|
Post by E on Oct 17, 2009 15:31:35 GMT -5
The Mummy Tomb of the...
C
I wish I would have read BR's post first. The only reason I rate it so high is because I liked the first two. This was very childlike in it's drama and climax.
Drag me to Hell
B
Totally Sam Raimi at his finest. Very cultish, kooky, slightly silly scary. Pretty good, for a cultish themed film.
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on Oct 19, 2009 8:47:37 GMT -5
Cloverfield
B-/C+ - with the caveat that it might've been lower had I not had such low expectations about it in the first place
A few things that irritated me about the movie:
One - shaky-cam. I know it's supposed to add a level of "being right there"ness, but all I can say is I'm glad I didn't see this in the theater. *ETA - and I don't know any hand held camera that has that level of clarity, either.
Two - the narrator guy/dude behind the camera was so irritating, and I just wanted him to shut up. Of course, most of the rest of the cast did, too.
Three - unbelievable believability. I don't care how much you think "people need to see how it happened" - no one, when running for their lives, is going to keep the camera glued to their damn face the whole time.
Four - predictability. Me and Darkk sat there and pretty much predicted the whole film. **minor spoilers** "Oh, look - they're heading towards the bridge to evactuate - ya think the bridge is gonna be attacked right when they're at it?" "Oh, look - she got bit. Even odds for becomming alien thing incubator or blowing the hell up."
Five - the dude's quest to go and rescue his friend/girlfriend person was noble and all, but his friends, especially the one girl who "wasn't even supposed to be there", would've totally bailed when she had the chance... and she did... several times...
Six - there were a few good creepy/jumpy moments, but they were pretty much all "gotcha" moments, as opposed to real suspense.
Oh, and don't bother with the deleted scenes or "alternate endings". The gag reel, while brief, is kinda funny, though.
One of the behind the scenes features talks about their concept for the monster. The dude who created the monster kept saying how, in their minds, it wasn't a randomly rampaging creature, but an infant who was lost and scared. That totally did not come across in the film, at all...
I give it a resounding 'meh'.
|
|
|
Post by Denethor on Oct 19, 2009 18:05:44 GMT -5
Agreed about Cloverfield. Pretty much everything you said. If you don't like the "shaky cam/amateur who's right there" schtcik, then you especially should probably avoid that Paranormal Activity one. There are a couple of scenes where the main woman character stands still while the camera's running, and the fast-forward playback gives her enough odd twitches to drop her into Uncanny Valley, but they aren't worth the rest of the film. Otherwise, it's all just "shaky cam", and all in the same house! I mean it, you can count on one hand the number of times they even go outside. (Three. Unless you count the time that the characters go out, but leave the camera, and thus the audience, in the living room.) At one point, you can hear a plane go by overhead. I'm sure they left that in to make it seem "more real", but the impression the viewer gets is that the editors were simply too lazy to take it out. Really. I'll bet they just furnished one of the market's current empties and made a film in it. Myself, I think I lost patience with the "shaky cam" technique at about Blair Witch or so. Done well, it has possibilities, but more often, the impression one gets is just that the moviemakers had an unusually tight budget. With a few exceptions, it's really only appropriate for genuinely "real" stuff (documentaries and the like) or for You Tube type funniness offered for nothing over the Internet. Currently, the last thing I saw was Star Trek VI. I'm taking advantage of some of the sales in the run-up to the DVD release of the new film (for those interested, that's in mid-November) to advance my general project of backing-up my youth on disk. I'm planning to skip I and V though. No surprise there. Oh, and I did get to see Drag Me To Hell. Nice to see one of those people get it, and it was hilarious in a B-movie way. The "gypsy curse" trope and related rudenesses are definitely annoying, and I wonder just where one is supposed to get a full set of dentures that rot just like natural teeth, but otherwise, good silly-horror laughs.
|
|
|
Post by E on Oct 26, 2009 13:08:48 GMT -5
Transformers 2: Revenge of the FallenA- Good, almost as good as the first. I think alot of why I liked the first better was the hype and excitement about it. I was genuinely looking forward to them both but the first was a BIG DEAL. I found that Shia LaBouf has gotten better, he seemed more comfortable, where Megan Fox was genuinely distasteful for me. I think she had her upper lip done. Not that it matters, I have no room to criticize, I wanted mine done at one point. I think that from the go when they opened her first scene with her bent over a motor cycle pretending to air brush, I was disappointed. My kids watch these films, they are based on kids cartoons. The plot was interesting, in a completely Transformers way. The effects were AMAZING. Bumble Bee proved to be an ass kicker, when I found him almost adolescent last film. And the story from the first was added to and built on to make the first make even more sense. I'll be buying the box set.
|
|
|
Post by Shannon on Oct 27, 2009 17:09:32 GMT -5
There was one point in the beginning of Transformers: Rise of the Fallen, (after it was explained about the top secret, elite group of transformers and soldiers) where Optimus Prime parachutes out of a plane over a major freaking city and I looked at Ben and we were like, "Are they fucking kidding? This is supposed to be top secret?" It was just so OTT ridiculous.
For those not in the know, Optimus Prime is a semi-truck. A semi-truck parachuting out of a plane.
Fun movie, though.
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on Oct 28, 2009 8:06:41 GMT -5
I wasn't impressed with the first, and I doubt I'll be watching the second any time soon. I heard all about the Transforminator, and I'm not impressed. *sniffs*
|
|
|
Post by Shannon on Oct 28, 2009 17:46:02 GMT -5
Oh, yeah. How could I forget. [/sarcasm] I watched The Mist the other night.
Spoilers, though not really necessary since it's been out awhile.
I figured out pretty early on that the horror was in the human story and not the actual monstor/event. I hated Mrs. Carmondy and literally cheered when she was shot, but her death wasn't freaking climatic enough. Kill her DEAD, and make it good, damn it! .... Kind of sick, but I hated her.
The ending sucked ass. And I don't know what I'd do if I was in that situation, but I'd like to think I couldn't kill my own child and that even while he was in some overgrown bugs mouth I'd still hold onto hope and be trying my damndest.
Sucked. That's my review. (Though the human story was somewhat interesting.)
|
|
|
Post by Denethor on Oct 28, 2009 19:41:07 GMT -5
A fun thing to do with movies like that is to see how many of these you can find. Just to warn you though...that Tropes site can be a major distracting time-suck - I once lost a whole day. But there's a lot of stuff on it I think people here would enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on Oct 29, 2009 9:33:04 GMT -5
I didn't like 'The Mist', either. Darkk said the book actually has a happier ending, and they don't all end up dying. I think I would've preferred that (even tho I also whine when Hollywood happifies an ending). Some of the stuff in the store was ok psycho-drama, tho - but a bit over the top.
We have a horror fest coming up this weekend... and, yes, we're going to see 'Paranormal Activity', so I'll give you my report later.
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on Oct 31, 2009 15:14:51 GMT -5
Unfortunately I'm forced to agree that Paranormal Activity wasn't great. I'd rate it a bit higher than Den, though, because I did actually jump a few times, so I'll give it a C. I'd rate it higher for creep factor except for a few things: **minor spoilers** For one, the non-scary parts with the couple were overlong and repetitive. Also, the jumpy parts were pretty predictable. One of the things that makes a good horror movie is the suspense... the waiting. In this movie you knew exactly when something was going to happen, and you knew it would up the ante from the last time, so it killed some of that suspense. And while some of the parts did make me jump, others were laughably bad (like the part where she gets dragged out of bed). The biggest problem I think I had, though, was with the guy. He was unsufferably annoying. He reminded me of the idiot guy in Blair Witch that throws away the map because he's frustrated. I'm left with a disbelief that anyone could be that stupid - and that's how I felt about the boyfriend. Rude and skeptical to the psychic, even though they'd already experienced activity. And the whole "this is my house and you're my girlfriend and I'll take care of it" thing - ugh. Darkk assures me that there are men like that... more's the pity. I kept wondering "Look, if your toilet was leaking you'd call a plumber, right?" Darkk said a guy like that probably wouldn't, though. And the fact that he was getting upset with her for getting upset with him even though he was antagonizing the thing and making it worse and bringing in the Ouija. He was just so annoying that it ruined what could've at least gotten a B, I think. Maybe B-. Anyway, last night we also watched Repo: The Genetic Opera which is about the future where people have manufactured organs, but if they default payment then they get repossessed... and there's a drug, and a graverobber, and a blood feud. Basically it's a Grand Guignol set to music. Very strange. You should see it.
|
|
|
Post by Denethor on Oct 31, 2009 16:47:42 GMT -5
And he's right. My uncle is a guy like that, one of the extreme cases who live in the mountains with their dogs and their guns. I've posted about him before. He's one of those "I-can-handle-any-damn-thing" myself types, for whom the Idiot's Guides to anything from online religion to brain surgery, plus The Road Kill Cook Book, were invented. The type who thinks that if you call in an expert the price will be whatever is estimated, plus at least 20%, plus one set of male genitalia. Tres annoying. Maybe I'll see Repo when I am done defaulting on some of my teeth. Something tells me I'll like that sort of thing, not to mention the popcorn, a bit better then.
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on Nov 2, 2009 9:43:39 GMT -5
Last week I saw the Frank Langella Dracula for the first time, and all I could think was "he was a sex icon?". It was pretty hokey, but fun.
On Saturday night we watched two originals - Murnau's Nosferatu (with new soundtrack by Type O Negative) and Bela Lugosi's Dracula. All I can say, really, is that they're classics and should be seen - but it's sort of hard watching old silent movies what with the herky jerky, and Lugosi's 'Dracula' ended very abruptly and anti-climactically. One thing I liked about 'Nosferatu', though, was that Ellen (Mina) was the heroine in it, in that she sacrificed herself to destroy the monster, as opposed to having to be saved.
Yesterday we watched the Boris Karloff Frankenstein and Bride of... . I liked the first one well enough, but the 'Bride' was kind of annoying. (Particularly Minnie the house keeper.) It was also funny that almost all the cast was different, except for Karloff and the dude who played "Henry" Frankenstein. His father even randomly died between the first and second movie, even though the second picks up were the first ends. Very odd, to watch them back to back, when everyone is different.
Anyway - I've never seen the classics, so I'm glad I've seen some of them, but they mostly put me in the mood to watch the newer, and more accurate-ish, versions with Oldman and Branaugh, respectively. (Yum.)
|
|
|
Post by Denethor on Nov 6, 2009 19:02:30 GMT -5
The Fourth Kind. B-/C+ THE FOLLOWING ARE TECHNICALLY SPOILERS, BUT...
...it's not like you don't know the story already. Close encounters of the fourth kind...alien abductions...Gawdz, it's 1989 all over again! Decent creepiness, and "shaky cam" done right - not all of the film was made this way, giving your eyes a chance to adjust. (One warning, however: some of the camera angles induce nausea.) Budget probably wasn't gi-normous but it avoids that low-budget feel - I doubt I could have made this one myself. If you do watch it, get as big a screen as you can, because the action is sometimes split between two or more (up to four) frames within the screen, and you'll want to see details in some of them. This doesn't appear to have much to do with the storytelling, but to be just a gimmick. There are consistency problems. People are abducted by being sucked up through the ceiling; however, the protagonist is at least once apparently abducted, struggling, through the door. (And if the aliens can suck you through the ceiling why bother coming inside?) Oh well. It's not like the people claiming "real" abductions in the '80s made much sense either. The sequence is supposedly in northern Alaska in October, but takes place entirely in a small town surrounded by lush green woods. Some of the story may have taken place in August - but the stuff involving the protagonist pretty much has to have been in October, and she's surrounded by lush green woods too. They also have better computer technology than I remember seeing in 2000. Oh, and they are supposedly protecting the sheriff's identity by using an alias? Sorry, but I'm pretty sure it's a matter of public record who was sheriff in Nome in October of 2000. The fact that I noticed these things doesn't bode well for the story, but remember, I always notice that sort of thing, in fact, it's kind of a pain in the ass. Hammy acting, story predictable and a bit dull, decent effects, good mood. Very un-gory if that's an issue, though there are one or two scenes that let you know under no uncertain terms that if people in Alaska are in danger, it's more likely not from aliens but from guns. Especially suicidal people with guns. It's not an "author's-message", however; just an issue of which is the more believable danger. The people remember the aliens as owls (that's an old motif - supposedly, the owls are a "screen memory" for the aliens with their now-stereotypical big black eyes). Doesn't work for me. I like owls - around here they are one good reason you don't let your fluffy little kitten out at night, others being rabid raccoons and inattentive drivers, but it's nice to have someone on patrol keeping the nocturnal rodent population down to a dull roar. Ergo, useful not creepy. 'Side, I like their hooting. Anyhoo... Many of the ohmigod-guy-under-hypnosis-is-freakin'-out scenes look more like they came out of an exorcism movie than an alien one, and if there are any ancient Sumerian time travelers who would like to sue for defamation be my guest (yeah they hit that one too, right down to showing a page from a book that is straight out of Zecharia Sitchin, though in the movie it's in a different book), and hello folks, I know you're trying to get me to jump out of my pants every time a door opens "by itself" from the house settling. But maybe I'm too jaded, and perhaps it would help if I believed in alien abduction in the first place. But I'm still entertained by that stuff, maybe from having seen it back in the aforementioned '80s. I'd say, if you liked The Mothman Prophecies then this one is a can't-miss. Others might like it at a video sleepover party. Don't bring any kids, even if they're not the type to get scared; they just won't even know what's going on without the pop-culture-folklore knowledge the rest of us have. Definitely a bit better than many other offerings of the "we want you to think this is true" variety. Oh, and if your theater's like mine, you can be late; there are about five years' worth of previews. Some of those look pretty good though. Edited to add (I realize this is a somewhat late edit, but...): wandering about the netz about movies and aliens, I encountered this article. It's a pretty interesting theory concerning why those "alien" faces all seem to look alike. (For concerned about which "side" a given opinion is on, it's skeptical concerning the extraterrestrial hypotheses.) Worth the click and some speculation.
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on Dec 28, 2009 10:14:33 GMT -5
Sherlock Holmes
We really enjoyed this movie. Of course, I love Robert Downey Jr. and have done for a long time, so it always helps to watch someone whose work you enjoy. I was a little worried about Jude Law, but he filled the role of Watson quite nicely. It has all of the quirks and charms of Holmes, but definitely with the feel of it being set for a modern audience what with the fights and chases and explosions - all of which worked well in the context of the story, and didn't feel tacked on or out of place. (Holmes was, afterall, a pugilist amongst other things.)
Highly recommended. 4/5
Jumper
Mostly a snooze. The best thing about it were the effects and fight sequences, but even those weren't that great. The whole thing with the mother was kind of lame. 2.5/5
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on Dec 29, 2009 8:56:33 GMT -5
Alice - SciFi Mini-series
From the guys who made Tin Man, I liked Alice better, mostly, I think, because Tin Man was over long whereas I think 'Alice' made the right decision to be a two night event, instead of three.
It was an interesting take on the story, and interesting to see different characters and elements represented. All the characters were human, for instance, but the 'white rabbit' had long white hair parted into two tails down his back. The realism aspect was an interesting counterpoint to Burton's upcoming version of Wonderland, which is far more surreal looking.
It was rather predictable, and they turned it into a love story, but since I liked the pairing, I'm not complaining. :> Overall, pretty fun and worth watching, but not great. 3/5
|
|