What have you watched recently: Electric Boogaloo

Tony EH

ButtersSuki wrote: »

The Wicker Man (The Final Cut, 1973) for the very first time (any version btw) on Blu Ray (Disc 1 of a 3 Disc Set). I've seen an awful lot of films over the years and I know this has cult status and always appears on Greatest Movie/Horrors of All Time Lists but I just found it boring. It is IMO completely over-rated. It's got more continuity errors and goofs than a Ray D'Arcy radio show, the plot is weak, the twist is predictable, the (Scottish) accents are awful.....I could go on. I'm left wondering how bad the Nicholas Cage remake is as this was just awful. I think Discs 2 and 3 of this will be lucky to ever see the inside of my Blu Ray player. I'd consider myself a cinema snob and naturally gravitate towards classics. I normally like the genre too. For me, this is neither a classic nor a horror. It's like a bad spoof comedy horror musical. I know this is likely going to provoke some debate but I'm going to give this a 3/10. It's the Emperor's New Clothes of cinema. I promise I'm not trolling.

It'll grow on you.

But yeh, it does suffer from the same thing as 'Don't Look Now' does in that it's hailed as the "greatest British horror film evar!!!!". :rolleyes:

When in reality it's simply a very good and odd curio. The kind of film that the British or anyone else just doesn't make any more.

There's nothing else like it. Unlike 'Don't Look Now' however, it gets better with repeat viewings, whereas the Nicolas Roeg film simply leaves me bewildered as to how it's so well loved in some circles.

I suppose if you're only coming to it now, with all the baggage that it brings with it, it can seem a bit of a WTF. But I remember seeing it as a kid on BBC2 years ago, with none of the nonsense that surrounds it today and remember coming away from it thinking what the hell have I just watched? :pac:

As for the Cage one. It's a great unintentional comedy. One of all time best misfires.

Tony EH

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Saturday Night Fever has a rape scene that's passed off as a bit of fun/slap and tickle - weird.

I remember seeing that film as a kid and none of the crazy stuff was in it. It was a rather tame and boring 70's disco film to me for years and I was in the dark as to why it was so popular.

I threw in on for a laugh with a few beers one night a year ago, or so, and was fascinated. It's populated by thoroughly unlikable people in a pretty sad environment and is quite a serious film.

SO not the picture I thought I remembered and yes that scene in the back of the car was fairly horrible. It really isn't the film most people think it is.

Nerdlingr

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Saturday Night Fever has a rape scene that's passed off as a bit of fun/slap and tickle - weird.

Dont think its passed off as that at all. There's a seedy underbelly throughout that film - Domestic abuse, violence, rape, racism, dead end job, religion,

teenage pregnancy, Suicide

. Its a pretty bleak warts and all film with some disco thrown in!!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Dont think its passed off as that at all. There's a seedy underbelly throughout that film - Domestic abuse, violence, rape, racism, dead end job, religion,

teenage pregnancy, Suicide

. Its a pretty bleak warts and all film with some disco thrown in!!

It's funny, I watched a film the other day called Northern Soul, which was about that particular music scene in the 70's in the North of England. It was pretty grim apart from the scenes where they're dancing, which I think was the point. Anyway, when I went to Letterboxd to log it I saw a couple of reviews comparing it to Saturday Night Fever, which I thought was a pretty loose comparison, having never seen it, but from the last few posts in here maybe it is an apt comparison.

Mizu_Ger

ButtersSuki wrote: »

The Wicker Man (The Final Cut, 1973) for the very first time (any version btw) on Blu Ray (Disc 1 of a 3 Disc Set). I've seen an awful lot of films over the years and I know this has cult status and always appears on Greatest Movie/Horrors of All Time Lists but I just found it boring. It is IMO completely over-rated. It's got more continuity errors and goofs than a Ray D'Arcy radio show, the plot is weak, the twist is predictable, the (Scottish) accents are awful.....I could go on. I'm left wondering how bad the Nicholas Cage remake is as this was just awful. I think Discs 2 and 3 of this will be lucky to ever see the inside of my Blu Ray player. I'd consider myself a cinema snob and naturally gravitate towards classics. I normally like the genre too. For me, this is neither a classic nor a horror. It's like a bad spoof comedy horror musical. I know this is likely going to provoke some debate but I'm going to give this a 3/10. It's the Emperor's New Clothes of cinema. I promise I'm not trolling.

I just watched this the other night too. I had never seen it before and while I didn't dislike it as much as you did, the hippy folk group in the pub and Britt Ekland's "dance" were a bit tedious. They felt like padding and went on for too long. Otherwise, I quite enjoyed it. For a change this is a "classic" film where I didn't already know the ending. It would work well as a 60 minute Twilight Zone episode.

ButtersSuki

Mizu_Ger wrote: »

I just watched this the other night too. I had never seen it before and while I didn't dislike it as much as you did, the hippy folk group in the pub and Britt Ekland's "dance" were a bit tedious. They felt like padding and went on for too long. Otherwise, I quite enjoyed it. For a change this is a "classic" film where I didn't already know the ending. It would work well as a 60 minute Twilight Zone episode.

But that comment to me kinda proves my point on it being completely over-rated; how often have you heard anyone say what is supposedly an all time classic "would work well as a 60 minute Twilight Zone episode"? as a defence??!!!!

Someone mentioned the campness of it - the bar owner was particularly camp, as was Lee at times.

There's so much in it that was just silly. Like

when Edward Woodward hit the bar owner with the candlestick and clearly hits the padding in his costume instead of over the head - how hard could that have been to reshoot or just do so more credibly.

I stand by what I said as it being a spoof comedy horror musical.

One thing I forgot to mention yesterday which I meant to say was how much it reminded me of Straw Dogs (original version with Dustin Hoffman), but Straw Dogs is an immeasurably better film than The Wicker Man.

I remain more afraid of Alan Whicker


than I do of The Wicker Man.





I googled over-rated films this morning out of curiosity to see was I losing my mind. Guess which came in at No. 4?

4. The Wicker Man (1973)

It's no surprise the remake with Nicholas Cage was a dud: the original was equally bad. Christopher Lee and Edward Woodward provide some good acting, but that only papers over a weak and predictable plot. Unless you're on heavy medication every twist in the story can be seen a mile off, which makes Woodward's character's final immolation a bit of a yawn. Before that happens we get a lot of tedious chatter about paganism vs Christianity and a healthy dose of female nudity, which, as outlined above, may account for its cult status.






You're entitled to have a different opinion to me on this of course. My all time favourites list would likely not meet with universal approval either.

Mizu_Ger

ButtersSuki wrote: »

But that comment to me kinda proves my point on it being completely over-rated; how often have you heard anyone say what is supposedly an all time classic "would work well as a 60 minute Twilight Zone episode"? as a defence??!!!!

I wasn't defending it particularly. I enjoyed it, but felt it dragged a times. I wouldn't consider it a classic either.

EDIT: I used to watch Moviedrome on BBC2 years ago and I'm surprised I never saw it there.

Tony EH

It was the first 'Moviedrome' film to be shown.

That's probably where I saw it first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8IGJjukTzc

Arghus

Independence Day: Resurgence - My levels of expectation were pretty low going into this; It just about met them. Just about.

It's a total hack job, basically. The original was no shining beacon of artistic achievement, but it looks like a stone cold cinema classic next to this years model. Supposedly the budget was upwards of 150 million but I'm not too sure about that - the movie looks cheap. I presume the money went somewhere - maybe the catering on set was fantastic. But it's not there on the screen. Every background looks disconcertingly and distractingly green screened to a point of airless artificiality. Which is matched in the staleness stakes by the nonexistent presence of characters who when they aren't riffs on a familiar persona - Jeff Goldblum, Judd Hirsch - are so forgettable that you won't remember anything about them even as you're watching them - aside from the fact that they are young and good looking.

Bill Pullman's beard has the most presence and gravitas of anything on the screen. No joke.

Aside from the facial hair: it's a pointless cash grab which is shoddily made, acted and plotted. But, somehow, I couldn't hate it totally. It kind of knows what it is: it doesn't even attempt greater depth or an illusion of quality. There's no awe to proceedings, but there is a nicely enjoyable amount of schlock. And they made sure to include a scene where Judd Hirsch calls someone a schmuck - I'll take that. The pacing and editing makes it pretty clear that the movie is in a damn rush to get to the end. Every scene is played at least 20% too fast, which really emphasizes the essential meaninglessness of the movies plot and turns a lot of what should be serious moments into unintentional comedy. But I sort of appreciated that honesty from a big summer blockbuster. Usually you'll have to endure a certain quota of scenes in such films, where we stop to pause for a few moments of back story, or attempted emotionality in which our hero of vulcanized spandex vainly tries to give a bit of meaning to the nonsense - so that we can watch the 'plosions feeling a bit better about ourselves as viewers - re: Marvel, DC et al. Sometimes non pretentious brainlesslessness has more integrity. At least Independence Day: Resurgence had the sense not to insult my intelligence by pretending to construct a story out of wafer thin characters and then making them do something nonsensically out of character in order to further the plot, or, as I call it: Jurassic World Syndrome. Independence Day 2 is proudly stupid. Unfortunately, it's also largely blandly stupid. But no-one is perfect, I suppose.

conorhal

tunguska wrote: »

Legend of Tarzan

Not bad at all. Its gotten fairly crap reviews and i wasnt even gonna go see it but i went after all and im glad i did. Alex skarsgard's range isnt brando-esque but he does the job. Margot robbie is decent enough but its sam jackson who puts in the best performance of the film.
Its nothing earth shattering but look i saw Ghostbusters the other night and this is a lot better than that ****e.

It made me go back and watch Greystoke, which, while it takes itself a we bit too seriously, is for me the best Tarzan film since Johnny Weismuller pulled on a thong in Tarzan the Ape Man. It has a John Ford epic scope and a heartbreaking performance from Christopher Lambert as a man caught between civilization and savagery, which he ultimately decides is a whole lot less savage then civilization.
I would be interested to see what an actual modern Edgar Rice Burrows Tarzan would look like, but I suspect that it probably would be too fantastical and anachronistic for modern tastes, still Tarzan taken hostage by a bigfoot like mate or fighting ancient civilizations would be fun!

Outlaw Pete

Was dragged to see Me Before You earlier this evening but have to admit I quite liked it. Well, far more than I thought I would at least.

I really enjoyed the story and much of the characters but it's Achilles heel for me was that it was way too saccharine and needlessly so. Scenes which should have been much darker, weren't, and as a result lost impact.

It's a shame really, as there are not too many films of this genre that would have avoided taking the 'easy out' Hollywood ending (where he changes his mind at the last moment and chooses instead to live out his final days with the love of his life) which I 100% had thought was the ending coming. Lots of tears at the screening we were at. Not by me mind. Not a chance. Well, maybe a lower lip quiver or two.

david75

Watched Eye in the sky last night. Really great film and performances all round. Really heavy and intense though. Moral dilemma on a grand scale but done well without being preachy or overbearing.

MilesMorales1

The BFG is fantastic.

Like most British people who've ever been to school in their lives, I read a lot of Roald Dahl growing up. Fantastic Mr Fox, The BFG, The Twits, Matilda, Danny The Champion, etc. And the dark nature of his works often passed me by till relatively recently, I must admit, like how the story of the BFG basically involves giants abducting and eating children, the Trunchbull tortures Miss Honey and the kids, etc. But when you notice it, you can't not notice it.

This new interpretation definitely doesn't indulge any of the dark elements of the book, for better or worse. Its very much a Spielberg film, also for better or worse. It changes quite a few things from the book, emphasising some characters who were minor in the book, adding some stuff in, etc.

And its pretty great. There's somethings I'm not totally on board with, I must admit, in particular the mentioned story changes and toning down of the darkness. Its also very much sentimental in that way Spielberg often is, which probably wouldn't work with any other film maker except him.

Cos it does work, its awesome. I love the actor playing Sophie, I love the motion capture BFG, I like the queen, I like the added character given to the giants, I love the visual look of giant country, I like the humour, I like the buckingham palace bit, I just do. Loved it.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

The BFG is fantastic.

Like most British people who've ever been to school in their lives, I read a lot of Roald Dahl growing up. Fantastic Mr Fox, The BFG, The Twits, Matilda, Danny The Champion, etc. And the dark nature of his works often passed me by till relatively recently, I must admit, like how the story of the BFG basically involves giants abducting and eating children, the Trunchbull tortures Miss Honey and the kids, etc. But when you notice it, you can't not notice it

Dahl actually led a very interesting but tragic life. His first book was inspired by the time he crashed in the desert in North Africa while he was a fighter pilot in WW2 and was seriously injured. He had a young daughter die and a young son seriously brain damaged in an accident. His wife had 3 massive strokes while pregnant with another child and she was in a coma for weeks and then had to learn to walk and talk and do everything again. All her words were mixed up and he used some of her phrases for the language in the BFG. I think it was also inspired by the death of his daughter. He used to make up stories about a giant who sprinkled nice dreams into kid's heads and he'd go outside, climb up a ladder and using a bamboo cane he'd blow glitter into their rooms. He said they were still dealing with their sister's death and deserved nice dreams.

So, yeah, quite a few of his books were inspired by quite dark times in his life. There was a really great piece about him in last month's Empire and BBC did a little documentary about him last night too. Fascinating man. He hated every attempt to make his books films too, except Danny and, I think, an animated BBC version of the BFG. Would have been interesting to see what he made of this BFG.

MilesMorales1

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Dahl actually led a very interesting but tragic life. His first book was inspired by the time he crashed in the desert in North Africa while he was a fighter pilot in WW2 and was seriously injured. He had a young daughter die and a young son seriously brain damaged in an accident. His wife had 3 massive strokes while pregnant with another child and she was in a coma for weeks and then had to learn to walk and talk and do everything again. All her words were mixed up and he used some of her phrases for the language in the BFG. I think it was also inspired by the death of his daughter. He used to make up stories about a giant who sprinkled nice dreams into kid's heads and he'd go outside, climb up a ladder and using a bamboo cane he'd blow glitter into their rooms. He said they were still dealing with their sister's death and deserved nice dreams.

So, yeah, quite a few of his books were inspired by quite dark times in his life. There was a really great piece about him in last month's Empire and BBC did a little documentary about him last night too. Fascinating man. He hated every attempt to make his books films too, except Danny and, I think, an animated BBC version of the BFG. Would have been interesting to see what he made of this BFG.

Aye, I've read Going Solo and Boy. Interesting chap.

ButtersSuki

Matthias Schoenaerts breakout acting role Rundskop or Bullhead (in English) on Blu Ray. Have owned this since release but only got around to watching it last night. It's dark, broody and features a troubled lead, reminiscent of Ryan Gosling's driver in "Drive" and Tom Hardy's "Bronson" (certainly from a physical transformation point of view) and though the lead is flawed you can't help but feel a certain empathy with and deeply sorry for him. As per a lot of World Cinema, it's beautifully shot; it must take a certain skillset to make such a wet, dreary and non-descript countryside look so appealing. Worth watching for Schoenaerts' performance alone; he does more with his empty eyes than most "film stars" do in most movies. It's not perfect and has some flaws - notably the ending which for me let the rest down as up to that point I'd have given it an 8/10, but as I found the ending a little weak I'd going to deduct a point and give it 7/10.

Akrasia

I'm watching Real Steel now on BBC.

Without doubt, the greatest movie ever made

Criminal 2016 About as good an action flick as your gonna get these days. Costner plays the lead role as a a convict who has an intelligence operatives (Ryan Reynolds) memories put into his head in order to chase down defence data thats fallen into the wrong hands. Gary Oldman and Tommy Lee Jones add supporting roles with various other familiar faces, in a quite gripping almost 2 hours. Its interesting that the best action stars these days are guys in their late 50's and 60's. Having a guy in the lead role who can act and is believable instead of a pretty face makes such a difference. Some brilliant stunts too throughout.

MadDog76

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm watching Real Steel now on BBC.

Without doubt, the greatest movie ever made

I take it you haven't seen Mrs Doubtfire .........

ButtersSuki

Jason Bourne Got to see it yesterday at the press screening. It has all the things you'd expect from a Bourne/Damon/Greengrass production (the Vegas strip chase scene is very impressive for example), but none of the freshness that made the first 3 so good. There's a real "going through the motions" feel to it. The grittiness of the early movies is gone - as it appears is a lot of the up close and shaky camera style - to the movie's detriment. It's almost too polished; it looks like a sanitized version of a Bourne movie more than a Bourne movie per se. Damon's dialogue is minimal (to put it mildly), the story has many flaws

the new back story about his Dad is a little silly and rather unnecessary

, Vikander adds little but being pretty (and cold), Cassel looks like he did this for the cheque etc., and this is before I admit to hating Tommy Lee Jones (Just can't stand him for reasons I can't quite explain). The story is all over the place and lacks credibility (yes, I know this is fiction but give me something to believe in), and

I'm not sure how plausible the Head of the CIA doing a Conference in Vegas is?

and

why didn't Cassel shoot the downed Bourne from the rooftop after the fall sequence given his expert marksmanship?

. I'd been looking forward to this for a long time but it's my least favourite Bourne movie on a first viewing. You'll see worse action movies than this, but as the bar has been set so high previously I was left very disappointed. 5.5/10.

ButtersSuki

Finally watched Dolores Claiborne on DVD this evening (I've owned this for so long I don't really get why I've waited until now to watch it but that's another story I guess). An excellent ensemble cast with Kathy Bates, Christopher Plummer and David Strathairn being the standouts; ably supported by Judy Parfitt, a young and skinny John C. Reilly...................and Jennifer Jason Leigh. She's so out of her league compared to the rest of the cast she's the female equivalent of Keanu in Dangerous Liaisons. Some of the scenery is very fake (1995 technology I guess) and a lot of the scenes are shot very much like a stage play but it still holds your attention. The warden from The Shawshank Redemption makes a brief appearance as a bank manager, and Shawshank is named as the local prison which was mildly amusing I guess. The story isn't King's best work, but it's still a good watch. I'll give it a 7/10, though with the caveat it's mainly for the performances rather than the story.

we'llallhavetea

happy valley on netflix

a crime thriller set in the uk starring sarah lancashire (curly watts mot! )

i enjoyed it, not ground breaking stuff but something me mammy would love! was gripping in parts tbh, and sarah puts in a great performance.

marwelie

If you like your comedies foreign and dark go see Men and Chicken. You'll never look at Mads Mikkelsen in the same light again. May not be to everyone's taste but I thought it was hilarious. Some laugh out loud moments, in fact at one stage I thought I was going to cry laughing. If you're like me and can think of nothing funnier than seeing people fall over and be hit over the head with stuff this is highly recommended. A mixture of The Three Stooges and One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest.

Liam McPoyle

Martyrs (2015)

Bad, really bad. I was expecting it to be crap and I was not disappointed.

Modern American horror tropes a gogo.

CGI blood, check.

Jump scares, check.

Awful, awful acting, check.

People being left alive in the stupidest way possible so as to escape, check.

Plot explained to the nth degree, check.

It pretty much covered them all.

It was always going to be a difficult task due to the high quality of the original but something this bad is really inexcusable.

The final 40 minutes is very different from the original too.

Terrible, terrible scutter.

:mad:

MilesMorales1

I absolutely love Notting Hill. Even while acknowledging it is in large part, absolute rubbish. I spent 17 years of my life, born and raised in the UK, admittedly in the North West. And this vision of England Richard Curtis puts in his films, it doesn't exist. Well, it doesn't exist for poor plebs like me who have to work for a living, maybe for rich people it does.

That's how all his films around this wheelbarrow feel, like I'm watching a bunch of rich people pretend to be poor or working class or whatever and failing. The idea someone could someone indulge themselves with a travel bookshop rather than a real job, just. Don't.


But you can't deny its charming and enchanting and all the rest of it. It is charming, this lovely England with those odd British accents I've never heard either, and the well ordered world thats so British its like from a story book. And thats what sells me on Notting hill, and most of what Curtis does.

The plot is... a little contrived, you can see everything coming from a mile away, its full of 'quirky' characters and randomness and whatever, it works. It allows for lots of lovely moments between Grant and Roberts, and between Mcinnerney and McKee, and just... lots of those Richard Curtis moments.

It also looks very... British. In the way you'd see a picture of 'Britain' in a brochure in a travel agents. And the music is as 90s as it comes. But somehow, every melds together into this cohesive whole, this film, Notting Hill, which wins me over every time I watch it.

Nerdlingr

Watched Jerry Maguire again over the weekend.

My God they all look so young!! Its TWENTY years old now, twenty !!! But its aged pretty well in fairness. If anything the role of the agent is even more prevalent these days.
Dont know if its as edited that well thought looking back on it, it seems to cut off some scenes rather abruptly, but for the most part the ol magic from seeing it the first time is still there.
Cruise, Zellwegger and Cuba Gooding junior all shine. (and the kid !!) And of course it spawned some classic movie one liners " You had me at hello" "show me the money" "help me help you" etc etc.
Its a great film imo, well written, one that you can come back to time and time again, with all the cast at the peak of their powers. I'm not one for the rom-coms but when its done as well as this you cant help but love it.

8.5/10

Tony EH

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Martyrs (2015)...

:mad:

Just watch the French one.

ButtersSuki

Busy week for me movie-wise, went to Nicolas Winding Refn's The Neon Demon tonight in the Light House. It's very beautiful to look at and very kitsch, like a moving David LaChappelle photo - actually given the subject matter (fashion, models, fashion models etc.) LaChappelle is a good reference point. The story? Well to say it's weird would be a bit of an understatement. The story is essentially about a new model who arrives on the LA modelling scene and the effect that has on the competition within the industry. Keanu Reeves plays a creepy criminal/paedo really well. There's reversed-swastika wallpaper in the background in one scene. There were a lot of stylistic cues that made me think of A Clockwork Orange (as well as other movies) throughout the movie too. This one will appeal to fans of "Only God Forgives" more than "Drive" IMO. Soundtrack as usual for a NWR film scored by Cliff Martinez oozed cool. I'd imagine a lot of people would think this was utter horsesh*te, but I quite enjoyed it. 7/10.

Dances with Wolves 1990 Extended Version

At almost 4 hours I think this is the longest film I've ever watched. The fact that Costner was able to direct a film like this at the age of 35 is really incredible. The beauty and ranger of emotions he managed to grasp, everything from joy to complete despair on a backdrop of scenery that is simply breathtaking is almost too hard to believe of a man so young. It is easily one of the greatest pieces of film ever made and will never date.
The extended version might be slightly slow in parts, but its worth doing all the same just to know that you've seen it all.

ButtersSuki

Deleted User wrote: »

Dances with Wolves 1990 Extended Version

At almost 4 hours I think this is the longest film I've ever watched. The fact that Costner was able to direct a film like this at the age of 35 is really incredible. The beauty and ranger of emotions he managed to grasp, everything from joy to complete despair on a backdrop of scenery that is simply breathtaking is almost too hard to believe of a man so young. It is easily one of the greatest pieces of film ever made and will never date.
The extended version might be slightly slow in parts, but its worth doing all the same just to know that you've seen it all.

Bought that recently on import (the UK release doesn't have the extended cut) and just trying to find time to watch it in one sitting. Loved it on a first viewing on wait for it.......video (didn't see it in the cinema which I can only imagine would have been an even better experience). Haven't seen it since but looking forward to it.