80's thriller, with Christopher Walken in chilling form. It's apparently based on a true story. Sean Penn plays a teenager in a dead-end town who is drawn into the violent world of his long-absent father (Walken). There's great support from the late Chris Penn, Crispin Glover and a remarkably-young looking Kiefer Sutherland (He must have been about 17 when he made this).
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,703MI6 Agent
On Her Majestys Secret Service
Dipped into the UE again today. I have to admit, it was weird to see Lazenby in the role of James Bond. But I did enjoy this movie alot. Some parts seem to move slowly, but my favorite part of the movie had to be the assualt on Piz Gloria. I do have one question. The line The World Is Not Enough is mentioned from the coat of arms for the Bond family (I think it was Bonds family coat of arms?). Was that line the inspiration for the movie of the same name?
I give OHMSS 4 out of 5 stars.
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
80's thriller, with Christopher Walken in chilling form. It's apparently based on a true story. Sean Penn plays a teenager in a dead-end town who is drawn into the violent world of his long-absent father (Walken). There's great support from the late Chris Penn, Crispin Glover and a remarkably-young looking Kiefer Sutherland (He must have been about 17 when he made this).
"Where ya gonna go?!? How ya gonna pay?!?"
Walken is truly monstrous in this one. Very underrated film, IMO. And, an example of Madonna (married to Penn at the time) actually contributing an excellent song to a film ("Live To Tell") unlike a certain film familiar to the AJB crowd.
My latest is Mission: Impossible 2. It scores the trifecta -- silly, sillier and silliest. Thandie Newton and Sydney both look lovely, however.
'Live to Tell' is a fantastic song. And can you imagine Walken being allowed to be that viscious in AVTAK. A whole generation of 80's kids would still be in therapy. )
I saw Hostel 2. Eli Roth is the biggest hack in the world. A vile, misogynist prat who recycles the style of 70's horrors, to little effect. Worse still is him daring to use music from The Wicker Man, a genuinely great horror film. There's no tension in Roth's work. No wit, or scares, or anything else that makes a horror film really work. There's just monotonous violence and for all the boasting the guy does about the gore he uses, this film is really not that bloody. In fact compared to somebody like Dario Argento, Roth is an absolute pansy. Although what is appalling and what marks him out as being an absolute worthless dick is his treatment of women. The scene where Heather Matarazzo is tortured is reprehensible, and well worth some karma-style payback. Eli Roth is a cretin and I seriously hope he gets his one day soon. That might sound harsh, but only talent matters. Roth has none, so who cares. They are hosting The Wicker Man festival soon. If they want to go the whole hog and use a human sacrifice, well I can nominate a certain film director. So, as you may have guessed, I didn't like this movie very much. )
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited July 2007
"Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix"
Took Loeff Jr and Loeff III this evening. These films really are getting darker as they go, due as much to the chosen colour palette as the subject matter itself. The progression of these films, from the first to the fifth, has been interesting to watch.
This one is of particular interest: the longest book in the canon (through the first six! ) is adapted into the shortest of the films thus far. Having just read the Potter books for the first time this Spring, I share a few minor frustrations with fans of the books---i.e., the necessary shortcuts, omissions and compositing necessary to 'squeeze the story in.' It's quite easy to understand how someone who hasn't read the books will get a bit lost in Act II of this one...
But ultimately it's a great time, with a very thrilling final act. A veritable 'Who's Who' of great British film talent...Special kudos to Imelda Staunton, whose portrayal of the 'Wicked in Pink' Dolores Umbridge makes her one of the best villains on the big screen this year :v
If you're a fan of the Boy Who Lived, it's naturally a 'must see.'
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Letters from Iwo Jima. I thought Clint Eastwood's "American" take on the Iwo Jima story, Flags of Our Fathers, was a bit of a muddle, but his "Japanese" version is stunningly good. A sympathetic treatment of some brave men doing their duty although they know they're on a suicide mission. Ken Watanabe is especially good here. Highly recommended.
Letters from Iwo Jima. I thought Clint Eastwood's "American" take on the Iwo Jima story, Flags of Our Fathers, was a bit of a muddle, but his "Japanese" version is stunningly good. A sympathetic treatment of some brave men doing their duty although they know they're on a suicide mission. Ken Watanabe is especially good here. Highly recommended.
I loved Letters from Iwo Jima. I also very much enjoyed Flags of Our Fathers (the last few sequences in Flags of Our Fathers put a huge lump in my throat) but I agree that Letters from Iwo Jima is the better film. Eastwood truly is a wonderful filmamker. {[] He is, in fact, one of my gods!
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I will echo many previous posters' sentiments: darker, more violent, etc. On the negative side, the shortcuts were evident, even to someone like me who hasn't read the novel. And the final showdown seemed a little too generically "action-filmish" to me. Felt like a light saber battle from 30 years before.
On the plus side, I absolutely agree that Radcliffe's acting has improved a ton. That's important for OOTP because this story (the film version, at least) is more Harry-centric than the others. Also, it's always nice to see Oldman act when he's NOT munching the scenery.
My favorite scene: when Harry (and the audience) learns for the first time that his father wasn't always a great guy.
All in all, as far as the five films, I would slot it right in the middle, behind POA and SS and ahead of GOF and COS.
Very funny comedy from Mike Judge. Luke Wilson (whom I much prefer to his more famous brother), is very good as an averagely intelligent soldier who takes part in a military experiment, but ends up 500 years in a future where everybody is really stupid. It's a real pity the studio that made this decided to bury it. It's better than most of the comedies that get released in cinemas and I highly recommend it.
A real feel good movie and great to see see John Travolta singing and dancing again (even if it does mean him making eyes at Christopher Walken!) . Excellent turn from Michelle Pfeiffer too.
I saw Hostel 2. Eli Roth is the biggest hack in the world. A vile, misogynist prat who recycles the style of 70's horrors, to little effect. There's just monotonous violence and for all the boasting the guy does about the gore he uses, this film is really not that bloody. In fact compared to somebody like Dario Argento, Roth is an absolute pansy. Although what is appalling and what marks him out as being an absolute worthless dick is his treatment of women. The scene where Heather Matarazzo is tortured is reprehensible
Okay, JD, but there are some mixed messages here... I'd have thought Hotel 2's reputation preceded itself, so why did you see it? As for the torture scene, yes, it's grim but I thought that was horror's raison d'etre? I've not seen Hostel 2, don't really fancy it.
Okay, JD, but there are some mixed messages here... I'd have thought Hotel 2's reputation preceded itself, so why did you see it?
Good point. )
I'm interested in the horror genre and feel obliged to see anything that gets people talking about it. There's been a lot of stuff in the media about the rise of what has been termed 'torture porn;' movies that feature graphic scenes of violence, (usually involving women), but seem to have no other point at all. I wanted to have an opinion. And of course you can't really have an opinion of something you haven't seen. But, I didn't go to the cinema. Somebody posted it online so I watched it. I wouldn't have sought it out otherwise and i certainly wouldn't have parted company with money to do so.
As for the torture scene, yes, it's grim but I thought that was horror's raison d'etre?
I think the horror genre is about so much more than gore. Hostel 2 is gory, but little else. Essentially it is The Most Dangerous Game but remade by an idiot. There are themes present here, but they are not developed in any way. They are used as an excuse, whereas a more gifted storyteller would have developed them and taken them further. Somebody like Dario Argento at the peak of his powers would also have turned this into something mournful and strange. Roth just gives us the basics. It's horrific, but it's not horror. It sickens the stomach, but it doesn't give us nightmares in the same way that some of the great films of the genre do. Robert Wise's version of The Haunting has no violence at all, but is genuinely frightening. Conversely, a lot of the American and Italian horror films of the 70's are very violent, but have what one critic referred to as a 'knowing sadness' about them. That's also present in The Wicker Man and it's one of the reasons I hated them using the music from that film. There's nothing like that in Hostel 2. The only thing you come away with from watching that is a feeling that the guy who made it is probably a creep.
I saw Hostel 2. Eli Roth is the biggest hack in the world. A vile, misogynist prat....
I disagree. I've read this in one of my newspapers and this quite annoyed me. I don't like Hostel 2 at all. I think it's a horrible film and I only saw it because I have a friend who loves horror films and because the first Hostel was actually quite good (based on the first one, I would have said that Roth has got a big future ahead of him.) However I don't think he's a misogynist. If anything he's a misandrist. Yes, there was that disqusting torture scene, but I think that Hostel 2 and other 'new slasher films (or torture porn; I like that ) now have men as the target whereas the traditional slasher film had women as the target. Again, I'm not defending the film (although I don't think it's as offensive as some so-called 'serious' films) but I think that your description of Roth is a little unfair. Finally, as to whether he's a creep' who knows? However he certainly knows how to bring in the crowds. At the end of the day, I think it's an horrible film that is not as disgusting as some people think it is, although it is certainly up there.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Well I've not seen it so in that sense my opinion is flawed. I remember someone saying about Kill Bill that we were meant to rejoice when a teenage girl dies crying tears of blood. Sickening, but when you see the film and it's Yo You, the nastiest piece of work ever, out to murder our Uma, rejoice you do.
I agree about the misandrist tag (nice one DS, that's a word that don't get out much!), I mean how do you differ from tortured blokes/women? I suppose if blokes were being tortured by female directors and writers it would have a different dimension.
I saw Hostel 2. Eli Roth is the biggest hack in the world. A vile, misogynist prat....
Maybe I went a little over the top, but I'd just seen and hated that movie. I stand by the claim that he is a hack though. )
If anything he's a misandrist.
I actually had to look that word up. ) I think you are right about Roth attempting to balance things out by making the male characters so vile. I would disagree however that Roth added anything new to the slasher film. He has slavishly followed the rules laid down by others, Carpenter, Craven etc. I'll spoiler the next part in case anybody wants to see the movie.
There are three girls to start with. Two of them die after making the fatal mistake as pointed out by the film geek in Scream. They have, or are considering having sex. Big mistake. In this type of movie it's just the first, small step towards being brutally slain.
However, there will be one female, let's call her the lone survivor, for sadly her friends will not be making it home, who will cope with the horror. She'll be pretty, rather than hot. She won't sleep around. She's nice to people, even if they are gimps like the sad-assed American who talks to her at the party, and whose penis she will later remove. It is her who emerges through the carnage by finding reserves of strength and a capacity for violence she didn't know she had. What Roth did that I liked was end the film with her transformed into an angel of death. That was great, and IMO it is how Wes Craven should have ended the Scream franchise.
You can certainly make a strong feminist case in favour of Hostel 2. However I've seen similar defences of I Spit on Your Grave and I don't buy them. When women are getting attacked in Roth's movies, I can practically hear him saying, "Dude, check out the hot chick getting butchered." It's bizarre how I can waste my time getting worked up over a film I didn't even like. I could make the same arguments about misogyny about Dario Argento, but the difference between them is that Argento has, or had at one point talent, and created these strange dream-like films that got under your skin. Suspiria freaked me out when I saw it for the first time. That's my problem with Roth. He's nobody, but he acts like he's one of the greats. I should have just written, 'saw Hostel 2 despite my better instincts. It was sh***.' That's all there really was to say. )
Incidentally, I have also seen Live Free and Die Hard, or Die Hard 4.0 depending on where you live. The cyber-stuff was kind of dull, (only 24 really makes computers and stuff thrilling), but the action was great and Timothy Olyphant and Maggie Q made a cute couple; for a couple of psychos.
I actually had to look that word up. ) I think you are right about Roth attempting to balance things out by making the male characters so vile. I would disagree however that Roth added anything new to the slasher film. He has slavishly followed the rules laid down by others, Carpenter, Craven etc. I'll spoiler the next part in case anybody wants to see the movie.
There are three girls to start with. Two of them die after making the fatal mistake as pointed out by the film geek in Scream. They have, or are considering having sex. Big mistake. In this type of movie it's just the first, small step towards being brutally slain.
However, there will be one female, let's call her the lone survivor, for sadly her friends will not be making it home, who will cope with the horror. She'll be pretty, rather than hot. She won't sleep around. She's nice to people, even if they are gimps like the sad-assed American who talks to her at the party, and whose penis she will later remove. It is her who emerges through the carnage by finding reserves of strength and a capacity for violence she didn't know she had. What Roth did that I liked was end the film with her transformed into an angel of death. That was great, and IMO it is how Wes Craven should have ended the Scream franchise.
I actually think that Roth more than balanced things out. If you take the two Hostel films, virtually all of the victims are male, and most of the women that are killed, are killed by other women. That is why I think that it is unfair to accuse Roth of being misogynistic, as IMO he is not. BTW, while I thought that the first film was pretty interesting (due to its political subtext and male-as-victim twist), I don't think that Roth will ever be as influential as Carpenter, Craven etc... John, I might have been impressed with the first Hostel, but that doesn't make me a fan of Roth.
You can certainly make a strong feminist case in favour of Hostel 2. However I've seen similar defences of I Spit on Your Grave and I don't buy them. When women are getting attacked in Roth's movies, I can practically hear him saying, "Dude, check out the hot chick getting butchered."
Again, I don't think that is what Roth is thinking, but it's interesting that you bring up I Spit on Your Grave. I think it's disgusting but not simply because it's misogonystic. When I come across a film with the type of violence of I Spit on Your Grave, I ask myself three questions:
1)Is the type, and level, of violence relevant to the story? (such as with a Scorsese film)
2)Does it have enetertainment/artistic value and/or style? (like many action films)
3)If the answer is no to the above questions, can I still leave without wanting to take a shower? (unlike with Robocop 2)
In the case of I Spit on Your Grave, the answer to all three questions IMO was no. That is why I think it was a disgusting film. (And an uterly pointless one at that.)
I could make the same arguments about misogyny about Dario Argento, but the difference between them is that Argento has, or had at one point talent, and created these strange dream-like films that got under your skin. Suspiria freaked me out when I saw it for the first time. That's my problem with Roth. He's nobody, but he acts like he's one of the greats. I should have just written, 'saw Hostel 2 despite my better instincts. It was sh***.' That's all there really was to say. )
Indeed. That is all there is to say. I think you hit the nail on the head. Whether Roth is misogynistic or not, he is clearly no autaur and so my advice is to just ignore him and see films by a director that you do like. (It's like with me. My intention is to ignore each film from Von Trier and Paul Haggis, unless it's exceptional circmstances.)
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I suppose if blokes were being tortured by female directors and writers it would have a different dimension.
That's an interesting point. Is it less sexist if a female director is directing a film about women getting tortured and a male director is directing a film about men getting tortured? Personally, I think it comes down to the context of the film, what is the point and message (if any) of the torture and whether it has any artistic merit. I don't think that a woman being tortured in a film by a male director (and vice verca) is automatically sexist but if it doesn't fit the plot/context of the film, has no social/entertainment/artistic value and isn't stylish, has seemingly no point and is something that goes beyond that other films of the same genre consider to be reasonable, then IMO it may be considered misogynistic or misandrist. At the end of the day, though, I think each film should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
The Simpsons Movie. I was a little apprehensive about this one, fearing that it might be just an elongated Simpsons episode. I also feel that the best days of that programme were quite a long time ago. Nevertheless, I went and ended up having an excellent time. They have managed to make the animation look great on the big screen without losing the 'Simpsons' feel, and the longer running time has allowed the film-makers to introduce a more ambitious plot and some dramatic moments. I won't give anything away, but I feel they managed to transfer the programme to the cinema very well indeed, with some intelligent and pertinent humour and social commentary as well as the visual jokes.
The best thing, however, that could probably be said is that it *didn't* feel like a long Simpsons episode. Definitely worth the money.
Last night I watched the 2005 remake of the 1919 silent classic, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. The idea is interesting--digitally insert modern actors into a print of the original film--but the result is laughable. The dialogue is terrible and the acting is deliberately stylized and silly. Poor Doug Jones--who's played Abe Sapien, the Faun and the "Pale Man" from Pan's Labyrinth, and the Silver Surfer, but who's usually buried under makeup and has his lines dubbed--is cast as Cesare, the role that made Conrad Veidt a star; but Jones looks like a drag queen playing Audrey Hepburn in her skin-tight black leotard from Funny Face. Stick with the silent original.
Last night I watched the 2005 remake of the 1919 silent classic, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. The idea is interesting--digitally insert modern actors into a print of the original film--but the result is laughable. The dialogue is terrible and the acting is deliberately stylized and silly. Poor Doug Jones--who's played Abe Sapien, the Faun and the "Pale Man" from Pan's Labyrinth, and the Silver Surfer, but who's usually buried under makeup and has his lines dubbed--is cast as Cesare, the role that made Conrad Veidt a star; but Jones looks like a drag queen playing Audrey Hepburn in her skin-tight black leotard from Funny Face. Stick with the silent original.
That sounds so crazy that I actually want to see it just to wonder what on earth they were thinking. I can't imagine anybody else doing what Viedt did in that movie.
I was impressed by 28 Weeks Later. A fine sequel that follows on from events in the original. London is declared safe and re-population is underway, but unfortunately the rage virus hasn't quite left town. The underrated Jeremy Renner is very effective as a US sniper and Harold Perrineau from Lost is in there too. There's a couple of wrenching scenes, most notably when one of the most sympathetic characters is dispatched in horrific fashion. Expect '28 Months Later' to appear at some point. It's about time Britain had it's own Zombie trilogy.
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
edited July 2007
I settled in last night to watch a couple of horror films in my collection. I started off with:
Nosferatu; Eine Symphonie Des Grauens
I love silent films, always have since childhood. Max Schreck's vampire version as always disturbed me visually; I remember as a kid not sleeping for nights in a row from viewing this picture for the first time.
I then put on:
SALEM'S LOT (1979)
Arguably one of the few Stephen King adaptations that's really good. The remarkable thing about this picture was that it was made for tv and after all these years still makes a frightful impact. I remember the remake a few years ago that was pretty much meh... 8-)
For those who've seen this back in the day...Were you afraid to look at your bedroom window in the middle of the night?
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Last night I saw: Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix
Visually, it's quite good, with some believable special effects, and up until about 2/3rds through the film I was really enjoying myself, but then I started to wonder. I knew the plot wasn't really going to build to any solid climax, and the movie just felt like it was building up for the events in Book 7.
To be honest though, I have only read snipets of the Harry Potter books, so I'm sure that if I had read The Order Of The Phoenix before going in movie, I probably would have enjoyed the film much more.
And on Friday Night, I saw: The Simpsons Movie
Now this was a delightful romp! I have been a Simpsons fan since the first episode aired here in Australia many many moons ago, so you might say I'm biased, but I don't care, I loved this film. I laughed, as did the entire audience. Whilst some people moan about the decline of the show's quality in recent years (yes, me too) they can rest assured, the team redeemed themselves with the movie. Perhaps they were saving all the good jokes for the film? That's what I've been thinking for some time now.
The only thing I felt was wasted, was the use of the peripheral characters. I'm a big Chief Wiggum fan, and my fiance is a Ralphie fan, and we both agreed they weren't in the film long enough. To put it into perspective, Apu didn't even say "Thank you, come again". Oh well. Anyway, if you enjoyed the TV show, especially the earlier season, then I say you should go and see this film, you'll enjoy it.
Drawn Out Dad.
Independent, one-shot comic books from the outskirts of Melbourne, Australia.
twitter.com/DrawnOutDad
Tee HeeCBT Headquarters: Chicago, ILPosts: 917MI6 Agent
edited July 2007
Catch Me If You Can
The true story of Frank Abagnale Jr., a young con artist who successfully impersonated an airline pilot, doctor, and assistant district attorney. Abagnale also mastered the art of forging checks, which he used to cheat the global economy out of millions. The FBI sends Lt. Carl Hanratty to follow the paper trail and arrest Abagnale. His pursuit of Abagnale turns out to be quite the cat and mouse chase.
Leonardo DiCaprio is at his best, as is Tom Hanks and Christopher Walken. A thoroughly entertaining film; I was particularly impressed with the character development. The film contains a lot of "laugh out loud" moments as well as a scene that will make any Bond fan smile. A well spent 2.5 hours. Steven Spielberg does it again!
Edit: Yay! 4000 posts! {[]
"My acting range? Left eyebrow raised, right eyebrow raised..."
What a great film this was. Not only was it visually unbelievable and the action was non stop. It was also quite funny, which was unexpected. It dragged slightly at the end. But this is definitely one of the best new films I have seen for quite a while.
By any chance is that Transformers? Or a movie I haven't heard of?
I am shocked at you, H.B., where have you been? In a coma? This film is the sequel to Transporter 2 where they clone Jason Statham about a half dozen times for a mission for the phone company...
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
After the high of Transformers, what a massive let down. I was expecting to really like this. But it barely bought a smile to my face let alone a laugh. The only genuine laugh came from the spider pig moment, and the fact that it was German and the title translates to "Die Simpsons" (Not intended). A massive let down after waiting so long.
Comments
80's thriller, with Christopher Walken in chilling form. It's apparently based on a true story. Sean Penn plays a teenager in a dead-end town who is drawn into the violent world of his long-absent father (Walken). There's great support from the late Chris Penn, Crispin Glover and a remarkably-young looking Kiefer Sutherland (He must have been about 17 when he made this).
Dipped into the UE again today. I have to admit, it was weird to see Lazenby in the role of James Bond. But I did enjoy this movie alot. Some parts seem to move slowly, but my favorite part of the movie had to be the assualt on Piz Gloria. I do have one question. The line The World Is Not Enough is mentioned from the coat of arms for the Bond family (I think it was Bonds family coat of arms?). Was that line the inspiration for the movie of the same name?
I give OHMSS 4 out of 5 stars.
Walken is truly monstrous in this one. Very underrated film, IMO. And, an example of Madonna (married to Penn at the time) actually contributing an excellent song to a film ("Live To Tell") unlike a certain film familiar to the AJB crowd.
My latest is Mission: Impossible 2. It scores the trifecta -- silly, sillier and silliest. Thandie Newton and Sydney both look lovely, however.
I saw Hostel 2. Eli Roth is the biggest hack in the world. A vile, misogynist prat who recycles the style of 70's horrors, to little effect. Worse still is him daring to use music from The Wicker Man, a genuinely great horror film. There's no tension in Roth's work. No wit, or scares, or anything else that makes a horror film really work. There's just monotonous violence and for all the boasting the guy does about the gore he uses, this film is really not that bloody. In fact compared to somebody like Dario Argento, Roth is an absolute pansy. Although what is appalling and what marks him out as being an absolute worthless dick is his treatment of women. The scene where Heather Matarazzo is tortured is reprehensible, and well worth some karma-style payback. Eli Roth is a cretin and I seriously hope he gets his one day soon. That might sound harsh, but only talent matters. Roth has none, so who cares. They are hosting The Wicker Man festival soon. If they want to go the whole hog and use a human sacrifice, well I can nominate a certain film director. So, as you may have guessed, I didn't like this movie very much.
Took Loeff Jr and Loeff III this evening. These films really are getting darker as they go, due as much to the chosen colour palette as the subject matter itself. The progression of these films, from the first to the fifth, has been interesting to watch.
This one is of particular interest: the longest book in the canon (through the first six!
But ultimately it's a great time, with a very thrilling final act. A veritable 'Who's Who' of great British film talent...Special kudos to Imelda Staunton, whose portrayal of the 'Wicked in Pink' Dolores Umbridge makes her one of the best villains on the big screen this year :v
If you're a fan of the Boy Who Lived, it's naturally a 'must see.'
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I will echo many previous posters' sentiments: darker, more violent, etc. On the negative side, the shortcuts were evident, even to someone like me who hasn't read the novel. And the final showdown seemed a little too generically "action-filmish" to me. Felt like a light saber battle from 30 years before.
On the plus side, I absolutely agree that Radcliffe's acting has improved a ton. That's important for OOTP because this story (the film version, at least) is more Harry-centric than the others. Also, it's always nice to see Oldman act when he's NOT munching the scenery.
My favorite scene: when Harry (and the audience) learns for the first time that his father wasn't always a great guy.
All in all, as far as the five films, I would slot it right in the middle, behind POA and SS and ahead of GOF and COS.
Very funny comedy from Mike Judge. Luke Wilson (whom I much prefer to his more famous brother), is very good as an averagely intelligent soldier who takes part in a military experiment, but ends up 500 years in a future where everybody is really stupid. It's a real pity the studio that made this decided to bury it. It's better than most of the comedies that get released in cinemas and I highly recommend it.
Loved it,loved it, loved it.
A real feel good movie and great to see see John Travolta singing and dancing again (even if it does mean him making eyes at Christopher Walken!) . Excellent turn from Michelle Pfeiffer too.
Okay, JD, but there are some mixed messages here... I'd have thought Hotel 2's reputation preceded itself, so why did you see it?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Good point.
I'm interested in the horror genre and feel obliged to see anything that gets people talking about it. There's been a lot of stuff in the media about the rise of what has been termed 'torture porn;' movies that feature graphic scenes of violence, (usually involving women), but seem to have no other point at all. I wanted to have an opinion. And of course you can't really have an opinion of something you haven't seen. But, I didn't go to the cinema. Somebody posted it online so I watched it. I wouldn't have sought it out otherwise and i certainly wouldn't have parted company with money to do so.
I think the horror genre is about so much more than gore. Hostel 2 is gory, but little else. Essentially it is The Most Dangerous Game but remade by an idiot. There are themes present here, but they are not developed in any way. They are used as an excuse, whereas a more gifted storyteller would have developed them and taken them further. Somebody like Dario Argento at the peak of his powers would also have turned this into something mournful and strange. Roth just gives us the basics. It's horrific, but it's not horror. It sickens the stomach, but it doesn't give us nightmares in the same way that some of the great films of the genre do. Robert Wise's version of The Haunting has no violence at all, but is genuinely frightening. Conversely, a lot of the American and Italian horror films of the 70's are very violent, but have what one critic referred to as a 'knowing sadness' about them. That's also present in The Wicker Man and it's one of the reasons I hated them using the music from that film. There's nothing like that in Hostel 2. The only thing you come away with from watching that is a feeling that the guy who made it is probably a creep.
I agree about the misandrist tag (nice one DS, that's a word that don't get out much!), I mean how do you differ from tortured blokes/women? I suppose if blokes were being tortured by female directors and writers it would have a different dimension.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I actually think that Roth more than balanced things out. If you take the two Hostel films, virtually all of the victims are male, and most of the women that are killed, are killed by other women. That is why I think that it is unfair to accuse Roth of being misogynistic, as IMO he is not. BTW, while I thought that the first film was pretty interesting (due to its political subtext and male-as-victim twist), I don't think that Roth will ever be as influential as Carpenter, Craven etc... John, I might have been impressed with the first Hostel, but that doesn't make me a fan of Roth.
Again, I don't think that is what Roth is thinking, but it's interesting that you bring up I Spit on Your Grave. I think it's disgusting but not simply because it's misogonystic. When I come across a film with the type of violence of I Spit on Your Grave, I ask myself three questions:
1)Is the type, and level, of violence relevant to the story? (such as with a Scorsese film)
2)Does it have enetertainment/artistic value and/or style? (like many action films)
3)If the answer is no to the above questions, can I still leave without wanting to take a shower? (unlike with Robocop 2)
In the case of I Spit on Your Grave, the answer to all three questions IMO was no. That is why I think it was a disgusting film. (And an uterly pointless one at that.)
I got worked up over Crash, a film, which I detest and which IMO is a vastly more offensive film than Hostel 2.
Indeed. That is all there is to say. I think you hit the nail on the head. Whether Roth is misogynistic or not, he is clearly no autaur and so my advice is to just ignore him and see films by a director that you do like. (It's like with me. My intention is to ignore each film from Von Trier and Paul Haggis, unless it's exceptional circmstances.)
That's an interesting point. Is it less sexist if a female director is directing a film about women getting tortured and a male director is directing a film about men getting tortured? Personally, I think it comes down to the context of the film, what is the point and message (if any) of the torture and whether it has any artistic merit. I don't think that a woman being tortured in a film by a male director (and vice verca) is automatically sexist but if it doesn't fit the plot/context of the film, has no social/entertainment/artistic value and isn't stylish, has seemingly no point and is something that goes beyond that other films of the same genre consider to be reasonable, then IMO it may be considered misogynistic or misandrist. At the end of the day, though, I think each film should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
The best thing, however, that could probably be said is that it *didn't* feel like a long Simpsons episode. Definitely worth the money.
That sounds so crazy that I actually want to see it just to wonder what on earth they were thinking. I can't imagine anybody else doing what Viedt did in that movie.
I was impressed by 28 Weeks Later. A fine sequel that follows on from events in the original. London is declared safe and re-population is underway, but unfortunately the rage virus hasn't quite left town. The underrated Jeremy Renner is very effective as a US sniper and Harold Perrineau from Lost is in there too. There's a couple of wrenching scenes, most notably when one of the most sympathetic characters is dispatched in horrific fashion. Expect '28 Months Later' to appear at some point. It's about time Britain had it's own Zombie trilogy.
Nosferatu; Eine Symphonie Des Grauens
I love silent films, always have since childhood. Max Schreck's vampire version as always disturbed me visually; I remember as a kid not sleeping for nights in a row from viewing this picture for the first time.
I then put on:
SALEM'S LOT (1979)
Arguably one of the few Stephen King adaptations that's really good. The remarkable thing about this picture was that it was made for tv and after all these years still makes a frightful impact. I remember the remake a few years ago that was pretty much meh... 8-)
For those who've seen this back in the day...Were you afraid to look at your bedroom window in the middle of the night?
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix
Visually, it's quite good, with some believable special effects, and up until about 2/3rds through the film I was really enjoying myself, but then I started to wonder. I knew the plot wasn't really going to build to any solid climax, and the movie just felt like it was building up for the events in Book 7.
To be honest though, I have only read snipets of the Harry Potter books, so I'm sure that if I had read The Order Of The Phoenix before going in movie, I probably would have enjoyed the film much more.
And on Friday Night, I saw:
The Simpsons Movie
Now this was a delightful romp! I have been a Simpsons fan since the first episode aired here in Australia many many moons ago, so you might say I'm biased, but I don't care, I loved this film. I laughed, as did the entire audience. Whilst some people moan about the decline of the show's quality in recent years (yes, me too) they can rest assured, the team redeemed themselves with the movie. Perhaps they were saving all the good jokes for the film? That's what I've been thinking for some time now.
The only thing I felt was wasted, was the use of the peripheral characters. I'm a big Chief Wiggum fan, and my fiance is a Ralphie fan, and we both agreed they weren't in the film long enough. To put it into perspective, Apu didn't even say "Thank you, come again". Oh well. Anyway, if you enjoyed the TV show, especially the earlier season, then I say you should go and see this film, you'll enjoy it.
Independent, one-shot comic books from the outskirts of Melbourne, Australia.
twitter.com/DrawnOutDad
The true story of Frank Abagnale Jr., a young con artist who successfully impersonated an airline pilot, doctor, and assistant district attorney. Abagnale also mastered the art of forging checks, which he used to cheat the global economy out of millions. The FBI sends Lt. Carl Hanratty to follow the paper trail and arrest Abagnale. His pursuit of Abagnale turns out to be quite the cat and mouse chase.
Leonardo DiCaprio is at his best, as is Tom Hanks and Christopher Walken. A thoroughly entertaining film; I was particularly impressed with the character development. The film contains a lot of "laugh out loud" moments as well as a scene that will make any Bond fan smile. A well spent 2.5 hours. Steven Spielberg does it again!
Edit: Yay! 4000 posts! {[]
-Roger Moore
What a great film this was. Not only was it visually unbelievable and the action was non stop. It was also quite funny, which was unexpected. It dragged slightly at the end. But this is definitely one of the best new films I have seen for quite a while.
*****
By any chance is that Transformers? Or a movie I haven't heard of?
I am shocked at you, H.B., where have you been? In a coma? This film is the sequel to Transporter 2 where they clone Jason Statham about a half dozen times for a mission for the phone company...
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Yep, my mistake
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
After the high of Transformers, what a massive let down. I was expecting to really like this. But it barely bought a smile to my face let alone a laugh. The only genuine laugh came from the spider pig moment, and the fact that it was German and the title translates to "Die Simpsons" (Not intended). A massive let down after waiting so long.
**
I'm very sad to say I have to agree with you. It just seemed like an overlong Simpsons episode (which is really what I should have expected).
What a shame. I did like the spider pig moment and there were a couple of chuckles here and there but on the whole, a bit of a let down