Batman
Gaffer
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 153
Likes: 34
Location:
Last Online Oct 4, 2014 18:54:10 GMT -5
|
Post by Batman on Oct 6, 2014 7:07:20 GMT -5
I haven't watched A History of Violence since it was released. And Dracula, yes, that Jason movie is awful.
|
|
Deexan
CS! Silver
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 18,196 
Likes: 2,995
Location:
Last Online Nov 13, 2021 19:23:59 GMT -5
|
Post by Deexan on Oct 6, 2014 11:44:49 GMT -5
CLASSIC HORROR POSTERS - DAY #6:
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,645
Likes: 4,060
Location:
Last Online Nov 21, 2024 23:47:45 GMT -5
|
Post by PG Cooper on Oct 6, 2014 21:32:05 GMT -5
6. Hannibal The Silence of the Lambs is one of my favourite films, and has been for a long time. It's sequel, Ridley Scott's Hannibal, is a film I have very mixed feelings about. On this rewatch...my feelings are still very mixed. For one, I really miss Jodie Foster. Don't get me wrong; I love Julianne Moore. She's a fantastic actress and she does her best in Hannibal, but Foster is Clarice Starling, and for her not to fill that role steals a lot of the film's poignancy. The story here is also all over a bit of a mess and at the end of it all I find myself wondering what the point of the whole thing is. Ridley Scott also goes a bit too far stylistically. The rapid cutting and the slow motion feel desperate and it doesn't sit right with me that the film opens on a big shoot-out. The movie also has some shit that's just straight-up stupid (I'm looking at you brain scene). While the filmmakers do make a lot of mistakes, much of this stems from Thomas Harris' novel, which just doesn't seem that great. Now, for the good. Anthony Hopkins is, of course, still awesome as Hannibal Lecter. He's still mesmerising to watch and the way he delivers lines is just great. I also really like where they take Clarice's character. The idea of her feeling betrayed by the system is an interesting one and her conversations with Lecter, especially near the end, are really good. They would have been more effective with Foster, but even so, they still work. Scott also adds a lot of style to the proceedings. He does go too far sometimes, but at other points he really does deliver and can crank the excitement. I also really enjoy the subplot of the detective trying to bring Lecter in on own. Gary Oldman gives a pretty memorable performance too. Hannibal is definitely a misfire, but it isn't completely without merit. If nothing else, it's an interesting little movie. "Would they have you back, you think? The FBI? Those people you despise almost as much as they despise you. Would they give you a medal, Clarice, do you think? Would you have it professionally framed and hang it on your wall to look at and remind you of your courage and incorruptibility? All you would need for that, Clarice, is a mirror." C
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,101
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 3:13:27 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Oct 6, 2014 22:07:21 GMT -5
Film Six: Frankenweenie (2012)
 When I was a kid I was absolutely obsessed with the Universal monsters movies for reasons I don’t think I’ll ever fully be able to explain. I certainly liked the movies to some extent, but really what appealed to me were the monster characters. My favorite was Dracula of course (my online identity would be very different if not for this youthful obsession), but I also couldn’t get enough of Frankenstein, The Mummy, and The Wolf Man. I liked the original movies of course, but I was plenty interested in seeking these monsters out in other mediums as well. I don’t think I was alone in this either, these characters show up all the time in youth-based Halloween fun like breakfast cereals (Count Chocula), video games (Castlevania), boy band music videos (“Backstreet’s Back”), hell there was even an animated Adam Sandler movie about these monsters a couple of years ago. This has been one of the few evergreen multi-generational pop culture interests for children going back to the Great Depression, and one of the many people influenced by them is Tim Burton.
One of Tim Burton’s very first professional projects was actually a tribute to Universal horror: his 30-minute 1984 short film “Frankenweenie.” This live-action short was produced during Burton’s tenure at Disney and was originally going to be attached to a theatrical re-release of the movie Pinocchio but that never really ended up happening and it didn’t really surface to the public until after he became a successful director. The short isn’t exactly the most polished thing ever made but given that it’s essentially a student film with a slightly larger than average budget I think it actually holds up pretty well for what it is. Burton apparently wasn’t content with it though because in 2012 he decided to revisit the project, this time in the form of a feature length stop-motion film made for forty times the budget of the original short.
I had expected the feature-length Frankenweenie to mostly be a remake of the short in name and concept only, but it’s actually a very faithful but heavily expanded adaptation that borrows characters and scenes from the short verbatim. Like the short it is about a grade school kid whose dog is run over by a car and killed, who decides to use some lessons from his science teacher to resurrect the pooch from the dead in a way that is not unlike that of the original “Frankenstein.” What’s oddly unique and interesting about both films is that it’s one of the few retellings of the Frankenstein story that doesn’t damn its protagonist for “playing god” and creating a monster, in fact it rewards him for his brashness and allows his zombie-dog to survive at the end without repercussions and continue to bring joy to his creator. For the most part though, it’s just a cute little story about a boy and his (dead) dog.
Burton learned from the mistakes he made on Corpse Bride and made sure to make Frankenweenie very different from The Nightmare Before Christmas. It isn’t a musical at all and while there is plenty of Halloween material, it’s presented very differently. In the previous Tim Burton stop-motion movies the macabre elements took the form of sentient boogiemen that inhabited monster themed “worlds” whereas here the monsters are all creations that enter into the “real” world of the film and are then slain. The other obvious stylistic difference it that Frankenweenie, like the short it’s based on, is entirely in black and white. It’s a choice that makes perfect sense for the project given that it is a fusion of Universal horror movies and 50s suburban family sitcoms, which are both intrinsically associated with black and white, but I’m willing to bet it was not an easy sell for the money-men. Like Mel Brooks before him, Burton realized that black and white is essential to any quality Universal Horror homage and he was willing to take the hit at the box office that it would entail.
So, which is better “Frankenweenie” the short or Frankenweenie the feature? Well, I think they both have their pros and cons. On one hand I feel like the feature film does need to struggle a little to fill time. The second act is very elongated and at times the movie feels like it is stalling. Victor keeps his resurrected pet hidden for way too long and then once the creature is finally revealed his parents come to accept it way too fast. The meat of the Frankenstein story is supposed to be focused on how people react to the existence of the creature, not the buildup to its revelation. On the other hand, the feature length version does a much better job of explaining why the neighbors react so violently towards Sparky. In the short people freak out even though all the dog has really done is mildly misbehave, whereas in the feature there really is a lot of hell breaking loose and it does make sense that the townspeople would be pissed. Speaking of which, the feature has more than one pet undergoing the resurrection experiment; we get a were-rat, a hamster mummy, a giant Godzilla-ish turtle named Shelly (get it, as in Mary), a brigade of mutated sea-monkeys, and a flying vampiric bat/cat hybrid. I don’t know that this late film chaos really adds a whole lot to the overall story, but it’s mostly good fun.
Overall, I wouldn’t call Frankenweenie some kind of landmark family film or even an overly essential entry in the Tim Burton filmography, but the child inside me who loved the shit out of the Universal horror movies quite enjoyed it. Critics seemed to agree with me on this point. The movie didn’t necessarily receive rave reviews or anything but most critics respected it, especially when compared to Adam Sandler’s more commercial animated Universal Horror tribute Hotel Transylvania and the film received an Oscar nomination in the Best Animated Feature category (where it lost to Pixar’s Brave in a very competitive year). The general public wasn’t so receptive. The film didn’t bomb; it made $80 million worldwide on a $40 million budget, but it more or less came and went and didn’t really capture the zeitgeist. That’s probably a factor of the black and white, or maybe a factor of its incredibly dumb sounding title. Still, I think for what the film is, that isn’t so bad and I’m sure that Burton can still rightfully put the film in his “win” column.
In Conclusion
Is Tim Burton the animator as good as Tim Burton the live-action director? Well, with the limited sample size we have to work with I’m going to have to say “no.” All three of these movies seem to be flawed in one way or the other and the one that people seem to like the most is the one he had the least control over. Still, I like that these movies were made. They’re neat little side projects and they’ve definitely proven to be influential. It’s not entirely clear where stop-motion would be today if not for the success of The Nightmare Before Christmas back in ’93. Would there have been a Fantastic Mr. Fox if not for Burton? Would Aardman have been able to work with Hollywood if not for Burton? Who knows. Additionally, Burton paved the way for macabre elements and darkness into the realm of family entertainment. It’s telling that Disney thought that “Frankenweenie” the short was wholly inappropriate for family audiences while they proudly released Frankenweenie the feature thirty years later. Without Burton it’s unclear if something like Monster House could have been made, and god knows where the Laika studio would be today without Burton… but we’ll get to then in the next installment.
*** out of Four |
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,101
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 3:13:27 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Oct 6, 2014 22:22:36 GMT -5
As for Hannibal... I don't think I'd even call it "flawed," I think it's flat-out terrible. Part of it is the novel's fault (the book is even weirder than the movie, they totally cut out the part where a guy gets anally sodomized with a cattle-prod and gets a live eel shoved down his throat) but I also feel like Ridley Scott was a uniquely horrible fit for this series and the whole endeavor is an exercise in failing to realize what made the previous installments appealing. There's a prevailing theory that Thomas Harris kind of hated the fact that his character had turned into a pop culture icon and this novel was a conscious attempt to sabotage the series, and the fact that it didn't succeed at doing just that is shocking.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 3:37:25 GMT -5
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 22:26:47 GMT -5
I can't imagine the books being anything but schlocky paperbacks you purchase at the grocery store.
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,527
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 0:32:12 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Oct 7, 2014 1:13:32 GMT -5
I'll reserve any comments for Hannibal later in the month when I cover it.
|
|
Deexan
CS! Silver
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 18,196
Likes: 2,995
Location:
Last Online Nov 13, 2021 19:23:59 GMT -5
|
Post by Deexan on Oct 7, 2014 11:13:20 GMT -5
CLASSIC HORROR POSTERS - DAY #7:
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,645
Likes: 4,060
Location:
Last Online Nov 21, 2024 23:47:45 GMT -5
|
Post by PG Cooper on Oct 7, 2014 13:09:09 GMT -5
As for Hannibal... I don't think I'd even call it "flawed," I think it's flat-out terrible. Part of it is the novel's fault (the book is even weirder than the movie, they totally cut out the part where a guy gets anally sodomized with a cattle-prod and gets a live eel shoved down his throat) but I also feel like Ridley Scott was a uniquely horrible fit for this series and the whole endeavor is an exercise in failing to realize what made the previous installments appealing. There's a prevailing theory that Thomas Harris kind of hated the fact that his character had turned into a pop culture icon and this novel was a conscious attempt to sabotage the series, and the fact that it didn't succeed at doing just that is shocking. To some extent, I do think it betrays a lot of what made Silence of the Lambs so great. Psychological dread is traded in for more grotesque killings and violence and Lector himself seems more of a boogeyman than the dangerous genius presented before. Still, I do think there's some enjoyment to be found it that. Plus it also keeps Hannibal avoid it's predecessor's shadow. Doomsday described Red Dragon as The Silence of the Lambs light in a recent thread and that's very accurate. Hannibal is another animal entirely. I should point out that Red Dragon is overall a better film than Hannibal, but I sort of admire how different the latter is. |
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,527
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 0:32:12 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Oct 7, 2014 13:23:30 GMT -5
If you think Hannibal the movie is violent, check out some episodes of the television show, which might be even MORE gruesome overall, ironically.
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,645
Likes: 4,060
Location:
Last Online Nov 21, 2024 23:47:45 GMT -5
|
Post by PG Cooper on Oct 7, 2014 13:53:21 GMT -5
7. Manhunter After rewatching Hannibal, I thought I finally need to watch Lector's first on-screen appearance; Michael Mann's Manhunter. I've wanted to see this film for a very long time. The idea of a Michael Mann directed Hannibal Lecter movie is just cool and the fact that it pre-dates The Silence of the Lambs just makes it all the more interesting. The film on the whole is very good. Mann's strong visual style comes through really well. The combination of the very white visuals with the low-key scale gives this thing a very creepy tone. The characters all come off strongly too. William Petersen's Will Graham comes off as really being just as twisted as the various psychopaths he's chasing and Tom Noonan makes for a scary villain. Brian Cox also makes for a very interesting Hannibal Lector (spelled Lecktor in this film). He doesn't come close to Hopkins, but his performance is unique enough that it stands on it's own. The whole film is pretty gripping and the more you watch it the creepier it gets. Admittedly, the storytelling gets a little rushed in the third act with a bit too much being crammed in too little time. Some of the soundtrack choices seemed off too. I don't mind the 80's synth score and songs "The Big Hush" and "In-Gadda-Da-Vidda" worked for their scenes, but the others less so. Still, the film does end on a pretty awesome climax so I can't begrudge the film too much. Manhunter is a very strong film and a unique one within the Lecter saga. In fact it might just be my second favourite film of the series. Anyone who's a fan of the series or Michael Mann should definitely give it a look. Really, anyone looking for a creepy thriller will likely enjoy Manhunter very much. B+
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,765
Likes: 8,645
Location:
Last Online Nov 21, 2024 17:53:27 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 7, 2014 13:59:01 GMT -5
All right. Let's do this while the stove is still hot. MANHUNTER (1986) Manhunter is an interesting movie. And I mean that in a good way. Michael Mann remains loyal to Thomas Harris' novel but adds his own flavor to it with the cinematography, music and acting style. However, despite a sizable list of hardcore fans, Manhunter might be too "artsy" for mainstream audiences. What I mean by that is that Manhunter is full of itself. It's hard to take this movie seriously when it's so over-produced. I mean - look - you guys know I love directors who are in-your-face with their filmmaking style, but you can never lose track of the story and characters. And I feel that Michael Mann went off the rails. This movie is 90% style and 10% substance. CTHE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1991) Let me start off by saying that Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster deserved their Oscars. They delivered amazing performances. However... Best Picture... really? 1991 is the same year that gave us JFK and Boyz N the Hood. You're really gonna tell me with a straight face that The Silence of the Lambs is better? Let's be real. Even Beauty and the Beast is better. The Silence of the Lambs is just a good thriller. That's it. What elevates it and creates the illusion of greatness is the excellent performances by Hopkins and Foster. You remove that from the equation and there's nothing special left. BHANNIBAL (2001) I almost agree with Dracula. Hannibal is almost terrible. The story makes no sense. The characters are awful. Ridley Scott didn't know what the fuck he was doing. However, the section of the movie in Florence, Italy with Chief Inspector Rinaldo Pazzi going after Hannibal Lecter for the $3 million reward is fantastic. I loved every minute of it. That should have been the movie. Unfortunately, it's not, so... D+RED DRAGON (2002)  I seriously believe that Red Dragon is a great movie and one of the best of 2002. Brett Ratner and screenwriter Ted Tally are loyal to Thomas Harris' novel but that's not the reason why Red Dragon works. And it's also not because it's a good thriller and a solid crime story. The reason why Red Dragon works is because it's a solid DRAMA. The acting is phenomenal, especially from Ralph Fiennes, and Brett Ratner really digs deep into the emotions and themes of the story. I know that The Silence of the Lambs is the most popular movie in the series, but I think Red Dragon is better because it has more to say. The villain is more complex and tragic. Will Graham is more layered than Clarice Starling and his relationship with Hannibal Lecter is much more important. And the story is just simply better. This isn't your run-of-the-mill detective thriller. It's a psychological drama that's handled exceptionally well by the last person you'd expect: Brett Ratner. If there's any flaw in Brett Ratner's direction, it's his lack of style. In that respect, PG Cooper is correct. The movie IS plain looking with the exception of a few scenes. But everything else is great. So... A |
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,645
Likes: 4,060
Location:
Last Online Nov 21, 2024 23:47:45 GMT -5
|
Post by PG Cooper on Oct 7, 2014 14:28:57 GMT -5
The Silence of the Lambs is not just a good thriller, it's great thriller. One of the best ever made. You say take away the performances and what do you have? Well, you've got Jonathan Demme's visuals. The fact that the film has a very authentic look and feel while still having a clearly nuanced visual style is pretty damn impressive. You also have Howard Shore's criminally underrated score which is intriguing and dreadful. You've got the deranged and horrifying Buffalo Bill. You have a plethora of extremely well-staged scenes and memorable lines. Even without the performances of Hopkins and Foster, you have two very interesting characters who have a great dynamic with each other.
Beyond that, I don't find Red Dragon nearly as effective a drama as you do. I like the tragic backstory of The Tooth Fairy, but it's not like I was shedding a tear when things didn't work out for him at the end. And is Will Graham a more interesting character than Clarice? Maybe the Manhunter version is since he's essentially a psychopath too, but Red Dragon's version is the much more conventional agent who's seen some sick shit in his past. Starling, on the other hand, is a great balance of being someone who's smart, strong, and capable while still being someone who's vulnerable and insecure. I'll grant you that Foster is the one who really makes Clarice great, but those elements do exist on paper as well.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,101
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 3:13:27 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Oct 7, 2014 14:44:41 GMT -5
All right. Let's do this while the stove is still hot. MANHUNTER (1986)Manhunter is an interesting movie. And I mean that in a good way. Michael Mann remains loyal to Thomas Harris' novel but adds his own flavor to it with the cinematography, music and acting style. However, despite a sizable list of hardcore fans, Manhunter might be too "artsy" for mainstream audiences. What I mean by that is that Manhunter is full of itself. It's hard to take this movie seriously when it's so over-produced. I mean - look - you guys know I love directors who are in-your-face with their filmmaking style, but you can never lose track of the story and characters. And I feel that Michael Mann went off the rails. This movie is 90% style and 10% substance. CTHE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1991)Let me start off by saying that Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster deserved their Oscars. They delivered amazing performances. However... Best Picture... really? 1991 is the same year that gave us JFK and Boyz N the Hood. You're really gonna tell me with a straight face that The Silence of the Lambs is better? Let's be real. Even Beauty and the Beast is better. The Silence of the Lambs is just a good thriller. That's it. What elevates it and creates the illusion of greatness is the excellent performances by Hopkins and Foster. You remove that from the equation and there's nothing special left. BHANNIBAL (2001)I almost agree with Dracula. Hannibal is almost terrible. The story makes no sense. The characters are awful. Ridley Scott didn't know what the fuck he was doing. However, the section of the movie in Florence, Italy with Chief Inspector Rinaldo Pazzi going after Hannibal Lecter for the $3 million reward is fantastic. I loved every minute of it. That should have been the movie. Unfortunately, it's not, so... D+RED DRAGON (2002)I seriously believe that Red Dragon is a great movie and one of the best of 2002. Brett Ratner and screenwriter Ted Tally are loyal to Thomas Harris' novel but that's not the reason why Red Dragon works. And it's also not because it's a good thriller and a solid crime story. The reason why Red Dragon works is because it's a solid DRAMA. The acting is phenomenal, especially from Ralph Fiennes, and Brett Ratner really digs deep into the emotions and themes of the story. I know that The Silence of the Lambs is the most popular movie in the series, but I think Red Dragon is better because it has more to say. The villain is more complex and tragic. Will Graham is more layered than Clarice Starling and his relationship with Hannibal Lecter is much more important. And the story is just simply better. This isn't your run-of-the-mill detective thriller. It's a psychological drama that's handled exceptionally well by the last person you'd expect: Brett Ratner. If there's any flaw in Brett Ratner's direction, it's his lack of style. In that respect, PG Cooper is correct. The movie IS plain looking with the exception of a few scenes. But everything else is great. So... A1. I can maybe agree that Manhunter is more style than substance, but I don't mind that too much and if it weren't for the rest of the series having been made afterwards I don't think that would stand out as much. 2. I probably wouldn't choose Silence of the Lambs as my absolute number one best movie of 1991 either, but that's true of most Best Picture winners. Anytime they pick a movie that comes close to deserving it that's satisfactory enough for me and given the hurdles that Lambs had to jump through to get a BP in its genre, I can't really complain. 3. I agree that the Florence section of Hannibal is probably the highlight, it just kind of feels tangential to the rest of the movie and gets overpowered by all the Mason Verger nonsense. 4. Can't say we see eye to eye on Red Dragon, frankly I feel like we didn't even see the same movie. I don't want to come off like I absolutely hate it or anything, it has its moments, but overall it just seemed kind of weak. I would, however, be willing to say I agreed that Will Graham is the more layered character... just not this Will Graham or the Manhunter Will Graham... the best one by far is the one on the TV show. |
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,527
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 0:32:12 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Oct 7, 2014 14:54:51 GMT -5
I'm with Dracula. Hugh Dancy's iteration of Will Graham is by far the best one. Anyway, I'm sticking to my guns and holding off on my Hannibal reviews until next week. DAY SEVEN: CLOVERFIELD (2008)
 It's been a while since I last watched Cloverfield, and I remember liking it a lot, but I don't remember it being THIS good; in fact, I think it's better than I remember it being. The "found footage" approach can be quite an effective one for a horror/monster movie, as evidenced by this film. Cloverfield obviously puts us smack dab in the middle of a terrifying monster attack, and it sure as hell packs the scares and thrills. The style of course invites the method I think is most effective when it comes to this genre, i.e. "less is more." Due to the style of the film, we only get quick, fleeting glimpses of the monster until the Third Act, and it helps keep the sense of terror alive throughout. The handheld camerawork also gives the film a truly visceral feeling. Then there are the characters we follow through this whole ordeal. I forgot just how good TJ Miller is as Hud, the "documenter". He keeps things alive through his various comments, which can get really funny at times, even during these intense situations. Of particular note in that respect is the scene where the main group is walking down a darkened subway tunnel. Here, the film transitions very fluidly from jokes about Superman and homeless people on fire to another moment of terror. Now of course, things ultimately become so intense and life-threatening, that one has to wonder just why in the hell Hud is still filming, but the fact that the movie is only about 75 minutes without the end credits helps make sure that issue doesn't get stretched TOO far. Plus, it also helps that we genuinely want to see what happens to these characters, and the film still has a lot to say about society's current desire to document as many aspects of everyday life as they can. Overall, Cloverfield works exceedingly well as a monster/horror movie and as a found footage movie, remaining a prime example of how to do both kinds well. ****/**** |
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,765
Likes: 8,645
Location:
Last Online Nov 21, 2024 17:53:27 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 7, 2014 15:02:55 GMT -5
You've got Jonathan Demme's visuals. The fact that the film has a very authentic look and feel while still having a clearly nuanced visual style is pretty damn impressive. You also have Howard Shore's criminally underrated score which is intriguing and dreadful. Not sure how that translates to Best Picture winner without the acting. Eh. He was kind of cartoon-ish and has been spoofed WAY too many times to be taken seriously. They wouldn't work without the acting. Imagine Brian Cox delivering those lines and acting in those scenes. They would seem silly. The characters and story are completely unrealistic. In what world does a naive and inexperienced FBI trainee track down a major serial killer and defeats him without any help whatsoever? And what a coincidence that Buffalo Bill just happens to be a former patient of Hannibal Lecter and he uses the moment for a ridiculously executed escape from custody. This whole scenario is straight up B-movie stuff. It's not the backstory but the MAIN story where the drama is. The Tooth Fairy has a disfigured face - not a gruesome one but one filled with emotional scars - so he kills women and puts glass eyes on them so he can have a sexual experience without having his face judged. Then he falls in love with a blind woman and he settles down until his past murders catch up to him. That's NOT something that will make you cry - obviously - but it's powerful enough to invest yourself emotionally in the character and his story. Edward Norton downplays his performance so he can balance himself with Anthony Hopkins and Ralph Fiennes. You can't have a "serious" movie where everyone is over-the-top. So yeah, maybe the significance of the character gets lost in that but the story makes up for it. He is a guy with a wife and child and has actual scars. So he's constantly conflicted with putting all his time and energy into a case while also realizing that he's putting himself and his family in danger. Again, that's powerful enough to get invested in as an audience. AND relateable too. You're right. That's on paper and Jonathan Demme does a great job of visually representing that as well. But without Jodie Foster... it would come across as your typical feminist character. Foster is the one who gave it substance. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 3:37:25 GMT -5
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 15:07:16 GMT -5
Except for the strong subtext in Silence of the Lambs, which levels anything the show and subsequent sequels have offered. As for the show, the more I watch it, the more I can't handle Hugh Dancy's overacting. I literally cringe every time his voice quivers and he looks all jittery..trying to "pretend he's psychologically unstable", I guess?
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,765
Likes: 8,645
Location:
Last Online Nov 21, 2024 17:53:27 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 7, 2014 15:19:13 GMT -5
You mean the same hurdles that Beauty and the Beast went through to get its historic Best Picture nomination? Let's be real. The Oscars were VERY generous in 1991. A horror movie won Best Picture, Jack Palance won Best Supporting Actor for City Slickers, Terminator 2 won four Oscars. 1991 might have been the most mainstream Oscars in recent memory. So, I don't think Silence of the Lambs winning was special within the context of that year. If it had won in 1990 or 92 then that would have been impressive.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,101
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 3:13:27 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Oct 7, 2014 16:05:52 GMT -5
Film Seven: American Psycho (2000)
 This adaptation of the controversial Brett Easton Ellis novel of the same name is a lot weirder than I remember it being. I certainly remembered it being highly satirical and that it had a certain ambiguity about how reliable the narrator was, but things really truly start to go out of focus towards the end of this thing. There are elements here that I really like: it’s one of Christian Bale’s best performances (and that’s saying something), there are a handful of murder scenes that really stand out as memorable, and the overall attitude of the film is interesting. That being said, I didn’t really enjoy the movie as a whole this time around. It’s pretty much impossible to really empathize with this character or even try to understand him, which pretty much means we’re left to view the film for its satirical elements and they kind of get tired fast. The movie says pretty much everything it needs to say about the 80s, about Wall Street, and about masculinity in the first fifteen minutes and then just keeps going and going and going and I got a little bored with most of the scenes that didn’t involve murder and insanity. I’m still inclined to call it a good movie, but it isn’t everything it could have been. *** out of Four |
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,765
Likes: 8,645
Location:
Last Online Nov 21, 2024 17:53:27 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 7, 2014 16:34:24 GMT -5
Yeah, Christian Bale is the main reason to watch it.
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,645
Likes: 4,060
Location:
Last Online Nov 21, 2024 23:47:45 GMT -5
|
Post by PG Cooper on Oct 7, 2014 20:59:39 GMT -5
Not sure how that translates to Best Picture winner without the acting. I'd say it's one of my top ten favourite Best Picture winners. I love the film. I think the execution is brilliant, the film inanely memorable, and I never get tired of watching it. Beyond that, I don't get your "without the acting" argument. You can't just separate that from the whole. Would The Bridge on the River Kwai have deserved Best Picture without Alec Guinness? Kramer vs. Kramer without Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep? The Godfather Parts I and II without Pacino, Brando, and De Niro. These are movies driven by their performances, and so is Silence. *Shrugs, he works for me. Those scenes are still well staged, beyond the performances, and those lines are still great. Would they have been worse in the hands of other actors? Probably, but that's why Hopkins and Foster were cast. Also the escape scene is an amazingly well-done set-piece and a highlight. It's over the top in theory, but Demme makes it work. As for the coincidences, meh, I don't mind. I get that, and it works, but I don't find it more compelling than the major dynamics in Silence. |
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,645
Likes: 4,060
Location:
Last Online Nov 21, 2024 23:47:45 GMT -5
|
Post by PG Cooper on Oct 7, 2014 21:02:42 GMT -5
Film Seven: American Psycho (2000)
This adaptation of the controversial Brett Easton Ellis novel of the same name is a lot weirder than I remember it being. I certainly remembered it being highly satirical and that it had a certain ambiguity about how reliable the narrator was, but things really truly start to go out of focus towards the end of this thing. There are elements here that I really like: it’s one of Christian Bale’s best performances (and that’s saying something), there are a handful of murder scenes that really stand out as memorable, and the overall attitude of the film is interesting. That being said, I didn’t really enjoy the movie as a whole this time around. It’s pretty much impossible to really empathize with this character or even try to understand him, which pretty much means we’re left to view the film for its satirical elements and they kind of get tired fast. The movie says pretty much everything it needs to say about the 80s, about Wall Street, and about masculinity in the first fifteen minutes and then just keeps going and going and going and I got a little bored with most of the scenes that didn’t involve murder and insanity. I’m still inclined to call it a good movie, but it isn’t everything it could have been.
*** out of Four I don't disagree that the movie makes all its points early on, but I find it entertaining throughout so I don't really mind. |
|
Deexan
CS! Silver
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 18,196
Likes: 2,995
Location:
Last Online Nov 13, 2021 19:23:59 GMT -5
|
Post by Deexan on Oct 8, 2014 7:18:53 GMT -5
CLASSIC HORROR POSTERS - DAY #8:
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,765
Likes: 8,645
Location:
Last Online Nov 21, 2024 17:53:27 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 8, 2014 8:06:35 GMT -5
FOR DEEXANTHE WICKER MAN (1973) A police officer, who also happens to be a devout Christian, goes to a pagan populated island to search for a missing girl. First, they deny her existence. Then, they admit she exists but is actually dead. And then, it's revealed that she's actually alive and will be sacrificed in a pagan ritual. And as all this is going on, there's numerous scenes of naked people singing and dancing. It's a very weird movie and very much a product of its time. If you can accept that, I think you will LOVE the original Wicker Man. I know that the Nicolas Cage remake is incredibly popular on the Internet for being awful, but the original is a legitimately great movie with fabulous acting and one of the best twist endings of the 1970's. So check it out if you haven't. A
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 3:37:25 GMT -5
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2014 9:05:41 GMT -5
Such a great movie.
|
|
