What have you watched recently: Electric Boogaloo

Chain Smoker

Chicken Hawk: The Men Who Love Boys
Well, it's not quite the most difficult to stomach documentary I ever saw but jesus some of the guys in this were among the more easy to hate characters I've ever seen. It's a fairly short profile of NAMBLA (the North American Man/Boy Love Association) which, asides from one of two moments, basically lets the profiled members tell their side of the argument as they see fit. It overall winds up being very much a case of the filmmaker just giving them enough rope to hang themselves.
Particularly low moments include one extremely creepy member's recollections of a conversation with a boy being directly compared with how the boy recollected it and a bunch of them in the middle of (seemingly) drunken rant over how they contribute to the gay community

something along the lines of "with AIDS killing all the gays now, they're gonna need us to break in some new ones"

.
I knew Allen Ginsberg was a bit dodgy in this respect, but I didn't know he was involved in a group like this up until his last days.


Waiting For Superman
Thought this was pretty bad to be honest, one of those right-on documentaries that focuses on an issue that everyone can agree is a huge problem but doesn't seem to have anything to add and, out of a sense of desperation to end on a happy note, presents possible alternatives as if they're definite solutions (except for all the holes they've quietly glossed over when introducing them). There were absolutely huge chunks of it where they outlined a huge systematic problem and seemed to present the solution of "but what if we stop doing that", as if it were that easy despite the fact they literally just explained why that's impossible.
The whole thing was like a bad TED talk.

Liam McPoyle

Society.

Brian Yuzna's late 80s body horror got a gorgeous blu ray release from the fantastic people at Arrow Video recently so I slung it on yesterday.

The story centres around Billy Whitney, a rich kid from Beverly Hills that feels alienated from his family and he becomes increasingly convinced that something is not quite right with them.

I first saw this more than 15 years ago when it was screened on Moviedrome on BBC2 and I remember being fascinated and disgusted at the same time.

Parts of the movie havnt aged well. While the practical effects work by legendary artist Screaming Mad George looked fantastic in 1989, they look kinda rubbery in places. What has aged well is the overall message of the movie, that the rich in the world get richer while living off the misery off the poor.

Overlooking the age of the effects, its still a biting satire on the trappings of wealth and how far people will go to fit in.

The release from Arrow itself is simply glorious. It comes in a beautiful slip case with a gatefold housing the blu and dvd transfers aswell as a graphic novel follow up to the film itself.

7/10

City of the Living Dead

The first part of Lucio Fulci's "Gates of Hell" trilogy centres around the small town of Dunwich, where after a priest hangs himself in a grave yard, the dead begin to walk and all manner of supernatural shenanigans kick off.

This is a typical Fulci horror movie, the blood and gore flows impressively and freely from the outset, it has a fantastically eerie soundtrack courtesy of iconic Italian ensemble, Goblin and we are left with an ambiguous ending.

Ive been a huge fan of Fulci since I first saw Zombie Flesh Eaters many years ago and with the blu release here from Arrow COTLD has never looked or sounded better.

Its a slow burn by times and isnt an outright zombie movie in the George Romero sense but is still very enjoyable and a must see for genre fans or fans of 80s splatter.

8/10

charlie_says

Starred Up (2013)

Surprised I never heard of this one before.

Absolute corker of a British prison film. An incredibly violent and vicious young offender is transferred to the high security wing of an adult prison for the safety of the other non adult prisoners. He meets his dad there, another prominent inmate and 'integrates' himself within the complex environment between the power players in the wing, guards and the management. Swings between laugh out loud funny one minute to extreme violence. One of the best prison films I have seen since A Prophet and to a lesser extend Celda 211.

If swearing and shanking in the shower offend - stay away from this

Recommended. Not first date material.

Harry Palmr

Business Cat wrote: »

Society.

I first saw this more than 15 years ago when it was screened on Moviedrome on BBC2 and I remember being fascinated and disgusted at the same time.

Parts of the movie havnt aged well. While the practical effects work by legendary artist Screaming Mad George looked fantastic in 1989, they look kinda rubbery in places.

City of the Living Dead

The first part of Lucio Fulci's "Gates of Hell" trilogy centres around the small town of Dunwich, where after a priest hangs himself in a grave yard, the dead begin to walk and all manner of supernatural shenanigans kick off.

This is a typical Fulci horror movie, the blood and gore flows impressively and freely from the outset, it has a fantastically eerie soundtrack courtesy of iconic Italian ensemble, Goblin and we are left with an ambiguous ending.

Ive been a huge fan of Fulci since I first saw Zombie Flesh Eaters many years ago and with the blu release here from Arrow COTLD has never looked or sounded better.

Its a slow burn by times and isnt an outright zombie movie in the George Romero sense but is still very enjoyable and a must see for genre fans or fans of 80s splatter.

8/10

I love Screaming Mad Georges work, check out the third Re-Animator film for a few spectacular moments by him. He should have been more employed, sure beats CGI gore crap.

City of the Living Dead is the one with the spiders and the jar of acid isn't it? I tend to forget which Fulci is which to be honest.

---

War of the Worlds 1953 (Dir Byron Haskin)

The first go at this take by Hollywood is pretty decent once attuned to the sensibilities of the era. The some of the special effects are pretty ambitious for the day and very colourful though so many elements combined in certain shots the optical work degrades the print with some very soft images.

jh79

Harry Palmr wrote: »

I love Screaming Mad Georges work, check out the third Re-Animator film for a few spectacular moments by him. He should have been more employed, sure beats CGI gore crap.

City of the Living Dead is the one with the spiders and the jar of acid isn't it? I tend to forget which Fulci is which to be honest.

---

The spiders and the jar of acid is The Beyond, City of the Living Dead's most famous gore scenes are

the woman literally puking her guts up and the drill in the head

Decuc500

I watched The Dark Knight Rises for the first time since seeing it on release.

Watching it again without all the expectation and hype first time around it struck me as a spectacular and totally involving film, a real triumph for Nolan’s ambition and vision.

It was kind of odd to see the aspect ratio change throughout but the scenes shot in IMAX were stunning.

Barna77

I had a hungover blast from the past Sunday
So I watched The Princess Bride, after reading the book
And Ferris Bueller's Day Off. It never lets you down.

perfect fun to stay in the couch

Turtyturd

Me and Earl and The Dying Girl.

These terminally ill character movies seem to be replacing Battle Royale rip offs as the flavour of the month, and I'm guessing this is based on a novel many women have cried over.

The first half is actually enjoyable , quirky and funny but when the movie is faced with choice of following this and being something that stands out from the crowd or going down the familiar cliched road of pulling at the heartstrings it unfortunately chooses the latter.

Highlight for me

was the scene with Greg and Earl accidentally getting stoned. In fact the Greg/Earl arc was more interesting than Rachel's.

ButtersSuki

A.C.O.D. Adult Children of Divorce starring Adam Scott (who I'm liking a lot in his Parks & Recreation role), Richard Jenkins (playing asshole parent/old person as he does with ease!), Jane Lynch and Scott's P&R stable-mate Amy Pohler (looking very old for some reason in this) amongst others - Jessica Alba (looking delicious as usual) and Mary Elizabeth Winstead also have small roles. As an ACOD myself I can relate to a lot of the humour in this and while it starts off promisingly fades a bit towards the end. It's ok though, certainly not the worst comedy I've ever seen. I think it's main problem is it's not sure if it wants to be a comedy or a drama when comedy would have been the way to go (IMO) 6/10.

The Hunting of the President A documentary about the Clintons and the unofficial "war" waged on them by various facets of the Republican party and/or their supporters. I bought this over 10 years ago and completely forgot about it but finally watched it today. It's certainly interesting but not sure it needed the MTV-like addition of old movie clips throughout to illustrate and emphasise some points. It seems a little dated right now but f you have even a passing interest in American politics, it's worth a look - as is the extra feature of a speech by Clinton himself at the launch of the DVD. 7/10.

crybaby

Decuc500 wrote: »

Watching it again without all the expectation and hype first time around it struck me as a spectacular and totally involving film, a real triumph for Nolan’s ambition and vision.

Its always struck me as odd the weird revisionist dislike that has come out towards this film in the last year or so. The Batman trilogy is something I could watch annually and enjoy every time and that is definitely not something I will be doing with the Avengers films.

Tony EH

They're the greatest superhero films ever made IMHO.

The only thing that's a mark against them is the stupid "batvoice" that Bale does. But even that i can let go as some sort of voice disguise he uses.

I rate them so highly that I don't think I'll see a better Batman film again.

As for some people moaning about the trilogy, there will always be "kewl peeps" that will be like that. Nearly every good picture has it's detractor elite, that poo poo it just because. There are, of course people who will genuinely dislike a film for valid reasons, just ignore the sniffy stiffs that do it for attention.

e_e

Tony EH wrote: »

They're the greatest superhero films ever made IMHO.

I rate them so highly that I don't think I'll see a better Batman film again.

Agree with the former sentence and do wonder with the latter. There are definite flaws in the writing and Nolan's direction (particularly of the action scenes in Begins and Dark Knight) that could be improved upon.

Asides from Batman alone I'd love if in the next 10 years or so somebody came along and redeemed the rut that the superhero genre is in right now. I don't think I've seen one that'd rank along with the best films I've ever seen and I really don't see why I shouldn't have that movie either. If there's one thing that bugs me with the current movie climate it's the constant setting of low bars I see around big movies, that a god awful movie like Jurassic World gets a pass because "well it's better than the last 2!".

I don't see the Nolan Batman films as definitive so much as a promise of what a director with a real vision could do with popular material and a huge budget. I know I'm really harsh on Marvel on these boards but what I see them as doing is undoing the progress made by Nolan, where every film is made for a "one size fits all" formula and it's getting every bit more bland and homogenized with each release. The irony is I feel they really betray the directness and visual impact of the comics they're indebted to by relying so much on completely flat images and exposition. Maybe Fury Road is the film that studios should be looking to for how to tell a story visually with big budget and a great director on board.

Tony EH

Well, there's usually flaws in every film in some fashion or other. But, I reckon that they're the best we'll see, in my lifetime anyway and going by the, as you say, low bars, that have been set by recent big films, I don't think I'm wrong.

I agree with you about the Marvel films, which to me are factory made forgettables. I liked the 'Iron man' films, but most of them leave me cold.

I haven't seen 'Jurassic World' and I can't imagine that I will any time soon. The idea of men taming dinosaurs is ridiculous to me.

BMMachine

e_e wrote: »

The irony is I feel they really betray the directness and visual impact of the comics they're indebted to by relying so much on completely flat images and exposition. Maybe Fury Road is the film that studios should be looking to for how to tell a story visually with big budget and a great director on board.

this x1000

So many "blockbusters" are just big fat bland and most importantly - boring affairs that dont do anything other than sell tickets. Marvel are the worst offender here (although I really like the X-Men franchise, thought the last one was really good) and because they sell the most, they set the trend so its no surprise that a film like Jurassic World was so bad.
I still remember when Iron Man came out and its whole thing was "that wasn't sh*t. it was actually somewhat decent, around 7/10" and that became the calling card from then on. Very few of the big marvel films are actually good, but because of hype, memes and the way the internet works - they are "omfg that was amazing!". I think its actually a very complex issue at stake here as there is the increasing rise of individuality and extremeness of taste and choice within that. If you like something, you dont just like it, you adopt it and make it your own, you make it part of your individuality - same if you hate something. Lines are blurred and bad becomes acceptable and good becomes confusing. People are personally insulted if something they like is labelled bad or mediocre as it clashes not just with their taste, but with their lifestyle also

ButtersSuki

Working my way through all my DVDs that I've never watched for various reasons so threw on Straw Dogs. "Famed" for it's notoriety and violence

and double rape scene

at the time of release (and indeed banned on video/dvd until 2002), it, like a lot of films of its time, it seems quite tame now. It's a bit all over the place in that in leaves a lot of questions unanswered on completion, and

I'm not sure how credible Hoffman's switch from walked-on pacifist to enjoying his killing of one of the local goons is), as well as the oft-discussed question of

whether or not Amy enjoyed the rape - FWIW, I didn't see it that way at all.

. Susan George looks simply stunning in some of the early scenes and her acting is quite good too. One thing that stood out for me is how much David Schwimmer must have based his acting style on Hoffman's - it's uncanny in places. Not the best film I've ever seen but at least I've scratched it off the list now. I'd give it a 6/10 now, though in fairness I'd imagine having seen it back in 1971 it would probably got a higher score for shock value alone.

Chain Smoker

e_e wrote: »

Maybe Fury Road is the film that studios should be looking to for how to tell a story visually with big budget and a great director on board.

Dunno if you've been reading up on this at all, but seemingly Warner/DC are pretty hell bent on getting Miller to do a DC universe film right now. He's holding out for a level of freedom similar to what Fury Road had and it's looking like he might get it (it definitely won't be Superman or Batman though).

Considering just how streamlined the whole Marvel setup is, it does seem like the best way for Warner to get people noticing that more would be to take some bold steps with less central releases. Their biggest hits have been by handing their joint biggest license to a guy with no blockbuster experience ever and giving him a fair bit of freedom with it.
Marvel is all so heavily tied together that they can't really afford to so there's just going to be more irrelevant ones like Ant Man gradually piling up. Even when they try to bring in some fresh voices they've either been removed, walked out pretty quickly or became severely watered down (Edgar Wright, Ava DuVernay and James Gunn respectively)

e_e

That's good to hear. Props to DC anyway for actually sticking with directors who are cinematically literate and not just brought over from television or like you say ditched/watered down.

Honestly TV and film are like church and state for me. The inter-mingling of them are making both mediums worse tbh. Keep 'em apart at all costs.

BMMachine

Miller is 70 years old. He shouldnt be allowed to work on anything other than Mad Max sequels
would absolutely not like to see him direct a comic movie

Chain Smoker

e_e wrote: »

That's good to hear. Props to DC anyway for actually sticking with directors who are cinematically literate and not just brought over from television or like you say ditched/watered down.

Ah it's more that they don't have a choice I'd say. They really need something to differentiate themselves and that's by far Marvel's weak point

BMMachine wrote: »

Miller is 70 years old. He shouldnt be allowed to work on anything other than Mad Max sequels
would absolutely not like to see him direct a comic movie

If he's granted a strong level of creative freedom, I'd absolutely love to see it. There's close to no way he can top Fury Road in the modern film-making environment ...it was pretty much an amazing adaptation of a comic book I'd've hated too, sure.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I read a few days ago that Miller was being lined up for Man of Steel 2 and a few days later I read that MoS2 has been put on permanent hold. I bet they want him for Wonder Woman given Fury Road managed to have decent female characters in it.

pixelburp

e_e wrote: »

[...]Maybe Fury Road is the film that studios should be looking to for how to tell a story visually with big budget and a great director on board.

It's interesting you talk about Dark Knight and Mad Max as points of inspiration because I think the former was indirectly responsible for some of the missteps we've seen since its release; my worry for Max Max is that like the Dark Knight, certain studios will mis-identify the qualities that made Fury Road such a success: it's hard not to look at Man of Steel - even the more recent Fantastic Four remake - and think that the studios mistakenly presumed that what audiences loved about Nolans films was the grim, adult, serious tone of the Nolan batflicks, yet it translated so poorly into franchises where it just didn't belong such as Superman - and certainly had a lesser talent and script to leverage the tone into something that wasn't overwrought and completely overblown.

Similarly I'd worry that studios might think Fury Road's success was just about the car stunts, or just about the big cartoon colour palette and crowbar it into other productions where it might not fit or belong.

Tony EH

I have to admit that I thought 'Man of Steel' wasn't half as bad as it's been made out to be be some quarters. It's certainly the best Superman product in a long time and I wouldn't be a fan of Zack Snyder, that's for sure. But, I completely appreciated the adult nature of the picture and its grim overtone. I found it quite refreshing, after all the silly nods and winks from the likes of 'The Avengers'.

Speaking of directors, I find it somewhat funny that George Miller is being touted so much. Besides some of the Mad Max films and, perhaps, 'Lorenzo's Oil', his body of work ain't that brilliant.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Tony EH wrote: »

I have to admit that I thought 'Man of Steel' wasn't half as bad as it's been made out to be be some quarters. It's certainly the best Superman product in a long time and I wouldn't be a fan of Zack Snyder, that's for sure. But, I completely appreciated the adult nature of the picture and its grim overtone. I found it quite refreshing, after all the silly nods and winks from the likes of 'The Avengers'.

I liked Man of Steel too. I'm not a fan of the cartoonish superhero films so I liked them taking a more mature approach with Superman. There were some things they could have done better, it was by no means a perfect film, but I personally don't think the darker/more mature approach was a problem.

Mickeroo

Thought Man of Steel made Superman Returns look like a masterpiece myself.I get what it was trying to do but it dropped the ball in actually achieving what it set out to imo.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Mickeroo wrote: »

Thought Man of Steel made Superman Returns look like a masterpiece myself.I get what it was trying to do but it dropped the ball in actually achieving what it set out to imo.

I don't know, making Supes a peeping tom home wrecker still seems like a poor choice to me

Mickeroo

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I don't know, making Supes a peeping tom home wrecker still seems like a poor choice to me

No worse than making his dad a homicidal/suicidal maniac "Let the children die clark, actually don't help anyone ever" "No don't bother, I'll just wait here for the tornado to take me thanks" :pac:

pixelburp

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I liked Man of Steel too. I'm not a fan of the cartoonish superhero films so I liked them taking a more mature approach with Superman. There were some things they could have done better, it was by no means a perfect film, but I personally don't think the darker/more mature approach was a problem.

I don't have a problem with any superhero film trying to reach for something more mature or adult, but Man of Steel tried way, way too hard for a sense of worthiness and dire tone; it felt like the studio looked at Dark Knight and its success, and decided that what audiences really wanted now were movies about superheroes being miserable about how tragic and heavy a burden being superpowered is.

The tone was just way, way beyond mature and came out the other side into the realms of an adolescent overwrought, turgid mess. I'm like you, I don't have huge patience for overly cartoonish superhero films, but I didn't really want Papa Kent suggesting Supes let a bus full of kids drown either. Or watch Supes allow thousands to die as a giant space-machine demolishes a city's downtown area.

Dark Knight worked because Batman movies can easily become big, splashy gangster / crime epics about saving a city's soul; it's a very organic story to tell that's oddly relatable and speaks to a lot of stirring, eternal themes. The grimdark angle was a by-product; that the hero was a guy in a bat costume is a detail. Man of Steel started with the grim-dark angle and worked outwards, which is why you had Supes breaking necks and worrying about how HARD IT IS TO BE A GOD!

Tony EH

Mickeroo wrote: »

Thought Man of Steel made Superman Returns look like a masterpiece myself.I get what it was trying to do but it dropped the ball in actually achieving what it set out to imo.

How so?

Apart from a little overdoing it with the level of destruction in the end battles and a bizarre Krypton, I thought it handled the Superman origin story well enough.

Chain Smoker

Tony EH wrote: »

Speaking of directors, I find it somewhat funny that George Miller is being touted so much. Besides some of the Mad Max films and, perhaps, 'Lorenzo's Oil', his body of work ain't that brilliant.

Christ almighty, are you saying Lorenzo's Oil is a better film than the two Babes?! :mad:

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Mickeroo wrote: »

No worse than making his dad a homicidal/suicidal maniac "Let the children die clark, actually don't help anyone ever" "No don't bother, I'll just wait here for the tornado to take me thanks" :pac:

Touché.

I did think the Pa Kent death scene was badly done. If I remember the old Superman films correctly Pa Kent dies of a heart attack, yes? Meaning young Clark learns that even with his powers there are some situations where you just can't do anything. The way they did it in MoS had Clark learn nothing, really. It just gave him even more of a complex about hiding who he was. It was a bit like that Philip Larkin poem, "They f**k you up, your mum and dad....."

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't have a problem with any superhero film trying to reach for something more mature or adult, but Man of Steel tried way, way too hard for a sense of worthiness and dire tone; it felt like the studio looked at Dark Knight and its success, and decided that what audiences really wanted now were movies about superheroes being miserable about how tragic and heavy a burden being superpowered is.

The tone was just way, way beyond mature and came out the other side into the realms of an adolescent overwrought, turgid mess. I'm like you, I don't have huge patience for overly cartoonish superhero films, but I didn't really want Papa Kent suggesting Supes let a bus full of kids drown either. Or watch Supes allow thousands to die as a giant space-machine demolishes a city's downtown area.

I agree with you on some points. I think some/a lot of the execution was the problem rather than the intent. I have to say though I was really surprised at the reaction to the end sequence. I seem to have been the only one who assumed the city had been evacuated. I mean the giant space machine had been there for a few days and the entire city just went about their business as normal? Maybe they deserved to die. Natural selection and all that.