Jump to content

The Film Thread


DeadlyDirk

Recommended Posts

Watched the remake of The Thing last night, only it isnt a remake its more of a prequel which I didnt know until the very end.

It was ok but not as good as the JC original

Don't know whether to :angry: or :crylaugh: at "the JC original".

THIS is The Thing:

MV5BMjA2ODczNDg5M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjM4MDAwMQ@@._V1._SY317_CR2,0,214,317_.jpg

1951.

Carpenter's was the (first) remake.

On the subject of remakes, even Hitchcock's one and only remake of one of his own films was a bad idea.

Good as the 1956 "The Man Who Knew Too Much" was, it was still not as good as his own 1934 original (my film of the day):

220px-The_man_who_knew_too_much_1934_poster.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just back from The Rum Diary.

I enjoyed it, it's no Fear and Loathing but then its not supposed to be. It's entertaining, and full of humour, but it does lack a bit pf punch, the story isn't quite hewn together with the consistency it needs - the character's ending suggests he's "found his voice" at last, but there wasn't enough in the preceding 2 hours to really convince you of it. There is a story there, but it's not quite] strong enough. 7/10 though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched the remake of The Thing last night, only it isnt a remake its more of a prequel which I didnt know until the very end.

It was ok but not as good as the JC original

Don't know whether to :angry: or :crylaugh: at "the JC original".

THIS is The Thing:

MV5BMjA2ODczNDg5M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjM4MDAwMQ@@._V1._SY317_CR2,0,214,317_.jpg

1951.

Carpenter's was the (first) remake.

I was gonna say, BUT Carpenter's version is not a remake of 'The Thing From Another World', in truth it is a much more faithful adaptation of the original Campbell novella from 1938:

CI+WHO+GOES+THERE.jpg

So scorn at "original JC" (though somewhat warranted) is, technically, a tad misguided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Went to The Tara to see Martha Marcy May Marlene. Thoroughly enjoyed it, highly unsettling and wonderfully acted, though the writing for a couple minor/supporting characters wasn't quite up to the standard of the rest. The pacing was perfect, slow enough to allow the lead's character (and, just as importantly, the tension) to develop with genuine depth, while not so slow as to drag. Release is pretty limited at the moment, so if it's anywhere near you, make an effort to catch it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have watched a couple of crackers and one not-so-cracking-but-what-a-scene movies this weekend.

Eastern Promises - Devilishly handsome film, has a real swagger about it and at last a movie where the violence is not unjustified. I loved the grey simplistic view of a wintery London and a very engaging storyline. The acting is absolutely top drawer. I watched a version without the subtitles for the russian dialogue and I'm absolutely certain none of the movies appeal was lost, if anything it was enhanced, gave it a raw quality. Quite GTA esq! - 9/10

A History Of Violence - The big brother piece to Eastern Promises, I didn't enjoy it quite as much. The direction is superb, weighty. The feeble plot, not so much. But that sex scene on the stairs, wow. Best I've seen. Captures the raw passion, mystery and occasional violence of the carnal act that drives us and provided a great balance to the earlier love making scene. Still didn't grab me as much as I would have expected - 6/10

Blade Runner - I'm 28, love movies, first time I've seen it. The special effects and the ambiance of the piece have stood the test of time, though I found Rutger Hauer hamming it up as off putting as usual. Ford at his best mind you and I liked the futuristic twist on Film Noir. Not bad at all, glad I watched the Final Cut rather than the earlier version for obvious reasons - 8/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CI+WHO+GOES+THERE.jpg

That pic is close to the original description of the monster.

Here's another.

1zd6pua.jpg

In 1939 this guy was loose on a human starship, snatching the crew one by one to plant a single egg in each.

2q3ytyq.jpg

All hail the Golden Age of Science Fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Highlander_2_poster.jpg

Possibly the worst sequel to a movie i have ever seen they should have stopped after highlander THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE

Where should i start, this has so many plot holes its untrue they do not continue the story from highlander and how the hell ramirez is alive i will never know considering he got his head chopped off in the first they didnt explain how he suddenly arrives perfectly healthy head intact... horrific special effects by nineties standards and terrible fight choreography

Ill give it a 2 out of 10 just for michael ironside who plays a great villain as usual

I won't defend the film at all, as I think it was catastrophal and I wonder why someone like Connery even considered to do it. But the the reason he could come back, wasn't that because the whole idea was changed in this painfull sequel? All the immortals came from another planet as some kind of punishment and once they were dead they went back to that planet alive again and then could be sent back to earth to again be immortal. Really, really good plot that... :evil:

Watched "The Adjustment bureau" yesterday and thought it was quite ok. A bit different. I liked it. Probably a 6/10 for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I loved how he was portrayed. Beautifully designed. Awesome film. One of the best horrors I've seen in a good while. I think you're just hard to please leemond. I think the 80's horror era was for you.

Didn't mean that as harsh as it sounded by the way! I only say it because me and somebody at work were talking about horror movies of today in comparison to 20 years ago. You'd think with all the new CGI and latest technology any movie would blow films of 10, 20, 30 years ago away but they don't (in some people's opinions anyway). Especially with re-makes! Like we were discussing the other day you personally prefer the I spit on your grave original to the remake. Just out of interest, why?

I did say that I thought it was decent as far as recent horrors go, it just felt as though they didnt know where to take it and they pasted two completely different films onto the ends of each other and the second half completely lost the mood and feeling of the first.

as for ISOYG I prefered the originaly because there was more athmosphere in it, the lead character didn't need to rely on the witty little one liners when extracting her revenge and the remake was a lot less beleiveable in the respect that the lead character all of a sudden becomes an expert in booby traps and torture, in the original a bath and a meat cleaver are more than enough lol

I appreciate all horrors regardless of when they were made right up to the scream films and the unborn etc etc... that said the old ones are still the best lol

If you are talking about Insidious, I thought it was a terrible film. The plot was ALL over the place, the comedy monsters weren't either scary enough or amusing enough, the screenplay was diabolical. I understood the homages but they were poorly acted, poorly directed and often made a mockery of the originals. Only again, it wasn't intended to be a spoof, despite coming across as a dreadful one.

Hated it. Worst film I've seen this year by far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinda looking forward to seeing Hugo, in 3D and all.

If anyone can convert me, Scorsese can!

I'm looking forward to seeing this too.

I'm still not a fan of 3D though and don't think I ever will be. From the films I have seen in 3D thus far though, my opinion is that it works best in animated films. 'Avatar' was the exception, although I think that was ruined by a dull plot and a battle scene that was far too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm unconvinced, but I think there is an element of snobbery when it comes to 3D. Fair enough, if it's fitted in post-production for the pure reason of a 'gimmick' to make more money, then I don't like it. Really because it costs more money for a shitter quality of film, it's unfair and just pure greed. But if a director chooses to shoot in 3D and wants to experiment with the new technology, then I don't like people getting all pissy about it simply because it's in 3D. The reaction to Hugo seems to be good so far however.

Imax is still the best, mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched "Brick" the othernight. Thoguht it was excellent.

People I watched it with didn't really like it but they failed to see that it was a noir style in a modern setting and so just thought it was "overacted" and had a weird script.

I loved it though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â