Last Movie you Watched?

1703704706708709902

Comments

  • Posts: 10,274
    Scanners (1981). Not bad but so far the least of the Cronenberg films I have seen. I liked some of it but collectively I guess just not my cup of tea.
  • edited April 2018 Posts: 684
    Check out his early 'body horror' stuff,

    Shivers
    Rabid
    The Brood
    Scanners


    All good films
    Question for you, @LeonardPine, about SHIVERS. RABID is the earliest Cronenberg I've seen, and that one (while entertaining enough) didn't feel sufficiently 'Cronenbergian' to me. Should I expect much the same from the earlier SHIVERS?
    FoxRox wrote: »
    My personal favorite is actually The Dead Zone, even though it doesn’t have as much of his signature style.
    Re: the lack of his signature style. Somebody -- it might have been Mark Kermode? -- said that THE DEAD ZONE is a Stephen King and David Cronenberg film for people who don't like Stephen King or David Cronenberg.
  • Posts: 10,274
    Strog wrote: »
    Check out his early 'body horror' stuff,

    Shivers
    Rabid
    The Brood
    Scanners


    All good films
    Question for you, @LeonardPine, about SHIVERS. RABID is the earliest Cronenberg I've seen, and that one (while entertaining enough) didn't feel sufficiently 'Cronenbergian' to me. Should I expect much the same from the earlier SHIVERS?
    FoxRox wrote: »
    My personal favorite is actually The Dead Zone, even though it doesn’t have as much of his signature style.
    Re: the lack of his signature style. Somebody -- it might have been Mark Kermode? -- said that THE DEAD ZONE is a Stephen King and David Cronenberg film for people who don't like Stephen King or David Cronenberg.

    Maybe they were right for certain people, but I enjoy many other Cronenberg and King movies so it can’t be the case for me.
  • edited April 2018 Posts: 684
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Maybe they were right for certain people, but I enjoy many other Cronenberg and King movies so it can’t be the case for me.
    Oh absolutely! I just thought the observation was amusing. ;) I think it's also meant to be taken as, if you don't enjoy either of them, here's one for you. Rather than as, if you already enjoy them you won't like this one.
  • Posts: 10,274
    Makes sense. The Dead Zone was EXACTLY my cup of tea. I guess the merging of King and Cronenberg is just right for me. Walken and Sheen were at their best. The concept was great and executed so well. It became a favorite as soon as I saw it.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    Edge of Darkness (2010)
    v1.bjs3MTk3ODI7ajsxNzY0ODsxMjAwOzE5MjA7ODE2
    Edge of Darkness is a film directed by Martin Campbell with a mix of drama and mystery elements that continues the neo-noir tradition. It was Mel Gibson's big comeback to the cinematic stage in his first leading role since 2002's Signs following his infamous and highly publicized period of personal drama, and puts him in the well worn shoes of a troubled cop pushed to the limits in the aftermath of a personal and traumatic episode.

    This was a movie I had wanted to see for a long time, and got the chance to pick it up on blu-ray when I saw it in a bargain bin a short time ago. Having watched it, I'm glad I jumped at the chance. I haven't really looked into the overall consensus on this film too much, but I think I fall into the minority of enjoying it to a fair degree as I've only seen pretty average or mixed reviews thus far of it. When it started out I thought it was perhaps a bit too familiar and "been there done that," what with its story of a good cop's path of revenge to honor the death of someone they cared for. And there certainly are some familiar aspects to Edge of Darkness that any seasoned viewer of the genre of noirs or crime films will be able to pick up on, as they are tropes that are well known. But this all being said, I was genuinely surprised at where this movie went in terms of its plot, and I mean that in a good way. If you'd have told me it ended up where it did I likely wouldn't have believed it, as it felt like an interesting twist on the neo-noir framework that I hadn't really seen handled quite in this way before. Parts of the movie I found incredibly refreshing, for how the characters were handled, how the movie failed to back down from doing what it did and how the plot was developed with turns that I was genuinely shocked by. Two moments in particular literally made me start in my place, the events I was witnessing were so sudden. In this way the movie has a nice way of never making you feel comfortable, as it builds its characters to be expendable, vulnerable or at least always make them feel in danger of some kind even if they may not be at the time.

    The movie was scripted by the team of Andrew Bovell and William Monahan, the latter of The Departed fame. I can see Monahan's touch here in the plot and how the events of the film and characters were painted in the refreshing and unpredictable ways I mentioned above. I've never been a big fan of The Departed but one thing I do respect about it is how daring it is and how, like this movie, no character feels sacred in the story. Any scene feels like it could be a character's last because the movie creates an inherent sense of risk and consequence from the beginning that is very effective in making one worry for the fates of those characters you're drawn to. This idea of killing your darlings is pretty standard in the noir genre as is, and that's part of the appeal of it and why it's my favorite school of filmmaking to watch. It's simply an interesting and invigorating feeling to watch movies that don't take the same predictable turns you expect 100% of the time and have parts of it that catch you off guard or put a twist on concepts or plots you thought you'd seen every shade of before. I don't mean to say that Edge of Darkness is anything near the level of a Chinatown here, but it feeds from the same well in the sense that is depicts a very unflinching reality that will take risks with its characters and take you on a harrowing and sometimes shocking ride with them.

    The look and style of Edge of Darkness is one of its other big strengths, shot by the same Phil Meheux who had previously made both of Campbell's Bond films so striking in their visual power. The camerawork here adds a lot of punch to the story to back up the consequential plot and certain shots, like the opening to the film, will stick in my brain for a long while because of how striking they were on immediate delivery. This very harsh realism supported by the visuals was appreciated, and what is created is a very genuine feeling of grit and risk that feeds directly into the script.

    I also have to give a big round of applause to Ray Winstone, an actor who really stole the show in my eyes and was the best thing about every scene he was in here, including my favorite scene of the entire movie where his performance caused me to elicit an audible hurrah. It was a nice surprise to see him in this film, as I usually like him and the sort of no bullsh*t stoicism he provides some of his characters. Here he's a sort of fixer slash operative kind of man who cleans up the messes that come his way via his clientele, and one job in particular puts him on a path with Gibson's revengeful cop. I don't want to spoil anything about Winstone's part in the film, or anything else about it, but I must say his character quickly became one of my favorites out of those that I've seen in the genre. He's ridiculously quotable and his character is often waxing poetically about life and his job in amusing but ultimately enlightening ways that convince you he has long been tapped into the secret wisdom. And despite the fact that he and Gibson's character would probably be enemies earlier in their respective careers, it is endlessly intriguing and fascinating to see these two interact as they perhaps find more in common than they expected and don't immediately shoot at each other. Their relationship and how their interactions are developed are just one example of why I found parts of the movie refreshing and more intriguing than I expected to at first glance.

    In conclusion, I think Edge of Darkness is a solid film, even if it may fall short of being truly fantastic or unforgettable in the leagues of the aforementioned Chinatown. I have since discovered that this movie was based off a late 80s BBC mini-series that is apparently very acclaimed, which I now want to check out. With this in mind, I can see how parts of the film seem underdeveloped or where certain parts were trimmed to meet the studio demand for runtime. The positive of doing a mini-series format for this story is of course the increased time writers would have to really develop the story and characters over a greater period of time, a luxury not afforded to films to such a degree. This isn't to say that Edge of Darkness badly develops its plot or characters, as I really enjoyed both. I simply mean that I can see why those who had seen the original show could be disappointed by the film, not only for the changes made in the location and culture depicted (jumping from England to Boston in setting, which is jarring) but also for how the longer plot of the program had to be condensed by under two hours for the film format. Given the kind of story this is, I wouldn't be surprised to enjoy the show more, for the added luxury of storytelling time which is so vital towards making one care about the characters and to spin a good yarn.


    I do think Edge of Darkness goes a fine job being what it is, though, and may surprise those who give it a shot as I did. You get to see Mel going back to his Mad Max roots, an armed man with anger on his mind, just in a slightly less dystopian landscape. His performance is a commendable one and he adds the perfect gravitas and weight to the scenes without over acting it; you can read a lot into his quiet character just from his expressions, and enough is left a mystery to make him compelling. He does a great job of balancing that inner war between the best detective characters, the light and the dark, and though his cop definitely teeters on the edge of darkness as the name of the film implies, I think he's a very strong and heroic figure to root for.

    The rest of the cast is also quite credible as they fall in support of Mel's leading role, including the great Winstone as I detailed above, and there are some minor players who really excel in their parts and add a great flavor to the proceedings. The personal angle of the story in particular felt strong to me because I thought that the performances and chemistry between Mel's protagonist and a certain character close to him were very strong, making you care about the path that the cop later takes because of this. The movie wouldn't have ended up being as good as I thought it was if this personal angle was mishandled, and I was impressed with the routes the story took despite the very familiar premise of a revenge story in the cinematic tradition. While countless revenge films I've seen really undersell the relationships that make the revengeful characters turn to vengeance, one thing that was refreshing about Edge of Darkness was how it took the time to actually lay the groundwork for the personal mission of Mel's character because the filmmakers knew that everything would hang off that central point in terms of drama and stakes; with a weak center, nothing else would hold.

    I would recommend Edge of Darkness to those who like Gibson, Ray Winstone especially or the noir genre in general with its trademark stories of consequence and grit, which the film delivers on through its sometimes brutal visuals and content that holds nothing back. The movie gradually won me over as more was revealed to me that I didn't expect and I ultimately came away appreciating how ironically refreshing a revenge film felt while also admiring how its script respected its own characters and stories by putting more of a spin on things than you often see with this kind of plot. The movie may market itself as just another revenge story from the tagline and blurbs you can see, but there's definitely more beneath the surface that really makes it stand out in my mind from other films of its kind and that's all down to some strong performances, scripting, photography and directing. This is one I'll definitely be coming back to in the future.
  • Posts: 11,296
    Edge of Darkness (2010)
    v1.bjs3MTk3ODI7ajsxNzY0ODsxMjAwOzE5MjA7ODE2
    Edge of Darkness is a film directed by Martin Campbell with a mix of drama and mystery elements that continues the neo-noir tradition. It was Mel Gibson's big comeback to the cinematic stage in his first leading role since 2002's Signs following his infamous and highly publicized period of personal drama, and puts him in the well worn shoes of a troubled cop pushed to the limits in the aftermath of a personal and traumatic episode.

    This was a movie I had wanted to see for a long time, and got the chance to pick it up on blu-ray when I saw it in a bargain bin a short time ago. Having watched it, I'm glad I jumped at the chance. I haven't really looked into the overall consensus on this film too much, but I think I fall into the minority of enjoying it to a fair degree as I've only seen pretty average or mixed reviews thus far of it. When it started out I thought it was perhaps a bit too familiar and "been there done that," what with its story of a good cop's path of revenge to honor the death of someone they cared for. And there certainly are some familiar aspects to Edge of Darkness that any seasoned viewer of the genre of noirs or crime films will be able to pick up on, as they are tropes that are well known. But this all being said, I was genuinely surprised at where this movie went in terms of its plot, and I mean that in a good way. If you'd have told me it ended up where it did I likely wouldn't have believed it, as it felt like an interesting twist on the neo-noir framework that I hadn't really seen handled quite in this way before. Parts of the movie I found incredibly refreshing, for how the characters were handled, how the movie failed to back down from doing what it did and how the plot was developed with turns that I was genuinely shocked by. Two moments in particular literally made me start in my place, the events I was witnessing were so sudden. In this way the movie has a nice way of never making you feel comfortable, as it builds its characters to be expendable, vulnerable or at least always make them feel in danger of some kind even if they may not be at the time.

    The movie was scripted by the team of Andrew Bovell and William Monahan, the latter of The Departed fame. I can see Monahan's touch here in the plot and how the events of the film and characters were painted in the refreshing and unpredictable ways I mentioned above. I've never been a big fan of The Departed but one thing I do respect about it is how daring it is and how, like this movie, no character feels sacred in the story. Any scene feels like it could be a character's last because the movie creates an inherent sense of risk and consequence from the beginning that is very effective in making one worry for the fates of those characters you're drawn to. This idea of killing your darlings is pretty standard in the noir genre as is, and that's part of the appeal of it and why it's my favorite school of filmmaking to watch. It's simply an interesting and invigorating feeling to watch movies that don't take the same predictable turns you expect 100% of the time and have parts of it that catch you off guard or put a twist on concepts or plots you thought you'd seen every shade of before. I don't mean to say that Edge of Darkness is anything near the level of a Chinatown here, but it feeds from the same well in the sense that is depicts a very unflinching reality that will take risks with its characters and take you on a harrowing and sometimes shocking ride with them.

    The look and style of Edge of Darkness is one of its other big strengths, shot by the same Phil Meheux who had previously made both of Campbell's Bond films so striking in their visual power. The camerawork here adds a lot of punch to the story to back up the consequential plot and certain shots, like the opening to the film, will stick in my brain for a long while because of how striking they were on immediate delivery. This very harsh realism supported by the visuals was appreciated, and what is created is a very genuine feeling of grit and risk that feeds directly into the script.

    I also have to give a big round of applause to Ray Winstone, an actor who really stole the show in my eyes and was the best thing about every scene he was in here, including my favorite scene of the entire movie where his performance caused me to elicit an audible hurrah. It was a nice surprise to see him in this film, as I usually like him and the sort of no bullsh*t stoicism he provides some of his characters. Here he's a sort of fixer slash operative kind of man who cleans up the messes that come his way via his clientele, and one job in particular puts him on a path with Gibson's revengeful cop. I don't want to spoil anything about Winstone's part in the film, or anything else about it, but I must say his character quickly became one of my favorites out of those that I've seen in the genre. He's ridiculously quotable and his character is often waxing poetically about life and his job in amusing but ultimately enlightening ways that convince you he has long been tapped into the secret wisdom. And despite the fact that he and Gibson's character would probably be enemies earlier in their respective careers, it is endlessly intriguing and fascinating to see these two interact as they perhaps find more in common than they expected and don't immediately shoot at each other. Their relationship and how their interactions are developed are just one example of why I found parts of the movie refreshing and more intriguing than I expected to at first glance.

    In conclusion, I think Edge of Darkness is a solid film, even if it may fall short of being truly fantastic or unforgettable in the leagues of the aforementioned Chinatown. I have since discovered that this movie was based off a late 80s BBC mini-series that is apparently very acclaimed, which I now want to check out. With this in mind, I can see how parts of the film seem underdeveloped or where certain parts were trimmed to meet the studio demand for runtime. The positive of doing a mini-series format for this story is of course the increased time writers would have to really develop the story and characters over a greater period of time, a luxury not afforded to films to such a degree. This isn't to say that Edge of Darkness badly develops its plot or characters, as I really enjoyed both. I simply mean that I can see why those who had seen the original show could be disappointed by the film, not only for the changes made in the location and culture depicted (jumping from England to Boston in setting, which is jarring) but also for how the longer plot of the program had to be condensed by under two hours for the film format. Given the kind of story this is, I wouldn't be surprised to enjoy the show more, for the added luxury of storytelling time which is so vital towards making one care about the characters and to spin a good yarn.


    I do think Edge of Darkness goes a fine job being what it is, though, and may surprise those who give it a shot as I did. You get to see Mel going back to his Mad Max roots, an armed man with anger on his mind, just in a slightly less dystopian landscape. His performance is a commendable one and he adds the perfect gravitas and weight to the scenes without over acting it; you can read a lot into his quiet character just from his expressions, and enough is left a mystery to make him compelling. He does a great job of balancing that inner war between the best detective characters, the light and the dark, and though his cop definitely teeters on the edge of darkness as the name of the film implies, I think he's a very strong and heroic figure to root for.

    The rest of the cast is also quite credible as they fall in support of Mel's leading role, including the great Winstone as I detailed above, and there are some minor players who really excel in their parts and add a great flavor to the proceedings. The personal angle of the story in particular felt strong to me because I thought that the performances and chemistry between Mel's protagonist and a certain character close to him were very strong, making you care about the path that the cop later takes because of this. The movie wouldn't have ended up being as good as I thought it was if this personal angle was mishandled, and I was impressed with the routes the story took despite the very familiar premise of a revenge story in the cinematic tradition. While countless revenge films I've seen really undersell the relationships that make the revengeful characters turn to vengeance, one thing that was refreshing about Edge of Darkness was how it took the time to actually lay the groundwork for the personal mission of Mel's character because the filmmakers knew that everything would hang off that central point in terms of drama and stakes; with a weak center, nothing else would hold.

    I would recommend Edge of Darkness to those who like Gibson, Ray Winstone especially or the noir genre in general with its trademark stories of consequence and grit, which the film delivers on through its sometimes brutal visuals and content that holds nothing back. The movie gradually won me over as more was revealed to me that I didn't expect and I ultimately came away appreciating how ironically refreshing a revenge film felt while also admiring how its script respected its own characters and stories by putting more of a spin on things than you often see with this kind of plot. The movie may market itself as just another revenge story from the tagline and blurbs you can see, but there's definitely more beneath the surface that really makes it stand out in my mind from other films of its kind and that's all down to some strong performances, scripting, photography and directing. This is one I'll definitely be coming back to in the future.

    Great post! I saw EDGE OF DARKNESS when it was released and enjoyed it. For me, Martin Campbell never fails. I recently bought this on a double feature DVD with the Liam Neeson thriller UNKNOWN and watched it again.
    EDGE OF DARKNESS really is the type of neo-noir one doesn't see very often anymore. A great comeback film for Gibson, who I've always been a fan of.
    I really enjoyed this film and will probably pop it in again soon.
  • Posts: 10,274
    Rewatched The Dead Zone (1983) and The Fly (1986). Still, at least so far, my favorite Cronenberg films. Both absolutely excellent.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    Star Wars The Last Jedi 4K Bluray surprisingly looks bland at times visually, I just can't redeem this film there is too much wrong with it. The dialogue at times is poor and as subtle as a sledgehammer, the film is loaded with too much exposition, the acting is poor and the way the director has shot the film is uninteresting. There are too many contrivances and everything conveniently happens as the film plays out, there is barely any sense of risk or drama, it's just a poorly thought out film and I have not even got to the characterisations.

    After the poor The Farce Awakens I was hoping for something better, it can't be worse than TFA, surely? But it was. I'm not the world's biggest SW fan, but these new films (with the exception of Rogue One) are piss poor. But I'll probably go see IX in the cinema, but with very low expectations.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,277
    Strog wrote: »
    Check out his early 'body horror' stuff,

    Shivers
    Rabid
    The Brood
    Scanners


    All good films
    Question for you, @LeonardPine, about SHIVERS. RABID is the earliest Cronenberg I've seen, and that one (while entertaining enough) didn't feel sufficiently 'Cronenbergian' to me. Should I expect much the same from the earlier SHIVERS?
    FoxRox wrote: »
    My personal favorite is actually The Dead Zone, even though it doesn’t have as much of his signature style.
    Re: the lack of his signature style. Somebody -- it might have been Mark Kermode? -- said that THE DEAD ZONE is a Stephen King and David Cronenberg film for people who don't like Stephen King or David Cronenberg.

    @Strog

    Shivers is a better film than Rabid although the stories are similar in terms of the rapid spread of an unknown disease.

    Shivers is all set in an apartment block and the sexual madness that the disease spreads affects just the residents. So the film is more small scale than Rabid's national spread of disease.

    Not sure how Rabid isn't 'Cronenbergian' as it has all his usual elements. Disease, sinister clinics, experimental surgery and innocents caught up in horrible situations.

    Cronenberg for me has always been one of the most interesting directors around. Such a solid and varied body of work. He always pushes the boundaries of cinema by exploring subject's no others would touch, and in an intelligent and cerebral way.
  • Posts: 2,105
    Identity
    True Crime
    Flags of our farhers
    The Transporter 1-3
    Fast and Furious 8
    Split
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 33,914
    Split is one of those movies I'm sure I'd enjoy, but it's taking me a while to get around to after having it spoiled for me. I hear McAvoy is fantastic in it.
  • edited April 2018 Posts: 2,105
    He is. I only knew about the ending and how it's connected to certain previous Shyamalan film. Otherwise I was unspoiled and only knew it had something to do with split personalities.
  • Posts: 2,081
    Great Expectations (2012)
    This Mike Newell directed adaptation of the Charles Dickens classic was pretty bland. Ralph Fiennes and Robbie Coltrane were good in their supporting roles, but Jeremy Irvine as the lead was uninteresting and the romance that was supposed to be important to him certainly didn't seem so at all.

    The Invisible Woman (2013)
    About Charles Dickens and the woman he loved. Directed and starring Ralph Fiennes. So much better than the one above.

    La Luna (1979)
    The Sheltering Sky (1990)

    Directed by Bernardo Bertolucci. I didn't like the first, the second (with Debra Winger and John Malkovich) was slightly better, but rambled on needlessly.

    Finding Nemo (2003)
    Finding Dory (2016)

    I had seen the first long ago, but didn't remember much, except that I liked it. Hafn't seen the second. Both of them so well done and a lot of fun.

    The Breakfast Club (1985)
    A re-watch after a long time. Still pretty good.

    The Jungle Book (2016)
    Basically a badly written action movie starring a kid and animals. The animals were well done, but apart from that... ugh. I thought I might have liked this, but my goodness it was boring. I don't think I'll bother with the sequel.
    (I hope the Mowgli movie by Andy Serkis is better - and I expect it to be since surely it can't be worse than this writing-wise, and obviously the mo-cap should be great, anyway, so...)

    Good Time (2017)
    I liked this. Excellent work from Robert Pattinson in the lead role.

    The Lovely Bones (2009)
    Directed by Peter Jackson, starring Saoirse Ronan (the lead - luminous as usual), plus Rachel Weisz (mother - lovely), Mark Wahlberg (father - I actually liked him in this, damn...), Stanley Tucci (a neighbour - suitably creepy in an understated way) and Susan Sarandon (grandmother - quite fun). A good cast, and an interesting mix of things - a story of family and of murder, with some supernatural elements and a somewhat unusual take. Worked well for me, and looked good, too. I enjoyed this a lot.
  • Posts: 684
    Strog wrote: »
    Check out his early 'body horror' stuff,

    Shivers
    Rabid
    The Brood
    Scanners


    All good films
    Question for you, @LeonardPine, about SHIVERS. RABID is the earliest Cronenberg I've seen, and that one (while entertaining enough) didn't feel sufficiently 'Cronenbergian' to me. Should I expect much the same from the earlier SHIVERS?
    FoxRox wrote: »
    My personal favorite is actually The Dead Zone, even though it doesn’t have as much of his signature style.
    Re: the lack of his signature style. Somebody -- it might have been Mark Kermode? -- said that THE DEAD ZONE is a Stephen King and David Cronenberg film for people who don't like Stephen King or David Cronenberg.

    @Strog

    Shivers is a better film than Rabid although the stories are similar in terms of the rapid spread of an unknown disease.

    Shivers is all set in an apartment block and the sexual madness that the disease spreads affects just the residents. So the film is more small scale than Rabid's national spread of disease.

    Not sure how Rabid isn't 'Cronenbergian' as it has all his usual elements. Disease, sinister clinics, experimental surgery and innocents caught up in horrible situations.

    Cronenberg for me has always been one of the most interesting directors around. Such a solid and varied body of work. He always pushes the boundaries of cinema by exploring subject's no others would touch, and in an intelligent and cerebral way.
    I'll definitely track down SHIVERS eventually then, especially since you noted it's better than RABID. I get that RABID plays with some of the usual elements in his films, but I just meant I found the whole product of them to amount to less than usual. As you go on to say, Cronenberg pushes cinema with what he's willing to touch. I suppose I see less of that in RABID than what I was perhaps expecting.
  • Posts: 4,051
    Continuing my Sean Connery marathon (Seanthon? Connerython?), I watched The Presidio. This is not a bad film, but it feels a bit slight, unimportant. On first sight it's a thriller and a detective story, but the fact is the mystery is relatively simple and spread out over the 90-minute running time, interspersed among dramatic scenes in which the main players are developed. That leads me to conclude the intention was not to make a full-fledged thriller, but a drama in which the mystery supports the dramatic theme of the story. Anyway, albeit simple, the mystery is interesting, and the drama is solid and engaging in its own way, but not outstanding since it definitely could've been fleshed out more. Both elements of the story appear to be a bit disjointed at first, but in the end they come together in a satisying way. Connery is, as usual, rock solid, and he gets to do some great acting at the very end of the film. Jack Warden is always terrific, and this is no exception. Meg Ryan plays a spunky role, and holds her own against Connery in their scenes together. Mark Harmon has great star charisma. I'm not sure why he didn't catch on as a big movie star. There are some actors who never quite succeed at making the leap from TV to film --they feel dwarfed by the big screen-- but Harmon feels right at home: he comes across as dashing and confident, has a sense of humor and also holds his own against Connery.

    Anyway, it's a good, but not great film. This is the sixth film directed by Peter Hyams I watch, after 2010, Outland, End of Days, Timecop and Sudden Death. I've also seen a good chunk of Narrow Margin. One of these days I'll give it a full watch, since what I saw of it was terrific.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    A Pistol For Ringo (1965) dir. Duccio Tessari. Arrow Video blu-ray. Any early Spaghetti Western which is filmed more like a traditional American Western, none of the stylistic tropes associated with the genre. Starring an athletic Giuliano Gemma as Angel Face a gunslinger who gets off of murder charges due to self-defence. A group of Mexican bandits rob the bank and hold-up at a ranch. Ringo (Angel Face) is released from jail to infiltrate the bandits and save the owners. The daughter being the fiancé of the sheriff. Features a score by Ennio Morricone
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,679
    YOU WERE NEVER REALLY HERE

    Now, I've been looking forward to this one for a while.
    I don't even know how to describe it. Its a film about a depressed lunatic that copes with the several traumas of his life by murdering child molesters. First, the good; The performances all around are fantastic, the score is incredible and makes half the film for me and the atmosphere that this film creates in its first 20 minutes are great. The bad; this film is aimless, its schizophrenic in a way and maybe the director was going for that to tie in with some of the subject matter explored but it just comes across as messy film making, not art. Also all the "kills" suck because the camera cuts away and its very disappointing. There was a lot to like in the film up to a point and I will revisit it and see if the themes sink in a bit more but as of now, its a 90 minute "short film" where things happen too quickly and don't really make sense. It feels like they had 48 hours to write and direct a film and the makers just went, lets make a film where nothing happens but we explore the concept of trauma.... it does not work out in my opinion.

    6/10?
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Hamburg, near the Atlantic Hotel
    Posts: 5,929
    Last night's Blu-ray double feature:

    ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE (1973) - Robert Blake stars as an Arizona motorcycle cop in what was unfortunately the only movie directed by "Chicago" music producer James William Guercio. Brilliant cinematography by legendary DOP Conrad Hall.

    BLOOD SIMPLE (1984) - The Coen Brothers' first commercial movie and still one of their best. Truly a neo-noir classic by now.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,534
    Isle of Dogs (2018)

    Fantastic film. I loved every aspect of it - the stop motion animation, the story, the soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat, the voice acting (Bill Murray, Bryan Cranston, Jeff Goldblum, Edward Norton, Ken Watanabe, Bob Balaban, F. Murray Abraham, Scarlett Johansson, Harvey Keitel, Frances McDormand and many others). The 100 minutes runtime went by at warp-speed as I was fully engrossed by the film's world and the wide variety emotions it transfuses to the audience. This film will most definitely be in my top 10 for 2018.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 33,914
    @JamesBondKenya, not too sure how I'd rate it but that somewhat falls in line with my thinking. Felt like people were promoting it as something it wasn't, so my expectations and the finished product didn't line up at all, sadly.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    edited April 2018 Posts: 30,065
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    BLOOD SIMPLE (1984) - The Coen Brothers' first commercial movie and still one of their best. Truly a neo-noir classic by now.

    I put it second only to the follow-ups: RAISING ARIZONA.
  • Posts: 10,274
    No Country For Old Men, The Big Lebowski, and Fargo are my favorite Coen Bros. films that I’ve seen so far.
  • Posts: 4,807
    image?locale=en-us&mode=scale&purposes=BoxArt&w=180&h=270&q=60


    I scored the Paranormal Activity 6 pack on DVD the other day. I watched one each night this past week.
    Say what you will about these movies, but let me tell you: this was the first time watching them in my new house all alone, instead of an apartment, and I was genuinely creeped out!
    It was a loooong walk from my movie loft to my downstairs bedroom, looking over my shoulder, lol

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Ostandia
    Posts: 39,891
    image?locale=en-us&mode=scale&purposes=BoxArt&w=180&h=270&q=60


    I scored the Paranormal Activity 6 pack on DVD the other day. I watched one each night this past week.
    Say what you will about these movies, but let me tell you: this was the first time watching them in my new house all alone, instead of an apartment, and I was genuinely creeped out!
    It was a loooong walk from my movie loft to my downstairs bedroom, looking over my shoulder, lol

    They wait until you are asleep. Don t feel safe just yet.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 18,912
    Scariest films I've ever s-- I mean most boring films I've ever seen.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,374
    The first two are superb.
    The third is good.
    The rest are pretty poor.
  • edited April 2018 Posts: 4,807
    The ending of the 3rd one (when he opened the shed and all those old women were there when the light came on) had me like:

    at.gif
    giphy.gif

    Part of the fun of scary movies is wondering how you'd react in that situation. That part though- I would have died of fright!
  • 001001
    Posts: 1,575
    YOU WERE NEVER REALLY HERE

    Now, I've been looking forward to this one for a while.
    I don't even know how to describe it. Its a film about a depressed lunatic that copes with the several traumas of his life by murdering child molesters. First, the good; The performances all around are fantastic, the score is incredible and makes half the film for me and the atmosphere that this film creates in its first 20 minutes are great. The bad; this film is aimless, its schizophrenic in a way and maybe the director was going for that to tie in with some of the subject matter explored but it just comes across as messy film making, not art. Also all the "kills" suck because the camera cuts away and its very disappointing. There was a lot to like in the film up to a point and I will revisit it and see if the themes sink in a bit more but as of now, its a 90 minute "short film" where things happen too quickly and don't really make sense. It feels like they had 48 hours to write and direct a film and the makers just went, lets make a film where nothing happens but we explore the concept of trauma.... it does not work out in my opinion.

    6/10?

    I agree. Boring film.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    edited April 2018 Posts: 2,679
    @001
    And
    @Creasy47

    I did like parts of the film, most notably the atmosphere and world the film brought the viewer into, however I found the conclusion and certain directorial choices so agregiously aggravating that this film really pisses me off. I’m sure there’s a good character story somewhere in this film but the final product I don’t feel is.

    It was supposed to be some commentary on PTSD or depression but is it..? Does it explore it properly. Or is it a mess of a story?
Sign In or Register to comment.