What have you watched recently: Electric Boogaloo

charlie_says

Sexy Beast

Had never watched this before, always been on the radar though.

Superbly acted by crime/noir/hiest caper by cool Ray Winstone, a frankly terrifing Ben Kingsley and darth vader like cold menance from Ian McShane.

Jothan Galzer pulls off a terrific job. Loved the script and the punchy editing style. Top notch stuff.

Arghus

JFK- This one has been on the long list for quite a while. I felt that there would come a time were I would put aside my prejudice for conspiracy faction and commit to the three hours. Well that that day finally came. Am I glad about it? Largely yes, but with some reservations.

First things first- On a pure level of entertainment, JFK is a masterpiece. Three plus hours and full of dense detail. Not quite at the level of LA Confidential, where if you took your eye off the screen for five seconds you missed another vital piece of information, but demanding of your attention throughout. It could feel like a crazed history lecture but instead manages to be riveting. Characters mainly come in two types- two dimensional additions who either help or hinder the case, or else walking exposition dumps who wander on screen for a minute or two and unload a torrent of information for you to piece together. But yet, it all keeps barreling along. An astounding mix of historical detail, narrative momentum and exemplary editing, possibly the best I've ever seen, keeps it all afloat. On a storytelling level, the only quibble I would have would be the addition of scenes showing us Jim Garrisons home life. He's trying to bring down the Military Industrial Complex, why should I care if his wife thinks he should spend more time with the kids? He's doing this for them, ya damn crazy broad.

The historical truth of the film is dubious at best, absolute nonsense at worst. That's the big caveat of the experience. It's great to watch and all, but you do feel like you've been suckered into buying more lies in the guise of the truth. But sure what are we doing looking for truth in the movies to begin with? Having said that, I still can't dispel that reservation about the film.

Birneybau

charlie_says wrote: »

Sexy Beast

Had never watched this before, always been on the radar though.

Superbly acted by crime/noir/hiest caper by cool Ray Winstone, a frankly terrifing Ben Kingsley and darth vader like cold menance from Ian McShane.

Jothan Galzer pulls off a terrific job. Loved the script and the punchy editing style. Top notch stuff.

You can't quote any of his dialogue from the film. C**t F***ing C**T C**T C**T

Birneybau

'Mr. Turner', Mike Leigh directed, Timothy Spall starring.

I enjoyed it, the 2 and half hour running time fairly flew by, in saying that it's a fairly impressionistic biography which is apt I suppose, fairly plotless but gorgeous looking with a wonderfully porcine turn by Spall.

charlie_says

Birneybau wrote: »

You can't quote any of his dialogue from the film. C**t F***ing C**T C**T C**T

My favourite:

You ****ing Dr White honkin' jam-rag ****ing spunk-bubble!

Birneybau

charlie_says wrote: »

My favourite:

You ****ing Dr White honkin' jam-rag ****ing spunk-bubble!

I have never seen anyone as/more unhinged an a film than Don.

Liam McPoyle

Rec 3 : Genesis

Im going to spoiler all of this as it contains details about all 3 movies.

Rec came out of know where a few years ago and created a massive stir among the movie going public. Incredibly scary, best horror movie in years and absolutely brilliant were just some of the things I read about it. Excited as a kid in a candy store I bought it on release day and sat down to watch it. It ended up been one of my most disappointing first time viewings. I didnt find it at all scary and thought the ending was very predictable. It was chock full of cheap jump scare attempts and didnt have the blood and guts to make it more interesting.It was an alright movie but I couldn't understand the praise that had been heaped on it.

Part 2 kicked off directly after the first one and introduced a religious element to proceedings. While its commendable that the makers tried something different thematically, I thought it was very flat and an even less enjoyable experience than its predecessor.

When I read part 3 was to be released it was a massive meh from me. Didn't have even a slight interest in it and the only reason I watched it tonight is because it was on Film 4 a week or so ago and I recorded it.

Man, am I glad I did!!

It kicks off outside a church on the eve of a wedding, found footage ahoy. The camera interviews various guests and we meet the grooms uncle, who just happened to be bitten by a dog in the very recent past, ruh roh! The wedding goes off without a hitch, various scenes interspersed of the reception, uncle shows up again and vomits what appears to be blood, double ruh roh!

Major plot spoilers below so you may not want to read.










Uncle ends up taking a header off a balcony, comes too and takes a chomp out of another guest and with that, all hell breaks loose. Random people that are infected appear out of nowhere which was kind of head scratching as the time line from uncle vomiting and them appearing doesnt seem all that long however there were a couple of glances at people in haz mat gear so its presumably a follow on from the events in the first 2 flicks. Cue upside down and sideways camera shots, focus and sound moving in and out, typical found footage fare. The groom loses the rag with the camera man and smashes his gear, then the movie really starts.

I was expecting a fully found footage movie but instead, 20 odd minutes into the movie it turns into an actual movie, huzzah! The bride and groom are split up and we follow them both trying to find eachother. The movie has defined comedic undertone running through it, the religious themes are again explored and teased out by a priest, there is a nod to Evil Dead, some wonderful gore, and I actually cared about the couple and wanted to see them reunited. The ending is excellent too and it takes a couple of delightful turns, especially when we see grand dad again.

I LOVED this film. It doesnt take itself too seriously, it abandons the tiresome found footage and does not stop to take a breath for a second, its just brilliant.

For my money this is easily the best one of the franchise. It can be watched as a stand alone flick or as a companion piece to the franchise. Either way, do yourselves a favour and watch it. Its as much fun as the fantastic Planet Terror imo.

8/10

Harry Palmr

Waterloo (1970) Dir Sergei Bondarchuk.

Before Dino de Lauerentis became associated in the public mind with wildly expensive bad epics be made some wildly expensive epics that were good. Rod Steiger is Napoleon, Christopher Plummer is The Duke of Wellington the location is Waterloo (and the prize would be half a century of peace as it tuned out).

The first hour sets the context in a series a beautifully lit painterly scenes then the next 75 minutes is the battle itself, a succession of stunningly staged and filmed set piece engagements and movements on a massive scale. 16,000 Soviet troops were employed as various armies infantry and cavalrymen, there are thousands of horses, hundreds of cannon and what must have been dozens of cameras on the ground and in the air, one sweeping shot as the French attack the British quadrants is pure spectacle. Makes the CGI led visuals of modern historical dramas seem hopelessly fake.

D'Agger

Finally got around to watching Fargo & I really, really enjoyed it.

Glad to have another brilliant Coen brothers movie under my belt and as per usual with their material, I loved the humour in it

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I watched People Like Us on Netflix last night. Terrible.

Basically Chris Pine flies home to LA when his dad dies. He hasn't been home for years, didn't like his dad very much, wants to leave again straight away. Massively in debt for something they explained but I didn't understand he's pissed off when the will reveals there's no money coming his way. What he does get is a bag full of money with a note saying it's for somebody called Josh and to look after them. He obviously thinks about keeping the money himself but when he goes to find out more about Josh he discovers he has a secret sister that his dad abandoned and that he never knew about and Josh is her kid.
He then sets about pretty much romancing his sister and kid to the point where she's this close to putting the moves on him before he reveals he's actually her brother. It's weird and kind of creepy. She gets mad, his mum get mad, everyone is mad for a while. Then there's a home video their dad made where he was basically filming kids in the playground, adding a new level of creepiness to an already questionable story. The End.

ButtersSuki

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I watched People Like Us on Netflix last night. Terrible.

Basically Chris Pine flies home to LA when his dad dies. He hasn't been home for years, didn't like his dad very much, wants to leave again straight away. Massively in debt for something they explained but I didn't understand he's pissed off when the will reveals there's no money coming his way. What he does get is a bag full of money with a note saying it's for somebody called Josh and to look after them. He obviously thinks about keeping the money himself but when he goes to find out more about Josh he discovers he has a secret sister that his dad abandoned and that he never knew about and Josh is her kid.
He then sets about pretty much romancing his sister and kid to the point where she's this close to putting the moves on him before he reveals he's actually her brother. It's weird and kind of creepy. She gets mad, his mum get mad, everyone is mad for a while. Then there's a home video their dad made where he was basically filming kids in the playground, adding a new level of creepiness to an already questionable story. The End.

That sounds like your average Irish family story…..:D

Owryan

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Waterloo (1970) Dir Sergei Bondarchuk.
Christopher Plummer is Lord Nelson the location is Waterloo (and the prize would be half a century of peace as it tuned out).

Was Nelson a zombie in this? (he died in 1805). Think you mean the Duke of Wellington.

Mind you, Waterloo with added zombies, that would be some specticule

LionelNashe

The Ides of March - good political backstabbing plot

Winter's Bone - Interesting, a side of America we don't see on screen too often

The Thin Red Line - Meh, 3 hours long, too much voiceover of the characters thoughts, and only 3 battles. 'The Pacific' TV series was better.

ButtersSuki

Owryan wrote: »

Was Nelson a zombie in this? (he died in 1805). Think you mean the Duke of Wellington.

Mind you, Waterloo with added zombies, that would be some specticule

Throw in an ABBA soundtrack and you've got yourself a film! :D

Owryan

Watched this last night with the kids. Horror comedy set on a remote Irish island. The islands drunken garda and a newly arrived uptight female garda try to save their community from a seaborne menace.

Very funny in parts n doesnt take itself too seriously. Decent cast too and Ruth Bradley is very easy on the eye.

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

johnny_ultimate

Why Don't You Play in Hell?

**** Bombers forever!

Sion Sono's second-to-latest (given the painful gaps us fans of his have to endure before his films reach Western screens) is a concussion-inducing contradiction. It is less a film in dialogue with itself than one engaged in a vicious, bloody wrestling match with itself. On one hand it's a raucous, playful ode to genre cinema and 35mm film, playful from beginning to end. On the other its a startling, cynical deconstruction of the same, an angry tirade against mediocrity and mindless nostalgia.

After a frantically edited opening act that sets up the major players - an amateur filmmaking troupe (The **** Bombers), warring yakuza clans, a child star and more - without stopping for breath, Why Don't You Play in Hell? settles into a fairly sluggishly paced middle act. Establishing a knowingly ludicrous premise and fleshing out the conflicts and relationships, one has to wonder where all the silliness is going despite some truly fantastic moments.

It is going to a final act that must be among the bloodiest, most insane in recent memory. The meta-layers of the film start both collapsing and multiplying during a visceral bloodbath and frenzied assault of on-screen filmmaking. It is very often hilarious - a Bruce Lee wannabe armed with nunchucks engaged in farcical battle against dozens of sword-wielding yakuza - and is almost exhaustingly energetic. But while it provides amped-up genre thrills, it also pushes them in dark and even disturbing directions that question and critique the very same things it seemingly fetishizes. It is hyperviolence played for laughs, but makes sure the audience never forgets its inherent brutality.

The film has been called Tarantino-esque - a comparison Sono invites with the presence of a familiar yellow tracksuit (although of course The Bride's outfit homages Bruce Lee in the first place) and a music cue that sounds like the non-union equivalent of Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood. But it's ultimately unto itself, and the film's complex layers and subtexts ultimately elevate it above the more hollow genre thrills Quentin is often known to peddle. By the end, the characters have descended into a heady cocktail of euphoria and delirium, living the dream and expiring in a horrible nightmare - an apt description for the film itself. It's a rush to experience, Sono showing a level of creative freedom, punk attitude and sense of devilish fun that we haven't seen in earnest since Love Exposure. Nothing is immune to attack or criticism here, even Sono himself. Embrace the whiplash and soak up the contradictions - Why Don't You Play in Hell? is a rush.

**** Bombers forever!

bnt

Saw Tarantino's Death Proof the other day. I had a good idea how the second half of the movie went, but was not really prepared for the first half, particularly how it ended. That crash ... :eek:

Which puts the second half in perspective and (I suppose) justifies that half's ending. Zoë Bell was a revelation, though: I fully get why Tarantino wrote that part for her, which boosted her move from stunts in to featured acting roles.

Bipolar Joe

bnt wrote: »

Saw Tarantino's Death Proof the other day. I had a good idea how the second half of the movie went, but was not really prepared for the first half, particularly how it ended. That crash ... :eek:

Which puts the second half in perspective and (I suppose) justifies that half's ending. Zoë Bell was a revelation, though: I fully get why Tarantino wrote that part for her, which boosted her move from stunts in to featured acting roles.

Watch Raze. Amazine fight scenes. I fell in love with Bell immediately. She's like a fucking Goddess. She should have been the female for Expendables 3.

Arghus

Hercules- I did feel guilty about this one. It may have been a lazy Sunday, but surely that isn't excuse enough. Dwayne Johnson wearing a Lion skin as headgear and a protection against the cold of Ancient Greece? Brett Ratner? It really did scream completely dire way to waste ninety odd minutes of life.

The movie is close to abysmal for the guts of an hour, real dumb trash. Quite a lot of it takes place in what looked to be obvious sets, with some surprisingly shoddy effects to boot. As well as that, it's fairly tropey in regards to how it lays out it's tale- Herc is a bad ass, he goes to find work, needs to train an army of incompetents, we have training sequences, incompetent army learns what it's like to have one's bravery forged in war etc,etc. I may have groaned involuntarily a few times.

So far, so mediocre, but then something strange happened. It kind of won me over, just a little bit. The final twenty minutes do actually provide some sort of spectacle and decent action that had been lacking before. It's by no means a masterpiece and it is frequently awful, but I was sort of charmed by it in the end. That's down to a few things- it has a good cast of decent actors who don't mug or ham their way through it all. Some of their class, eventually, gives it all a veneer of an okay film. Also, it's refreshingly free of irony. That makes it all seem rather thick at first, but the fact that it's so sincere about its hokey world feels almost touching by the close. It's nice that a movie so preposterous doesn't try doubly hard to spend time winking at the audience. It wants to give those 11 year old boys and hungover adults something to enjoy. You would have to be a little bit dead inside not to enjoy a be-muscled Rock roaring "I AM HERCULES!!!" just before bursting his shackles and beating a trio of humongous wolves to death. G'wan the Dwayne.

A bit of craic really with quite a lot of bloodshed for a PG-13, it gets a pass.

Charley Varrick- Criminally underrated and semi-forgotten 70's crime flick, starring one of the greatest of all screen tough guys- Walter Matthau. Matthau plays the titular Charley, who robs the wrong bank and ends up getting away with dirty Mafia money, but then has to contend with pursuit by the law and a quietly menacing Mob assassin. It's tense, smart and frequently very funny in a tough way. Filled with great character actors, who help to give it a convincing mood and look, like a lot of great 70's movies. Great ending too. A solid professional genre film with enough unusual touches to help it stand out, they don't make like this etc,etc.

No joke about Matthau being one of the greatest of all time screen tough guys. The guy really was a legend. He didn't appear in many movies that demanded it from him, but when he had to play it straight he was usually, by far, the best thing on screen. Kept all the brilliant comic timing too. Check this out or the original Taking of Pelham 123, a truly excellent film. His characters in both may not exactly conform to the standard tough guy formula, but you know they'll survive longer than anyone else and have the brains to come out on top no matter what.

Harry Palmr

Massive fan of Charley Varrick, no way would such a wrinkly anti-hero be allowed to reach the screen now. Don Siegel simply has no truck with false emotion or sentiment resulting in a character who always seems true to himself and his particular pragmatic world view. Brilliant supporting cast as well as you say.

Arghus

Wolf Cop- With a title like that, how could I say no? Even if it was mainly down to curiosity rather than a deep interest.

As you might be able to guess, the story follows the travails of a small town cop who finds himself bitten by the beast and fearing the next full moon. He's also a lecherous lowlife with a drinking problem, but ,sure, nobody's perfect. There's also some mumbo jumbo involving a local coven of shape shifters and a ritual in blood- the usual nonsense. But you could be forgiven for letting that aspect of it all wash over you, as that's not really what it's all about.

Wolf Cop is an attempt to make a crowd pleasing lewd and crude future cult favourite. In a way, that's a bit cynical. Genuine cult movies are best when they are failed attempts to appeal to everyone that go badly wrong or right for some reason. A film that sets out with the express opinion to be cult seems to me to be not playing by the rules. What the hell though really, as far as movie cynicism goes there are far worse examples. It's probably going to be up there in the pantheon in a few years. It's funny, sometimes in a dumb way but, occasionally, with a bit of wit. Gratuitous gore and dodgy sex are the order of the day. Nice soundtrack too, when it matters It's hard to know if the movies faults, bad acting and all over the place pacing, are worth a demerit or are to be viewed as plusses for this sort of thing.Though,it could have done with a bit more WolfCopin' throughout. In a film full of decapitations and exploding penises, the image of lythanthrope calmly taking down the details to a crime with a pencil and paper cracked me up the most. More scenes of him mowing the lawn or going to the bookies please. Then we'd talking masterpiece territory.

GAAman

D'Agger wrote: »

Finally got around to watching Fargo & I really, really enjoyed it.

You should check out the Fargo tv show, I really liked the film so was sceptical but might have enjoyed the show even more! Billy Bob Thornton is superb as is Martin Freeman

mikemac1

Oblivion

Missed this when it came out and hadn't read anything about it. There was a famous computer game called Oblivon released a few years ago, I never played it but I assumed the film was based on the game. The plot has been done in a few other films, nothing new.

Soundtrack is cracking, I had listened to the soundtrack a few times and wanted to check out the film

The whole film looked gorgeous and I enjoyed it greatly, thumbs up

Nerdlingr

Badlands

Been meaning to watch it for a while now, finally got round to it last night.
Really enjoyed it, don't think the film puts a foot out of place. Never realised it was Terence's Malik's debut film - what a way to introduce yourself. Sheen and Spacek (must watch 'Carrie' again!) were brillantly understated. The film just flows naturally and despite it's dark heart it has a dream like quality about it. Maybe its Spacek's commentary on events, maybe it's Malkick's beautifully shot scenery and subtle moments...either way its a great film.

(Afterwards I read a bit on the Starkweather murder spree it was based on - Christ...the truth is a lot stranger than fiction!!!)

Tony EH

mikemac1 wrote: »

Oblivion

Missed this when it came out and hadn't read anything about it. There was a famous computer game called Oblivon released a few years ago, I never played it but I assumed the film was based on the game. The plot has been done in a few other films, nothing new.

Soundtrack is cracking, I had listened to the soundtrack a few times and wanted to check out the film

The whole film looked gorgeous and I enjoyed it greatly, thumbs up

Yeh, have to say I enjoyed it too.

It got a hell of a drubbing from some though.

The game 'Oblivion' has absolutely nothing to do with the film though. It couldn't be more different.

Arghus

An Honest Liar- Partly engrossing documentary on the life of James Randi.

Better known as The Amazing Randi for most of his career. He made his name as a Houdiniesque high profile magician. Since his retirement from active stage work, he's spent the last couple of decades as a debunker par excellence, deflating and exposing all manner of charlatans and "mystics". He reserves a special type of ire for Uri Geller.

The documentary has some amazing goodies- tales from back in the day of how he got his break and some info on what it's like to be the actual business of pulling off audacious trickery as a matter of your bread and butter. Then there's the business with the quacks- how he brought down a phoney preacher, how he engineered an elaborate long con in order to undermine the professed objectivity of the scientists who were engaged in research to determine the veracity of Uri Geller and the like. There's an amazing doc or film begging to be made of this tiny aspect of the man's life story alone.

Unfortunately, the doc gets waylaid just past the hour mark. Instead of sticking with what it has used to build a great first hour, it changes focus and becomes a film about the relationship between Randi and his much younger partner, who is in danger of being deported. This isn't boring per se, it just feels like an adjunct and somewhat disconnected from what's come before. The filmmakers had potentially hours more of "paranormal" skullduggery being shown up for what it is, but instead focus on the human interest side of life, which isn't unforgivable, just not the choice of greatest entertainment or enlightenment.

Gorky Park- Totally forgettable 80's thriller starring William Hurt. It starts off grim and slow, but not without the whiff of something that might pick up steam, eventually. That steam never really arrives as expected, instead materializing as hot air. The story gets gets increasingly preposterous, whilst also, paradoxically, managing to become boring and blandly uninteresting. A film full of paradoxes really- Being an American movie of the eighties it doesn't pass up the chance to portray the USSR in the dog days as a charnel house, rotting from within, but ,oddly, the main villain is an American Capitalist Dog.

Mixed messages, but I won't mix mine- Avoid.

Tony EH

Wow, I couldn't disagree more about 'Gorky Park'. :eek:

Decuc500

Arghus wrote: »

Being an American movie of the eighties it doesn't pass up the chance to portray the USSR in the dog days as a charnel house, rotting from within, but ,oddly, the main villain is an American Capitalist Dog.

Mixed messages, but I won't mix mine- Avoid.

Isn't that what Russia was like in those days though? The book doesn't paint Russia in a good light at all and that's what they were adapting.

Tony EH

Both Russia and America had many problems in the 80's and I thought 'Gorky Park' did well to illustrate them within some of the characters of the story. Just before Glasnost, Russia, and most of Eastern Europe, could be a very restrictive place for it's citizens and for foreigners alike.

The film had to be shot in Helsinki, because they producers couldn't get permission to film in Moscow itself.

limnam

Oslo, August 31st.

Beautifully shot film showing of Norway.
24 hours in the life of a recovering drug addict anders who has been drug and drink free for 10 months but is struggling to find meaning in life.

One of the better films to cover this topic.