1godzillafan
Studio Head
Join Date: Feb 2017
I like pie!
Posts: 9,480
Likes: 6,217
Location:
Last Online Nov 8, 2024 5:42:00 GMT -5
|
Post by 1godzillafan on Oct 13, 2017 20:22:01 GMT -5
And thus my levity comment of "Hey man, I was hating on M. Night Shyamalan before it was cool" has ruined the thread. Go me!
But a few points of clarification on this, and do remember that I haven't seen the movie in well over a decade. First, I never contested that the family was meant to be the primary focus over the invasion. My "anal probe" comment seemed to be misunderstood as to mocking the lack of reason given behind the invasion, when in reality it was me mocking myself for not remembering if there was a reason given at all, because Dracula's post involved intent. Branching off of that, it brings up the point of whether or not the movie works better for me if I concentrated on the actual characters instead of the invasion, which I never addressed in my initial post because it was about The Happening and not Signs. As I pointed out in my post about The Happening I can't connect to Shyamalan's characters because they don't feel like real people to me. I remember Signs really disconnecting itself from me emotionally, and the The Happening took it to a completely different level. So I didn't respond to the human aspect of Signs either, which leaves me pretty much perched to laugh at the silly ending when it comes. I voiced a similar stance on Cloverfield yesterday, where I admired the idea being displayed but found the characters uninteresting and/or unlikable. And character plays a big part in whether or not I enjoy a movie that focuses on...well...characters. This is about the execution of intent and not the intent itself.
But responding to character is very much in the eye of the beholder. If you get something from the characters in Signs, that's cool. I don't recall caring about them at all, to the point where I got to the logic flaw it became the biggest thing I remembered.
|
|
IanTheCool
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 21,496 
Likes: 2,864
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 7:41:09 GMT -5
|
Post by IanTheCool on Oct 13, 2017 22:35:47 GMT -5
Day Somewhere near the Middle
Rosemary's Baby This is a pretty creepy, effective thriller. There's always something just not right, and this feeling builds and builds throughout. The pacing is just right. I'm not sure how I feel about the ending, or why she made the decision she did. Is it a mom thing? I dunno, but I didn't really feel like she would do what she did. I liked how scrabble was used as a plot device. Go board games! 9/10
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,791
Likes: 8,649
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 14, 2017 1:31:42 GMT -5
FROM HELL (2001) This movie is fucking great. The plot is nonsensical, some shit about Freemasons and covering up a royal bastard child. Its been disproven if I’m not mistaken. The point is to use Jack the Ripper and late 1800’s London to do some cool visuals and nasty gore. It’s beautiful, stylish and disgusting wrapped in a bow. I dig it.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,106
Likes: 5,732
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Dracula on Oct 14, 2017 5:49:33 GMT -5
And thus my levity comment of "Hey man, I was hating on M. Night Shyamalan before it was cool" has ruined the thread. Go me! But a few points of clarification on this, and do remember that I haven't seen the movie in well over a decade. First, I never contested that the family was meant to be the primary focus over the invasion. My "anal probe" comment seemed to be misunderstood as to mocking the lack of reason given behind the invasion, when in reality it was me mocking myself for not remembering if there was a reason given at all, because Dracula's post involved intent. Branching off of that, it brings up the point of whether or not the movie works better for me if I concentrated on the actual characters instead of the invasion, which I never addressed in my initial post because it was about The Happening and not Signs. As I pointed out in my post about The Happening I can't connect to Shyamalan's characters because they don't feel like real people to me. I remember Signs really disconnecting itself from me emotionally, and the The Happening took it to a completely different level. So I didn't respond to the human aspect of Signs either, which leaves me pretty much perched to laugh at the silly ending when it comes. I voiced a similar stance on Cloverfield yesterday, where I admired the idea being displayed but found the characters uninteresting and/or unlikable. And character plays a big part in whether or not I enjoy a movie that focuses on...well...characters. This is about the execution of intent and not the intent itself. But responding to character is very much in the eye of the beholder. If you get something from the characters in Signs, that's cool. I don't recall caring about them at all, to the point where I got to the logic flaw it became the biggest thing I remembered. To be clear I wasn't trying to start some kind of pile on when I responded, just wanted to talk about the movie. Your complaints about the characters in Signs are hard to respond to because I simply like that aspect of the movie a lot more and think it largely delivers, which was part of why I was so disappointed when Shyamalan seemingly lost his mind and started making utter garbage like The Happening (which is every bit as bad as you say) and Lady in the Water. But the characters didn't work for you that's totally legit, just wanted to respond to that "alien water" complaint that I hear a lot. |
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,106
Likes: 5,732
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Dracula on Oct 14, 2017 6:41:02 GMT -5
Film Thirteen: The Mummy (2017)  In response to negative criticism director Alex Kurtzman famously said “we didn’t make this movie for critics, we made it for the fans.” The “fans” of what, exactly? This is a movie that actually has less in common with the 1932 Boris Karloff movie than the 1999 remake with Brendan Frasier did and given that Universal’s “Dark World” doesn’t have any fans yet on account of this being its first entry and no one seems to have liked it. The movie actually has more in common with the Hammer version of The Mummy than anything, but its relation to past movies isn’t really the problem here so much as its own failure to know what it wants to be. It feels like there are about three different movies in this thing competing with each other: there’s the dark semi-horror movie that wants to mix Egyptian adventure with gothic imagery, there’s the jokey action movie starring Tom Cruise, and there’s the 21st century franchise/superhero movie. That middle one is probably the biggest problem: Tom Cruise makes zero sense as the star of this thing and it feels like they adjusted the movie a lot in order to fit in with what people expect from Tom Cruise action movies and add in some really strange attempts at humor (including an element which is a blatant ripoff of An American Werewolf in London) that feel like they were added in at the last minute in response to a studio note. The franchise stuff setting up a shared universe is also a problem of course, I can maybe envision a version of this where that stuff works better but it still seems like a mistake to have even tried to do that. Hollywood, take a closer look at Marvel before you try to rip them off, you’ll note that they focused on just making good movies and kept that shit contained in the post credits sequences until they knew people were hooked and on board. The Mummy does have its moments here and there, I don’t think it’s quite the disaster that its 16% Rotten Tomatoes score suggests, but it is a mess and a missed opportunity. ** out of Five
|
|
IanTheCool
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 21,496
Likes: 2,864
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 7:41:09 GMT -5
|
Post by IanTheCool on Oct 14, 2017 8:03:23 GMT -5
FROM HELL (2001)This movie is fucking great. The plot is nonsensical, some shit about Freemasons and covering up a royal bastard child. Its been disproven if I’m not mistaken. The point is to use Jack the Ripper and late 1800’s London to do some cool visuals and nasty gore. It’s beautiful, stylish and disgusting wrapped in a bow. I dig it. I just listened to a two-hour podcast on the Jack the Ripper mystery, so I would be interested in seeing this. And yeah the royal conspiracy isnt really a serious theory, though Im sure there's still lots of people who still believe it. |
|
1godzillafan
Studio Head
Join Date: Feb 2017
I like pie!
Posts: 9,480
Likes: 6,217
Location:
Last Online Nov 8, 2024 5:42:00 GMT -5
|
Post by 1godzillafan on Oct 14, 2017 11:52:51 GMT -5
And thus my levity comment of "Hey man, I was hating on M. Night Shyamalan before it was cool" has ruined the thread. Go me! But a few points of clarification on this, and do remember that I haven't seen the movie in well over a decade. First, I never contested that the family was meant to be the primary focus over the invasion. My "anal probe" comment seemed to be misunderstood as to mocking the lack of reason given behind the invasion, when in reality it was me mocking myself for not remembering if there was a reason given at all, because Dracula's post involved intent. Branching off of that, it brings up the point of whether or not the movie works better for me if I concentrated on the actual characters instead of the invasion, which I never addressed in my initial post because it was about The Happening and not Signs. As I pointed out in my post about The Happening I can't connect to Shyamalan's characters because they don't feel like real people to me. I remember Signs really disconnecting itself from me emotionally, and the The Happening took it to a completely different level. So I didn't respond to the human aspect of Signs either, which leaves me pretty much perched to laugh at the silly ending when it comes. I voiced a similar stance on Cloverfield yesterday, where I admired the idea being displayed but found the characters uninteresting and/or unlikable. And character plays a big part in whether or not I enjoy a movie that focuses on...well...characters. This is about the execution of intent and not the intent itself. But responding to character is very much in the eye of the beholder. If you get something from the characters in Signs, that's cool. I don't recall caring about them at all, to the point where I got to the logic flaw it became the biggest thing I remembered. To be clear I wasn't trying to start some kind of pile on when I responded, just wanted to talk about the movie. Your complaints about the characters in Signs are hard to respond to because I simply like that aspect of the movie a lot more and think it largely delivers, which was part of why I was so disappointed when Shyamalan seemingly lost his mind and started making utter garbage like The Happening (which is every bit as bad as you say) and Lady in the Water. But the characters didn't work for you that's totally legit, just wanted to respond to that "alien water" complaint that I hear a lot. And in the end we shall agree to disagree, especially since the movie isn't exactly fresh in my mind to really go far in a debate about it. Lol. I'm considering giving it a rewatch next month, but for now it's taking what little free time I have to keep up with this thirty-one film schedule. And I got some fun ones in store for next week that I'm looking forward to, so I won't be deviating too much. After split came out I watched Unbreakable for the second time and my opinion on that film improved, even though I still have issues with Shyamalan's writing and some points of lackluster acting. The Happening left me in shock. I heard it was bad, and I don't know what I expected but I didn't expect it to be as bad as it was. It left me fairly nostalgic for the last time I hated a Shyamalan movie. Maybe I'll like Signs more now that I'm a bit older than the eighteen year old who watched pretty much nothing but Spider-Man back in 2002. |
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,791
Likes: 8,649
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 14, 2017 12:22:55 GMT -5
FROM HELL (2001)This movie is fucking great. The plot is nonsensical, some shit about Freemasons and covering up a royal bastard child. Its been disproven if I’m not mistaken. The point is to use Jack the Ripper and late 1800’s London to do some cool visuals and nasty gore. It’s beautiful, stylish and disgusting wrapped in a bow. I dig it. I just listened to a two-hour podcast on the Jack the Ripper mystery, so I would be interested in seeing this. And yeah the royal conspiracy isnt really a serious theory, though Im sure there's still lots of people who still believe it. It was probably just a medical student using these prostitutes in the ghetto as practice. |
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,530
Likes: 3,133
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 15:45:25 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Oct 14, 2017 12:26:41 GMT -5
Yeah, From Hell is a damn good movie.
The Mummy...is not.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,791
Likes: 8,649
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 14, 2017 13:06:22 GMT -5
Yeah, From Hell is a damn good movie. They say Jack the Ripper moved to Canada and became PG Cooper. It’s no coincidence so many CS! members disappeared after he joined the site. |
|
1godzillafan
Studio Head
Join Date: Feb 2017
I like pie!
Posts: 9,480
Likes: 6,217
Location:
Last Online Nov 8, 2024 5:42:00 GMT -5
|
Post by 1godzillafan on Oct 14, 2017 13:12:50 GMT -5
Day Fourteen: Film Year: 1962 Director: Herk Harvey Starring: Candace Hilligoss Riff Year: 2016 (also riffed in 2005 and 2009) Riffers: Michael J. Nelson, Kevin Murphy, Bill Corbett Featured Shorts: The Dirt-Witch Cleans Up, Masks of Grass Rifftrax Live: Carnival of Souls! Mike, Bill, and Kevin riffed this spooky midnight-movie cult classic live in Nashville, and now it's available for you to download or stream in Anywhere-Ville!
When young Mary survives a horrible car crash, she tries to start her life over with a new church organist job in a small Utah town, as one does. But along the way she’s haunted by a gaunt pale figure in a nice suit who leads her to an abandoned old pavilion on the shores of the Great Salt Lake. Soon Mary doesn’t know if she’s awake or dreaming, alive or dead, which makes her really dull at parties. Fans of Rifftrax Live: Night of the Living Dead will love this one. Weird, creepy and very silly, our live riff of Carnival of Souls is not to be missed!
The show also includes live riffs of TWO hilarious shorts. The Dirt Witch, probably one of the top films ever made about witch cleanliness. And the unforgettable Masks of Grass, a disturbing trash-crafting follow-up to the Rifftrax classic, At Your Fingertips: Grasses!Last year's Halloween show went back a bit to the good old days when the guys would put up a colorized public domain film and a couple of shorts. Out of Rifftrax’s 2016 Live shows, Carnival of Souls was probably second best, behind the MST3K Reunion show. I’d definitely say this one was a step above the mostly okay Mothra and a giant leap above the largely unfunny reriff of MST “classic” Time Chasers. This starts off with a short on cleanliness, because you’re all pigs. The Dirt-Witch Cleans Up features a dirty witch casting spells to make little boys dirty, because little boys never like getting dirty I guess. A little girl spots her, shames her, takes her home and forces her to take a bath, leading up to the moral that you look so much better when you aren’t covered in mud. Well, duh. The riffing on this silly but brief short is pretty solid. I like Mike trying to explain an Encyclopedia to the youngsters of the audience as a “printed-out Wikipedia.” The as the short gets stranger, the riffs get stronger, like usual. Highlighting is Bill pointing out the hidden moral of “Kids, don’t just go home with strangers, bathe them too.” Our second short is one of those VCI crafts shorts these guys love so much, Masks of Grass. It’s a bit similar to the grass crafts short, but it restricts itself to making masks out of it. It’s meant to stimulate imagination, but like usual, riffing material like this brings us big laughs as it’s very visual and sometimes a bit creepy. The riffing becomes surprisingly sparse toward the end however, for whatever reason. There’s even a lengthy patch where children are showing off masks where very few riffs take place. I’m almost convinced this is calculated however, as it almost seems like the riffers want the audience to react to what they’re seeing. Carnival of Souls is a movie I initially didn’t like but has grown on me over the years. It’s a very clumsy movie and mildly ponderous at its worst moments, but the Twilight Zone style storyline is pretty cool. Though if we’re bringing Twilight Zone into this, watch the episode The Hitchhiker. It’s pretty much the same story only streamlined and about fifty minutes shorter. Carnival of Souls features a woman surviving an automobile accident where her friends were killed. She attempts to move on with her life only to find she is being followed by a pale man and is eventually sucked into a nightmarish carnival of dancing ghouls. It’s tough talking about the film without venturing into spoiler territory, though to be fair the twist is pretty obvious almost from the get go. It’s a movie you somewhat appreciate a little more knowing the ending, though it doesn’t always make sense in retrospect. Ruining the mood in this particular version of the film is the fact that Rifftrax chose to use Legend Films’ colorized version of the film. Why they chose to use this version I have never gotten a straight answer on since Rifftrax is no longer affiliated with Legend. The color version isn’t without it’s charms, such as the creative decision to keep the ghouls mostly black and white but with slight color touches, which is fun. But the fact is that Carnival of Souls is so much creepier in its original black and white cinematography. “You’re a very strong person, aren’t you?” “Men don’t like that, sweet cheeks.” The riffing is pretty good. The dreariness, lacking acting, and sometimes questionable events come under fire quite often. The movie is not short on sleazy characters that they zero in on, and as the movie grows more otherworldly the drug jokes start kicking in. Carnival of Souls is a bit of a low budget work of visual art, but being so visual just makes it an easy target. And, of course, endless organ music. Pad out that film and give Mike, Kevin, and Bill something to be playfully annoyed at. I’m so close to liking this movie. Parts of it are gorgeous, others dull and sometimes annoying. It’s a movie that could be good but strains itself by padding itself past seventy minutes. The live show around it is above average, though they fumble a bit by using a colorized print of the movie. This is overall a recommended effort.
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,307
Likes: 6,772
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Doomsday on Oct 14, 2017 15:08:38 GMT -5
Yeah, From Hell is a damn good movie. They say Jack the Ripper moved to Canada and became PG Cooper. It’s no coincidence so many CS! members disappeared after he joined the site. That explains southern being found disemboweled that one time, remember that? Her uterus was found by her ankles, that's how crazy it was. Oh PG Cooper, you knucklehead. |
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,530
Likes: 3,133
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 15:45:25 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Oct 14, 2017 15:20:27 GMT -5
Yeah, From Hell is a damn good movie. They say Jack the Ripper moved to Canada and became PG Cooper . It’s no coincidence so many CS! members disappeared after he joined the site. Careful. You could be next. |
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,106
Likes: 5,732
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Dracula on Oct 14, 2017 19:21:37 GMT -5
Film Fourteen: Suicide Club (2002)  Suicide Club (AKA Suicide Circle) is a different kind of movie than the rest of the J-horror movies I’m looking at for this piece in a handful of ways. For one, it never got an American remake, and it also doesn’t really revolve around a ghost per se even though there is still an unseen force going after people. What’s more it isn’t even entirely a horror film so much as it’s a sort of violent provocation along the lines of something like Battle Royale or Ichi the Killer. The film’s opening sequence in particular is incredibly disturbing: it depicts as many as fifty seemingly normal teenage schoolgirls at a subway station suddenly line up and jump onto the tracks as a train is coming, killing them all. Did I mention that this never got a Hollywood remake? The focus is ultimately on the way society reacts to this and continues to react as similar incidents seem to pop up occasionally. There’s a certain resemblance to the premise of M. Night Shyamalan awful 2008 film The Happening but the suicide epidemic here feels more like a mysterious crime wave than an apocalyptic cataclysm. Much of the film focuses on a group of detectives who are investigating these occurrences and start to put together certain clues that seem to be leading to some sort of force causing these seemingly random mass suicides. Unlike a lot of the J-horror movies that I’m looking at in this piece, this movie has something of a (very) dark comedic streak. It’s not going for laughs exactly but the movie plays out its suicide sequences with a certain satirical tone which does seem to be in pretty questionable taste, but it does in some ways make what you’re watching seem even more disturbing and it does have the effect it seems to be going for. The problem is that this isn’t necessarily the tone the rest of the movie takes. The scenes with the detectives play out using the rather straightforward language of a mystery/police procedural like Se7en or something. This investigation side of the movie mostly works pretty well scene to scene but there are loose threads that don’t really come together perfectly, which is partly intentional but partly not. So what is the point of this all? I’m not entirely sure but Japan is traditionally known to have a higher suicide rate than a lot of other countries and this is presumably a critique of that. Perhaps it’s making some sort of point that people are complacent when fifty teenagers kill themselves separately but are suddenly shocked out of that complacency when they suddenly do it all at once and publicly. The ultimate culprit that the movie suggests is behind all this chaos may also be something of a stand-in for a wider culture that seems to in some ways give people permission to take their lives, albeit subliminally. I don’t think I have the cultural context to connect all those dots though and with the odd shifts in tone I’m not sure the movie works. **1/2 out of Five
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,791
Likes: 8,649
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 15, 2017 0:47:39 GMT -5
10 GODZILLA MOVIES WORTH WATCHING
(IF YOU'RE INTO THAT SORT OF STUFF) When most people think of Japanese movies they, unfortunately, think of Godzilla. He is the mascot for that film industry. It's a shame because most Godzilla movies are terrible. It's children's entertainment made cheaply and quickly. HOWEVER, some of these Godzilla films have their charm and can be enjoyed if you're into cheesy monster movies. So, if you're one of those people, and are a little curious to check out the series, here are 10 Godzilla films worth watching. #10 - SON OF GODZILLA (1967) Most Godzilla movies are unintentionally hilarious but here's one that's intentional and also kind of cute. Now how did Godzilla manage to reproduce? I have no clue and it really doesn't matter. Most of the film is spent with Godzilla teaching his son how to be a monster. Wait, is Godzilla a guy or a girl? Is this one of those Tweety Bird and Blue's Clues scenarios where we assume it's a dude but it's really a gal? I don't know, and again, it doesn't matter. The point is, Godzilla is a parent and we get a lot of amusing scenes. #9 - GHIDORAH THE THREE-HEADED MONSTER (1964) Ghidorah is the most popular Godzilla opponent so the movie is worth checking out just for that. Also, if I'm not mistaken, it's available through Netflix's streaming service so it shouldn't be a hassle to watch. But be warned, the film is a little slow till the two monsters start fighting each other. Toho Studios remade this movie in the `90s and `2000s so maybe those versions are more satisfying to watch, but for historical purposes, give the original a chance. #8 - GODZILLA VS KING KONG (1962) The King Kong costume in this movie is a joke. It's even worse than the Rick Baker version from the `76 version. So brace yourself for a face palm when you look at it. However, there is an advantage to the suit. It is flexible and allows the performer to engage in a real fist fight. It results in the best and most memorable fight scenes in the series. #7 - GODZILLA VS MOTHRA (1964) Toho Studios made other monster movies besides Godzilla. Some of them starred a butterfly named Mothra. I s--t you not. Mothra is a "good monster" that only attacks when provoked. In this case, an evil tycoon steals her egg. In the middle of all that, Godzilla shows up and starts destroying everything. Mothra is then forced to deal with his shenanigan's as well. And if that wasn't enough, her egg hatches and her children join the battle. It's silly but fun. #6 - MONSTER ZERO (1965) Godzilla goes to outer space. 'Nuff said. You REALLY have to love stupid movies to enjoy this one. However, sci-fi fans like our own JBond may consider it a guilty pleasure. It's very sci-fi heavy and features aliens as the main villains instead of monsters. By the way, I should have mentioned earlier that Ghidorah, Godzilla's main nemesis, is a monster from another planet and he makes his glorious return here. Overall, it's a weird flick but kind of fun to watch.
#5 - GODZILLA: FINAL WARS (2004) It was released on the 50th anniversary of the franchise and Toho Studios decided to go all-out by having Godzilla battle almost every monster featured in the series. It's very excessive but also an adrenaline ride. This is not your grandfather's Godzilla movie. It's fast-paced, action-packed, and very popular among the PG Cooper/MasterChief generation. #4 - GODZILLA VS DESTOROYAH! (1995) Here's one of the few Godzilla movies with a clever story. Since Godzilla was created by nuclear weapons, it is discovered that he's a ticking time bomb. That's why he's glowing red in that photo. He's about to explode and the military has to contain him. Meanwhile, Godzilla Jr. is running around and causing trouble of his own. It's a really cool movie. I highly recommend it. #3 - THE RETURN OF GODZILLA (1984)
a/k/a GODZILLA 1985 (USA VERSION) The Godzilla series is a cult sensation. However, some attempts have been made to appeal to a wide audience. Godzilla 1985 is the prime example. It is everything audiences want and expect from a Godzilla movie but with a big budget and good special effects. Best of all, it isn't an embarrassment like the 1998 American adaptation. #2 - GODZILLA VS MECHAGODZILLA (1974) One day, Godzilla shows up and starts destroying everything. But wait, it isn't Godzilla. It is Robot Godzilla! To quote M. Night, "what a tweest!" If there's one movie to prepare you for Pacific Rim it is this one. In fact, this is quintessential Japanese pop culture. You have a giant monster fighting a giant robot. Forget Akira Kurosawa. This is Japan at its best. #1 - GOJIRA (1954) 9 years after Americans dropped atomic bombs on Japan, Gojira is released. The film captures the mood of that generation perfectly. It's crazy to think that a cheesy franchise like Godzilla spawned from a very serious and topical movie. But what can I say, s--t happens. Gojira is recommended to any fan of cinema. Don't let the reputation of the sequels discourage you. Day Two: Godzilla (1954) After only seeing the "Americanized" 1956 version, I've finally seen the original Japanese version of Godzilla. I gotta say, this was pretty awesome. Godzilla himself looks great and while the effects don't exactly hold up, they're still really neat. The large scale set-pieces, particularly Godzilla's attack on Tokyo, are really gripping, exciting, and well-executed. I also think the film's commentary on nuclear weapons is valid and strong. Unlike a lot of the nuclear paranoia seen in a lot of sci-fi from the 50s, there's a grim seriousness to the depiction here. I think in particular to scenes depicting the aftermath of Godzilla's destruction where we see citizens suffering in the wreckage and mourning their dead loved ones. Pretty powerful stuff. There's also the Dr. Serizawa character, who has created a weapon which can theoretically stop Godzilla, but is afraid of what humanity will come to use it for in the future. I don't want to give the impression that Godzilla is a perfect movie because it definitely isn't. The early reactions to a giant lizard destroying cities seem a lot more muted than they should be and the film can get a little preachy, but the good stuff here is really worth it. There are some awesome scenes underscored with a certain seriousness, an iconic creature, and one hell of a theme song. A-  If you take the original Godzilla, and remove everything good about it, you end up with this piece of shit. Same plot. No mood. They’re just like, “we’re fishermen trying to capture tuna and this motherfucker shows up.” Then a monster named Anguirus shows up and fights Godzilla. That should be interesting, right? Not really. This is the first time, to my knowledge, that Toho did such a thing and they fucked up. Remember when you were a kid and had your toys fight each other? That’s what it looks like. The movie ends with Godzilla buried in snow and he would stay there till 1962 when he was awaken to fight King Kong. |
|
Wyldstaar
Producer
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,900
Likes: 1,267
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 7:55:31 GMT -5
|
Post by Wyldstaar on Oct 15, 2017 1:05:52 GMT -5
A review of Godzilla vs Destroyah with no mention of the scene taken straight out of Aliens? Some Jurassic Park gets tossed in as soon as the Aliens riff is over.
Great movie. One of my favorites. That entire era of Godzilla was the best.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,791
Likes: 8,649
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 15, 2017 1:11:27 GMT -5
CRIMSON PEAK (2015) Dracula once said, “Del Toro talks a big game but doesn’t deliver.” Maybe Dracula. Maybe. He could certainly use a good writer. Crimson Peak is gorgeous but the story leaves a lot to be desired. Mia Whats-Her-Face plays a Victoria-era rich girl who’s slowly being poisoned to death by the man who married her for her money. There’s ghosts thrown in... because why not. Just stick to Tim Burton’s The Corpse Bride. Sorta the same thing but more interesting... and it has songs.
|
|
IanTheCool
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 21,496
Likes: 2,864
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 7:41:09 GMT -5
|
Post by IanTheCool on Oct 15, 2017 11:47:35 GMT -5
Day in the Middle The Phantom Carriage  Okay, so..... The phantom Carriage is a spooky-ish film from Sweden from the 20s. Its a silent film, clearly, which I will talk about later. I really liked the beginning half-hour or so of the film; it did a good job of drawing me in. It had a spine-tingling atmosphere, and when the carriage itself shows up it provides us with some really cool imagery. I must say though that once the flashback stories began happening, the momentum was sorta killed for me. We were set up for this interesting afterlife exploration, but it really just turned into a Scrooge story that I found myself getting continuously bored with. And as such the spookiness began to subside including the end where he ends up getting a second chance for some reason. Also, I kind of want to talk about silent films in general for a moment, since I thought about it a lot while watching this. I just can never seem to find myself loving silent movies and fully embracing them. I know I'm nowhere near alone on this, but as someone who tries to be open to experiencing films from all points in history, I have to ask myself why. Two reasons came to mind, which I'm not sure are valid or not but I thought I'd mention them anyway. 1) The title cards. I really don't like title cards. I'm sure there are many silent films that are more physical, like the Buster Keaton ones for example, but when movies rely on title cards too much I find it really draining. I mean, I know at that point its just the way it was, but I definitely appreciate how huge a leap for cinema it was when they got sound. 2) The music. I am a little bit of a purest when it comes to movies, but its hard with silent films because most of the time the music is not original. The phantom carriage for example had music composed for it in the 90s. Granted they did a good job making it sound sorta 20's era-ish, but nonetheless it isn't. So am i really getting the full effect I should, or is it tainted? It just kinda bugs me a bit, but the only other way is to watch it completely in silence, but even that doesn't work, since these films were meant to be accompanied by music. |
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,791
Likes: 8,649
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 15, 2017 12:17:58 GMT -5
THEATRE OF BLOOD (1973) The scariest movie Dracula and PG Cooper ever saw was Theatre of Blood. Vincent Price stars as a stage actor murdering his critics. After each death he recites a line from Shakespeare. It's Vincent Price at his most over-the-top. But Dracula and PG Cooper weren't laughing. No. That night they had to sleep with the lights on, and in the morning, they awoke in a cold sweat even though the weather was below zero in Minnesota and Canada. They say, to this day, whenever they're alone and it is quiet, they can hear Vincent Price laughing from within the horizon. You will too if you become a snob.
|
|
1godzillafan
Studio Head
Join Date: Feb 2017
I like pie!
Posts: 9,480
Likes: 6,217
Location:
Last Online Nov 8, 2024 5:42:00 GMT -5
|
Post by 1godzillafan on Oct 15, 2017 13:34:30 GMT -5
Day Fifteen Film Year: 2010 Director: David Slade Starring: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, Anna Kendrick, Bryce Dallas Howard, Dakota Fanning Riff Year: 2010 Riffers: Michael J. Nelson, Kevin Murphy, Bill Corbett Selected Short: The Trouble with Women Women - what the hell, man? I mean, what's your problem? Thankfully, for all of us non-women, some very smart people have put their best be-crew-cutted minds into coming up with a solution to the trouble with women (to avoid a conflict of interests, no women contributed, thank goodness). The Trouble with Women doesn't give us the definitive answer, but it does give us some very useful tools for dealing with... them. Mike, Kevin, and Bill (themselves NOT women) are your guides through this indispensable short.“The trouble with women is that one of them is Kathy Griffin.” “Are we sure about that?” As I prepare to watch my third Twilight movie in two weeks I hope you’ll forgive me for watching a short that vents about women. The short in question features a supervisor telling off his boss for hiring women, and listing off all the reasons why they shouldn’t be hired. But say what you want about this guy, but at least he isn’t sexually harassing and raping the girls. This makes him infinitely more likeable than Harvey Weinstein. But before we rag on this short for being sexist, it needs to be pointed out that the purpose of the short is to shed light on sexist attitudes and try and correct them. The boss sets the man straight that his troubles with women aren’t just gender exclusive. It doesn’t do much of a thorough job of examining and rebutting every example he comes up with. I could stand to be a bit longer with a stronger counterpoint. It’s obvious the reason they selected this short is because it has an angry, ranting old man at the center. Mike, Kevin, and Bill enter ranting old man mode, taking what he says and pushing it to the next level. Because they cross the line that the short doesn’t touch, this short is a must-see gem. And now our feature presentation... Every now and then a sequel comes along that is arguably superior to the original film. The Godfather II. The Empire Strikes Back. 3 Ninjas: High Noon at Mega Mountain. But the makers of The Twilight Saga: Eclipse cleverly avoided such comparisons by just making the exact same movie a third time. You want a slack-jawed girl who can’t choose between some squinty, mopey fellows? We got it! You want a red-headed vampire lady running around causing some sort of unspecified trouble? We got it! You want a consistent mythology, or a story that builds tension and develops in any way over the course of three films? We got...uh...hey look, werewolf nipples!
All our favorites are back: Moustache Dad, Harpo, the Volvo. And really, why should anything change? If you like Big Macs, and you order a Big Mac, you want the Big Mac to taste just like every other Big Mac you’ve ever had. And if you keep eating Big Macs all the time you’ll wind up alone, unloved, with a colon that would make even Louie Anderson’s doctor say “Dear God, you’ve let yourself go.” Just like the Twilight franchise!
So settle in, get a warm plate of muffins, and join Mike, Kevin and Bill for The Twilight Saga: Eclipse!“Thank you, Twilight. Before you where could a twelve-year-old girl go for tales of demonic possession and child murder that were age appropriate?” In the aftermath of New Moon being released I recall a conversation with someone who claimed they had just watch 30 Days of Night and responded “The Twilight series should take notes from that!” I told them “Well you’re in luck because David Slade is directing the next one.” I believe their response was stunned silence. If nothing else Eclipse is the most stylish Twilight movie. Throw in a finale that has a pretty decent action sequence and you have what might be the most guy-friendly Twilight movie. It’s certainly the one I thought was the least painful to watch, and I even liked parts of it. Whenever a girl and I watch a movie together and it winds up being a Twilight movie, I cross my fingers and pray that it’s this one. This one has a somewhat different story than the previous two, thank god. Ginger vampire Victoria is still pissed at the Cullens and builds an army of newly turned vamps to march on them and kill them all. The Cullens reach an uneasy truce with the werewolves to fight the army and keep Bella from harm’s way. Because, you know, everything in the vampire/werewolf world revolves around her simply because she exists. But that’s not enough to get female butts into seats. The true story is about Bella being torn between Edward and Jacob. Even though she’s said countless times that she chooses Edward and Jacob is more or less just a glorified stalker at this point. Mike, Kevin, and Bill don’t hold back on calling this romance out on it’s bullshit either. They harp on Jacob’s sexual predator behavior and never let up on him. Bella’s relationship with Edward comes under scrutiny as well, as they laugh in disbelief that they are watching a film featuring a virgin girl begging her boyfriend for sex, only to have him refuse. The riff in general starts out as merely adequate only to build continuous steam throughout the feature to a gutbusting finish. I’d consider this an improvement over New Moon in that the riffs are more varied (in other words, they cut back on the gay jokes), though that riff of the first film is still tops. But that’s almost an impossible bar to reach. But let us celebrate, for what I am told is that there’s only one more book in the series and therefore only one more film, so that means this fad is almost over. Unless a film fad of splitting a finale book into two movies to make more money occurs, but what are the odds of that happening, right? Right? RIGHT?! Oh damn. ::drinks from bottle of whiskey:: This is going to hurt. But before I go, there’s a riff that caught my attention this time around… “Something’s coming…” “Shark Week!” It might not seem like much, but starting tomorrow you’ll see the irony.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,106
Likes: 5,732
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Dracula on Oct 15, 2017 17:41:19 GMT -5
Film Fifteen: Little Shop of Horrors (1986)
 The 1980s was not a very good time for musicals, but this adaptation of the off-broadway stage musical of the same name (itself an adaptation of a Roger Coreman b-movie) was something of an exception. This movie shares something of a kinship with The Rocky Horror Picture Show, which was another musical with an interest in 1950s music and sci-fi/horror movies, although the comparisons do probably end there because this has a more coherent plot than that movie and also lacks its interest in sexual taboo. The songs here are written by Alan Menken and Howard Ashman, the duo that would soon go on to craft a majority of the great music from the Disney Renaissance and as one would expect they managed to craft some very catchy tunes here. I also liked the casting a lot, although I’m not a big fan of the film’s take on Audrey, who is made into this odd Marylyn Monroe ditz and is probably the one element that Roger Coreman probably did better. The take on Audrey II on the other hand is obviously a lot better here and the puppet effect they bring to the table are great. My one real complaint is the ending, which was famously changed after some bad test screenings. Even if they didn’t want to go with that original ending (with the alien plants taking over the world) the one they replaced it with is a half-assed deus ex machina. ***1/2 out of Five |
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,106
Likes: 5,732
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Dracula on Oct 15, 2017 17:58:39 GMT -5
1) The title cards. I really don't like title cards. I'm sure there are many silent films that are more physical, like the Buster Keaton ones for example, but when movies rely on title cards too much I find it really draining. I mean, I know at that point its just the way it was, but I definitely appreciate how huge a leap for cinema it was when they got sound. 2) The music. I am a little bit of a purest when it comes to movies, but its hard with silent films because most of the time the music is not original. The phantom carriage for example had music composed for it in the 90s. Granted they did a good job making it sound sorta 20's era ish, but nonetheless it isn't. So am i really getting the full effect I should, or is it tainted? It just kinda bugs me a bit, but the only other way is to watch it completely in silence, but even that doesn't work, since these films were meant to be accompanied by music. As far as title cards go, I don't know, that's kind of like complaining that a foreign movie isn't in English or that a black and white movie isn't in color, it's just part and parcel of what that format involves. Generally speaking the best silent movies are visually driven but occasionally the characters need to speak and that's where the title cards come in. As for the music. Some of the bigger budget silent movies like Metropolis did have scores that were composed specifically for them which would play during their gala screenings and would be sent out as sheet music. Other movies would be sent with what are called "cue sheets" which would instruct a pianist to play to certain moods and suggest standard songs that could be played with a movie. How good or bad that accompaniment was would vary by theater in much the way screen size and lighting conditions would vary today and the various filmmakers were aware of this when they made their movies. Additionally, many silent filmmakers did survive into the sound era and had some say in the kind of music that would accompany their films on re-release. Charlie Chaplin for one actually personally composed many of the scores that would accompany his films on re-release. There is currently something of a cottage industry of silent film composers who are well versed in the way these accompaniments are supposed to work, generally speaking if you're watching a film released by a reputable distributor like Criterion or Kino you can be fairly sure that what you're hearing is well within the spirit of what the filmmakers would have expected the audiences to hear when they watched their movies. |
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,791
Likes: 8,649
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 15, 2017 20:39:23 GMT -5
DEAD OF WINTER (1987) Directed by Arthur Penn, of Bonnie & Clyde fame, Dead of Winter stars Mary Steenburgen as an aspiring actress going through a less than stellar audition. She answers a casting call to play the double of the lead actress in a movie. Before she can be hired, she must visit a home in upstate New York to videotape a screen test. A snowstorm occurs and she gets trapped in the house. To complicate matters, she soon realizes she might not leave the place alive. It's an intriguing premise but the execution leaves a lot to be desired. Steenburgen is a sweet actress but this is not the type of movie she should be making. She's too passive. Penn doesn't help matters either. He plays things too safe. This is the type of movie where the audiences imagine, upon learning the plot, is wilder than whatever the filmmakers come up with.
|
|
IanTheCool
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 21,496
Likes: 2,864
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 7:41:09 GMT -5
|
Post by IanTheCool on Oct 15, 2017 21:01:59 GMT -5
There is a popular board game called dead of winter. Its about surviving a zombie apocalypse and its really quite good.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,791
Likes: 8,649
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 15, 2017 23:18:09 GMT -5
CRAWLSPACE (1986) I love this movie. Klaus Kinski plays an apartment landlord who's also a Nazi. All his tenants are sexy women, and when he gets bored of stalking them through the crawlspace, he murders them. He justifies each murder by playing Russian Roulette with God. "So be it." It's 80 minutes long. There isn't much of a story. But it's so well-made and acted that I can't complain. Great horror entertainment.
|
|
