The other problem is that it's clearly two movies stitched together that doesn't match in tone.
I liked the body horror. That was interesting
Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
I liked the body horror. That was interesting
My Barnes and Noble Criterion summer sale haul so far:
Army of Shadows
Bruce Lee: His Greatest Hits
Betty Blue
I Knew Her Well
3 Women (Altman)
La Jetee / Sans Soleil
Eight Hours Don't Make a Day (Fassbinder)
Brief Encounter (David Lean)
The Cranes Are Flying
Eight Hours Don't Make a Day is so good. Can't believe it only has 314 IMDB members when it's one of Fassbinder's best. One episode left.
Army of Shadows was also great, a somber suspense drama about the shadowy French resistance fighters in German-occupied France.
I'd seen maybe three Bruce Lee movies previously, Way of the Dragon, Fist of Fury (which are the only ones I've watched from this set so far) and Enter the Dragon (which I'm saving for last). These are nice restorations, considering how poorly Hong Kong is known to treat their old movies. I was shocked last year by how good Police Story 1 and 2 looked. Anyway, I appreciated Way of the Dragon more this second time, once I quickly got used to the light comedy tone. I think watching it in Cantonese instead of English also helped. I have to laugh at the idea of watching it in English. It just doesn't work, him being a foreigner in Italy (English being Italian). There's this one part where the lady character translates for him and the banker. Out of curiosity, I rewinded and watched it in English and found she repeated it to the Lee character like he was deaf.
Watched Cranes Are Flying (center one that's impossible to read), Brief Encounter and La Jetee as Netflix DVD rentals previously and 3 Women on Netflix a couple of years ago. The others are blind buys.
Army of Shadows
Bruce Lee: His Greatest Hits
Betty Blue
I Knew Her Well
3 Women (Altman)
La Jetee / Sans Soleil
Eight Hours Don't Make a Day (Fassbinder)
Brief Encounter (David Lean)
The Cranes Are Flying
Eight Hours Don't Make a Day is so good. Can't believe it only has 314 IMDB members when it's one of Fassbinder's best. One episode left.
Army of Shadows was also great, a somber suspense drama about the shadowy French resistance fighters in German-occupied France.
I'd seen maybe three Bruce Lee movies previously, Way of the Dragon, Fist of Fury (which are the only ones I've watched from this set so far) and Enter the Dragon (which I'm saving for last). These are nice restorations, considering how poorly Hong Kong is known to treat their old movies. I was shocked last year by how good Police Story 1 and 2 looked. Anyway, I appreciated Way of the Dragon more this second time, once I quickly got used to the light comedy tone. I think watching it in Cantonese instead of English also helped. I have to laugh at the idea of watching it in English. It just doesn't work, him being a foreigner in Italy (English being Italian). There's this one part where the lady character translates for him and the banker. Out of curiosity, I rewinded and watched it in English and found she repeated it to the Lee character like he was deaf.
Watched Cranes Are Flying (center one that's impossible to read), Brief Encounter and La Jetee as Netflix DVD rentals previously and 3 Women on Netflix a couple of years ago. The others are blind buys.
Attachments
I feel for the director, he got pretty screwed over with the whole thing having control taken away by corporate meddling and recieving the brunt of ire unfortunately.
Josh Trank on failure of Fantastic Four: Battled insomnia, but writing lengthy journal entries helped
Ahead of the release of his upcoming film Capone, Fantastic Four director Josh Trank opened up about the failure of his 2015 film and how he dealt with it.
The Ballad of Buster Scruggs on Netflix.
Since I'm playing Red Dead Redemption, I remembered this was a thing, it was a Coen Bros film and it's still on netflix so I gave it a try. It's basically an anthology of Western short films rather then one 2 hour film, each with a different take on the genre. They vary in quality and interest level but were all generally good. My two favorites were the titular short film that comes first and the final film "The Mortal Remains".
"Ballad" is basically a wierd take on old school westerns AKA Roy Rogers/Singing Cowboy Westerns but with a fair bit of blood and murder thrown in, which makes it come across as a rather dark comedy, almost akin to a cartoon. TIm Blake Nelson(who was in the previous Coen Film "O Brother where art thou?" and the Watchman series as Looking Glass) does a good job of the strangely likable yet sociopathic white suited cowboy who blows off peoples fingers in duels with trick shots and walks away singing a song.
"The Mortal Remains" follows a group of people on a strange stagecoach ride, where things quickly take a turn for the strange and it's heavily implied(but never confirmed) the coach is actually transporting them to the afterlife. Sure, it's something not unlike a Twilight zone episode but well executed regardless.
Farther down the list "Near Algodones" is a tale of a bank robber who ends up in numerous surreal brushes with death, the most amusing of which is the bank teller(Stephen Root) chasing him down wearing an armor suit made of pots and pans tied around him before bashing him over the head, mocking him every time his gunshots hits a pan "PAN SHOT!"
"Meal Ticket" is strangely minimalist, with an almost silent Liam Neeson and his partner(or son?) running a failing traveling show and is rather tragic and moving.
"All Gold Canyon" and "The GIrl who got rattled" are fine but didn't leave much of an impression on me, though it was nice to see Tom Waites as the main role in "All Gold Canyon"
Overall worth the watch if you're in the mood for a western and the Coen Bros particular brand of filmmaking doesn't bother you.
6 guns / 6 films.
Since I'm playing Red Dead Redemption, I remembered this was a thing, it was a Coen Bros film and it's still on netflix so I gave it a try. It's basically an anthology of Western short films rather then one 2 hour film, each with a different take on the genre. They vary in quality and interest level but were all generally good. My two favorites were the titular short film that comes first and the final film "The Mortal Remains".
"Ballad" is basically a wierd take on old school westerns AKA Roy Rogers/Singing Cowboy Westerns but with a fair bit of blood and murder thrown in, which makes it come across as a rather dark comedy, almost akin to a cartoon. TIm Blake Nelson(who was in the previous Coen Film "O Brother where art thou?" and the Watchman series as Looking Glass) does a good job of the strangely likable yet sociopathic white suited cowboy who blows off peoples fingers in duels with trick shots and walks away singing a song.
"The Mortal Remains" follows a group of people on a strange stagecoach ride, where things quickly take a turn for the strange and it's heavily implied(but never confirmed) the coach is actually transporting them to the afterlife. Sure, it's something not unlike a Twilight zone episode but well executed regardless.
Farther down the list "Near Algodones" is a tale of a bank robber who ends up in numerous surreal brushes with death, the most amusing of which is the bank teller(Stephen Root) chasing him down wearing an armor suit made of pots and pans tied around him before bashing him over the head, mocking him every time his gunshots hits a pan "PAN SHOT!"
"Meal Ticket" is strangely minimalist, with an almost silent Liam Neeson and his partner(or son?) running a failing traveling show and is rather tragic and moving.
"All Gold Canyon" and "The GIrl who got rattled" are fine but didn't leave much of an impression on me, though it was nice to see Tom Waites as the main role in "All Gold Canyon"
Overall worth the watch if you're in the mood for a western and the Coen Bros particular brand of filmmaking doesn't bother you.
6 guns / 6 films.
Last edited:
Man, Game of Death is the worst movie I've seen all year, easily. How do you make a 141 minute movie around like 15 minutes of Bruce Lee footage? The actor playing his character has none of the speed, power or charisma. Story was boring, and I was surprised his love interest wasn't in the ending at all. Should have just watched the included redux, which is much more badly restored, but still.
Last edited:
Honestly, if you have the Enter the Dragon Special Edition, you can just watch the 15 minutes of actual Bruce Lee footage without all of the shit that has nothing to do with anything. It is in the bonus features.
Inland Empire.
Second time watching it after 10 years. One of the best movies ever made. The film is a nightmare made manifest. The shots are all claustrophobic, the atmosphere unnerving, and it has the signature Lynchian "What the fuck is going on" factor turned up to eleven. Almost three hours long, the movie flows like a river. I've watched one and a half hour movies that felt longer than this.
Second time watching it after 10 years. One of the best movies ever made. The film is a nightmare made manifest. The shots are all claustrophobic, the atmosphere unnerving, and it has the signature Lynchian "What the fuck is going on" factor turned up to eleven. Almost three hours long, the movie flows like a river. I've watched one and a half hour movies that felt longer than this.
I think I remember seeing it. That's the one with the "Rabbits" thing intercut into it, right? That's kind of all I remember.
Aye, it's the one with the Rabbits. Ironically, perhaps, one of the more straightforward aspects of the film.
Wicked City, Yoshiaki Kawajiri breakout hit. First time I've ever sat down and watched the film. The movie is not as bad as Bennett made it out to be in his original review. The film is not perfect, but it's got style, atmosphere, and gore. And some good ol' dose of nightmare fuel for an action-horror film. This movie is not for the faint of heart. Plot is that there is the human and the demon world, and conflict between the two. Despite that, there are those on both sides that want peace, but radicals from the demon side that do not want it. In comes Taki, a Black Guard assigned to protect a client who is forming a peace treaty, and is partnered with Makie, a Black Guard from the demon world. I won't saying anything else not to spoil it, but the guy they're supposed to "protect", can be an annoying ass. The film does give clues and hints with what is going on, but it does not make him any less annoying. It's the perverted old man cliche. He is not the worst of this trope, but Roshi and Jiraya would both tell the old fool to turn it down or have some small form of dignity. Overall, I do reccomend, but with caution. This is old-school, ultra-violent, 80s schlock anime. Peace out.
I've seen it four times in the last eleven years. I like its style and wish Japan still made animations like it. I can barely stomach anything they make now.
Found Goku: Midnight Eye pretty average, but I might rewatch it. Maybe my opinion will change slightly after eleven years.
I found it just regular good. It helps that the dub I watched has a young Steve Blum as the title character, in the US dub. The DVD edition I have has the US dub, UK manga dub, and the Japanese with subs.
Stargate (6/10)
So, fresh off the heels of Stargate: Origins (okay, maybe not that fresh), I went back to the original. Now, if you know me (or at least my thoughts on the Stargate IP), it's that I've always had fondness for the original film, even if it's flawed. That even if the Stargate franchise was solidified by SG-1 and the shows that came after it, there's something in what followed that never really captured the essence of the original. That said, going into this film, I was willing to have my opinion shifted. Is it an underrated masterpiece? Or have I had blind nostalgia for it all these years? Having watched it, the answer is...no. Like, on one hand, I still appreciate this film. On the other, I can't deny that it's heavilly flawed, and watching it again, those flaws are even more apparent.
Taking the film as its own thing, it's lacking in a number of ways. The directing feels very 'basic' at times. None of the characters are really that deep, and are archtypes at best. For a film titled "Stargate," it's actually at its weakest when Ra shows up. I watched the director's cut, and there's a few scenes that really COULD be cut out and you'd lose nothing. There's a kind of 'stiffness' to the film, if that makes sense, and it really comes up everywhere. The romance between Daniel and Sha'uri is bad at best, and at worst? Well, considering that this starts with the Abydonians giving her to him as a wife (which he rejects of course), yet she ends up loving him anyway because reasons? Yeah. You can read into that if you want. Similar with Skara. He's your would be slave rebel leader, but he seems quite content with his lot in life, mining for Ra, before these guys come along and decides "hey, maybe I DON'T want to be a slave." Also, the final battle scene. People outside the pyramid surrender, are about to be shot, but are then saved by Kasuf and co. So, um, what was their plan if they DIDN'T come around? Like, I'm not criticizing the idea of "protagonists at their lowest, reinforcements come over the hill to save them," because that idea can work excellently (see the Rohirrim charge in Lord of the Rings). But why not cut out the death gliders, and have it be part of one big battle? Also, these have to be some of the worst special forces in the US military, considering that trained men with machine guns get knocked out with little donks on the head inside a temple, and can't hear big bulky guys with armour sneak up on them.
Least the ma'tok staves are actually dangerous weapons in this version...
Also, there's numerous plot holes in this film. I'm not talking about the liberties SG-1 took, or how well it syncs up with Origins (really, the connective tissue is pointless, and I forgot Origins even existed when watching this). I'm talking about stuff in the film itself. Like, for example:
-If the stargate is found in 1928, and Project Giza begins two years before the film occurs, what was the stargate doing in the decades in-between? Was it stored somewhere? Yes, SG-1 provides the answers, but this film doesn't.
-What exactly was the USAF's plan with the bomb? It's like, we're going to spend all this time and money opening a gateway to another planet, only to send a team to destroy the gate on the other side if there's any sign of danger (a choice O'Neil makes even before Ra turns up apparently). Like, if you're that trigger happy, why bother trying to open the gate at all?
-So what's the deal with Ra and his subjects? Apparently not a single Abydonian in thousands of years has seen a Horus Guard with its helmet off, and up till then, they thought they were gods. But they can still see human skin exposed. Did no-one in thousands of years get the idea that "hey, maybe these guys ARE human?"
-So what's the relationship between Ra and his court/entourage? Does he pluck Abydonians up to serve him? And were those kids onboard his ship when the bomb detonated? If so, yikes. Nice one Jack, you committed mass infanticide.
So, in spite of all this, why isn't this film lower rated? Well, there is stuff I do like. The first thirty minutes is actually reasonably solid (though again, it's arguably against the film that it's best paced before the team go through the gate). Also, Ra is a joy to watch. It's a form of smugness combined with alienness (is that a word?) that sells him. But yeah, it is heavilly flawed. But at the least, I do like the ideas that this film touches, if never fully explores. I may be reading too much into the film, but I'd maintain that at its heart, Stargate is actually a very humanistic film. Like, take the central premise.
Ra turns up in 8000BC, and more or less kickstarts human civilization (yes, we can get into semantics, such as Messopotemia, or what counts as civilization, just bear with me). Thousands of humans are shipped to Abydos which, in this version, is on the other side of the universe. On Earth, rebellion overthrows Ra, and the gate is buried, severing two strands of humanity. Those on Earth, who over thousands of years progress in technology to the point of "mastering the atom," as Ra puts it. On Abydos, the people are kept in slavery, are kept in a state of superstition, writing is outlawed, and spend their working days mining naquedah, while their 'god' lives forever. Yet we do see how the people of Abydos did live in hope, at least at some point. That how they inscribed their history in the cave, along with the chevrons needed to get back to Earth. A sense of hope that they might one day return, or at least be reunited. Only of course, by the time the film occurs, their history's been lost. So cue events of the film, whereas after thousands of years, the two branches of humanity reunite, and both team up to put an end to Ra, using their technology combined with his to end his reign. Technology triumphing oversuperstition and all that.
Now, in fairness, I'm likely reading way too much into things here. This isn't some in-depth examination of the human condition, Stargate is still primarily an adventure film. But it does have this idea lurking in it somewhere. Even SG-1 arguably runs with this theme, even if it's the only Stargate show that did so.
So, at the end of the day, do I reccomend Stargate? Actually, the answer is no. It's not bad, but there's not much that sticks out, and if not for SG-1, the film would have probably languished in obscurity. If you do want to get into the Stargate TV series though, I do reccomend the film actually, because IMO, it's a better starting point than the pilot episode. Yeah, some of the lore doesn't sync up, but it's nothing that can't be handwaved away. But, yeah. Stargate is a film that I retain my fondness for, but it's still a very flawed film.
So, fresh off the heels of Stargate: Origins (okay, maybe not that fresh), I went back to the original. Now, if you know me (or at least my thoughts on the Stargate IP), it's that I've always had fondness for the original film, even if it's flawed. That even if the Stargate franchise was solidified by SG-1 and the shows that came after it, there's something in what followed that never really captured the essence of the original. That said, going into this film, I was willing to have my opinion shifted. Is it an underrated masterpiece? Or have I had blind nostalgia for it all these years? Having watched it, the answer is...no. Like, on one hand, I still appreciate this film. On the other, I can't deny that it's heavilly flawed, and watching it again, those flaws are even more apparent.
Taking the film as its own thing, it's lacking in a number of ways. The directing feels very 'basic' at times. None of the characters are really that deep, and are archtypes at best. For a film titled "Stargate," it's actually at its weakest when Ra shows up. I watched the director's cut, and there's a few scenes that really COULD be cut out and you'd lose nothing. There's a kind of 'stiffness' to the film, if that makes sense, and it really comes up everywhere. The romance between Daniel and Sha'uri is bad at best, and at worst? Well, considering that this starts with the Abydonians giving her to him as a wife (which he rejects of course), yet she ends up loving him anyway because reasons? Yeah. You can read into that if you want. Similar with Skara. He's your would be slave rebel leader, but he seems quite content with his lot in life, mining for Ra, before these guys come along and decides "hey, maybe I DON'T want to be a slave." Also, the final battle scene. People outside the pyramid surrender, are about to be shot, but are then saved by Kasuf and co. So, um, what was their plan if they DIDN'T come around? Like, I'm not criticizing the idea of "protagonists at their lowest, reinforcements come over the hill to save them," because that idea can work excellently (see the Rohirrim charge in Lord of the Rings). But why not cut out the death gliders, and have it be part of one big battle? Also, these have to be some of the worst special forces in the US military, considering that trained men with machine guns get knocked out with little donks on the head inside a temple, and can't hear big bulky guys with armour sneak up on them.
Least the ma'tok staves are actually dangerous weapons in this version...
Also, there's numerous plot holes in this film. I'm not talking about the liberties SG-1 took, or how well it syncs up with Origins (really, the connective tissue is pointless, and I forgot Origins even existed when watching this). I'm talking about stuff in the film itself. Like, for example:
-If the stargate is found in 1928, and Project Giza begins two years before the film occurs, what was the stargate doing in the decades in-between? Was it stored somewhere? Yes, SG-1 provides the answers, but this film doesn't.
-What exactly was the USAF's plan with the bomb? It's like, we're going to spend all this time and money opening a gateway to another planet, only to send a team to destroy the gate on the other side if there's any sign of danger (a choice O'Neil makes even before Ra turns up apparently). Like, if you're that trigger happy, why bother trying to open the gate at all?
-So what's the deal with Ra and his subjects? Apparently not a single Abydonian in thousands of years has seen a Horus Guard with its helmet off, and up till then, they thought they were gods. But they can still see human skin exposed. Did no-one in thousands of years get the idea that "hey, maybe these guys ARE human?"
-So what's the relationship between Ra and his court/entourage? Does he pluck Abydonians up to serve him? And were those kids onboard his ship when the bomb detonated? If so, yikes. Nice one Jack, you committed mass infanticide.
So, in spite of all this, why isn't this film lower rated? Well, there is stuff I do like. The first thirty minutes is actually reasonably solid (though again, it's arguably against the film that it's best paced before the team go through the gate). Also, Ra is a joy to watch. It's a form of smugness combined with alienness (is that a word?) that sells him. But yeah, it is heavilly flawed. But at the least, I do like the ideas that this film touches, if never fully explores. I may be reading too much into the film, but I'd maintain that at its heart, Stargate is actually a very humanistic film. Like, take the central premise.
Ra turns up in 8000BC, and more or less kickstarts human civilization (yes, we can get into semantics, such as Messopotemia, or what counts as civilization, just bear with me). Thousands of humans are shipped to Abydos which, in this version, is on the other side of the universe. On Earth, rebellion overthrows Ra, and the gate is buried, severing two strands of humanity. Those on Earth, who over thousands of years progress in technology to the point of "mastering the atom," as Ra puts it. On Abydos, the people are kept in slavery, are kept in a state of superstition, writing is outlawed, and spend their working days mining naquedah, while their 'god' lives forever. Yet we do see how the people of Abydos did live in hope, at least at some point. That how they inscribed their history in the cave, along with the chevrons needed to get back to Earth. A sense of hope that they might one day return, or at least be reunited. Only of course, by the time the film occurs, their history's been lost. So cue events of the film, whereas after thousands of years, the two branches of humanity reunite, and both team up to put an end to Ra, using their technology combined with his to end his reign. Technology triumphing oversuperstition and all that.
Now, in fairness, I'm likely reading way too much into things here. This isn't some in-depth examination of the human condition, Stargate is still primarily an adventure film. But it does have this idea lurking in it somewhere. Even SG-1 arguably runs with this theme, even if it's the only Stargate show that did so.
So, at the end of the day, do I reccomend Stargate? Actually, the answer is no. It's not bad, but there's not much that sticks out, and if not for SG-1, the film would have probably languished in obscurity. If you do want to get into the Stargate TV series though, I do reccomend the film actually, because IMO, it's a better starting point than the pilot episode. Yeah, some of the lore doesn't sync up, but it's nothing that can't be handwaved away. But, yeah. Stargate is a film that I retain my fondness for, but it's still a very flawed film.
There's also the whole issue with "So, it took us decades to figure out how to open up the gate from this side and we needed Jackson to complete the puzzle. But we're gonna send a team in and HOPE they can find the coordinates on the other side so they can come home". And their backup plan was.....apparently nothing. Coordinates aren't nearby when they go through? Apparently they're stuck there. Hope you guys made your wills.
If it makes you feel better, even at the time people noticed the plot had issues. I saw this when it came out and remember one review said "It's as if the good writers died after the first act". Yeah, I felt it was a cool premise that got hobbled by execution.
Bear in mind I've barely watched SG-1 and a little more of Atlantis and that's it, so the movie is my primary exposure to all of this, so I'm not even comparing it to the shows.
I don't think the first part of that is a plothole per se. It's addressed within the script that it is a bit of a gamble them going through, and Jackson is too confident that there'll be a cartouche on the other side. On the other hand, the apparent lack of a backup plan is pretty glaring when you consider that their time on Abydos place over a few days. Apparently no-one back on Earth thought of dialling the gate again to find out what's going on - like, you can at least send a probe that can transmit back through the stargate, even if matter can't travel backwards.
Yeah, that sounds right. It isn't just the issues of plot, the writing in the first act feels a lot better. The science is tightier, and the dialogue flows better. Come Abydos, there's numerous cases where the dialogue feels awkward, even if the actual lines shouldn't be.
And splitting up once they realised they are under attack. Par for the course for US special forces in movies, though, exactly the way the least trained random doesn't act in real life.
Color Out of Space
It's the missing link between Marlon Brando and Nicholas Cage. Once upon a time a fellow named Richard Stanley tried to direct the former in one of the biggest disasters in movie history and now he has returned to direct the biggest star of our time. Back then it was H.G. Wells and now H.P. Lovecraft that got adapted. Cage and his family - person and alpaca alike - are put to the test by a cosmic horror hitting their front yard. Body horror, insanity, bad CGI, split personality acting, some dumb character moments, and a lot of nice cinematography all come together in a movie that's very much like Annihilation from a couple of years back. Both are about an evil color.
6/10
It's the missing link between Marlon Brando and Nicholas Cage. Once upon a time a fellow named Richard Stanley tried to direct the former in one of the biggest disasters in movie history and now he has returned to direct the biggest star of our time. Back then it was H.G. Wells and now H.P. Lovecraft that got adapted. Cage and his family - person and alpaca alike - are put to the test by a cosmic horror hitting their front yard. Body horror, insanity, bad CGI, split personality acting, some dumb character moments, and a lot of nice cinematography all come together in a movie that's very much like Annihilation from a couple of years back. Both are about an evil color.
6/10
- Nov 27, 2009
- 5,792
- 712
- 118
- Country
- The Dreamlands
- Gender
- Lose 1d20 sanity points.
Probably my bias as a huge Nic Cage fan and a fan of horror movies but I really liked, also I think the already nice cinematography is very much enhanced by the colour palette of the movie, I just think it looks very nice, and the body horror is relatively well done too.
Hellboy II: The Golden Army
Del Toro makes the best Saturday morning cartoons. I don't mean that as an insult and I'm sure he wouldn't consider it one. Hellboy II is a lot of fun, seemingly fueled by a limitless cavalcade of weird creatures and appealing sets, all through practical FX. Characters are likeable and badass but without the cold corporate Disney finish or the awesome-going-on-stupid spectacle of the average blockbuster.
Del Toro makes the best Saturday morning cartoons. I don't mean that as an insult and I'm sure he wouldn't consider it one. Hellboy II is a lot of fun, seemingly fueled by a limitless cavalcade of weird creatures and appealing sets, all through practical FX. Characters are likeable and badass but without the cold corporate Disney finish or the awesome-going-on-stupid spectacle of the average blockbuster.