What have you watched recently: Electric Boogaloo

Looper007

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I thought Napoleon Dynamite was okay but I tried twice to watch Nacho Libre and couldn't. Thought it was awful. Each to their own, eh?

Napoleon Dynamite is one of those films you either get or you don't. Some people think its a comedy masterpiece. I think its a load of old pants. But as you said each to their own.

Wichita Lineman

Rear Window - James Stewart and Grace Kelly - sheer class!!

Duggy747

Jack Reacher

Thought this was better than it was going to be though it was all over the place in terms of tone. It couldn't fully decide what type of film it wanted to be, a comedy or gritty thriller.

Cruise was grand but most people's acting was atrocious, especially Pike who was like an android half configured for acting and the other half for mannequin display.

I was left bloody confused at

the house scene where the 2 bumbling goons kept hitting each other trying to kill Cruise.

What fùckin' movie was that scene supposed to be in, the 3 Stooges?

Best part I found was the car chase, I always enjoy the chases that have no soundtrack and leave you zoned in with the roar of a muscle car.

I liked it, not terribly exhilarating but a decent flick. If there is to be a sequel then they need to nail down the balance between comedy and seriousness, it was far too jarring.

Mickeroo

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I thought Napoleon Dynamite was okay but I tried twice to watch Nacho Libre and couldn't. Thought it was awful. Each to their own, eh?

Of course The parts of gentlemen broncos I did like were the bits with Sam Rockwell and jermaine clement is funny no matter what he's in.

Tony EH

MiloYossarian wrote: »

Iron Man 3

By far the best of the Iron Mans. There was somebody that smelled really bad in the cinema while I watched it. It was distracting. Then I got home and discovered it was me.

Jesus! That was you!


:P

tunguska

Wind Chill

Was about to hit the hay last night when this came on. Im a sucker for films set against a wintery backdrop so I decided to give it 10minutes so if it was crap or not........I ended up watching the whole thing(knackered this morning)and I have to say I really liked it. The acting and dialogue where a cut above films of its kind but the photography and atmosphere were the real stars. Seriously bleak and forboding with some genuinely creepy scenes. Reminded a lot of Triangle.
All in all a decent horror film.

TerrorFirmer

Chromeskull: Laid to Rest 2.

Great movie, a nice continuation to the exploitative original.

Nine Miles Down.

Surprisingly decent horror flix on netflix.

Bad Teacher.

Occasionally funny and ultimately average comedy which offered far more promise than it gave.

Sugarlumps

DazMarz wrote: »

John Carptenter's Vampires (1998)

It's no masterpiece, but when you compare this little gem to most of the other "vampire" films out there today, it stands fairly tall.

The vampires in this film do not sparkle or shine. They are grotesque, blood-thirsty, misanthropic beings possessed of super-human strength and speed.

James Woods is in top form as the hard-as-nails Jack Crow who is out to stop the bloodsuckers. Crow is also backed by the Catholic Church and a SWAT team of fellow slayers, all armed to the teeth with silver-bullet firing machine guns and crossbows and wooden stakes.

The vampires in this film eschew some of the more classic attributes (crosses and garlic have no effect, they do not sleep in coffins, etc.) but keep some of the aspects (blood drinking, bursting gruesomely into flames if they come into contact with sunlight, etc.). But what makes them more is simply how horrendous they are. They are not cultured or restrained like traditional vampires, nor are they PG-13 rated creatures. They are vicious animals with an added dash of sexual predator.

Woods is in top form as the slayer who was orphaned by vampires as a boy. He is ever cool in his black leather jacket and his Colt .45.

Gloriously silly and over-the-top in parts, it ain't no classic, but hey, it's good fun and when you compare it to the neutered and sanitised vampire films out there today, it is wonderfully blood-soaked and violent and non-PC. Well worth a look when you want good, silly fun.

It's feckin shíte the whole way through, what the F Woods was thinking taking this role is mind boggling. And he's awful in it, do not watch....ever

DazMarz

Sugarlumps wrote: »

It's feckin shíte the whole way through, what the F Woods was thinking taking this role is mind boggling. And he's awful in it, do not watch....ever

Meh, maybe so. I was just looking at it as a more visceral and warts and all version of vampires than what gets peddled today.

Yeah, it was weak in spots, but I liked it overall.

We're all entitled to our opinions on films. I just liked it as a bit of nonsensical pseudo-religious hokum with James Woods and a Baldwin battling vamps is all. It's no masterpiece. Just turn off the brain and watch.

old hippy

DazMarz wrote: »

Meh, maybe so. I was just looking at it as a more visceral and warts and all version of vampires than what gets peddled today.

Yeah, it was weak in spots, but I liked it overall.

We're all entitled to our opinions on films. I just liked it as a bit of nonsensical pseudo-religious hokum with James Woods and a Baldwin battling vamps is all. It's no masterpiece. Just turn off the brain and watch.

I tried to like it, I watch any vampire movie that's on (apart from Twilight) but much as I love Carpenter and Woods, I felt let down.

I prefer "30 Days of Night"; nothing ground breaking but more suspense and the vampires were nasty

Sugarlumps

DazMarz wrote: »

Meh, maybe so. I was just looking at it as a more visceral and warts and all version of vampires than what gets peddled today.

Yeah, it was weak in spots, but I liked it overall.

We're all entitled to our opinions on films. I just liked it as a bit of nonsensical pseudo-religious hokum with James Woods and a Baldwin battling vamps is all. It's no masterpiece. Just turn off the brain and watch.

Ah no offence, I just found it unbearable. I forgot one of the talented Baldwin bro's starred in it...damn I think he was bare chested in a scene or two.

ButtersSuki

Watched "Paranormal Activity 2" last Saturday night, despite not having seen Paranormal Activity - not that that was necessary though!

Wouldn't have considered myself a fan of this genre of film-making but I was pleasantly surprised with this. It is deliberately slow in pace and carefully builds the tension throughout the movie to a full on climax at the end. There are some genuinely creepy moments in it (won't spoil them for anyone who hasn't seen it) and overall, though a little short (and I watched the extended cut) in length, I really enjoyed it (for what it was). Will definitely watch it again as some of the "moments" of the movie are quite subtle and I'm sure I'll spot some new moments on a 2nd viewing.

I'd give it a 6.5/10.

Naraka

I just watched Crazy Heart. A great movie with super performances by both Bridges and Gyllenhaal.

DazMarz

Sugarlumps wrote: »

Ah no offence, I just found it unbearable. I forgot one of the talented Baldwin bro's starred in it...damn I think he was bare chested in a scene or two.

No offence taken at all. I love all manner of "hated" bad films. Very few films I won't give a go. I actually like some god-awful films, just because they're a bitta craic at the back of it.

Tony EH

old hippy wrote: »

I prefer "30 Days of Night"; nothing ground breaking but more suspense and the vampires were nasty

'30 Days of Night' is the greatest vamp film since Werner Herzog's 'Nosferatu'.

Duggy747

Evil Dead 2


Was bored, couldn't think of anything to watch so I went to the old reliable catalogue.

I still love it, especially having listened to the hilarious commentary before about how they did certain scenes and how much they beat the shìte out of Bruce.

Don't think the GF was too impressed with it though, can normally tell when she whips out the phone and goes on Facebook :pac:

MiloYossarian

Duggy747 wrote: »

Evil Dead 2


Was bored, couldn't think of anything to watch so I went to the old reliable catalogue.

I still love it, especially having listened to the hilarious commentary before about how they did certain scenes and how much they beat the shìte out of Bruce.

Don't think the GF was too impressed with it though, can normally tell when she whips out the phone and goes on Facebook :pac:

Time for a new girlfriend I think

Tony EH

Duggy747 wrote: »

Evil Dead 2


Was bored, couldn't think of anything to watch so I went to the old reliable catalogue.

I still love it, especially having listened to the hilarious commentary before about how they did certain scenes and how much they beat the shìte out of Bruce.

Don't think the GF was too impressed with it though, can normally tell when she whips out the phone and goes on Facebook :pac:

It's one of the best commentaries I heard.

"Everything's alright now!"

e_e

Tony EH wrote: »

It's one of the best commentaries I heard.

"Everything's alright now!"

"He's out of his rocker!"

MiloYossarian

Ong Bak 2

I didn't want to watch a film, I just really wanted to write a review.

The first time I saw this it blew me away, I didn't like it as much this time. I'm going to watch the sequel soon.

Liamalone

MiloYossarian wrote: »

Ong Bak 2

I didn't want to watch a film, I just really wanted to write a review.

The first time I saw this it blew me away, I didn't like it as much this time. I'm going to watch the sequel soon.

Quality review

briany

Philadelphia (1993)

Tom Hanks plays an AIDS stricken man who is let go by the law firm he works for. He seeks litigation against them for letting him go for what he believes were unlawful, discriminatory reasons. Based on a true story.

Superb film. I was engrossed right from the start and, as a byproduct, am now hooked on the Springsteen song, "Streets of Philadelphia".

MiloYossarian

Liamalone wrote: »

Quality review

I know, you'd never guess that all my qualifications are film related. I just don't like writing too much about films that I feel most of us know about or have seen because it comes across as "oh, here's a great film that I watched that you probably never heard of" ya know? Especially with a film like Ong Bak which is kind of obscure but most of us on here are here because we like films, and when you like something you have a better knowledge of it the the layman.

That's just my take on it. My perspective of how it comes across anyway. I could very well be wrong.

johnny_ultimate

Playtime - not even sure where to start on this one. Sat there for two hours in a state of giddy delight at the richness and creativity of the stuff unfolding on-screen. Jacques Tati was bankrupt pouring his resources into this gloriously elaborate film about M. Hulot's day in a Paris - often bumping into a bus full of British tourists - where modernity has spiralled out of control: the traditional sights obscured by high-rise buildings, pointlessly complex technology and absurd consumerism.

In increasingly extravagant sets captured through painstakingly perfect cinematography, we're gifted a range of beautifully precise set pieces ranging from the somber & cynical to the childishly joyful. On one hand it's an incisive critique of modern 'efficiency', technology and uniformity. On the other, it's simply damn funny - a stream of slow-burning jokes, wacky characters, insane props and old fashioned physical comedy. You actually have to work to spot the wealth of subtle sight gags here - almost a film to rewatch immediately to look out for stuff you might have missed in the film's complex, excited mise-en-scene. It culminates in a nearly hour long masterpiece sequence of escalating anarchy (extraordinarily delightful anarchy) set in an unfinished night club, followed by perhaps the most vibrant and funfair-like end sequence cinema has to offer.

Honestly cannot recommend this enough. Tati is up there with Buster Keaton in the canon of definitively 'cinematic' comedians, and having only seen Mon Oncle before this, I'm excited by the fact there's more to discover (possibly only downhill after a film this masterly). It has been a while since I've fallen head over heels for a film so completely. Seriously: if any of this sounds remotely interesting to you, give Playtime a go.

Liamalone

MiloYossarian wrote: »

I know, you'd never guess that all my qualifications are film related. I just don't like writing too much about films that I feel most of us know about or have seen because it comes across as "oh, here's a great film that I watched that you probably never heard of" ya know? Especially with a film like Ong Bak which is kind of obscure but most of us on here are here because we like films, and when you like something you have a better knowledge of it the the layman.

That's just my take on it. My perspective of how it comes across anyway. I could very well be wrong.

Twas just that you said you didn't really want to watch a film, just really wanted to write a review .....then didn't really write a review in the end up lol. No biggie

MiloYossarian

Liamalone wrote: »

Twas just that you said you didn't really want to watch a film, just really wanted to write a review .....then didn't really write a review in the end up lol. No biggie

I didn't really want to write a review I just wanted to make that joke. An exact order of things, how they happened: I thought of the joke, I giggled, I decided I had to watch a film so I could make the joke publically, I spent two hours trying to figure out what to watch on netflix, I decided on Ong Bak to see if is really as good as I remember, I came on here, wrote the joke and then giggled again.

budgemook

Fairly hilarious joke.

Paddy Samurai

It was ok , but not the life changing event I was lead to believe
.I would'nt need to see it again.

MiloYossarian

*snip*

bnt

Blimey! What did I miss?

Anyway: I finally got to watch Manhunter (1986) last night, and couldn't escape the feeling that I'd seen it all before .. because I had, in the form of Red Dragon (2002). They're both versions of the same novel, Red Dragon by Thomas Harris.

I don't know ... I've seen several folks rave about the earlier film, but I've coming away thinking the remake is superior in most ways. I didn't buy Brian Cox as a Cockney Hannibal Lecktor. (Yes, "Lecktor" - they changed it from the book.) He was barely in it anyway. I didn't mind William Petersen so much, and can see how this film fed in to his work on C.S.I. later. He has to do a good bit of quasi-Shakespearean soliloquy, vocalising his thought processes out loud, but that's got more to do with the writing.

Then there was the soundtrack: I like that 80s synthesiser sound -I can sometimes identify the individual synthesisers used (e.g. lots of Oberheim OB-8) - but I don't want the soundtrack to order me around and tell me what to feel. It was sometimes just too much. The 2002 film also restored the original ending

(Dollarhyde faking his death so he can attack Graham's family)

.