjoyable.

Anyway, if you have taste for almost one century old films, you could do a lot worse than check out the Universal horror movies. They hold up!

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 26 Feb  2022, 03:01

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 15 Dec  2020, 00:56I love the cold hearted brilliance of using their family name and leaving them in the dust.

To revisit this briefly (man, I still love The Founder!), one thing everyone should admit is that the McDonald brothers didn't walk away emptyhanded.

In 2022, $1 million is a lot of money... but it's not THAT much money. If you get bought out for $1 million today, yeah, you're probably getting shafted.

But back in 1961, the average American income was $6,000. $1 million was enough to live 166 years on. The brothers did just fine.

It goes beyond the brothers and their existence. The real pain is felt throughout the generations of that family, knowing how much they could've had today - but don't.

Predator (1987). I could explain why I'm recommending it. Or I could just allow the Critical Drinker to do it for me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hYE_N4HTco

I rewatched Predator last week. Honestly, it seems to get better with age for me. I always liked the movie. But in 2022, the straight shot of testosterone, big biceps, bigger guns, GET TO THE CHOPPA, the (mostly) well developed and well written characters and the shifting genres are all more appreciated because there's no way in hell this movie would get made in this way today.

I can't imagine that anybody on this forum has never seen Predator. But if you haven't seen it, see it. And if you have seen it before, see it again for the first time because it HOLDS UP.

Yep, you can't go wrong with the original Predator. It mixes the action-packed machismo of The A-Team with the gory sci-fi horror of Alien and ties it all together with a plot that is essentially a modern day retelling of the Beowulf myth. It marked the beginning of director John McTiernan's phenomenal winning streak as one of Hollywood's top action directions, positioning him career-wise to take on Die Hard (1988), The Hunt for Red October (1990), Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995) and The Thirteenth Warrior (1999) – the latter of which is also based on the Beowulf legend.

Predator was a great star vehicle for Arnold Schwarzenegger, who in 1987 was the ideal casting choice to represent humanity's champion against the titular alien. The creature effects by Stan Winston hold up brilliantly, and it's one of the few sci-fi horror films from that era that doesn't rip off the creature designs from Ridley Scott's Alien or John Carpenter's The Thing. The cinematography's great, the story makes excellent use of the jungle location, and Alan Silvestri's score is unforgettable. It's one of the ultimate 'guy movies'.

I guess I'm rolling with McTiernan for a while.

Anyway. Die Hard (1988).

The fact that McTiernan directed Predator and then moved straight into Die Hard invites comparison. I can't prove it. But I have to wonder that McT wanted to stay fundamentally inside the action genre. And yet, he wanted to switch things up as much as possible.

Predator had multiple protagonists; Die Hard rly only has the one.

Predator's lead protagonist was an action star with an extensive pedigree; Die Hard's lead protagonist... well, he's not that, exactly.

Predator's antagonist is an otherworldly alien with (initially) incomprehensible motives; Die Hard's antagonist's motives are only too understandable.

Predator featured only one antagonist, ultimately; Die Hard features multiple antagonists.

Predator's antagonist is meant to be a physical threat for the hero to overcome; honestly, Die Hard's main antagonist isn't a direct physical threat to the hero. Dangerous, yes. But ultimately, no match.

But I suppose that stuff is just scenery. What makes Die Hard work for most people is the fact that McClane is an everyman. Yes, he's a cop. Yes, he's tough. But he's not superhuman. And his feet are made absolutely of clay. He has marital problems, his Irish temper sometimes gets away from him, sometimes he says the wrong thing at the worst possible time. And yet, McClane is an incredibly brave and ingenious man who rises above his fear, ultimately, to save his wife from certain death.

Along the way, he loses sometimes, he suffers, he takes damage. This isn't the invincible Arnold Schwarzenegger from Commando laying waste to everybody in sight. This is a New York cop fighting WAY above his weight class against a group of men who won't think twice to put a bullet in his head. And while they never manage to do that, McClane suffers extensive physical injuries that are likely to keep in traction for a few months... if he somehow survives the night!

The closest the movie comes to striking a false note is when banged up and bleeding Karl emerges from the rubble for one final shot at McClane. I can't help thinking that in the hands of lesser filmmakers, it would've been McClane who, in a move that was already cliché by 1988, took out the bad guy. But no, it was Powell who takes Karl out, saves McClane and redeems himself after his horrible mistake earlier in his career.

It takes brains to give even a relatively minor character like Powell an arc that powerful. For one brief moment, Powell has to face his absolute worst possible nightmare. Worse, he has only a split second to react. If he gets it wrong again, or worse yet, if he doesn't save the day... I honestly don't think Powell would have the strength to carry on. If you know what I mean.

Anyway. For a movie that was intended to be a fluffy, popcorn-filled follow up to Predator, Die Hard has considerable strength and heart. It's a classic for me in ways that Predator probably never will be. I mean, I love Predator. But I've ALWAYS owned a copy of Die Hard.

So, as with Predator, I can't imagine that any member of this message board has never seen Die Hard. But if you haven't, see it. And if you have seen it, well, see it again for the first time.

Inspired by colors, I watched Predator again for the first time in a while last night.

What stuck out to me was how much I liked the militia compound sequence. Why?

The explosions are fantastic. Some of the best you'll see in an action movie. Really powerful and satisfying. And this works on a few levels. It shows the audience these soldiers are not to be f**ked with. They stomp their foes with ease, and nothing really bothers them in the heat of combat. So when they're expressing fear and concern later on, you know things are very serious. Also, I dig the knowledge that the Predator is watching everything unfold. He knows these are violent people.

The opening scene with the helicopters flying into the jungle is underrated. Long Tall Sally creates a excitable, energetic feeling, and when the radio is turned off, the mood changes to business. Really effective edit. There's a lot to like about this film with things that don't even involve the title character, namely the pacing, mood and dialogue.

I'll add Arnold had the sense to keep his Predator resume one and done - and not just in terms of quality control. Alien encounters are gold dust rare, especially surviving them. It works for John McClane to run into terrorists but I couldn't buy the same miraculously happening to Dutch over and over. And even worse, having Dutch hunting down Predators on his own accord would be a disservice to his character. He was lied to and thus placed into a situation he didn't want to be in. But through sheer will and ingenity he got himself out.

I'll watch Die Hard again soon and give my thoughts. But it goes without saying, it's an action classic in terms of concept and execution. These are the types of movies that are close to my heart. I grew up watching them as a kid and I'll continue watching them for the remainder of my life.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 11 May  2022, 11:22I couldn't buy the same miraculously happening to Dutch over and over. And even worse, having Dutch hunting down Predators on his own accord would be a disservice to his character. He was lied to and thus placed into a situation he didn't want to be in. But through sheer will and ingenity he got himself out.

I've mentioned my growing disenchantment with sequels in the past. While I accept the fact that Predator is a movie franchise at this point, for me, it's a one-time thing. Dutch and his friends get lured into the jungle, some stuff goes down, Dutch barely prevails, the end. I don't need anything beyond that.

Whatever his reasons might've been, I think Schwarzenegger did the right thing in declining sequels. I'll add that if he'd done something similar after the first (or the second at the latest) Terminator film, my overall appreciation for those movies would probably be a lot higher.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 10 May  2022, 03:27Aside from that... yeah, I'm with you. But to avoid derailing the discussion here, I might give you a shout out in the Recommend A Movie thread where we pick this discussion back up.

To continue with this, I rewatched Argo the other night. The Affleck movie.

It's basically the story of how a CIA agent exfiltrated some American diplomats/staff from the embassy in Tehran during the Iranian hostage crisis in 1980.

It's just a thriller film. No agenda, no "messaging", just the story of a brave man defying some pretty overwhelming odds to do the right thing. I can't imagine anyone not enjoying it, tbh. Figured you might enjoy the movie, if you haven't seen it before.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 11 May  2022, 13:15
While I accept the fact that Predator is a movie franchise at this point, for me, it's a one-time thing. Dutch and his friends get lured into the jungle, some stuff goes down, Dutch barely prevails, the end. I don't need anything beyond that.

Nor does the franchise. The shadow of the 1987 original is too great for it to escape from, with the general template adhered to and never bettered. However, I can accept the concept of Predator 2 moving to the city, and it does some interesting things with it. The opening transition from the trees, only to reveal the skyline of Los Angeles, is one of the best I've seen in terms of instantly changing the context and visually demonstrating the jump to the next movie. The AvP films, Predators and The Predator degraded the brand into oblivion. But nonetheless, we still have that first movie.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 11 May  2022, 13:15
Whatever his reasons might've been, I think Schwarzenegger did the right thing in declining sequels. I'll add that if he'd done something similar after the first (or the second at the latest) Terminator film, my overall appreciation for those movies would probably be a lot higher.

I believe it's a case of Arnold viewing The Terminator as his most iconic role and thus his legacy. Appearing in the films became an obligation. If another was to be made, he'd be appearing in some fashion. The first two Terminator films are some of the best of the genre, but after that? Not even worth discussing.

It brings up an important discussion for everyone, which is knowing when to stop. The best deals are often the ones you don't make. I view Die Hard as a trilogy. The second is serviceable and not terrible. The third is entertaining, gives a fresh context while keeping John as the hungover underdog. The Alien series hit its all time high with Aliens, even if I accept the premise of the third. I view The Godfather I and II as one story, and thus all I need.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 10 May  2022, 03:27
It's just a thriller film. No agenda, no "messaging", just the story of a brave man defying some pretty overwhelming odds to do the right thing. I can't imagine anyone not enjoying it, tbh. Figured you might enjoy the movie, if you haven't seen it before.

I've seen a documentary about the ordeal, and wouldn't mind checking out the movie version.

I'm keen to give the Mission Impossible films another viewing as well. They're a case of every sequel getting better rather than worse. In an age of CGI and superhero films, there is still nothing more exciting or inspirational than real stunt work and a man simply running his guts out.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 12 May  2022, 01:29I'm keen to give the Mission Impossible films another viewing as well. They're a case of every sequel getting better rather than worse. In an age of CGI and superhero films, there is still nothing more exciting or inspirational than real stunt work and a man simply running his guts out.

Yeah. They're on Paramount+ and I've been thinking the same, actually. I've only seen the first one. And even that's a recent thing. But I have wondered if the sequels are worth checking out.

I'll give MI2 a day in court and find out, I suppose.

The second film is the weakest. The series really hits its stride with Ghost Protocol, Rogue Nation and Fallout. You can tell Cruise decided to take things to the next level across the board, delivering a balance of fun and intrigue the Bond series long gave up on. The original is simplistic in comparison, but it still holds up. I don't mind the third film. It does contain what I consider to be the best cold open to any film: Cruise strapped to a chair and cycling through a range of emotions against a foe who will not yield. But if you want to be sold on the series, make sure you see Ghost Protocol, Rogue Nation and Fallout.

Saw Top Gun: Maverick yesterday. The reviews are pretty accurate. Zero wokeness, zero Rian Johnson or Paul Feig bs. Just a fun movie that aspires to honor the original without an agenda.

Last I saw, TGM was tracking for a $150 million opening weekend. Assuming that's true, the movie deserves that level of success, if you ask me.

Midway through the movie, I had to run to the men's room. On my way back up the aisle, I looked at the other audience members and most of them were grinning ear to ear at what they were seeing. You can't fake or buy reactions like that.

I've seen Luchino Visconti's The Leopard (1963) numerous times over the years, but I only recently got around to reading the novel on which it's based. The book, by Giuseppe Tomas di Lampedusa, is often cited as the greatest modern Italian novel. To be honest, I haven't read enough modern Italian novels to have an informed opinion on that score, but it's certainly a powerful and beautifully-written book. And reading it has made me appreciate Visconti's film adaptation even more.

The plot takes place in the mid-19th century during the unification of Italy. The social upheaval of the Risorgimento is portrayed from the perspective of a noble Sicilian family whose status is irreversibly altered by it. Burt Lancaster stars as Prince Don Fabrizio Salina, a wealthy aristocrat with a love of astronomy (somewhat foreshadowing his more comical role as the wealthy amateur astronomer Felix Happer in Bill Forsyth's classic Local Hero (1983)), who senses the world he knows being rapidly supplanted by a new and unfamiliar Italy in which he and the class system he represents are outdated relics. It's an epic story of change, nostalgia and regret set against a sumptuous backdrop of Sicilian aristocratic decadence.


The rest of the cast includes Claudia Cardinale, Alain Delon and Mario Girotti (better known among English-speaking audiences as Terence Hill, one half of the Terence Hill and Bud Spencer comedy duo). The stirring score was written by frequent Fellini collaborator Nino Rota, who would later go on to compose the music for The Godfather Parts I and II. The cinematography, lavish costumes and sets are all beautiful, and the screenplay adheres to Tomasi di Lampedusa's novel with careful diligence. The only major omissions from the film's story are the final two chapters of the book. These chapters are important to the novel's themes and provide a moving conclusion to the story of the prince and his daughter Concetta, but since they take place decades after the book's central events I can understand why Visconti chose not to adapt them.

The novel and film of The Leopard are both outstanding works of art in their respective mediums. While I haven't read enough modern Italian novels to authoritatively say where the book would rank among their literary classics (very near the top, I suspect), I have seen hundreds of Italian films. And I would confidently rank Visconti's The Leopard among the top ten. Apparently it's Martin Scorsese's favourite movie, and it's not hard to see why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Phone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eGP6im8AZA

No exaggeration, I've literally NEVER gone to the movies by myself before. I'm over 40 (and insecure enough about that fact to simply say "over 40" and leave it at that) and Tuesday was the first time I ever went to a movie theater alone.

But what can I say? The Black Phone looked very interesting. The Wiki page above lays out the plot in pretty specific detail. So, it seems wise for me to avoid spoilers. Instead, I'll just say that the movie didn't let me down.

Before going into the movie, all I knew was (A) a movie called The Black Phone exists (B) it's a horror movie and (C) Ethan Hawke is in it.

That's it, that's all I knew. And this is one of those times when knowing pretty much nothing about a movie is sometimes the best way to go into it. Because you have pretty much no preconceived ideas (or spoilers) about anything. You go in totally raw and the movie either sinks or swims on its own merits.

But to get into mild spoilers, I'll say that I wasn't aware of the fact that the story is set in 1978. I kind of enjoy period pieces. So, that was a welcome surprise for me. Your mileage may vary. But that aspect played great.

Anyway, this movie won't change your life, it won't be the greatest thing you've ever seen and you won't learn any game-changing lessons from it. But it's a fun little thrill ride with plenty of thrills and some surprisingly well written characters.

Definitely recommended.

I recently managed to see Elvis (2022).

I'm a Beatles guy, but I respect Elvis and his place in music and in particular rock and roll. I've been to Graceland, Sun Studios, around Memphis and stayed at the Heartbreak Hotel. Elvis is the Superman of the genre in that he inspired so many others after him through pure soul and bravery considering the era in which he originally smashed his name into history. The movie is not historically accurate, (certain things didn't happen, and situations are condensed) but it trends in the right direction enough for my liking.

Telling the story through the lens of Colonel Parker was inspired and provided an opportunity to show more of the reality behind the myth, and that's exactly what I like to see with biopics. As I've always felt, once Elvis joined the army he really was even more of a prisoner of management and the contract he signed. He was able to be moulded for whatever use they needed him for, and he wasn't really in any position to decline. It all leads to the five year Las Vegas residency. It's a pretty sad story and the film doubles down on Parker's ruthlessness. I think it's important to show that side of things and I believe the causal viewer wouldn't be fully aware of the context certain situations had.

I can't imagine anyone better in the lead role other than Austin Butler. He looks and sounds like Elvis to the point it's uncanny, which solves a big issue any film like this automatically has with someone so distinctively world famous. I think Baz Luhrmann did a good job for the most part. I didn't agree with the use of contemporary music, but the way he transitions scenes and the like is an assault on the senses in a good way. It captures the energy of Memphis from around that time, while bringing the focus back to Elvis' inner circle to contrast to the storm around him. It's a long movie but it needed the time given the ground it covers.

All in all, I'm glad I saw it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpLKNclOtLg

Rewatched Natural Born Killers the other night. And... it's good.

I mean, it's fair to say that the movie is mired in controversy to this day. And honestly, I can understand that. The news media got burned in absolute effigy in that movie. So, I can see where they'd want to retaliate. And yet, the core premise of the movie, that the media does a lot to inspire these mass murderers (while sort of a Nineties concept), certainly holds water. It's reasonable to ask if the media backlash to Natural Born Killers wasn't a salve for their collective guilty conscience.

And yet, my quibble about the movie is that Mickey and Mallory (and Scagnetti, you could say) don't rly embody the movie's message about the media being responsible for creating these monsters. Mickey suffered an abusive childhood, Mallory was regularly assaulted by her father and Scagnetti witnessed his mother's murder. Those events clearly did something to each character's mind, turning them into killers.

In other words, the media had nothing to do with it. The movie is basically arguing against its own idea. Yes, Mickey does express admiration for other high profile murderers. But you never get the idea that he did what he did because he wanted the media to breathlessly cover his exploits like they did, say, Manson.

But that aside, Natural Born Killers is the main reason why I'll always feel a little cheated that we never got to see Nineties-era Oliver Stone direct a Batman film. I've imagined a Batman movie that uses that rapid cut/psychedelic collage style that Stone experimented with back in the Nineties and feel a sense of loss over it.

Then again, a Nineties-era Stone Batman movie wouldn't have shifted very many Happy Meals, which was a big concern for WB back in those days.

Still, Stone looked at Woody Harrelson and correctly predicted that he would make a very convincing cinematic monster. Which is strange considering Harrelson's film work up to that point. At the time cameras began rolling for Natural Born Killers, the high point of Harrelson's film career was probably White Men Can't Jump. So, it seems odd for Stone to expect Harrelson to pivot from that to, well, Mickey Knox.

Honestly, the same can be said for Rodney Dangerfield, whose performance is absolutely chilling. And yet, Dangerfield isn't the first (or the hundredth) guy you'd think of if you wanted to cast a sleazeball in your film.

So, kudos and kudos again to Stone for some incredible outside the box casting decisions.

All in all, I consider Natural Born Killers to be a flawed gem. Not a "masterpiece". Because it's difficult for me to imagine Stone ever directing something that will remotely approach Platoon, Wall Street or any of the other biggies. But there's still a lot to enjoy with Natural Born Killers. Overall, I do recommend it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=praQkvivkUE

Rewatched The Faculty tonight. Hadn't seen it since, oh, maybe summer 1999 when I rented it on video tape. Had hazy memories of it. I remembered broadly enjoying it. But it wasn't one of those Movies Experiences You'll Never Forget things.

But the movie has attracted a cult following over the years. And usually, movies that do that have some kind of value or staying power. So what the hay, why not give it another look? It's streaming on HBO Max (in America anyway, you Europeans are on your own).

And honestly? Not bad. Not bad at all!

I think The Faculty's original sin is that it's sci-fi creature feature horror in a time and place when audiences were looking for another slasher like Scream. Well, needless to say, The Faculty doesn't scratch that itch.

But if you enjoy a good alien invasion movie (and I do), then The Faculty has a lot to offer.

Now, there are some anachronistic elements. I sincerely don't know if high school hierarchies operate on the paradigm shown in The Faculty anymore. They might. But I get the sense that things have rly changed there.

Another weird element is the incomprehensible relationship between Zeke and Ms. Burke. They treat each other like exes... even tho he's a student and she's a faculty member. Which, if I'm reading this thing right, means their relationship is most likely a felony and Ms. Burke should be up on charges. I mean, you can't rly play the "it was a different time" card here. Even when I first saw the movie, I remember HOPING that I was misunderstanding that part of the movie. Because that sort of thing was verboten even back then.

But when you get away from that, it's a pretty enjoyable movie and I had a blast watching it. Recommended.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTejRhfIFXs

"Escape from New York" 1981

Finally purchased the 4K edition the other day, and it's simply outstanding!

To me, EFNY is one of those 'perfect' films that never should be remade (though inevitably will be). Such an intriguing premise, amazing cast (Donald Pleasence, Lee Van Cleef, Harry Dean Stanton, Tom Atkins, Adrienne Barbeau, Ernest Borgnine, Isaac Hayes, and the impeccably cast Kurt Russel as Snake Plissken), and John Carpenter at the height of his powers as a director. Like many other scores composed and performed by Carpenter during this era, this one features yet another memorable gem.

Since checking this out in 4K, I've been reading up on the 1987 Coleman Luck script for "Escape from L.A.", and .... what a trip that would have been! As it leans into the fanciful than even the 1996 sequel did to be perfectly honest.

But yeah, "Escape from New York" is highly recommended.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkGEfrRT1Rw&pp=sAQB

Walk The Line, the Johnny Cash bio. And looky here, it's streaming free on YouTube.

This is a safe, inoffensive choice, frankly. There's pretty much nothing here that will challenge the viewer, the issue of a son struggling to win his father's approval has broad appeal beyond just men, Johnny Cash's fanbase has probably only grown since his passing, the movie itself plays fast and loose with the facts (Cash's sobriety issues extended beyond the time period shown in the film) and this is a pretty obvious Oscarbait movie.

Those things notwithstanding, it's filled with winning performances from Phoenix and Witherspoon. Robert Patrick has a small but powerful (and memorable) role as Cash's stern father. Honestly, I just can't find much going on here to criticize.

I always thought it was a bit of a shame that the film never got a sequel. Then again, there's plenty of time for the cast to better age into their roles. So, we may not be out of luck yet. There's quite a lot of story to be told about Cash's life in the Seventies and Eighties leading into his career resurgence beginning in the Nineties.

Either way, this is definitely worth watching.

Just finished the original 1987 Hellraiser film.

I should start off by saying I don't usually go in for the demonic subgenre of horror. Slashers? Cool. Monsters? Bring 'em on. Ghosts? Eh, I'll make do. But out and out demonic entities typically lose me*. Everybody has biases and that's mine.

* For every rule, an exception. Yes, I can (occasionally) watch The Exorcist. But otherwise, my point stands and I just don't enjoy this kind of stuff.

On that basis, I suppose Hellraiser is exemplary of this subgenre. A very high quality example of what can be done with this type of material. And if I'm being honest, I think a big reason why the movie works for me is because Julia and Frank are such pieces of... work. It becomes clear after a while that Julia is starting to enjoy her task of bludgeoning men to death so that Frank can feed off them. She begins developing a taste for murder in the same way that Frank long ago developed a taste for hedonism.

They're both horrible people. So, goings on with the Cenobites is, from a certain point of view, Frank and Julia being served justice for their crimes. They went looking for trouble and they found it.

All in all, I do recommend this original film to fans of the demon stuff in the horror genre. If that's your brand of vodka and if you somehow haven't already seen Hellraiser, go ahead and give it a look. But my biases mentioned above made this a bit of a challenge for me to get through at times, I have to be honest. I don't care to rewatch this film and I don't think I have much inclination to check out the sequels either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgq2zRSnVsg

Watched The Skull a few months ago. There aren't very many horror movies that have a genuinely menacing and creepy atmosphere to them. But The Skull is amazingly powerful in that respect.

Plus, how many horror movies have enough self-confidence to go for significant periods of time without dialogue? Well, the last half hour'ish of The Skull has almost no dialogue. That would be a massively brave decision TODAY. But back in the Sixties, that had to have been practically unheard of.

Plus, the movie boasts Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee arguably at the heights of their horror film powers. Best of all, Cushing plays the villain while Lee... isn't exactly the hero. But he's hardly the villain of the piece either.

All in all, I highly recommend The Skull.

Ah, The Skull. I watched that for the first time in 2021. It's a strange movie, written by Psycho author Robert Bloch and produced by Hammer rival Amicus Productions. Amicus used a lot of the same actors as Hammer, but unlike Hammer they also used Vincent Price in several of their films. Price, Cushing and Lee were the three great horror icons of that era.


I've always thought it was a pity that they never collaborated on a Hammer movie together. They worked together on several other films, but never a Hammer picture. In real life, the three of them were good friends.


Tim Burton has often spoken of his admiration for all three actors. He cast both Price and Lee in a number of his films towards the end of their respective careers. Had Burton's career overlapped with Cushing's, I'm sure they would have worked together too. The obvious project for them to have collaborated on would have been Batman '89.

I've recommended this film before in other threads, but it's a great one to watch around Halloween: Dr. Terror's House of Horrors (1965).


This was the first in Amicus Productions' series of horror anthology films. It has a strong EC vibe and was followed by the EC adaptations Tales from the Crypt (1972) and The Vault of Horror (1973). Other entries in the series include Torture Garden (1967), starring Burgess Meredith, Peter Cushing and Jack Palance, The House That Dripped Blood (1971), starring Cushing, Christopher Lee, Ingrid Pitt and Jon Pertwee, and Asylum (1972), starring Cushing, Britt Ekland, Robert Powell and Herbert Lom. Torture Garden, The House That Dripped Blood and Asylum were all written by Robert Bloch. The final film in the series was From Beyond the Grave (1974), starring Cushing, David Warner, Donald Pleasance and Lesley-Anne Down.

All of these anthology films are enjoyable, but the best, IMO, is Dr. Terror's House of Horrors. It's campier and more humorous than the other entries in the series, but it's still got great spooky visuals and a strong atmosphere. There are five stories featuring a werewolf, a killer plant, a voodoo curse, a severed zombie hand, and a vampire. The excellent cast includes Cushing, Lee, Michael Gough, Donald Sutherland and Roy Castle. There's no Vincent Price, unfortunately, but it's still an impressive line up. The entire film is available to watch free on YouTube. It's only 98 minutes long, so it's worth watching if you've got the time. Here's one copy, though the end credits have annoyingly been cut off.


Here's another copy that includes the end credits, but has an interruption in the middle from the channel's hosts. If you don't mind skipping the commentary section, it's a decent copy.

The Masque Of The Red Death (1964)

Vincent Price plays a satanic prince who torments everyone around him for his own sick pleasure. Based on Poe.

Whatever the narrative may be lacking in pacing, it more than makes up for in atmosphere. Conveniently, this relates to a burgeoning quibble I have with modern horror films. Namely, that the horror genre (and, I would argue, modern cinema) has developed a very unwelcome obsession with realism. Everything in modern film must be presented in as grounded and credible a manner as possible.

Obviously, The Masque Of The Red Death comes from a time when cinema did not aspire to be realistic. As a result, the shadows are impossibly dark, the clouds are impossibly ominous, the always-full moon is impossibly big, etc.

The stylized tone suits the material well. This was a very enjoyable movie. It can be very easily argued that this is Roger Corman's finest moment as a director. I'll leave that for others. But if the consensus becomes that The Masque Of The Red Death is high water mark, I'm in no position to disagree.

The House That Dripped Blood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_House_That_Dripped_Blood

Watched this tonight. It's an anthology film centered around peculiar goings on different, unrelated characters experience in the same house.

What I appreciate is how the different stories touch upon different subgenres of horror. You have a conventional murder mystery, love curse, supernatural magic and a vampire story.

Plus, it stars Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, which is never a bad thing in my book.

There's a lot to enjoy here, honestly.

After re-reading Watchmen I've given the Tales of the Black Freighter animation another look to get that story clear in my mind. After letting it simmer, I see it as being about the pitfalls of good intentions. Despite the carnage of the pirate attack it begins on positive terms. We have one man's mission of survival and a desire to protect others. But that quickly involves becoming increasingly desperate and comfortable with the grotesqueness of death. Through the journey the protagonist loses perspective and goes too far.

The story is essentially asking the question if Veidt did the same thing. Was he overthinking the threat like the pirate and attacking unnecessarily? Or at least too soon? We already know without a shadow of a doubt that the pirate made a mistake. The Freighter was not descending on the town to kill his family. As for Veidt, he knew the global temperate was heating up. That part is not a hallucination.

Consider that the pirate was thirsty, hungry and baking in the sun. Veidt had the luxury of having none of those encumbrances and thus a better chance at being rational. But interestingly, does that even matter in the end? Both characters still had certainty and thought their situations were to set in stone. Man is capable of great violence, and mistakes, in a variety of different mental states. I see the pirate's story as a parallel but not an exact mirror. We know the pirate's actions had no positive benefit other than his own physical survival.

Even if war does begin soon after, is Veidt a monster for at least trying something to avert it? Three million dead is small potatoes if the entirety of humanity is going up in flames anyway. Or on the flip side, is he the one who ends up causing it? In any case, Veidt does own those three million deaths. Just as the pirate used the bodies of his dead crew to float along the ocean, Veidt used the bodies of dead New Yorkers to try and float humanity to world peace.

I feel there's still a lot more left to say about the story, but I'll leave it there.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  6 Feb  2021, 02:41
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELeMaP8EPAA

Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood

Finally watched Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood near the end of December. Missed it in theaters because reasons but I saw the price had dropped way down on iTunes after Christmas and knew I had to check it out.

My thing has been Cape-Free Cinema in recent times. That means no superheroes. I want to watch FILMS. Priority is given to period pieces, true stories/autobiographies and the cinematic works of David Fincher (for whom Mank was all of the above, btw).

Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood. Rly enjoyed it. Rick Dalton is obviously a composite but the movie is better for that, if you ask me. I don't think using an irl has-been actor as the lead character would've worked. Esp considering that jaw-dropping ending.

Probably my favorite scene is where Cliff half-spars/half-rly fights Bruce Lee. There are apocryphal tales of Bruce Lee getting owned by westerners and this seems to fit in that milieu. I remind myself that Bruce Lee was his own best publicist so there might be something to those stories of Lee getting his ass kicked.

For me, the promise of the premise of Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood is Hollywood as it was in the late Sixties. The founders of Hollywood from the Twenties and Thirties were retiring and selling their movie studios to corporations. The industry was radically shifting, the tastes and preferences of wide audiences were moving away from all those plot-free beach movies of the early Sixties and basically nobody rly knew what to do or which direction to go in.

That aimlessness along with the general insanity of the late Sixties personified by the Manson family are what rly give Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood its mojo.

At this point, I've seen this movie three times. And it gets better each time. A true modern classic.

I've taken the time "recently" (most of 2022) to rewatch Tarantino's entire directorial canon. And I have to say, he's one of the most consistent directors of all time. We can rag on Death Proof. And maybe we even should. But the fact remains that Tarantino offers a bona fide experience.

And there's no better example of that than Once Upon A Time...in Hollywood. I'll even say that I think this is the best thing he's ever done. And may ever do. Just can't get enough of this movie.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 11 Dec  2021, 00:47
Get Back is incredible and it could be my favorite movie. I love how you see things unfold naturally, with the guys just being themselves. If such a project was made today it would all be planned out and the songs already written, with a pretence of authenticity. But the guys just had the balls to make something happen in the studio from sheer inspiration and confidence in their ability.

Watching the documentary again on Blu-ray (it's actually very hard to locate) has made me think about the tracklist of the original album. I don't dislike it. As it stands it's good, but not among their best. Instead I'm imagine something like this:

Get Back (Single)
Two Of Us
Dig A Pony
Across The Universe
I Me Mine
Dig It (1969 Glyn Johns Mix)
Let It Be (Single)
Maggie Mae
I've Got A Feeling
One After 909
The Long And Winding Road (LIB...Naked)
For You Blue
Don't Let Me Down (1969 Glyn Johns Mix)
Get Back (Reprise) [1969 Glyn Johns Mix]

I went for a 14 song tracklist, like Please Please Me, With The Beatles, Beatles For Sale, Help, Rubber Soul and Revolver. 14 is a good number I think. The Get Back Reprise is essentially filler to get to that, but putting Get Back as the opener gives the album a nice symmetry. I'm also treating it as something like Her Majesty, perhaps added on after a silence of ten seconds or so.

The lack of Don't Let Me Down in the official album is criminal, especially how often it was rehearsed during the sessions. The Glyn Johns Mix is the best version in my opinion, and that's what I went with. I like Dig It, but shortening it so much was a poor decison by Phil Spector. Glyn Johns did a much better job presenting it as a jam rather than a short interlude. I actually really like the album version of The Long and Winding Road, but the fact it's not how Paul wanted the song has to be acknowledged. He envisioned a stripped down, simpler melody, so that's what I chose. I think the single version of Let It Be serves the song better, but that's personal taste. Anything else from the list is from the original album.

This would've been one of their best albums, in the top three or four. The material was all there, it was all down to presention.

Just picked up Night Creatures (as it's called here in the States, for some reason; the title is "Captain Clegg" everywhere else apparently). Technically, I'm speaking a little out of school here since I haven't watched the thing yet. But iTunes offered a decent enough preview. I think it looks decent. So, I guess we'll see how this plays out.

Hammer tended to have good cinematography. Even if a film itself was substandard, the lighting and other technical stuff was usually done right. So, on that basis, I've never came away from a Hammer production completely disappointed. Because even the lesser Hammer works still have a certain level of quality behind them.

So, that's the minimum of what I expect from Night Creatures.

It's been a while since I watched Captain Clegg/Night Creatures, but I remember it being a fun movie and a good swashbuckling role for Cushing.

It's adapted from Russell Thorndike's 1915 novel Doctor Syn, which I read for the first time about five years ago. In the book, Captain Clegg, aka Doctor Syn, adopts the guise of a masked criminal known as the Scarecrow.


I view Syn/Clegg/Scarecrow as a literary forebear of the Batman villain of the same name. The other literary character that clearly influenced the comic villain is Ichabod Crane from Washington Irving's The Legend of Sleepy Hollow. Jonathan Crane share's Icahbod's name, appearance and occupation as a teacher, but his masked persona is indebted to that of Syn/Clegg.

Disney produced another screen version of Thorndike's book titled The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh (1963), which starred Patrick McGoohan as Clegg. I haven't got around to watching this yet, but Tim Sale is thought by some to have modelled his drawings of Scarecrow on McGoohan's costume.


I can't recall if Cushing's version of the character actually uses the Scarecrow persona in the Hammer film, but he does wear a cool skeleton costume similar to Death Man's. I've always thought Cushing would have been the perfect actor to play Scarecrow in the Adam West Batman series.

I swear one of these days I'll get around to starting a Hammer Horror thread so we can have more in-depth discussions about these films.

Playing through Hogwarts Legacy has led me to dig out my old Harry Potter books I had as a kid. Upon opening the covers of the first three books there was my name written in my own handwriting looking back at me, which was quite affecting to me some 20 odd years later. I wasn't a huge Potterhead back in the day - it dropped off around Goblet of Fire (while generally knowing what followed after). But I've jumped back in there now.

The nostalgia angle apeals to me in the sense it's unfinished business and revisiting a frozen part of my childhood. I can see why kids fell in love with this world and reading in general. I burned through the first three books pretty quickly and I've just about finished book four. The last three bring in darkness and death, which is highly effective given the prior character development and more jovial tone. The loss of innocence and dealing with misery are relevant even more now, as the magic in the real world has also faded.

I'm all about the books as they're the full experience. The condensed nature of the film adaptions make them lesser experiences with less context but I'll still check them out again when I'm done reading. However in terms of sound and visuals, the movies can't really be faulted. John Williams captured the wonder and mystery of the world in a way that it's twinkling in my head while reading.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTvrtWm0XA8

When I was a kid, I was a big Roald Dahl fan. I loved the occasionally surrealist style. And I thought the Dahl influence was fairly noticeable in the first book. Rowling obviously couldn't have stuck with Dahl forever in the Potter series. But I enjoyed what I at least thought was her tipping her hat to Dahl in the first novel.

As to the movies, I regard them as visualizations of the books. On that basis, some are better than others. On balance, Prisoner Of Azkaban is probably my favorite from the movie series. That's the equivalent is 7th grade here in the States and that was a very vivid time for me.

The best work Williams did for that series was in POA, frankly.

I still love the Harry Potter books. Maybe not as much as I did when I was a child/teenager, but I certainly do.

As for the movies, I regard the second movie as the best. Faithful to the book but also having its personal touch. The first movie was good, but lacked some unique personality. The third movie on the other hand tried to distance itself too much from the book, and I didn't enjoy it. The fourth movie was a large failure in my eves, as was the sixth. The sixth book is actually my favorite. The fifth movie was second best. And then the last two movies were pretty good due to the fact that they had enough space to adapt a single book.

So, I'd rank the movies:

1. Chamber of Secrets
2. Order of the Phoenix
3. Philosopher's Stone
4. Deathly Hallows, parts I and II
5. Prisoner of Azkaban
6. Half-Blood Prince
7. Goblet of Fire

And here's how I'd rank the books:

1. Half-Blood Prince
2. Chamber of Secrets
3. Goblet of Fire
4. Prisoner of Azkaban
5. Order of the Phoenix
6. Deathly Hallows
7. Philosopher's Stone

I don't know anything about Harry Potter. I've never read a single book, nor have I seen any of the movies.

It never seemed like anything I would be into.

I can't say I've ever been a diehard fan of Harry Potter. I've read all seven books, I saw all the films on the big screen, and I visited the Harry Potter Studio Tour at Warner Bros' Leavesden studio back in 2016 (this was around the time they were shooting Justice League there, and we could see the New York sets from the first Fantastic Beasts movie still standing near the car park). But HP never clicked with me on a deeper personal level the way certain other things have. A lot of people in my family, including my mother, are serious Potter fans. I'm more of a casual appreciator. But I can see why so many people love the world Rowling created.

My favourite books in the series were The Prisoner of Azkaban and The Goblet of Fire. I think the novels are obviously superior to the films, though I do quite like the early movies. The first two in particular, directed by Chris Columbus, had a charm that was absent from the later entries.

As for Fantastic Beasts, I went to see the first one when it came out and I thought it was ok. I'm not particularly bothered about seeing the sequels.

I haven't played the new Hogwarts Legacy game. However I was delighted to hear it had sold over 12 million copies, simply because its success highlights the colossal failure of the boycott.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed,  1 Mar  2023, 12:44
When I was a kid, I was a big Roald Dahl fan.

You must be thrilled about the recent news regarding sensitivity readers censoring his work. ::) If there's one occupation humanity can do without, it's sensitivity readers. Apparently Ian Fleming's Bond novels are getting the same treatment next. Thankfully I already own all the uncensored and politically incorrect editions of 007's adventures.

Speaking of Dahl, one movie I'd recommend is Nicolas Roeg's 1990 film of The Witches starring Anjelica Huston.


I first saw this on TV when I was about 7, and it scared me so badly I had to change the channel. Revisiting it as an adult, I appreciate what a good adaptation it is of Dahl's book. It captures the darkness of the original story, which is important for kids to absorb on a cautionary level. The filmmakers did alter the ending to give it a more upbeat conclusion, and some fans have understandably taken issue with that. But aside from that one change, it's a faithful adaptation worth watching.

I spent a good bit of last month blasting through the Fast & Furious films. And I had a ton of fun doing it. They're brainless, high-octane action movies with lots of stunts, car chases, fights, stuff blowing up, sexy women, alpha men, cool cars and all that stuff.

Honestly, between stuff like Fast & Furious, John Wick, Mission Impossible and even The Expendables, I think Hollywood got too distracted by Marvel. Hollywood spent far too much time chasing after shared superhero universe ideas when they should've been focused on thrill-a-minute actionfests that lend themselves to numerous sequels. F&F and The Expendables are both mid-budget franchises with solid ROI. And the success of John Wick and Mission Impossible speaks for itself.

Anyway, enough of that. I'd never seen most of the F&F series before. But having watched them all now, I have to say that you get your money's worth out of them, the never outstay their welcome and there's a surprising amount of heart in these movies that you wouldn't expect from entertainment where you're supposed to check your brain at the door.

Highly recommended.

Quantumania came, it saw, it tanked. The powers that be behind Shazam! Fury Of The Gods apparently saw that and said "Hold my beer, we can do better. And by better, we mean worse".

Comic book cinema looks to be on undeniable decline. So, could this mean a return to having actual genres? Romantic comedy, horror, action, mystery, caper, etc?

One genre in desperate need of revitalization is the kung fu film. Which just about brings me too...


Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was amazing back in 2000. But I'm struck by how it has aged like fine. Because when you think about it, the East Meets West blending of cinematic styles could've gone horrifyingly wrong. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon easily could've been the two great tastes that don't taste great together. But somehow, against all odds, the film is a masterpiece.

First off, the fight choreography and wire-fu is absolutely insane. Audiences thought they'd gotten a taste of wire-fu in The Matrix. But Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon takes it to the next level. This film's wire work has yet to be challenged.

But in the second place, the drama and character conflicts are all very real. Everyone has a point of view. And even the bad/villainous characters have a certain sensibility and logic behind their action.

Third, obviously this movie makes no pretense toward realism. But at the same time, the fairy tale setting, stylized action scenes and iconic/archetypal characters are all grounded by the reality of death constantly haunting everyone and the bad-yet-understandable decisions made by the characters. The laws of physics might get bent in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. But the pains, losses and defeats of life are not sugarcoated.

If you've never seen Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, don't let the Mandarin language dissuade you. This film is not only well worth checking out, but it's one of the few films that actually deserves repeat viewings. Plus, the cinematic language allows you to skip whole sections of dialogue because the conflicts are conveyed just as much visually as they are textually.

Watch. This. Movie.

Again, if need be.

I've been a fan of TMNT (2007) for a pretty long time now. Just finished a rewatch and I'm once again impressed by how well this overlooked gem in Turtle history holds up.

One thing I enjoy about TMNT (2007) is how it's wide open to interpretation. If you want TMNT (2007) to be a continuation of the previous three live action films from the early Nineties, it can be. You've even got some pretty solid evidence working in your favor. If you look close, you can spot Super Shredder from The Secret Of The Ooze, the cracked TGRI ooze canister from the same, Shredder's TSOTO helmet and the scepter from the third film.

But if you'd prefer for TMNT (2007) to be its own thing, that works too because TMNT (2007) is a complete stylistic (and even genre) break from those three films.

Speaking of which, nothing in the film requires expert knowledge of the Nineties movie franchise. Beyond, the film doesn't require much more than a passing familiarity with the basics of Ninja Turtle mythos. As long as you know that Leo is the titular leader, Raph is the hotheaded lone wolf, Mikey is the fun-loving, freewheeling slacker and Donny is the team inventor and intellectual, nothing in the narrative will challenge you too much.

But what's better is that IF you choose to regard this movie as the fourth installment in the previous live action franchise, then TMNT (2007) restores a lot of the dignity to the characters that the second and third movies systematically stripped away. Perhaps we can attribute that to Peter Laird (Turtles co-creator) being involved with the film in a production capacity?

Whatever the case may be, it's a crying shame that TMNT (2007) never got the sequel that it so richly deserved. Because sequel or not, reboot or not, TMNT (2007) proves that there's still plenty of mojo in the Turtle concept. But that's small potatoes. We got one good film. Which is one more than I ever thought we'd get.

Watch it!

EDIT- Bryan Singer touted Superman Returns as fitting into a "vague history" of Superman. I find it amusing that TMNT (2007) came out less than a year later and better executed the "vague history" concept far better than Singer managed to do with SR.

I remember watching that TMNT animated movie thirteen years, I really liked it. I thought it was a good balance between maintaining the spirit of those original Eastman and Laird comics, while being a crowd-pleaser. It still looks WAY better than Mutant Mayhem.

https://youtu.be/ooZdaF2zMlM

I'll pass. It tries too hard to ape Spider-Man: Into the SpiderVerse for my liking.

While we're on the subject of Ninja Turtles, I recommend anyone who grew up with the Eighties cartoon to play the Shredder's Revenge game, which came out last year. It's a great little homage to those classic arcade and 16-bit games.

I've always liked TMNT '07. It is underrated. With regards to its canonicity, it now appears to exist in its own self-contained universe. But when it first came out, I definitely viewed it as Turtles 4. In addition to the Easter eggs colors mentioned, there's also Shredder's absence and Karai's allusion to his impending return at the end of the movie. I figured that was a reference to Oroku Saki's apparent death at the end of Secret of the Ooze.


The villains in TMNT also feel like a natural progression from the bad guys in the first two movies. In TMNT '90 we got Shredder, Master Tatsu and the Foot. Then things escalated in Secret of the Ooze with the addition of super strong mutant foes Tokka, Rahzar and Super Shredder. One of the reasons the third film was such a letdown was the lack of threatening bad guys. TMNT makes up for that with the Stone Generals and thirteen monsters.

For me, it works as a coda or epilogue to the live-action trilogy. I remember reading somewhere that the Turtles were meant to be slightly older in the 2007 movie than in the Golden Harvest trilogy, which is why their personalities are a bit more serious. In the earlier films they're meant to be around 15 years old, while in TMNT they're about 17. But I can easily buy into them being the same Turtles. The CG movie certainly works better as a continuation of the live-action trilogy than The Next Mutation did. I wish we'd gotten a TMNT II instead of the Michael Bay reboot.

I'll use this post to once again recommend the 25th anniversary film Turtles Forever (2009). It came out just two years after TMNT and is very much of the same vintage. It's easily the funniest of the Turtles movies. Moreover, it was Into the Turtle-Verse nine years before Into the Spider-Verse existed. Nowadays multiverse movies are all the rage, but the Turtles did it first back in 2009. We've got a thread on Turtles Forever here: https://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=3672.

My current ranking of the TMNT movies, from favourite to least favourite, goes like this:

1.   Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990)
2.   Turtles Forever (2009)
3.   TMNT (2007)
4.   Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze (1991)
5.   Batman vs. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2019)
6.   Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows (2016)
7.   Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III (1993)
8.   Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014)

I'm not enthusiastic about the new movie, mainly because I don't like Seth Rogen. I'll watch it if it's on TV or available free on a streaming service, but otherwise I'll give it a pass. What happened to those reports of a live-action sequel to the nineties trilogy? That would've been a much cooler concept and would've made a good companion piece to Keaton's return in The Flash. No amount of CGI can match the brilliance of the costumes from the first two movies. They were the only times the Turtles looked convincingly real to me.

https://youtu.be/xgVo96JaqeM

Eyes Wide Shut

From the jump, it's wide open to speculation if that trailer does the eventual movie any kind of justice whatsoever.

But that aside, the cynicism in Eyes Wide Shut is pretty hard to escape. Everyone is, you know, exploiting everyone else on some level or another in Eyes Wide Shut. Sex is a commodity that the characters buy or sell depending on their station in life. The fact that all that unfolds during Christmas, of all times, adds an extra veneer of cynicism.

I suppose the elephant in the room is the amount of nudity (shown and obscured) in Eyes Wide Shut. What I find interesting is that the nudity is very rarely intended for titillation. On the contrary, the objectification is meant to make the viewer uncomfortable. Because it's not, ahem, a celebration of the human form. Rather, it's the exploitation of it. You're not supposed to enjoy seeing the exploitation of the human form. And if you DO enjoy seeing it, I think you need professional help.

None of this is to say the movie is bad. Far from it. In fact, I praise the movie for deliberately taking creative risks. And yet, t's tempting to argue that the runtime is a little bloated. There are many scenes which are absolutely crucial to the movie's story and themes. But at the same time, there's a lack of focus. I am not convinced that the movie was completed to Kubrick's satisfaction at the time of his death.

Then again, you could argue that Stanley Kubrick wasn't known for his brevity.

The tone of menace is virtually relentless in the movie. Even if you choose to take the death of Amanda and the disappearance of Nick at face value (which I'm not sure is advisable), you're still left with the fact that the cult knows a lot about Bill and clearly has the ability to "get" him. Aside from that, the danger is always lurking just out of sight even from the very start of the film. All the cult does is bring the threat more to the forefront.

Another interesting fact is how Ziegler's Christmas party is festooned with the Star Of Ishtar. It takes a special type of sick mind to put something like that up as a Christmas decoration. And the fact that (1) Ziegler did it and (2) none of the guests at the party thought it was unusual should tell you a lot about the kind of world Eyes Wide Shut takes place in.

Anyway. Eyes Wide Shut was controversial in its time and the ensuing years have not lessened that. It's certainly not my place to argue that it's Kubrick's greatest film (hello, "The Shining"!). But Eyes Wide Shut is definitely still worth checking out.

I'm a huge Kubrick fan, and I love Eyes Wide Shut, but I think 2001 is still my favorite from him.

I need to do another Kubrick marathon soon.

I've never actually seen Eyes Wide Shut right the way through. I've seen bits of it on TV, but never the entire movie. That and Killer's Kiss (1955) are the only two Kubrick films I haven't seen. I'll have to add them both to my watch list.

Quote from: Travesty on Sun, 23 Apr  2023, 15:15
I'm a huge Kubrick fan, and I love Eyes Wide Shut, but I think 2001 is still my favorite from him.

I need to do another Kubrick marathon soon.

My favorite Kubrick films are Dr. Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket, although 2001 is damn fine.

https://youtu.be/5zl6IxPJSVc

Manhunter is the first film of the entire Hannibal Lecter film franchise, with Brian Cox starring in a small role before Anthony Hopkins and based on the book Red Dragon.

Having watched this and Brett Ratner's adaptation of Red Dragon, I am kinda drawn to Manhunter. It may not be as comprehensive as Ratner's adaptation i.e. using sequences and echoes of Francis Dollarhyde's abusive mother condemning him during childhood, and Manhunter is more dialogue heavy. But Michael Mann's version has distinctive 1980s cinematography and use of colours, such as Will Graham in bed with his wife in a wash of blue that has this arresting hold of you as you watch. Graham, played by CSI's William Petersen, has a more intense way as he tries to get into the Tooth Fairy's head compared to Edward Norton and Tom Noonan sells the intimidating look of Dollarhyde quite well, although I think Ralph Fiennes was a bit more imposing.

As for Cox? He's fine as Hannibal, but it's rather hard to compare to Anthony Hopkins, who had far more to do with three films under his belt. Perhaps my favourite moment of the film is Graham runs out of the prison after having a panic attack during his interview with Hannibal, and you come to realise the building itself isn't a normal prison. It turns out the building in real life is a high-class museum.

https://www.movie-locations.com/movies/m/Manhunter.php

Michael Mann really had a habit of using unusual locations for institutions back in the 1980s, the Miami Vice TV show had tons of them.

Give Manhunter a shot.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Thu,  2 Mar  2023, 04:02I still love the Harry Potter books. Maybe not as much as I did when I was a child/teenager, but I certainly do.

As for the movies, I regard the second movie as the best. Faithful to the book but also having its personal touch. The first movie was good, but lacked some unique personality. The third movie on the other hand tried to distance itself too much from the book, and I didn't enjoy it. The fourth movie was a large failure in my eves, as was the sixth. The sixth book is actually my favorite. The fifth movie was second best. And then the last two movies were pretty good due to the fact that they had enough space to adapt a single book.

So, I'd rank the movies:

1. Chamber of Secrets
2. Order of the Phoenix
3. Philosopher's Stone
4. Deathly Hallows, parts I and II
5. Prisoner of Azkaban
6. Half-Blood Prince
7. Goblet of Fire

And here's how I'd rank the books:

1. Half-Blood Prince
2. Chamber of Secrets
3. Goblet of Fire
4. Prisoner of Azkaban
5. Order of the Phoenix
6. Deathly Hallows
7. Philosopher's Stone

I finished all the books again a week or so ago. I took my time with the last couple because once the journey is over, it's over. Finishing the series makes one melancholy about the journey of growth we go on. It's kind of hard going back over the old ground when the characters are younger even though that material is great. Rowling really wrapped the story up effectively in that regard. It feels complete, and the flash forward contributes to that. It puts a bow on the whole thing.

Harry is our avatar of discovery into the Wizarding world. He's someone who has fame but doesn't want it. Especially in Order of the Phoenix he increasingly becomes sick of being whispered about and stared at. I appreciated that side of things, showing him thinking and acting like a teenager. He's a good character even if I prefer others (Snape and Dumbledore are outstanding).
   
Thinking about the ending, I like the premise of the last book because of its starkness. It's a school year but they're camping out in soaking wet wilderness all alone, hungry and cold. They're uncertain about the future and questioning what they knew about the past. There's tension between them and it spills over, magnified by the presence of the locket horcrux. Their previous life at Hogwarts is a faraway dream and progress towards saving it is glacially slow, until their perseverance begins to pay off.

I like all that. I do think it should have been an expanded tome and parts of it feel rushed. But Rowling knew how to intertwine plot lines and have them combine in the last few chapters like a pro. One of her greatest skills as a writer to be honest. I don't think there was a moment in my months long read-through that I lost interest, and I can't say that about many things. Life just got in the way at times.

I have a ton of opinions on a wide variety of Harry Potter issues but issues would have to be raised for me to respond. I'm just giving my general assessment here. From Cedric's death onward, the books, while good beforehand, went to another level in my opinion. I rank them like this:

1. The Goblet of Fire
2. The Order of the Phoenix
3. The Half Blood Prince
4. The Deathly Hallows
5. The Prisoner of Azkaban
6. The Philosopher's Stone
7. The Chamber of Secrets

Late last year, I noticed that The Deep House was on sale. Naturally, I snapped it right up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvOCLeQDXlU

Obviously, the main gimmick of The Deep House is how it takes place mostly underwater. For that reason alone, the film is sort of a technical achievement. I can only imagine what a nightmare The Deep House must have been to shoot. Between the innumerable safety measures that must be taken to the sheer logistical problems that go in with filming underwater, this had to have been a very complicated production.

But the results are worth it, imo.

The Deep House creates a sense of claustrophobia and dread. Plus, the underwater setting creates new dramatic possibilities. When gravity is less of a factor, all kinds of new potential is unlocked to where there truly is no safety to be found.

If Wikipedia is any indication, The Deep House wasn't a runaway success. Which is a real shame too if you ask me, because this is a new approach to the archetypal haunted house story.

Highly recommended.

As said in another thread I watched Blade Runner again after a long time. The talk of Indiana Jones and Harrison Ford is what compelled me to check it out again. They don't make leading men like him anymore. There's no point looking for another either, because you won't find them.

Anyway, out of all the versions the Final Cut is the way to go in my opinion. The Theatrical release isn't how the film should be viewed. Ford and Scott didn't like the voiceovers, and neither do I. The happy ending that ignores a replicant's life span goes against the spirit of the film and doesn't make sense. The Final Cut has the full unicorn subtext, which introduces ambiguity into the mix which I like, and the violence is all there - particularly the eyes being gouged out, which the Director's Cut didn't have.

What I like about Blade Runner is how it's a simple story, Deckard being tasked to hunt down killer replicants, but one that does take your attention to follow and appreciate, particularly the underlying themes. When you know the plot from repeated viewings the voiceovers only serve to get in the way and break the mood. Blade Runner is also from a time where films were around the two hour mark and didn't feel the need to balloon out to nearly three hours. Obviously it looks amazing, and you could watch it for that alone.

I'm compelled to check out The Shining again too.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 16 Jul  2023, 01:22I'm compelled to check out The Shining again too.

What a powerhouse of a movie.

The performances from ALL the cast members are phenomenal. Just as a skyscraper is the perfect location for an action movie, an abandoned hotel frozen out in winter is the perfect location for psychological terror. Claustrophobia and boredom. Walking around large areas full of empty but furnished rooms, half expecting to see people in there even though it's just you and your family present. What strikes me is how this movie isn't just scary but sad, given we're dealing with a father, wife and young child. You naturally want to see a happy family but that's not what we have.

The ghosts who speak to Jack are incredible. They feel like frozen, blank avatars of permanent haunting. When they speak there are silences that follow their statements, hard stares and authority. If you enjoy dialogue scenes with atmosphere give this movie a watch. Now.

I think I side with what Kubrick said: Jack is a reincarnation. IMO the residual energy of past guests are used create other copies and eventually pull them back to the building to protect it from destruction, and any visitor that simply doesn't like it there. I'm thinking someone else with Jack's face (the original) stayed at the hotel years ago. When our Jack arrives at the hotel in the present day he feels a familiarity with it due to having a shared soul. As soon as he's inside the building's energy decays his already troubled psyche, which had somewhat been under control beforehand. There are probably still some inconsistencies with this theory but that's what makes the premise so thought provoking and mysterious.

I don't care about the differences from the book. The movie is a slam dunk and the showcase for Nicholson as an actor. His charisma and unhinged danger level are off the charts here enough for me to say prime Nicholson is the best Joker type performance you're likely to get.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 15 Jul  2023, 16:39Late last year, I noticed that The Deep House was on sale. Naturally, I snapped it right up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvOCLeQDXlU

Obviously, the main gimmick of The Deep House is how it takes place mostly underwater. For that reason alone, the film is sort of a technical achievement. I can only imagine what a nightmare The Deep House must have been to shoot. Between the innumerable safety measures that must be taken to the sheer logistical problems that go in with filming underwater, this had to have been a very complicated production.

But the results are worth it, imo.

The Deep House creates a sense of claustrophobia and dread. Plus, the underwater setting creates new dramatic possibilities. When gravity is less of a factor, all kinds of new potential is unlocked to where there truly is no safety to be found.

If Wikipedia is any indication, The Deep House wasn't a runaway success. Which is a real shame too if you ask me, because this is a new approach to the archetypal haunted house story.

Highly recommended.

I'd never even heard of this movie before I saw it mentioned in this thread, but I was browsing Netflix last night and there it was. So, on your recommendation, I watched it.

It's one of the most unique haunted house films I've seen in years. I don't know how they shot it. Did they actually build those structures underwater, or were they CGI? Everything in the movie looked real (except that one fish that kept popping up), so I'm assuming it was mostly done with practical sets and effects. Either way, it's a visually striking movie. A part of me would rather not know if digital effects were involved, as it would spoil the illusion.

The claustrophobia is palpable, and the filmmakers do an excellent job of working the diving apparatus into the story to enhance the tension. For example, the drone that can detect movement, or the devices registering the protagonists' rapidly depleting oxygen levels. The plot and characters aren't anything special, but the technical novelty of filming almost the entire movie underwater compensates for that. It also avoids overstaying its welcome, clocking in at around 80 minutes minus the credits. That was the perfect running time for the story they were telling.

It reminded me of As Above, So Below (2014) – both being English-language horror movies set in France and starring an adventurous British-American couple, who descend into a claustrophobic environment where walls mysteriously appear to block their paths, and demonic apparitions haunt them as they try desperately to escape to the surface.

I'm a sucker for any sci-fi, fantasy or horror with an oceanic theme. And while The Deep House isn't quite oceanic it's still very much aquatic, so I'm glad I watched it.

Apparently lead actor James Jagger is the son of Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall. Everything connects back to Batman '89.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 22 Jul  2023, 17:22I'm a sucker for any sci-fi, fantasy or horror with an oceanic theme. And while The Deep House isn't quite oceanic it's still very much aquatic, so I'm glad I watched it.

Pretty much the same.

When I was a kid, we rented videos a lot. Almost every weekend.

While I can't defend the creative merits of Jaws: The Revenge now, I did enjoy it when I was little because the characters spend a lot of time tooling around in submersibles in that movie. I forget the details now because I haven't seen the movie since forever. And I certainly don't intend to rewatch it now.

But that was a huge selling point for me back then. Something about mixing the submersibles with underwater exploration with a monster shark on the loose appealed to me back in those days. Kids have a different threshold, I guess.

That same general phenomenon is at play with The Deep House. As you say, the characters are developed well enough. It wouldn't have taken much to deepen characters either. But I'm perfectly happy with what we get in the movie and I recommend it to all horror fans.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 22 Jul  2023, 20:14While I can't defend the creative merits of Jaws: The Revenge now, I did enjoy it when I was little because the characters spend a lot of time tooling around in submersibles in that movie. I forget the details now because I haven't seen the movie since forever. And I certainly don't intend to rewatch it now.

Yeah, "Jaws: The Revenge" is ... not a good movie. However, I literally can't help but have some nostalgia for the film, in part due to the NES game. Which was largely based on "Revenge", and during my childhood, I remember playing the video game a lot. I mean, A LOT! Honestly, it's not what you would describe as a great game, but being in love with the IP ever since I can remember, along with the NES game not being all that difficult, ultimately made it very replayable to me.

I picked up Jaws 2-4 on blu ray this past Christmas Holiday season on GRUV for around $7 apiece. Which wasn't a bad deal, as I only had the sequels on DVD beforehand (and just recently bought the 4K of Jaws 2 as I have a pattern of behavior in re-buying the Jaws movies on physical media every single time a new edition comes out. I've lost count how many times I've purchased anniversary editions of the original Jaws, BTW. As Depeche Mode would say, I Just can't get enough haha). Though, the blu ray of "Jaws: The Revenge" does come with an "Extra" of the original U.S. ending (that's sometimes seen during television airings and was the ending for the NES game), as opposed to the international ending that's been made widely viewed for VHS/DVD releases.

I bought the DVD set of Jaws 2-4 last year and watched them all again. One thing I'll say for The Revenge is that the ending is hilarious. It has a lot of unintentional comedy value, which in some ways elevates it above Jaws 3 for sheer entertainment value. Jaws 3 has some funny moments too, mainly owing to the terrible 3D effects, but the entire finale of Jaws 4 is comedy gold.

Caine's line delivery in the following clip always makes me laugh.

Oh yeah, there's a lot of humor to be found in "Jaws the Revenge", and the finale is a perfect example of that. I especially like how Caine shows up on the boat, following being attacked by the shark after landing the plane in the ocean (and the plane is several yards from the boat), and his clothes are completely dry!  ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmboDDMPRVw

Theater Of Blood. Bought it ages ago and am nearly finished with it now.

In short, a Shakespearean actor is fed up with being mistreated by critics. So, he takes his revenge on the critics one by one. And he uses Shakespeare as his theme.

Aside from proving that Vincent Price could've made a hell of a Shakespeare movie, I can't help but think that someone involved with this production had a grudge against critics. Lionheart, Price's character, is surely living out the revenge fantasy of a lot of slighted actors and creative types.

This is a fun movie. I don't completely understand where its rep is coming from. But Theater Of Blood is still an enjoyable revenge story.

And I'm wondering how long it'll take SN to come in here and kick some Theater Of Blood trivia on me.

Theatre of Blood isn't a personal favourite of mine, but I still regard it as a classic of seventies horror. The premise of a pretentious actor murdering his critics using the most sadistic death scenes from Shakespeare's plays is such a great concept I'm surprised it wasn't done earlier. The dark humour and theme of revenge make it a good companion piece for The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971), and Alan Moore cited Price's characters in both of those films as having influenced the title character in V for Vendetta. Theatre of Blood is a smart self-aware horror film about life imitating art, and the patterning of the villains' MO after works of fiction makes it a precursor to movies like Tenebrae (1982), Scream (1996) and Urban Legend (1998). I'm astonished there hasn't been a remake yet, but I can't imagine it'll be much longer before some unimaginative producer rectifies that oversight.

Speaking of horror films, I have some recommendations.

I just got back from a trip to London for my cousin's wedding. Whenever I'm in London I have to commute on the underground, known colloquially as the Tube. I hate the Tube. I've hated it since I was a kid. I remember being scared of it the very first time I went to London, which would have been back in the late eighties or very early nineties. The London Underground is hot, greasy, loud and claustrophobic. Which makes it a great setting for scary stories. During World War II Londoners had to sleep down there to avoid the Luftwaffe. I can only imagine how horrible that must've been.


Anyway, travelling on the Tube again has prompted me to take stock of all the classic horror movies set against the backdrop of the London Underground. In the absence of a random horror movie thread, I thought I'd post the list here.

Firstly, an honourable mention goes to the 1968 Doctor Who serial The Web of Fear, which is widely regarded as one of the best stories of the Second Doctor era. The plot concerns an alien invasion of Earth conducted by the Great Intelligence using robot yetis and a mysterious web that smothers London. Most of the story takes place in the underground system, and the set designers did an admirable job of recreating the stations and tunnels on a shoestring budget. Many kids were terrified of going on the Tube after seeing this story.


Now moving on to horror movies set on the London Underground.


I mentioned this in the Hammer Horror thread. It's the third and best instalment in Hammer's Quatermass trilogy, a series a science fiction horror films adapted from TV serials by Nigel Kneale. The story begins when workers digging a new tunnel of the London Underground discover the skull of a missing link from humanity's distant past. Adjacent to this they find what they initially think is an unexploded bomb, but which later turns out to be an ancient alien spaceship. Ghostly and demonic apparitions have long haunted the streets of London up above, and when the spaceship is finally opened the intensity of those manifestations escalates to apocalyptic levels.


Quatermass and the Pit influenced Tobe Hooper's Lifeforce (1985), which IIRC also has a brief scene on the London Underground during the climactic third act.




Donald Pleasence stars as a police inspector investigating the disappearance of a politician who vanished while commuting on the London Underground. His search leads him to discover the existence of a cannibalistic killer stalking the stations and tunnels of the Tube. Some scenes drag on longer than they need to, and the poster art depicting an entire tribe of subterranean mutant cannibals is misleading. There's only one killer. But aside from those issues, Death Line has aged well. I might even rank it among the ten best British horror films of the seventies. It's dark and gritty, and Pleasence's spirited performance offers a sardonic counterpoint to his more sombre turn as Dr. Loomis in the original Halloween.


I suspect Death Line might have inspired Clive Barker's short story 'The Midnight Meat Train', though that was set on the New York Subway rather than the London Tube. The young male lead in Death Line is played by American actor David Ladd, who in real life is the son of Hollywood star Alan Ladd and the half-brother of producer Alan Ladd Jr, who greenlit Star Wars. Christopher Lee also appears in a minor role. Meanwhile director Gary Sherman went on to helm Poltergeist III (1988), but I won't hold that against him.

Death Line is currently available to watch free on YouTube. Horror fans should give it a look.




Everyone's probably already seen this one, but I'm recommending it anyway. Most of the film has nothing to do with the Tube, but my favourite scene takes place in a London Underground station where a commuter is stalked by the titular werewolf. John Landis makes terrific use of the location in this sequence, and the reveal shot of the creature at the foot of the escalator is the best in the movie.




Although this is not a remake, it is to all intents and purposes a rehash of Death Line. It stars Franka Potente and an unlikeable protagonist who gets trapped in a disused section of the London Underground where she's stalked by a deformed cannibalistic killer. It's not great. In fact it's the weakest film on this list. But it has a nasty flavour of urban realism that might appeal to those who like their horror gritty and raw. If anyone's hungry for a 21st century reimagining of Death Line, this is the film. Otherwise skip it.



So those were the movies I was thinking about as I travelled on the Tube earlier today. I've ridden underground transit systems in various cities, and none are exactly what I'd call pleasant. I'm no more claustrophobic than the next person, but there's something about subterranean horror I find extremely effective. Knowing that there are miles and miles of tunnels beneath our feet, and that anyone or anything could be living down there in the darkness, is deeply unsettling.

Finally saw Oppenheimer yesterday. Laser IMAX.

All in all, I enjoyed it. This is a strong contender for best thing Nolan has ever done. And for my money, Oppenheimer's competition for "best thing Nolan ever did" is Memento, The Prestige and The Dark Knight.

Because I never was big on Interstellar, frankly.

Anyway. Oppenheimer. Maybe I should avoid spoilers for the time being. So, I'll just say that it feels more like two movies wrapped up into one. Which is no criticism on my part.

It's not the feel-good hit of the year. But it does tell a profound story about a complicated man at one of the most pivotal moments in human history.

Highly recommended.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78eq-EtOuaM

Margin Call. A peak behind the curtain of the 2008 financial meltdown. Lots of charismatic performances and something that affected all or most of us.

It's just a good movie. And best of all, you can watch it for free on YouTube.

Even better, if you have Ad Block for Chrome installed, you can watch it without ads.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 29 Jul  2023, 21:55

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgTMnaEvTAc

Quatermass and the Pit influenced Tobe Hooper's Lifeforce (1985), which IIRC also has a brief scene on the London Underground during the climactic third act.

I just picked up Tobe Hooper's "Lifeforce" 3-disc 4K/Blu set a few weeks ago. Completing my set of Hooper's Cannon films (Lifeforce, Invaders from Mars 1986, Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2), and Mathilda May in 4K is just too alluring to pass up to be perfectly honest.

Mathilda May, and Tobe Hooper's interview QnA's on the extras are interesting to listen to. Hooper lets it be known that he was not in any way, shape, or form happy with Cannon's decision to title the film, "Lifeforce", nor was he particularly pleased with the final stateside poster art. Mathilda speaks about being unfamiliar with the english language at the time of filming, and thus having to learn her lines by language shadowing. Due to this, she could not communicate with hardly anyone during the production, and felt very isolated as a consequence.

Overall, i'd recommend the 4K set. The presentation, the extras, and there's 2 commentary tracks that make it worth picking up if you're a fan of the film.

I didn't realise May couldn't speak English at the time. Considering she was only a teenager and had to spend 99% of the movie naked, it must've been a gruelling experience for her.

In many ways I find Lifeforce to be a frustrating film. Expectations must've been high when it first came out – it was written by Alien scribe Dan O'Bannon and it was Hooper's next project following the success of Poltergeist. Cannon had a lot invested in it, and its budget was bigger than those of The Terminator and Aliens combined. The finished product doesn't live up to its potential, IMO.

The second half of the movie is really good. You could argue that it coasts along on action and spectacle, but even if that's true, it works. The apocalyptic finale is well staged and there are some excellent special effects. The final act, with London tearing itself apart, reminds me of Quatermass and the Pit and James Herbert's 1975 novel The Fog. I don't think the Quatermass similarities are accidental, since Hooper described Lifeforce as "a 70 mm Hammer film" and O'Bannon had previously penned the script for an unproduced Hollywood remake of Quatermass. With most horror films I tend to prefer the slow-burn mystery of the first half over the FX-driven action of the finale, but Lifeforce is a rare exception. The second half of the movie is where it really comes to life.

I've always thought that lead actor Steve Railsback was an underappreciated talent. His performance as Duane Barry in the second season of The X-Files should have landed him an Emmy nomination. His first episode remains one of the most intense pieces of television drama I've ever seen, and a lot of that intensity comes from Railsback's acting.


He's got a strong supporting cast backing him up in Lifeforce: Peter Firth, Frank Finlay, Patrick Stewart and Aubrey Morris. And of course Mathilda May is hauntingly beautiful as the Space Girl. But again, the strength of the cast makes me expect something better from the finished product. That's not to say it's bad. It's a fun B or C grade movie. But given the talent involved, it should've been an A grade. And that's why I find it frustrating.

Hooper's Cannon trilogy marks an interesting stage in his career where the success of Poltergeist had opened the door to some major big budget projects. I rate Poltergeist as his finest film and the point where his career peaked, and I imagine Golan-Globus thought they were getting the talent behind that movie when they signed him up. However, we now know that Spielberg was responsible for at least fifty percent of that film's brilliance, if not more (I consider it a Spielberg movie), and without Spielberg's guiding hand Hooper's limitations as a storyteller were soon laid bare. As a solo director, he was better suited to making low budget movies like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Funhouse.

The thing that always stands out in my memory about his Invaders from Mars remake is the alien leader. He looks exactly how Krang should look in a live action Ninja Turtles movie.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 31 Jul  2023, 19:07I didn't realise May couldn't speak English at the time. Considering she was only a teenager and had to spend 99% of the movie naked, it must've been a gruelling experience for her.

It's discernible that it was a challenging shoot for May, but she also comes across as holding no ill will towards the production, and seems to chalk up her experience as being young, and "that's show business!". I've only watched the interview with her once, but Mathilda holds Hooper in high regard, and says something to the effect of that he always made sure she was comfortable, and was kind towards her.

Hooper, during his interview segment, obviously holds May in high regard as well, and basically says she was a godsend for casting in the part. Even during the Hooper commentary track, he is steadily complimentary of Mathilda.

QuoteIn many ways I find Lifeforce to be a frustrating film. Expectations must've been high when it first came out – it was written by Alien scribe Dan O'Bannon and it was Hooper's next project following the success of Poltergeist. Cannon had a lot invested in it, and its budget was bigger than those of The Terminator and Aliens combined. The finished product doesn't live up to its potential, IMO.

The second half of the movie is really good. You could argue that it coasts along on action and spectacle, but even if that's true, it works. The apocalyptic finale is well staged and there are some excellent special effects. The final act, with London tearing itself apart, reminds me of Quatermass and the Pit and James Herbert's 1975 novel The Fog. I don't think the Quatermass similarities are accidental, since Hooper described Lifeforce as "a 70 mm Hammer film" and O'Bannon had previously penned the script for an unproduced Hollywood remake of Quatermass. With most horror films I tend to prefer the slow-burn mystery of the first half over the FX-driven action of the finale, but Lifeforce is a rare exception. The second half of the movie is where it really comes to life.

What's kinda amusing, is that Leonard Maltin gave the film a fairly positive review at the time of release. I think "Lifeforce" is an ambitious film, perhaps too ambitious, but at the same time, it feels like a Cannon production all the same. Personally, I like the plot, but I don't know how audiences inferred the marketing for the film back then. I remember seeing the VHS box cover at Blockbuster Videos as a kid, and couldn't make heads or tails on exactly what the film was about (and of course my parents were not going to allow me to rent such a movie back then ... and if they did I'm sure I would have hit puberty pretty damn quickly haha). Which I'm sure, did the film absolutely no favors at the box office.

QuoteHooper's Cannon trilogy marks an interesting stage in his career where the success of Poltergeist had opened the door to some major big budget projects. I rate Poltergeist as his finest film and the point where his career peaked, and I imagine Golan-Globus thought they were getting the talent behind that movie when they signed him up. However, we now know that Spielberg was responsible for at least fifty percent of that film's brilliance, if not more (I consider it a Spielberg movie), and without Spielberg's guiding hand Hooper's limitations as a storyteller were soon laid bare. As a solo director, he was better suited to making low budget movies like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Funhouse.

For me, Tobe Hooper peaked right out the gate with the original "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", and though he had peaks and valleys following that, I don't think he truly captured the same 'lightning in the bottle' magic that TCM really was. I will agree that "Poltergeist" comes closest, but I think TCM is Hooper's masterpiece.

I also agree that Golan/Globus were indeed expecting a better box office reception with Hooper's Cannon trilogy, but that was unfortunately 'on par for the course' with many projects that looked great on paper, but didn't meet critical/audience/box office expectations with the final product. Hooper's films. He-Man. Superman IV. Even signing up Sly for "Over the Top" couldn't generate profits (TCM2 might've given Cannon a tidy profit due to a Japan pre-sale which locked Hooper having to meet a deadline come hell or high water, which subsequently caused one heck of a chaotic shoot).

QuoteThe thing that always stands out in my memory about his Invaders from Mars remake is the alien leader. He looks exactly how Krang should look in a live action Ninja Turtles movie.

(https://i.postimg.cc/HsGQQT3G/krang.png)
"Shredderrrrrr!"

Haha Yeah, I remember after seeing the 1990 TMNT film, wondering what Krang would look like in live action? Obviously he wouldn't be EXACTLY like the Fred Wolf toon (Shredder being an example), but whenever I first laid eyes on the martian leader, you simply couldn't help but think of Krang!

Honestly, as far as "Invaders from Mars" goes, I think the original 1953 film overall works better than the 1986 Hooper remake. However, it's clear that Hooper made the film with a lot of affection, and was obviously a fan. Just as John Carpenter is with the original 1951 "The Thing from Another World". Now where I do think Hooper's remake improved upon, was the martian leader. I still think the martian leader's line delivery towards the young boy protagonist, "Poor little guy." is both sinister and otherworldly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx3JDAQXtGg

Quote from: The Joker on Tue,  1 Aug  2023, 15:49For me, Tobe Hooper peaked right out the gate with the original "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", and though he had peaks and valleys following that, I don't think he truly captured the same 'lightning in the bottle' magic that TCM really was. I will agree that "Poltergeist" comes closest, but I think TCM is Hooper's masterpiece.

On reflection, I'd agree with this. I like Poltergeist more than The Texas Chainsaw Massacre – it's more my kind of horror movie – but I can't say that it's entirely Hooper's film. TTCM, on the other hand, is purely his. It's the only really classic film that he directed on his own. He made some other decent movies, like The Funhouse and Lifeforce, but I expect most people would agree that his two best works were TTCM and Poltergeist. And only one of those is 100% a Hooper film. The rest of his career was built on the success of TTCM, so it's most accurate to say that that was where he peaked.

Quote from: The Joker on Tue,  1 Aug  2023, 15:49I also agree that Golan/Globus were indeed expecting a better box office reception with Hooper's Cannon trilogy, but that was unfortunately 'on par for the course' with many projects that looked great on paper, but didn't meet critical/audience/box office expectations with the final product. Hooper's films. He-Man. Superman IV. Even signing up Sly for "Over the Top" couldn't generate profits (TCM2 might've given Cannon a tidy profit due to a Japan pre-sale which locked Hooper having to meet a deadline come hell or high water, which subsequently caused one heck of a chaotic shoot).

His Cannon films aren't great works of cinema, but they're entertaining. They were obviously well produced and had decent budgets. The special effects for both Lifeforce and Invaders from Mars were handled by John Dykstra, who'd previously won an Academy Award for his work on Star Wars. Stan Winston handled the creature effects on Invaders from Mars, which was the same year he did his Oscar-winning work on Aliens. The director of photography on Lifeforce was Alan Hume, who'd previous shot Return of the Jedi and various David Lean and James Bond films. Lifeforce and Invaders from Mars both had talented composers in the form of Henry Mancini and Christopher Young respectively. And The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 starred Dennis Hopper, the same year he delivered his iconic performance as Frank Booth in David Lynch's Blue Velvet. So Cannon clearly spared no expense in equipping Hooper with top talent, and it shows in the polished quality of the productions.

The rest of Hooper's career, from 1990 onwards, was characterised by cheaper films made with less talented people, and that's clearly reflected in the inferiority of his output. But his Cannon films are ok. They're not as good as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Poltergeist, but better than the movies he made later on.

Quote from: The Joker on Tue,  1 Aug  2023, 15:49Haha Yeah, I remember after seeing the 1990 TMNT film, wondering what Krang would look like in live action? Obviously he wouldn't be EXACTLY like the Fred Wolf toon (Shredder being an example), but whenever I first laid eyes on the martian leader, you simply couldn't help but think of Krang!

Honestly, as far as "Invaders from Mars" goes, I think the original 1953 film overall works better than the 1986 Hooper remake. However, it's clear that Hooper made the film with a lot of affection, and was obviously a fan. Just as John Carpenter is with the original 1951 "The Thing from Another World". Now where I do think Hooper's remake improved upon, was the martian leader. I still think the martian leader's line delivery towards the young boy protagonist, "Poor little guy." is both sinister and otherworldly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx3JDAQXtGg

As with Lifeforce, I'd say the final act of Invaders from Mars is the best part of the movie. The sets and creature designs during the finale are fantastic. I don't think the movie as a whole is anywhere near as good as the original, mainly because it doesn't recapture the intensity of paranoia and dread that made the 1953 film so effective. But the ending is a blast.

I'll always prefer the original though. I first saw it at a very young age and back then found it quite frightening. Especially the creepy vocal music whenever someone sank into the sand, and the scenes with the dad suddenly acting hostile towards David. I like how Hooper brought Jimmy Hunt back to play one of the cops in the remake.


That was a nice touch.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue,  1 Aug  2023, 22:01His Cannon films aren't great works of cinema, but they're entertaining. They were obviously well produced and had decent budgets. The special effects for both Lifeforce and Invaders from Mars were handled by John Dykstra, who'd previously won an Academy Award for his work on Star Wars. Stan Winston handled the creature effects on Invaders from Mars, which was the same year he did his Oscar-winning work on Aliens. The director of photography on Lifeforce was Alan Hume, who'd previous shot Return of the Jedi and various David Lean and James Bond films. Lifeforce and Invaders from Mars both had talented composers in the form of Henry Mancini and Christopher Young respectively. And The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 starred Dennis Hopper, the same year he delivered his iconic performance as Frank Booth in David Lynch's Blue Velvet. So Cannon clearly spared no expense in equipping Hooper with top talent, and it shows in the polished quality of the productions.

Nice. I wasn't aware of a lot of this. Very interesting.

QuoteThe rest of Hooper's career, from 1990 onwards, was characterised by cheaper films made with less talented people, and that's clearly reflected in the inferiority of his output. But his Cannon films are ok. They're not as good as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Poltergeist, but better than the movies he made later on.

Oh, for sure. The Cannon films essentially represent Tobe Hooper's last hoorah as a theatrically produced filmmaker. Shame that "Lifeforce", and "Invaders from Mars 1986" didn't succeed at the box office, but they pretty much the final examples of Hooper being uninhibited by financial considerations from a studio. As Golan/Globus were very generous with the budgets for those film. "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2" was an entirely different story as Cannon was going thru financial difficulty at the time, and to which the production had no choice but to endure a breakneck pace to get the film in the can. From what I've read about the making of TCM2, Hooper was a big fan of Dr. Pepper, basically a chain-drinker, but would only drink it out of a bottle. As a result, it was the main job of a few members of the production, to keep Hooper well supplied with bottled Dr. Pepper. At all times. Otherwise, hell was going to break loose.

QuoteAs with Lifeforce, I'd say the final act of Invaders from Mars is the best part of the movie. The sets and creature designs during the finale are fantastic. I don't think the movie as a whole is anywhere near as good as the original, mainly because it doesn't recapture the intensity of paranoia and dread that made the 1953 film so effective. But the ending is a blast.

I'll always prefer the original though. I first saw it at a very young age and back then found it quite frightening. Especially the creepy vocal music whenever someone sank into the sand, and the scenes with the dad suddenly acting hostile towards David.

Agreed. There's just something about the 1950's aesthetic that makes the original work on different levels. I tend to think the same with the original 1958 "The Blob" compared to the 1988 remake.

QuoteI like how Hooper brought Jimmy Hunt back to play one of the cops in the remake.

(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1GuXxTB4upY/UdjpNliRx_I/AAAAAAAAAgM/grX_G5eNJy4/s1600/jimmy+hunt.jpg)

That was a nice touch.

Exactly right. Just as it was labor of love for John Carpenter to film "The Thing", I believe the same holds true with Tobe Hooper with "Invaders from Mars". The affection these men have for those films is palpable during interviews/commentaries.

Capture Kill Release does offer a pretty original take on the faux documentary style. You can't call it found footage, exactly.

Anyway, the basic pitch of the story is a boyfriend and girlfriend decide they want to kill somebody. But as the film progresses, you realize that only one of them is truly committed to doing it. And frankly, the trailer gives that much away.

I think what makes the film work is the sheer plausibility of the premise. I can't speak for anyone else. And maybe I'm a jaded, cynical jerk. But I find it ridiculously easy to believe that two idiots would want to "experiment" with murder and film the entire thing. That requires pretty much zero credulity on my part.

Also, using cameras rather than phones to document the "action" also rings true. If you use your phone to record this stuff, that's evidence that could easily be found by any number of parties. But cameras and tapes can always be destroyed if things go sideways. So, it's easy to understand why the couple favored cameras over iPhones for this "project".

The editing can get a little wonky at times. Some unmotivated (borderline non sequitur) jump cuts occasionally distract the viewer. It's easy to understand the behind the scenes reason for the jump cuts. The actors largely improvised their dialogue. They barely had a script to work with. The director gave them instructions for how the scene needed to play out and what needed to happen. But the ebb, flow and dialogue were all left to the actors to decide. And clearly, there were times when the director wanted a more rapid fire pace than the actors offered.

Even so, it's rare to see a main cast credited as screenwriters. But in this case, it's reasonable that the two leads deserve credit for the level of effort they put into their performances.

Obviously, the standout performance is the actress Jenn Fraser. The character of Jenn Fraser (yes, the cast has the same name as their characters) is a truly terrifying villain. Her absolute amorality and her penchant for cruelty is kind of a rarity in cinema. It's shocking mostly because of how visceral it is. Again, it's not a stretch to think that someone like this probably does exist. And she might even be your next door neighbor for all you know.

Spoiler: Arguably, the scariest aspect of this movie is that while Farhang has plenty of reservations about actually going through with it, the ending suggests that ultimately, Jenn just went too fast. If she'd given Farhang more time to gradually adjust, he might have turned out even worse than she did. And she's bad enough all by herself if you ask me.

Fraser doesn't have anything else listed on her IMDB. Which is kind of a surprise considering how effective she is in this film. No idea what her story might be. But without question, she gives the standout performance in this film. I don't think anybody doubts that.

For horror fans, I do recommend this film. The low budget necessitates a minimum of gore. On that basis, splatter fans might be disappointed. Still, I prefer atmosphere over gore anyway. And there are plenty of chilling moments in Capture Kill Release to choose from.

Capture Kill Release is (apparently) streaming for free on Tubi.

I love Margin Call. It's a talky-talky movie. But that's a-okay in my book.

Long story short, it tells part of the story behind the 2008 financial meltdown that affected us all. Basically, a bunch of rich a-holes wanted to get even richer, they got greedy (which is to say, greedier than usual) and in a sense, we're still paying the price for this today.

Oh, and Kevin Spacey's dog died so we're supposed to feel sorry for him. Or something.

There's a remarkable amount of tension, drama and stakes considering what a-holes most of the main characters are.

Highly recommended. Plus, you can watch it for free on YouTube (at least in the US) (for now).

https://youtu.be/6kZaJhZMgs0

The Insider is yet another terrific film by Michael Mann. The way its shot with its frantic pace is very similar to Heat, but instead of the cops and robbers crime drama, this is based on the true story about whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand exposing the Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company for its lethal cigarette products back in the mid-Nineties. The film captures the emotional and family turmoil the corporation had impacted on the family with threats and harassment, and the political impact it had on 60 Minutes.

Russell Crowe was stellar as Wigand as he carries the burden of the situation as a man whose life is getting torn apart, Al Pacino as tenacious as ever as Lowell Bergman, and Christopher Plummer played Mike Wallace as blunt, fearless, and pompousness. The best scene is when he tells off some of the 60 Minutes executives for cutting his news footage short explaining why his interview with Wigand was not being shown to the public.

It's a slow drama and it goes for two and a half hours, but it's very well-acted and engrossing. Top quality drama.

The BBC's 1977 adaptation of Dracula is one I'd never gotten around to watching until now. The main thing that distinguishes it from other Dracula films is its accuracy to the source material, with most critics agreeing it's the most faithful adaptation of Bram Stoker's 1897 novel. Having now seen it, I concur with that assessment.


The TV movie does change a few things from the book. Dracula doesn't start off looking like an old man and then de-age like he does in the novel, nor does he bear his literary counterpart's facial hair or the scar inflicted when Jonathan Harker strikes him with a shovel. Mina and Lucy are portrayed as sisters, Arthur Holmwood and Quincey Morris are amalgamated into a single character, and during the denouement it is Van Helsing who kills Dracula.

Aside from these changes, the TV movie follows the book very closely. This is its greatest strength, but also leads to some pacing issues in the second half. A problem I have with every version of the Dracula story, including the original novel, is that I feel the plot loses steam after vampire Lucy is killed. This criticism also applies to the '77 Count Dracula, though in fairness to the BBC all of its pacing issues stem directly from Stoker's narrative blueprint. To their credit, the makers of the TV movie still manage to keep things interesting and omit the Victorian sentimentality that all too often pollutes Stoker's prose.

The limited use of music and special effects lends the film a more realistic feel than many other Dracula movies, and Louis Jourdan's performance as the title character is suitably restrained. For me the definitive cinematic Van Helsing will always be Peter Cushing, but Frank Finlay's interpretation is probably the closest I've seen a screen version get to Stoker's original. He and Jack Shepherd, who portrays Renfield, are both excellent. And I've always liked Judi Bowker, who's probably best known to international audiences for her roles as Saint Clare of Assisi in Franco Zeffirelli's Brother Sun, Sister Moon (1972) and as Andromeda in Ray Harryhausen Clash of the Titans (1981). Here she makes for a winsome and delicately beautiful Mina Harker.

The use of trippy filter effects can feel dated in places, and some viewers might find the mix of 16mm film stock and videotape jarring (for many years it was standard practice on British TV to mix the two). Anyone looking for an FX-heavy action packed take on Dracula will be disappointed by the deliberate pacing. However, fans of the novel or viewers inclined towards a more grounded and literary take on the familiar story will find much to enjoy. I thought the scenes with Dracula's brides were particularly chilling in this version. Gore is used sparingly, but is all the more effective because of it.

Is it the best Dracula film? I don't think so. But it is the most faithful screen adaptation of Stoker's novel, and I recommend it to anyone who likes the book. I've read that it influenced the 1979 Dracula movie starring Frank Langella and Laurence Olivier, but I haven't seen that yet so I can't comment on the similarities.

Here's the 1977 Count Dracula for anyone who fancies watching it before Halloween.

I finally watched The Super Mario Bros. Movie the other night. A nice little children's film, the animation was excellent and ripped straight out of the games. I was pretty impressed with how multiple sequences mimicked the 2D-scrolling platform action from the classic gameplay during the 8-bit to 16-bit era.

I remember there was a bit of a fuss among ragebait anti-SJW YouTubers accusing the film was going to be woke because Princess Peach had a more prominent role, as they assumed she was going to be the "strong waman" stereotype. That turned out to be bullsh*t. Yeah, she was able to defend herself and she was a mentor to Mario in the beginning, but I don't see this as a big deal at all when A) Mario was sucked into a new world that he had to learn to adapt so he could rescue Luigi and B) Princess Peach being a playable character in Super Mario Bros. 2 shows she could always be a fighter.

There may be some woke nonsense in Hollywood nowadays, but The Super Mario Bros. Movie isn't one of them. A good video game film.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 22 Jul  2023, 17:22It reminded me of As Above, So Below (2014) – both being English-language horror movies set in France and starring an adventurous British-American couple, who descend into a claustrophobic environment where walls mysteriously appear to block their paths, and demonic apparitions haunt them as they try desperately to escape to the surface.

An apt description.

Finally watched this. I enjoy how the tension gets ratcheted up from the start. And after that, there are ebbs and flows but the suspense is maintained pretty well through the whole runtime.

Not sure I'd recommend it. It was good but not THAT good. Still, it was an enjoyable way to spend an hour and a half.

Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 24 Aug  2022, 23:52https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTejRhfIFXs

"Escape from New York" 1981

Finally purchased the 4K edition the other day, and it's simply outstanding!

To me, EFNY is one of those 'perfect' films that never should be remade (though inevitably will be). Such an intriguing premise, amazing cast (Donald Pleasence, Lee Van Cleef, Harry Dean Stanton, Tom Atkins, Adrienne Barbeau, Ernest Borgnine, Isaac Hayes, and the impeccably cast Kurt Russel as Snake Plissken), and John Carpenter at the height of his powers as a director. Like many other scores composed and performed by Carpenter during this era, this one features yet another memorable gem.

Since checking this out in 4K, I've been reading up on the 1987 Coleman Luck script for "Escape from L.A.", and .... what a trip that would have been! As it leans into the fanciful than even the 1996 sequel did to be perfectly honest.

But yeah, "Escape from New York" is highly recommended.

I watched this last week, damn good film! Carpenter had a good eye and ear to set the mood in this dystopian hellhole, from the cinematography to the score. The shot of the black skyline of NYC, where not a single lightbulb is shining, makes it all the more chilling.

I can see how Escape from New York was inspirational to Rocksteady when they made the Arkham City game. Both New York and Arkham City are citywide maximum security prisons where prisoners run riot to fend for themselves, and both Batman and Snake Plissken's lives are further compromised to complete objectives against their will. This movie, as well as the No Man's Land comics, is perhaps the biggest influence on Arkham City.

I read that there was a comic book crossover between Snake and Jack Burton from Big Trouble in Little China, another Carpenter film. Kinda curious to check it out.

(https://www.previewsworld.com/SiteImage/MainImage/STL020193)

https://www.previewsworld.com/Catalog/AUG161301

Gave American Psycho another viewing. I read the book well before seeing the movie, and I feel like they did a good job adapting the story and creating the atmosphere. Most of it is included and other things get streamlined, which I'm okay with. The book is heavy on descriptions and routine, which the movie does touch on, but it doesn't go too hard. We get the idea and I think that suits the visual medium.

Certain scenes were just about pitch perfect in how I imagined them in my head, particularly the restaurant and club scenes. Just as The Shining is Jack Nicholson's best role (IMO) this is Christian Bale's. He's generally monotone to show how he's dead inside but there's a spark about him that engages you 100% the whole time. It's a performance where just about every one of his scenes is meme worthy. At under two hours the movie doesn't outstay its welcome and lends itself to being rewatchable.

The interpretation I have is Bateman did commit a bunch of murders, but as his mental state deteriorates the exact body count becomes unclear. The scene of Bateman gunning down the man behind the desk, then returning to see him alive, is a prime example of that. The realtors ignoring the blood soaked apartment in order to resell it makes the story better, on top of others either knowing but not caring/ignoring it, or outright not believing him. Bateman is forever stuck in a loop of his routine with no escape.

I'm satisfied it'a good adaption and companion piece to the source material.

I read American Psycho last year. The only other Bret Easton Ellis book I'd read before was The Rules of Attraction. My brother recommended Less than Zero to me years ago, but I still haven't got around to reading that one. I watched the film adaptation of American Psycho immediately after I finished the book so I could compare them when they were both fresh in my mind.

The novel is very funny but also very disturbing. As far as the violence goes, it might surpass the Clive Barker novels I read in my early twenties for how effed up certain scenes are. The movie obviously tones down the violent and sexual content a lot, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. The film is still brutal in places, but it omits many of the more twisted and pornographic elements that can leave a bad taste when you read the book. This makes the cinematic Bateman more palatable to the viewer, allowing you to laugh at his depraved antics and enjoy the satire without being turned off by the visceral excess of what he's actually doing.

A literal scene-for-scene adaptation of the book would be impossible. You just couldn't show those things in live action, and I doubt many people would want to watch them even if you could. The movie does a respectable job of extrapolating what's most important from the book – the satire, horror and narrative ambiguity resulting from the unreliable narrator – and makes it work for a different medium.

Bale's performance really carries it. He's a good physical match for how Bateman's described in the book, but more importantly he clearly understands the satirical nature of the novel and never takes himself too seriously in the role. The comparison with Jack in The Shinning is a good one, as they're both hilariously over the top. It's not surprising that both performances spawned countless memes.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 18 Feb  2024, 03:10The interpretation I have is Bateman did commit a bunch of murders, but as his mental state deteriorates the exact body count becomes unclear. The scene of Bateman gunning down the man behind the desk, then returning to see him alive, is a prime example of that. The realtors ignoring the blood soaked apartment in order to resell it makes the story better, on top of others either knowing but not caring/ignoring it, or outright not believing him. Bateman is forever stuck in a loop of his routine with no escape.

I guess I had the more superficial reading (of the film) that Bateman legit committed all those murders. But he lives in such a self-absorbed bubble that nobody believes him when he confesses and he unintentionally has alibis for all of the murders because cares enough about anyone else to remember their names.

Basically, Bateman devalues human life in one way while his peers devalue human life in other ways.

Still, fun fact about American Psycho. Apparently, Edward Norton was considered (to some degree or another) for Bateman. And while I love Bale in the role, I have to admit that I wonder what Norton might've done with the character.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 18 Feb  2024, 18:02The movie obviously tones down the violent and sexual content a lot, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. The film is still brutal in places, but it omits many of the more twisted and pornographic elements that can leave a bad taste when you read the book. This makes the cinematic Bateman more palatable to the viewer, allowing you to laugh at his depraved antics and enjoy the satire without being turned off by the visceral excess of what he's actually doing.

A literal scene-for-scene adaptation of the book would be impossible. You just couldn't show those things in live action, and I doubt many people would want to watch them even if you could. The movie does a respectable job of extrapolating what's most important from the book – the satire, horror and narrative ambiguity resulting from the unreliable narrator – and makes it work for a different medium.

Well said. Knowing the novel enriches the experience as you can impart those details onto the avatar of Bale's Bateman. His true depravity of innermost thoughts are more fleshed out as they should be in that medium. Seeing Bateman's drawings in the journal at the end of the film is a good way to show his soul that was hidden to almost everybody. Jean had an idea something was very off psychologically, but proof of murder? No way.

I believe the movie's handling of the material is to be commended in how it makes it a more straightforward narrative not too bogged down with the 'a day in the life' content or excessive music appreciation/beauty regimens that could come off as padding in a film. A number of scenes of that is enough as the viewer can imagine he does these things often. It also allows the story and the intention of it to be clearer to the general viewer. And that story is surprisingly deep and not simple shock factor blood and guts.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 18 Feb  2024, 18:02Bale's performance really carries it. He's a good physical match for how Bateman's described in the book, but more importantly he clearly understands the satirical nature of the novel and never takes himself too seriously in the role. The comparison with Jack in The Shinning is a good one, as they're both hilariously over the top. It's not surprising that both performances spawned countless memes.

He commands the screen. The way Bateman speaks non stop about apparent interests lulls his prey into zoning out and not being aware of what is coming next (which is a big part of the book too, and is that robotic aspect of him). The nervous energy he imparts in various scenes such as the questioning by Kimball is interesting to watch and gives another layer. There's the odd social interactions which show he's not all there which I also really liked. He's a young man who enjoys the status of Wall Street while doing nothing in his office except listen to music, draw and make dinner reservations. The killing seems to give him purpose and power as he takes serious offence to being disrespected even in minor ways, and is disgusted by anything he deems beneath him.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 18 Feb  2024, 23:41I guess I had the more superficial reading (of the film) that Bateman legit committed all those murders. But he lives in such a self-absorbed bubble that nobody believes him when he confesses and he unintentionally has alibis for all of the murders because cares enough about anyone else to remember their names.

Basically, Bateman devalues human life in one way while his peers devalue human life in other ways.

I'd be keeping the big kills as legitimate, such as Paul Allen, to properly amplify those themes. I do like the idea of ambiguity as running butt naked through an apartment complex with a chainsaw can either be passed off as surrealist or actually an indictment of a zombie, uncaring public. But if Bateman only killed half of the people in the book/movie, I don't think the themes would be hurt too badly. I'm thinking the content with Bateman shooting the police officers and blowing up their cars is possibly hallucinated. I'm guessing he just walked up to his office and made the call. Or maybe he didn't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK-ajlxnyOY

52 Pick-Up 1986

Honestly, I only watched this for the first time fairly recently, and what a treat it was! The film stars Roy Scheider, Ann-Margret, Clarence Williams III, and also John Glover as a sleazy, but highly entertaining main villain (his narration bits are absolutely hilarious!). It's adapted from a Elmore Leonard's novel of the same name, and it shows. I pretty much did a blind purchase with the the recent blu ray from a Kino Lorber sale, thinking, "It's got Roy Scheider in it. I'll give it a shot!", and needless to say, I'm glad I did.

Sure, it's a Cannon film production, but unlike what Tobe Hooper experienced with his Cannon film trilogy, Golan/Globus was very hands off on this film, and pretty much gave director John Frankenheimer free reign, and final cut. If you go by what the critics of the 1980's had to say about Cannon films, the majority were not kind, but "Runaway Train", and "52 Pick-Up" stood out.