What have you watched recently? 3D!

Drumpot

Tron Legacy

Watch it every once in awhile, it’s a great entertaining movie, proper popcorn flick. Visually stunning, you’d do well to find a movie with better Speicial effects, it’s aged really well. Soundtrack is superb. Jeff Bridges can carry a movie on his own. Michael sheen has great craic with his role. Some of the coolest scenes in a movie that are totally complemented by the soundtrack.

(Anybody who has Disney plus can watch it there)

rednik

Two new additions on blu ray. The Paralax View released by Criterion and Prince of the City which Warner Archive have just released. Both very good transfers and bothexcellent movies.

flasher0030

Brothers

With Toby Maguire & Jake Gylanhall. One of those family drama type films. Loved it, Definately recommend it.

A solid 8 out of 10 for me.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117812879#Comment_117812879

Decent film but the soundtrack from Daft Punk steals the show. An absolutely brilliant album and one that is in particular fantastic listening for a jog / run.

conorhal

I watched William Friedkin's 'Sorcerer (1977)' over the weekend.

It's one of those movies that makes you say, 'wow, they don't make 'em like that anymore'.

Roy Schneider leads a cast of shady characters hiding out in a South American backwater from the law (and other sins of their past) that are offered the chance to make big moneyby transporting old dynamite that's leaking nitro-glycerine in a convoy of 2 trucks through the jungle to put out the fire of an exploded illegal oil well.

It's reputation as bit of a lost classic is well deserved and the man v nature aspect of their journey is edge of the seat stuff, especially the river crossing scene that left me sweating almost as hard as the protagonists:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsNH_6lx6Z8&t=422s

Tony EH

It's cinematic heresy, but I think 'Sorcerer' is better than 'Le Salaire de la Peur'.

pixelburp

The two things that probably sunk Sorcerer was Star Wars coming out around the same time, as well as being Friedkin's follow-up to The Exorcist; with casual audiences perhaps expecting yet more conventional thrills and frights. A long, existential journey across South America - albeit within a truck carrying loads of nitroglycerine - was probably a gearshift for many.

Very much a blank-cheque film, can't imagine the studio greenlighting the extent of that shoot if it weren't for the humungous success of The Exorcist. Especially that bridge scene; it must have been a logistical, and actual nightmare.

johnny_ultimate

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117826978#Comment_117826978

It ‘borrows’ so much from the original film it certainly knocks it down a peg IMO. The central tension and several key set pieces were brilliantly realised in Wages… long before Friedkin tries his hand at it.

Not that Sorcerer is a bad remake though, far from it. It benefits immensely from a bigger budget and an extra 20 years of technology advancements. The bridge scene wouldn’t have been possible at that scale before. The more ‘in-depth’ character building is a more subjective thing, but I do like how you’re kind of just thrown into the setting in Wages.

Ultimately, they’re both excellent films - Sorcerer builds on the foundation in some successful ways, but really it wouldn’t exist without some heavy pilfering.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117827019#Comment_117827019

It's title didn't help either. "Have you seen that new movie about the wizard? No? Neither have I."

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117828983#Comment_117828983

It is/was an eminently unhelpful title. And given this was an era before the internet could counter word-of-mouth, like you speculate a lot of interest might have died once people read that "nerdy" title.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117827073#Comment_117827073

While it's true that it "borrows" from the original (what remake doesn't?), I think 'Sorcerer' does it better than Clouzot's 1953 film. I think it looks better, feels better and ultimately has a better impact. As a remake, it'll probably always come second to most, and certainly that's the position I used to place it at. But over the years and several viewings, it's managed to overtake the original. Which is no mean feat as that was one of the best French films of the 50's.

Mark Kermode would think me an "idiot".

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117829042#Comment_117829042

True, and when the film was made we're talking about a time when reviews were thin on the ground and people just walked off the street into the pictures to watch a film. A title meant something then. It was the main attractor that lured the punter in. So, it's not surprising that people walked by and bought a ticket for 'Star Wars' instead.

These days, you'd know exactly what it was and why it was before the camera even rolled.

I never saw 'Sorcerer' until the 90's but the poster and that title always intrigued me, but largely because I just wondered why Friedkin chose that title for the name of a remake of 'The Wages of Fear'. I'd imagine that he had to vigorously fight the studio over that.

johnny_ultimate

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117829052#Comment_117829052

I watched Wages after Sorcerer, so what actually struck me was how much of the ruthlessness was present and correct in the original. I'd always have imagined some of the grittier, grimmer moments would have been the product of new Hollywood - but nope, Wages very much underlines just how deadly and futile the mission was too. Some of the setpieces and devastating plot beats are nearly identical in terms of execution.

But then Clouzot's films were cynical and brutal well before Wages - Le Crobeau (for all its controversial origins) is pretty much as grim and scorching as cinema got in the 1940s.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117802662#Comment_117802662

I found it just tipped over to the other side of being too much on the cheese. It was a little bit sickly sweet in some parts which was OTT for me. It was a nice insight though into the lives of deaf people, and a clever story.

Fysh

I watched I'm Your Man last night, and I liked it a lot. "What if human-looking robots/androids/synthetic lif" has been done plenty of times in film and elsewhere, but I did like the specific approach here of the robots being tailored and "trained" to be an ideal romantic partner - it allows the story to be more focused on the characters, and the comedy comes from their interactions. Alma appears to be initially hostile because she views Tom as simply a machine in a human suit, but as the film goes on we learn more about why she is so guarded and hostile towards Tom and the idea of tailored ideal partners. Tom, meanwhile, starts out with a reasonably good idea of what Alma likes and dislikes in a partner, but has to learn and refine what that means in practice - one very obvious aspect of this is his cheeky, playful humour coming to the fore, particularly in situations where people have made assumptions about him based on his being a robot.

Overall, I really liked this - it reminds me of When Harry Met Sally in that while it is a film about a romance, and a comedy, it does both of those things far better than what the label "romantic comedy" tends to suggest today, and that is down to focusing on well-written characters and strong performances.

Dades

Watched Fighting with my Family last weekend.

Am absolute gem that's right up there (for me) with Sing Street as a type of dysfunctional family shooting for the stars type thing. Yes, there's some big names and scenes in the US, but it's the family stuff in Norwich that makes it what it is.

Looking forward to watching it again with the missis this time.

Fysh

I watched Jesus Shows You The Way To The Highway the other night, and boy was that an experience. The closest I can come to describing it is that it has a similar fusion of disparate ideas as early-2000s Miike Takashi, but presented in a faux-80s aesthetic. (A friend described it as "Blade Runner directed by Shinya Tsukamoto and produced by Lucio Fulci", which should give an idea of the tonal palate, at least...although I'd probably add "from a screenplay written by David Lynch").

Speaking of tone, it deliberately shifts repeatedly throughout, in a way that seems like it shouldn't work, but it does. It is bonkers in the best way and I had a great time with it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YkJ3ObHny6E

pixelburp

Boss Level (2021)

Started out with a brutish and intentionally idiotic swagger, but found enough humanity in its meathead lead to make the emotional development stick when it came. The film structured itself as an extended second act of the now-popular time loop formula; that point when its victim simply cuts loose in a destructive spiral, disillusioned with their lot; while the other neat spin was it functioning as a procedural, a game of detective as Frank Grillo's likeable lunk tried to figure the puzzle out, growing all the while. I liked it, the anarchic quality gave it enough energy and distinction to set itself apart from the growing sub-genre.

Big minus points for spectacularly wasting Michelle Yeoh though; a potential Chekhov's Gun in the first act, but that never came to pass. She must have had a free afternoon and the producers wanted another famous face for the promotions.

Boss Level is a lot of fun. It came out around the same time as Fatman, so the two are linked in my head. Fatman, well, you'll either love it or hate it, depending on how you feel about Mel Gibson.

Slydice

Malignant.. I'm not making a thread for Malignant. Just a post to register that it exists and I don't think I'm getting that time back.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3811906/

Easily spoiled I heard.. and yeah I guess.. that's fair.

I assume it falls into some area of horror that I don't appreciate given it's currently got 70% from critics on RT (audience at 50%)

SimonTemplar

Malignant (2021, James Wan)

I found the first two acts to be a fairly mundane and cliched horror movie using a lot of the usual tricks that horror fans will be familiar with. It was loosing my interest until the third act when it went absolutely f*cking insane!

gmisk

The Dry

Australian mystery/crime.

Blurb below.

Aaron Falk goes back home to his drought-stricken town to attend a tragic funeral. However, his return reopens the door to the unsolved death of a teenage girl.

Eric Bana is the lead (and is very strong) I thought this was excellent, beautifully shot and really gripping. I would highly recommend it.

bnt

I saw Destination Wedding (2018) a couple of years ago, and decided to watch it again today, which at least tells me that it stuck in my head. It's a reunion of Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves: either or both are on screen in almost every frame, and they have the only speaking parts in the movie. They play two people who are frankly obnoxious, in their own ways, going to a destination wedding they would rather avoid. Both are pedantic to a fault and (if I was asked) are "on the spectrum". They clash at the airport, they fight on the (small) plane, but when they get there they're the odd ones out, and so they bond over their verbose contempt for the proceedings.

You can guess the broad outlines of what happens next, but the fun is in the details that sometimes include epic levels of cringe. The script is "stagey" and both characters work with words for a living, so some of the dialogue is unnaturally witty. At one point he carries her, and describes her as having "a high specific gravity" - and she knows what that means. "Yeah, dense bones." Well, he is named Frank.

Lindsay: Why didn't we meet seven years ago?

Frank: Just lucky, I guess.

After seeing all the "Keanu is a wooden actor" comments in another thread, this film could be an answer to that. His character starts off as wooden because he's not enjoying the trip and is immediately on the defensive with Winona's character. He would be called "black-pilled" online these days after too many bad experiences, while her online dating profile (if she had one) might include "master's degree in sarcasm" or some related cliché. Later on we can see him struggling to open up, unsure whether "this time will be different". When he does relax and let his guard down, it's not wooden at all. Well, maybe a little bit.

Lindsay: Don't you believe there is someone for everyone?

Frank: Close. I believe that there is nobody for anyone.

monkeyactive

The Green Knight

I enjoyed the green knight. It was a soothing spectacle to observe with a few ciders when my mind and body were tired. It's beautiful looking. But what the hell was it about? It reminded me of that film the tree of life by Terence Malik. So cryptic that it almost slides into farce.

I like to meet a brave director half way and don't expect it all handed to me on a plate but when your not even giving your audience a fighting chance at grasping what is unfolding on the screen then that's just........confusing!

johnny_ultimate

The Nest - Sean Durkin took his damn time following up Martha Marcy May Marlene, and he used that time incredibly well if this is anything to go by. A small-scale family drama on the surface, this thing is exquisitely crafted. It’s an interesting contrast to Marriage Story - whereas that was built around big dramatic explosions of anger, here the unravelling is quieter, slower. Carrie Coon and Jude Law bring everything they’ve got to this: while they do raise their voices here and there, they’re experts at communicating the inner turmoil in ways that are surprising and devastating. Durkin uses the lonely, cavernous spaces of a big old English country house to make this family home seem even more poisonous and dangerous than anything you’d get in a horror film.

The pandemic meant this needed to wait quite a while before hitting cinemas - the wait was more than worth it.

Malignant - if you turned James Wan’s Malignant off after an hour, you’d have seen a flashy, shallow, familiar mainstream horror with not a whole lot going for it. But Malignant is a case study in why you shouldn’t turn off a film early - because if you didn’t get to the absolutely bonkers final half hour of Malignant, you really and truly haven’t seen the film.

Listen: I wish this film was a whole tighter overall, and some of the performances and writing are shaky as hell. This is not a masterpiece or anything like that. But this film has some deliriously nasty tricks up its sleeve, and by the end I couldn’t help but applaud the bloody-minded ‘anything goes’ spirit of the thing. It’s hyper-gory, it’s absurd, it’s pretty **** silly - but I had an absolute blast. Good to see a modern mainstream horror film wholeheartedly embrace its 18 rating: there’s more than a little Evil Dead in its embrace of comically excessive blood splatter and weirdo monster design.

Hector Savage

The Predator(2018)

Absolute garbage, I don't know how this sh1t can possibly get made ...

El Gato De Negocios

Lake Mungo

Heard alot over the last few years about how good it is so picked up special edition blu ray from Second Sight recently. Wish I hadn't bothered tbh. Really really disappointed with it. I'm fond of some found footage movies but this was just dung.

pixelburp

Escape Room (2019)

A pretty terrible movie all told, yet I was entertained and never bored. If only because the premise of a set of lethal puzzle-box rooms was an undeniable thrill; a deeply stupid, PG version of Saw, while managing to make escape rooms seem more than the naff office party venues that they are (IMO).

Plus at a budget of $9 million, and having made $300+ million at the box office, it also serves to point towards the inanity of Hollywood budgeting and economics. That's a mind boggling profit margin, yet the billion dollar blockbusters are the windmills the studios chase

Tony EH

*Mild Spoilers ahead

'Blood Red Sky'

Probably the best vampire movie I've seen since '30 Days of Night', mostly because the vamps in it aren't the tiresome Anne Rice or Charlaine Harris masturbatory types that seem to pop up with too much regularity. 'Blood Red Sky', or Vamps on a plane, shares a similarity with the blood suckers in '30 Days of Night' in that they are violent, animalistic, and completely given over to their urges. Well, almost. We see in the story that they are able to fight their vampiric desires to a certain degree, as it centres on a seemingly "normal" mother of one, Nadja (Peri Baumeister), as she embarks on a journey to New York in an effort to cure her problem. Presumably it's to the same doctor that's been supplying her with the drugs we see her taking to suppress her vampirism. Along for the ride is her son, Elias (Carl Anton Koch), who's aware of his mother's condition, but he himself is human. Unfortunately for Nadja, the plane gets hijacked by some out of sorts terrorists and the manure hits the fan.

'Blood Red Sky' is probably about 15 minutes, or so, too long it has to be said. But even with that it's never dull or boring. Peri Baumeister does her best to keep thing interesting and her descent into a nosferatu like state is well handled. Her kind of vampire isn't in any way desirable, nor is it a state of being that any sane person would want. She's not just a pretty immortal human with over sized canines. Instead she's a repellent bat-like creature that rips open its victims in order to drink their blood. She loathes what she is and tries her best to fight against it every step of the way.

There's not too many surprises going on in the story though and apart from the, relatively, novel setting it plays out pretty much as you would expect it to. There's also a poverty of decent CGI, which is mostly apparent when we're outside the plane, and the German language parts may put off those who are adverse to reading. On the other hand, the prosthetic make up effects are very well done and there's plenty of the red stuff thrown around too.

8/10

'Don't Breathe 2'

If ever there was an unnecessary sequel, the follow up to 2016's 'Don't Breathe' would be a contender. But that's not to say that it's a bad movie. On the contrary, I found it to be an entertaining 100 minutes, with an especially interesting first half. Although it does threaten to turn into a carbon copy of Fede Alvarez's original during the first half hour, the story eventually goes off in another direction entirely. And even if where it goes isn't entirely convincing - in fact it's absolutely ludicrous - it still remains a pretty absorbing yarn.

Key to everything, once again, is Stephen Lang who's blind Gulf War veteran protagonist/antagonist (Norman Nordstrom) is given a more heroic sheen this time around. While he can never be cleansed of his insane activities from the first movie, here he is portrayed more as an overly protective father figure of 11 year old Phoenix (Madelyn Grace), a girl he's apparently "adopted" and who's unaware of his past. Phoenix is kept on a very tight lead by Nordstrom, who homeschools her and teaches her survival tactics with the help of his Rottweiler. But she naturally wants friends and a normal life, which she's smart enough to observe when Nordstrom lets her go into town with Hernandez (Stephanie Arcila), a young female Iraq war veteran and the only friendly contact we see him have. However Phoenix's world is turned upside down Nordstrom's Detroit home is broken into by a gang of thugs and both she and him have to tackle with them.

If 'Don't Breathe 2' has some problems, though, it's with its gang of thugs who are all very poor caricatures and involved in that aforementioned ludicrous plot thread. So it can never hope to recapture the atmosphere of the first film. But wisely, the movie chooses to hinge on Phoenix, whom the story happens around, and Madelyn Grace plays her with just enough likeable charm that the audience can get behind her and want to see her prevail.

6/10

'Malignant'

I'll hold my hand up and say that I'm kinda a fan of James Wan's stuff (minus a few efforts like Aquaman and Furious 7), while not being overly enamoured with his output, if that makes sense. He's competent and can deliver the genre goods when he wants to, as evidenced by the original 'Saw', 'The Conjuring' and 'Insidious'. Three pretty decent horror movies of the last 17 years, albeit with mostly unnecessary sequels it has to be said. But, I was happy enough to turn off the lights and sit down to 'Malignant', knowing that I was in for something that would, at least, be watchable...and "watchable" is what 'Malignant' is.

It's, overall, an odd(ish) movie and yet until the last reel can come off as a pretty routine, run of the mill, supernatural horror movie that looks sorta cheap (a consequence of shooting on digital), has uneven acting (to be kind) and some pretty dodgy CGI. But you want to know where it's going to go and when it finally does goes there, you end up going WTF?

Horror fans will notice some similarities with other movies and there's a streak of 70's Italian Giallo going on in there too. Sharp ears will notice a familiar hear musical sting from Lucio Fulci's 'Don't Torture a Duckling' for example and 'Malignant' kinda feels like something that could have been made back then too, minus the overly slick visuals and unconvincing CGI "magic" of course. But then it might have been a better film for that.

At it's end, I was unsure how I felt about the movie. It's a film that has a lot of drawbacks, feels like a straight to Netflix product (straight-to-video for the modern age), and it can come off as not terribly well done. But did I enjoy it? Sure. Would I recommend it? Ummm...yeah why not.

6/10

monkeyactive

The North Water

A 5 part mini series.

Fans of the Terror will enjoy. Its similarish kind of fare. Skullduggery aboard a whaling ship. Colin Farrells finest hour in my humble opinion.

7.8/10