What have you watched recently: Electric Boogaloo

pookiesboo

bnt wrote: »

Blimey! What did I miss?



Some guy called Ong Bak told Liamalone that Milo Yossarian told ****e jokes or the other way around. Something along those lines

pepperfoot

i have watched any given sunday - in my opinion is a ver good movie in the good football movies genre. i recomend it to any football fan

DazMarz

pepperfoot wrote: »

i have watched any given sunday - in my opinion is a ver good movie in the good football movies genre. i recomend it to any football fan

Excellent film. One of my all time favourites. The only thing I'd have against it is that genuine NFL teams/franchises were not used (Stone didn't get permission from the NFL to do so), but that's a minor gripe.

It really delves into the inner workings and psyche of all of the people involved in an NFL team and shows it all.

dark crystal

Watched Jack Ketchum's 'The Girl Next Door' last night, having come across it as a recommended watch from another site (I'd never heard of it before).

Based on Ketchum's book, it's based loosely around the real life murder case of Sylvia Likens from the 60's and tells the story of two sisters who are sent to live with their sadistic, psychopathic aunt after their parents are killed in a car accident.

Stephen King put it perfectly when he said: "The first authentically shocking American film I've seen since Henry; Portrait Of A Serial Killer over 20 years ago. If you are easily disturbed, you should not watch this movie. If, on the other hand, you are prepared for a long look into hell, suburban style, The Girl Next Door will not disappoint. This is the dark-side-of-the-moon version of Stand By Me."
You can see where he's coming from; There's a character or two reminiscent of a young Ace Merill here and the character of Aunt Ruth makes Misery's Annie Wilkes look tame in comparison.

Shocking, sad and brutal, it's a film that will stay with you well after the end credits roll.

briany

The Decline of Western Civilization pt III (1998)

Penelope Speeris goes back to Los Angeles to check up on how the Punk scene has evolved since her first doc about it back '80. Mainly, she focuses on the homeless crust punks who spend their days on the street begging for beer money and their whole nihilistic, reckless, aimless attitude.

Jaysis. Thought I met some gnarly lads that one time I went to Blast in' 01! :pac: Good stuff.

Judgement Day

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AfXL5PZt10

"Ordinary Decent Criminal" (2000) on Promo DVD. The third of three feature films dealing with the life and times of Martin Cahill aka "The General" and, for me, by far the weakest. Facts from the true story of the General's life are taken and butchered in the interests of jizzing things up - as if they needed to be! Spacey who I like as an actor is totally miscast as the General and not a patch on Brendan Gleeson's 1998 portrayal in "The General". Even Ken Stott is better in the rarely seen, made for TV movie "Vicious Circle" (1999).

The final scene

- a massive shoot out with Cahill's gang at the Bank of Ireland in College Green - borders on farcical as pedestrians, cars, buses etc. can clearly be seen passing along in the background on Dame Street.

5/10 and that's because Kevin Spacey is a cool dude - normally!

DazMarz

briany wrote: »

The Decline of Western Civilization pt III (1998)

Penelope Speeris goes back to Los Angeles to check up on how the Punk scene has evolved since her first doc about it back '80. Mainly, she focuses on the homeless crust punks who spend their days on the street begging for beer money and their whole nihilistic, reckless, aimless attitude.

Jaysis. Thought I met some gnarly lads that one time I went to Blast in' 01! :pac: Good stuff.

Just watched The Decline Of Western Civilization Part II: The Metal Years there now seeing as you mentioned the third instalment!

I love 1980's heavy metal, particularly that of the "Hair Metal" persuasion. Look through my iPod and it's an endless parade of: Motley Crue, Poison, Ratt, Cinderella (yes, there was a hair metal band called "Cinderella" :eek:), Whitesnake, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, Britny Fox, Warrant, W.A.S.P., Twisted Sister, Dokken, Kix, KISS, Quiet Riot, Autograph, Keel, Steeler... well, you get the idea.

But much as I love this music, you cannot help but look through your fingers at some points in the documentary. The self-important egos of the made bands, the arrogant and misplaced self-belief in the bands trying to make it, the cringe-inducing vanity and self-fellating attitudes, the hair... The only people in the whole thing who come away with any dignity at all are Motorhead's Lemmy and Megadeth's Dave Mustaine who remain witty and cynical about the whole experience (added to the fact that they're firmly not glam or hair metal at all).

It is a most interesting slice of music history, from a time when heavy metal was endlessly popular and for once it was sexy and not an outsiders' music. It was everywhere and it was popular.

But this docu was shot in 1989, just as grunge was beginning to appear on the horizon and the end would soon be nigh for not just glam/hair metal, but an awful lot of metal bands in general. The old guard would be swept aside and any bands who hadn't made it yet, you cannot help but feel pity for them as they are no doubt cleaning toilets and serving burgers to this day. This is once the heavy metal party died, of course.

The most infamous scene in the docu (and there are many to pick from) is arguably W.A.S.P.'s lead guitarist, Chris Holmes, sloshing about in his swimming pool, in full leather outfit, drunk as a monkey, swigging vodka from and endless line of bottles, trying to talk about his metal lifestyle.... while his mother sits by the pool and looks on.

This showed what metal had become by the late-80's as something that was no longer "cool"; it was bloated, full of itself and simply begging to be put down. None of the rockers featured look cool at all really. They look and act like dicks and there would soon be a rude awakening for everyone concerned.

Morbidly fascinating and a must for anyone who has even a passing interest in heavy metal music.

briany

DazMarz wrote: »

Just watched The Decline Of Western Civilization Part II: The Metal Years there now seeing as you mentioned the third instalment!

I love 1980's heavy metal, particularly that of the "Hair Metal" persuasion. Look through my iPod and it's an endless parade of: Motley Crue, Poison, Ratt, Cinderella (yes, there was a hair metal band called "Cinderella" :eek:), Whitesnake, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, Britny Fox, Warrant, W.A.S.P., Twisted Sister, Dokken, Kix, KISS, Quiet Riot, Autograph, Keel, Steeler... well, you get the idea.

But much as I love this music, you cannot help but look through your fingers at some points in the documentary. The self-important egos of the made bands, the arrogant and misplaced self-belief in the bands trying to make it, the cringe-inducing vanity and self-fellating attitudes, the hair... The only people in the whole thing who come away with any dignity at all are Motorhead's Lemmy and Megadeth's Dave Mustaine who remain witty and cynical about the whole experience (added to the fact that they're firmly not glam or hair metal at all).

It is a most interesting slice of music history, from a time when heavy metal was endlessly popular and for once it was sexy and not an outsiders' music. It was everywhere and it was popular.

But this docu was shot in 1989, just as grunge was beginning to appear on the horizon and the end would soon be nigh for not just glam/hair metal, but an awful lot of metal bands in general. The old guard would be swept aside and any bands who hadn't made it yet, you cannot help but feel pity for them as they are no doubt cleaning toilets and serving burgers to this day. This is once the heavy metal party died, of course.

The most infamous scene in the docu (and there are many to pick from) is arguably W.A.S.P.'s lead guitarist, Chris Holmes, sloshing about in his swimming pool, in full leather outfit, drunk as a monkey, swigging vodka from and endless line of bottles, trying to talk about his metal lifestyle.... while his mother sits by the pool and looks on.

This showed what metal had become by the late-80's as something that was no longer "cool"; it was bloated, full of itself and simply begging to be put down. None of the rockers featured look cool at all really. They look and act like dicks and there would soon be a rude awakening for everyone concerned.

Morbidly fascinating and a must for anyone who has even a passing interest in heavy metal music.

Yeah, the tagline of II should be "If you didn't hate the mid 80s LA metal scene before seeing this film.....". Awful people.

The 3rd installment is just really sad though. At least with the 'sexy' rockers in II, you feel there's an out for them. They're not that wrapped in the lifestyle which was always faddish, poseurish and passing whereas some of the punk kids featured in III, there's just nothing else for them. Broken homes in their past, sleeping rough in their present and they don't see much future.

Tony EH

As a kid, I absolutely hated glam metal. It was the complete opposite to what I was listening to, Slayer, Metallica, Napalm Death, Carcass, etc. We thought it was metal for girls and watching that documentary just confirmed everything that I thought about those sort of bands. Loud, stupid, empty and self absorbed. That LA scene was wretched and unfortunately, it was all that was played on TV.

Judgement Day

In the interests of furthering my Irish movie research I made myself watch "The Flame is Love" (1979) - a made for TV movie which has never had an 'official' DVD release and not without reason!

An American heiress (Linda Purl) is destined to be married to an English Duke but on her way to England has a tryst in Paris with Shane Briant. After surviving a near death experience with a sect of Satanists, led by Timothy Dalton, she makes her way to England to tell the Duke that she cannot go ahead with the wedding.



The entire movie appears to have been shot in Ireland which doubles for New York, Paris and England. One can only assume that the films limited budget must have been spent on the ladies' costumes as there's very little evidence of money being spent elsewhere on the production. Even the old railway carriages which had been specially built for "The First Great Train Robbery" movie are recycled for another outing at Bray.

Apparently set in the 1880/90s there are few obvious glitches save for an Irish street name in the background of one shot and a white line road marking in another. Based on a Barbara Cartland novel - need one say more - avoid! 1/10

Bipolar Joe

Birdemic. Everyone knows about this one, dunno how many have seen it. OK, I can live with bad CGI, shitty acting, piss-poor editing, so on, but the worst thing is, EVERYTHING lasts three to four times longer than it should. The camera hangs on the weirdest things for no reason. It's frustrating for the reasons I didn't think about before I watched it.

ButtersSuki

bnt wrote: »

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)

.

Ok, Manhunter is one of my all time faves from when I started discovering there were movies other than those which made my local cinema/ I love it, so much so I have it on video, DVD and a recently acquire Blu Ray which I haven't yet gotten around to watching. I also own Red Dragon because I love Edward Norton, but haven't watched it yet either since I saw it in the cinema.

For me, I'd imagine whichever you have seen first will likely be the superior take on the story; in my case it's Manhunter. As ensemble casts go though, it's hard to beat Red Dragon (Norton, Fiennes, Hopkins, Keitel & Seymour Hoffman amongst others), and in fairness, given the production budget does come across as slicker and generally better made. But whereas Manhunter scared "the bejaysus" out of me as a teen and has Mann's darkness and grittiness stamped all over it, Ratner's take on Red Dragon just felt ever so formulaic and somewhat predictable.

Petersen and Tom Noonan (who you may know from one scene in Heat and a recurring part in Damages) are excellent in Manhunter and I've always wondered why they didn't go on to greater things after it. Part of the difficulty I think some people have with Manhunter is the lack of "Lector/Lecktor" on screen as most people assume he'll be the main character whereas it turns out to be Will Graham. Red Dragon is essentially another Lector movie with Will Graham as a secondary character. Slightly over-simplifying, but hopefully you see where I'm coming from.

Now must decide which one to re-watch first.....

charlie_says

I watched Snabba Cash (English title:Easy Money) last week.

Swedish crime thriller, gangsters crossing each other over a big pile of over drugs and money with a broke student caught up in the middle of it trying to fund his expensive double life. Decent thriller, good script and very believable characters. It's a tough life that crime business.

Surprisingly impressed.

charlie_says

charlie_says wrote: »

I watched Snabba Cash (English title:Easy Money) last week.

Swedish crime thriller, gangsters crossing each other over a big pile of over drugs and money with a broke student caught up in the middle of it trying to fund his expensive double life. Decent thriller, good script and very believable characters. It's a tough life that crime business.

Surprisingly impressed.

Don't forget to check out the two sequels.

johnny_ultimate

Finally got around to filling one of those (many) gaping holes in my film knowledge with Barry Lyndon. Painterly is the immediate word that springs to mind - a real richness of art design, production values and distinctive cinematography. Content-wise, I'm actually still trying to figure out my response to it. Almost every scene is brilliantly realised, and there are some of the most magnificent individual sequences in Kubrick's oeuvre (including probably a definitive cinematic battle scene in its sheer cynicism and critical distance). I absolutely failed to see the complaints about its supposed laboriousness, and surprised how darkly funny it all is (it is Kubrick so perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised). I loved the sardonic voiceover, cheekily commenting on events on-screen and about to occur (a rare case of in-film spoilers ). Yet I was also distant from it, not quite having the same overwhelmingly emotive response to many great films. But I think that's Kubrick's intention - to get us to admire the artistry, to unemotionally critique the events on-screen, to create a world of spiraling cruelness that refuses to grant us the payoffs we expect, to present us with an infuriating protagonist. Its brilliantly calculated, cold tone is exactly what makes it so effective.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

East of Eden was on RTÉ 1 earlier today. I'd seen it before but had forgotten how awful it is. Well, awful might be a bit harsh. It wasn't actually as bad as I had thought the first time I watched it, which was immediately after having read the book.

Maybe if you haven't read the book it's a perfectly acceptable film about sibling rivalry. The book is so much more than that though, so it's hard to watch the film without missing all the other stuff.

James Dean really stands out though. I used to think he and Brando stood out in films because they were over acting and being ridiculous, but now I realise that they were actually acting, everyone else were just saying lines.

Tipsy McSwagger

dark crystal wrote: »

Watched Jack Ketchum's 'The Girl Next Door' last night, having come across it as a recommended watch from another site (I'd never heard of it before).

Based on Ketchum's book, it's based loosely around the real life murder case of Sylvia Likens from the 60's and tells the story of two sisters who are sent to live with their sadistic, psychopathic aunt after their parents are killed in a car accident.

Stephen King put it perfectly when he said: "The first authentically shocking American film I've seen since Henry; Portrait Of A Serial Killer over 20 years ago. If you are easily disturbed, you should not watch this movie. If, on the other hand, you are prepared for a long look into hell, suburban style, The Girl Next Door will not disappoint. This is the dark-side-of-the-moon version of Stand By Me."
You can see where he's coming from; There's a character or two reminiscent of a young Ace Merill here and the character of Aunt Ruth makes Misery's Annie Wilkes look tame in comparison.

Shocking, sad and brutal, it's a film that will stay with you well after the end credits roll.

Watched it tonight and wish I hadn't. It's basically The Sandlot Kids with rape & torture instead of baseball.

Barna77

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Barry Lyndon

I can't remember much of the movie but I had to read the book back in college. One of those that I had to give up because nothing was happening....

Sad Professor

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Finally got around to filling one of those (many) gaping holes in my film knowledge with Barry Lyndon. Painterly is the immediate word that springs to mind - a real richness of art design, production values and distinctive cinematography. Content-wise, I'm actually still trying to figure out my response to it. Almost every scene is brilliantly realised, and there are some of the most magnificent individual sequences in Kubrick's oeuvre (including probably a definitive cinematic battle scene in its sheer cynicism and critical distance). I absolutely failed to see the complaints about its supposed laboriousness, and surprised how darkly funny it all is (it is Kubrick so perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised). I loved the sardonic voiceover, cheekily commenting on events on-screen and about to occur (a rare case of in-film spoilers ). Yet I was also distant from it, not quite having the same overwhelmingly emotive response to many great films. But I think that's Kubrick's intention - to get us to admire the artistry, to unemotionally critique the events on-screen, to create a world of spiraling cruelness that refuses to grant us the payoffs we expect, to present us with an infuriating protagonist. Its brilliantly calculated, cold tone is exactly what makes it so effective.

The Blu-ray I hope?

Barry Lyndon is probably Kubrick's most difficult film but also one of his most rewarding. Every time I see it grows in my estimation. It's also the kind of film which despite its length is difficult to look away from. It's a remarkable portrait of human vulnerability amidst the airs and graces of high society. People don't always get it on the first viewing but Kubrick is really mocking these people and takes great joy in exposing them for what they are. Like you said, there's a lot of dark humour. I love the final duel scene and the way both characters are absolutely s***ting themselves.

dark crystal

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Watched it tonight and wish I hadn't. It's basically The Sandlot Kids with rape & torture instead of baseball.

Yeah, it was a really tough watch alright. Unspeakably brutal in places, especially towards the end.

Especially sad when you read up about the real-life incident it was based around.

Sad Professor

dark crystal wrote: »

Yeah, it was a really tough watch alright. Unspeakably brutal in places, especially towards the end.

Especially sad when you read up about the real-life incident it was based around.

Which the film bares little resemblance to.

My feelings about The Girl Next Door have softened considerably since I first saw it, though I'd still consider it a exploitation-horror film and not a serious drama. King liked it because it was obviously paying tribute to him.

briany

dark crystal wrote: »

Yeah, it was a really tough watch alright. Unspeakably brutal in places, especially towards the end.

Especially sad when you read up about the real-life incident it was based around.

There's another film called An American Crime based around the case. This time it stars Catherine Keener and purports to follow the real events a bit more closely. To be honest, Keener's sadistic mother is a bit more 3D than the one in Girl Next Door. She's a mess - a self medicating monster who waves the victim card any chance she gets and attempts to disassociate herself from the reality of what she's doing to the kids. You get a good bit more involved in her character whereas in The Girl Next Door, it's more like a one dimensional sadist.

On the subject of Ketchum adaptations, though, Red is a fantastic film. Really engrossing watch if you're a dog lover.

charlie_says

Sad Professor wrote: »

The Blu-ray I hope?

Barry Lyndon is probably Kubrick's most difficult film but also one of his most rewarding. Every time I see it grows in my estimation. It's also the kind of film which despite its length is difficult to look away from. It's a remarkable portrait of human vulnerability amidst the airs and graces of high society. People don't always get it on the first viewing but Kubrick is really mocking these people and takes great joy in exposing them for what they are. Like you said, there's a lot of dark humour. I love the final duel scene and the way both characters are absolutely s***ting themselves.

Oh, Barry! <swoon> :pac:

I watched this only last year for the first time. Thoroughly enjoyed it, the costumes and pageantry on display are just brilliant. Women wafting themselves with with hand held fans and fainting, pistol duels and the Irish gambling guy. Great stuff.

Strangely enough I had a copy of this for years and never went near it.

Tipsy McSwagger

Sad Professor wrote: »

Which the film bares little resemblance to.

My feelings about The Girl Next Door have softened considerably since I first saw it, though I'd still consider it a exploitation-horror film and not a serious drama. King liked it because it was obviously paying tribute to him.

King liked it because this is what horror actually is, not ghosts or zombies or evil books but a person being abused, bullied or raped, and it could be happening next door to you or me. I had a few problems with the film and agree it wasn't a serious drama. The acting wasn't great apart from the aunt who was really good, the first half hour was boring and the film wasn't suspensul enough. It was more like a tv movie than a proper film.

ButtersSuki

Against my better judgement and to appease the OH, I watched Shutter last night - US remake of Asian horror starring (and I use that term loosely here) Joshua Jackson from Dawson's Creek and a very pretty though equally wooden Rachael Taylor.

My God it was just awful, definitely by far and away the worst Asian horror remake I've ever seen. The acting was awful, the story ridiculously bad and the continuity errors seemed to happen once every couple of minutes (real pet hate of mine); the most laughable of which being when Rachael Taylor screams "JOSH never loved you" to her husband's ex....whose name is Ben (played by Joshua Jackson) - how could the director and entire few miss this???? Never mind the road being covered in a blanket of snow one second, then clear the next; or the ridiculously bad green screen shots.

I'd like to say it was so bad it's good, but it's just awful. They even try and leave it open for a sequel at the end when putting everyone out of their misery would have been much better for all concerned - esp. the audience. At least if they do make a sequel, all they have to do is change the "u" to an "i" in the title........:rolleyes:

1/10.

johnny_ultimate

Sad Professor wrote: »

The Blu-ray I hope?

Barry Lyndon is probably Kubrick's most difficult film but also one of his most rewarding. Every time I see it grows in my estimation. It's also the kind of film which despite its length is difficult to look away from. It's a remarkable portrait of human vulnerability amidst the airs and graces of high society. People don't always get it on the first viewing but Kubrick is really mocking these people and takes great joy in exposing them for what they are. Like you said, there's a lot of dark humour. I love the final duel scene and the way both characters are absolutely s***ting themselves.

I knew it had a reputation for being a 'difficult' film, but yeah I was surprised at how quickly the time flew watching it - pretty much every individual scene was so well crafted I never found myself bored or distracted. There was always something to appreciate in terms of craftmanship, even in scenes not as obviously brilliant as the main duo of duelling scenes.

I'm talking in generalisations here, but I often find that films that follow a character over a long period of time if not a lifetime can be a little bit like "so this happened... then this happened... oh and this happened... and then (s)he died". I think Kubrick was fully aware of this, and he employs it as a technique to allow us gain that critical distance the film is built on. Plus some brilliant edits (

such as Lyndon being discovered by the Prussian officer to the scene of the 'gauntlet'

). To a degree it's a film about meaninglessness - well, with the exception of Lyndon's one true period of genuine love and compassion with

his son

- and I can definitely see how that would rub people the wrong way, even if I wouldn't agree with complaints about the film's apparent dullness.

Oh, and it was only the DVD with its bizarre aspect ratio but alas all I had available.

dark crystal

briany wrote: »

There's another film called An American Crime based around the case. This time it stars Catherine Keener and purports to follow the real events a bit more closely. To be honest, Keener's sadistic mother is a bit more 3D than the one in Girl Next Door. She's a mess - a self medicating monster who waves the victim card any chance she gets and attempts to disassociate herself from the reality of what she's doing to the kids. You get a good bit more involved in her character whereas in The Girl Next Door, it's more like a one dimensional sadist.

On the subject of Ketchum adaptations, though, Red is a fantastic film. Really engrossing watch if you're a dog lover.

I'll definitely check those out, thanks.

The same site (which really knows it's horror), also recommended Ketchum's 'The Lost'. Have you seen that one?

briany

dark crystal wrote: »

I'll definitely check those out, thanks.

The same site (which really knows it's horror), also recommended Ketchum's 'The Lost'. Have you seen that one?

I thought The Lost was a good film if you know what to expect because it billed itself as being about this guy who randomly decides to kill an innocent person or persons one day and you think it's going to be more about that but, actually, that part is dealt with near the beginning and the rest of the film is more about the killer and his friends just going through their day to day like normal and the viewer wondering if he'll try it again or if he'll be caught, IIRC.

Tony EH

Sad Professor wrote: »

The Blu-ray I hope?

Barry Lyndon is probably Kubrick's most difficult film but also one of his most rewarding. Every time I see it grows in my estimation. It's also the kind of film which despite its length is difficult to look away from. It's a remarkable portrait of human vulnerability amidst the airs and graces of high society. People don't always get it on the first viewing but Kubrick is really mocking these people and takes great joy in exposing them for what they are. Like you said, there's a lot of dark humour. I love the final duel scene and the way both characters are absolutely s***ting themselves.

My only issue with 'Barry Lyndon' is Ryan O'Neal. He's probably the reason why it doesn't get a spin more often.

Rigsby, OTOH, is great.

Sad Professor

I disagree. Whatever about O'Neal as an actor, but he was perfectly cast as Barry. He's supposed to be a bland, vacuous, totally unlikeable knucklehead. O'Neal totally embodied the character in so many ways. I'm not sure there was any acting required. Just look at the guy today.