Annabelle

I decided to watch this tonight because I watched on live cam them moving the original Annabelle from its original case to another case .
Not 100% sure why I think it was more of a portable case so they can carry around to take on lectures . and feed naughty kids to .
They wore protected gloves and said a prayer then lifted her from its place and placed into the other case then said another prayer. It was a interesting watch but not much to it and only lasted around 8mins, I was expecting a bit more, eg a bit of history and background of the doll & story, and maybe a closer look of the doll before putting it into its case ..

Now let's be fair we all have some interest in supposedly true stories like these .
I say supposedly because im referring to ghost \ possession \ haunted etc stories like Amityville horror etc where stories of serial killers we know are true and did happen .
Now to me I honestly don't believe the whole Annabelle story and there no real proof to back it up except the owners story ...and what they say

Now if you don't know anything about the story films like these slightly irritate me because it had no real connection at all about the doll except the film was based on a doll and really used Annabelle name to cash in and get a wider and bigger audience. And if you don't know that then you would walk away from the cinema thinking this was the story...if it was just stand alone film then no problem but it is giving slight impression its based of the doll ..
After all i had to once explain to someone paranormal activity wasnt true .. But she wouldn't have it because at the end before titles it gave a brief outline of the story as if it was true and because of that she believed it was true otherwise why write that at the end ..face palm

The film itself was half decent and watchable but several element's of the film annoyed me , like for starters scare tactics where the music suddenly BOOMs making you reach for the remote control ready to turn it down..and making you jump in same way as if you walking along street and a friend jumped out from nowhere and loudly shouted boo . grr no need :nono::lol: that's not scare tactics more of giving you a bloody heart attack tactics, a horror will scare you and keep you edge of your seat on what's happening with atmospheric music in the background.
Several scenes reminded me of other horrors like Exorcist and omen where she was pushing the pram with the child in, she had both hands on the pram, then suddenly bent down to pick her keys up that she dropped, while doing so the pram rolled into the road and got hit by a truck.. But that's OK the child was safe because she had hold of it in her arms close to her chest. was this some sort of magic trick to impress pen & teller I like to know if it fooled them in how she did it.

Personally if I was to watch a story based on something true like a doll , I would watch a independent film of it than a Hollywood film for several reason, but main reason being is the makers of the indie film would research the story and try to stick as closely as they could to supposedly the real facts, where the Hollywood film would put there own spin on it and exaggerate to suit themselves .

Is this a review of Annabelle, the film set before the events in The Conjuring, or a similarly titled cash-in film, also with a doll?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paFgQNPGlsg

Yes ..

I've never seen the conjuring either .

I wasn't sure because you put 'Annabella', so I didn't know if that was a typo or a different film with a very similar title. I hope you don't mind me changing Annabella to Annabelle.

The Conjuring is much better than Annabelle, but still relies too heavily on jump scares rather than atmosphere and suspense to unsettle the audience.

Ah right no worries, cheers :thankingyou:. It was late when I wrote it and didn't realise if I had spelt it right or not..

Not a problem – I just wanted to tread the fine line between making sure others weren't confused like me and offend you by changing the original post.

I'm extremely offended :scared: tbh I'm traumatised about it I'm in tears here while writing this
Going have to go Dr tomorrow for counselling ..

Feel free to correct anytime you want... There you got my blessing son .:wise::tongue1:

I saw this yesterday too, I found it to be a very rewarding watch. I really enjoyed it. While the civil rights movement and segregation are well known topics, I didn't really know any of the details about this and I wish to know more based on the film which I guess serves the purpose.

Outstanding performances by everyone, even teased out a bit of emotion from me at the end :lol:

I don't like beans much and if I did I prefer the to be warm and not cool ..

I did a bit of research (i.e. looked on Wikipedia) and discovered the liberties which were taken by the screenwriters, taking some things from the mid-1950s and moving them to 1961. As I said, this compressed the timeline and created more dramatic tension and emotional impact about such things of de-segregating the toilets, which opened in 1958, three years before this happened in the film, and Dorothy Vaughan becoming a supervisor in 1949, 12 years before it was depicted in the film.

However, this is a case of 'not letting the truth get in the way of a good story' and taking some liberties for dramatic licence – the film would not have had the emotional impact if all events were shown exactly as they happened in real life.

That sounds so eeurgh!

LDATMM (1974, Jorge Grau)
What can you say about this film that hasnt been zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Athrur Kennedy embodies fascism
Ray Lovelock embodies freeedom maaan
The Lake district looks loverly

Why couldn't BU put out an unlocked blu??? :whip:

It is unlocked. :nod:

SOLD then......;):nod:

I was going to say I'm sure that one's not locked I've been meaning to pick it up for ages. That said it seems to have gone shooting up in price.

http://images.yuku.com/image/jpeg/77...833090b6ab.jpg
AIRPORT 1975

A stewardess takes the controls of a 747 when a light aircraft hits the cockpit, killing two air crew and injuring another. With a huge hole in the cockpit and taking flight orders from the ground, a decision is made to transfer another pilot from a helicopter to land the plane..

This film does get a bad rap and I really do not understand why. It's great entertainment. Karen Black is excellent as the stewardess under pressure. Lots of stars and recognisable faces along with a good music score and effects make this an enjoyable disaster movie and a great nights viewing. :cool:

Is it a bird, is it a plane? ... no it's Super Charlton. :lol:

I like all the Airport films, got the box set on dvd.

A total lack of reviews from me this week as i haven't watched a thing. No films not tv series, nothing, except a football match each night then gone to bed.

I've had great sleep though. Nine and a half hours straight through last night. :sleep:

Nine and half hours .. Wish I could that's almost 2days sleep for me . I tend to be still awake around 3 4 in the morn and wake up around 8:30 9 ish :confused:
Even worse when I'm working ..

When I'm in bed, I have someone who snores L-O-U-D-L-Y to the left of me, and a cat that always wants attention, or feeding, or to go outside to the right of me

I'm lucky if I get 5 hours a night, and it is really starting to tell on my health and well-being!

I normally only get four or five hours a night, I've been the same since I was a teenager, in fact, if I get more than five hours I feel sluggish for the rest of the day which is strange I suppose.

My father is the same.

Yes kinda exactly how I am ...
But all I ever get of my mum is , its because you sleep during day , you don't try to sleep , or some other comment , some people just don't get it and no matter what you explain they think they know why :nono::nono::nono:

Grab the cat and put it at side of the person snoring and let cat annoy them or dig they in the ribs or something :lol:

I'm lucky I have a whole bed to myself with no pets .

But generally if I'm a deep sleep I'm 100% dead to the world and nothing can wake me up, not even if you threw a party next to me .

Or go sleep on settee and lock door so cat no choice to torment them..

If all that fails get rid of both :lol:

Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man (1991)

I'm not ashamed to admit I enjoy this film.

*** out of *****


Can't go wrong with some early Steven Seagal. Everything up to and including 'Under Siege', is very enjoyable, cheesy, action martial arts entertainment. Things started going downhill after that.

Above the Law (1988)

*** out of *****


Hard to Kill (1990)

*** out of *****

You can't go wrong with any of those.

"It's better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool"

AFTER LAST SEASON – Well, what the f*ck is this, really? Whereas some flicks strain to seem dream-like and odd only to come across as exotic as a day-trip to Wilko's, 'After Last Season' will effortlessly make your mind feel like it's being sucked down a malevolent cosmic drain. There is a backstory to 'After Last Season' which is fascinating and ultimately as enigmatic as the film itself, but it's too involved to go into here, so, do some research if you're interested. As for what ALS is about... OK, the gist of it concerns two medical students who seem to work for a sinister sounding corporation, and who try out a new telepathic technique in an attempt to investigate some killings which have been happening on campus. The killer is identified as a ghost, but then it turns out that it's all a dream anyway. You won't care if that's a spoiler or not, because there is a ghost involved after all, only it appears more interested in giving dry information about how it can move a spirit level than killing people, leaving the actual murderer to be revealed in an utterly underwhelming 'climax'. My synopsis probably makes ALS sound at least a bit weird, but trust me, we haven't even scratched the surface. For one thing, there's the sets – they're utterly threadbare. There's what's supposed to be an MRI scanner, and it looks like a ring of cardboard. The rooms where all the 'action' takes place are like those of a management suite undergoing repairs, harshly lit by someone who knows even less about that kind of stuff than I. The performances take this strangeness up a notch - characters deliver long, disinterested monologues about trivia whilst looking as dynamic as corpses. But the really weird, unnerving aspect of 'After Last Season' is the way it constantly cuts away from people and actions to show static objects – fittings, walls, corners, doors. Or better still, signs – arrows, diagrams, or sequential arrays of A4 paper bearing no apparent messages. Just weird. What can it possibly mean? And of course, there's the ultra primitive CGI dream sequence ghost bit, but I can't even bring myself to describe that. I've seen plenty of bizarre films, but never have I been left so baffled. The jury's out on whether 'After Last Season' is an avant-garde prank, a genuine piece of outsider art or the outcome of a complicated situation and some bad decisions. But for me, beyond the goofiness of the bad sets and stilted acting it captures a really chilly, alien state of mind. I don't think it's available on DVD any more, but can be found on YouTube.

Black Sunday (1976)

John Frankenheimer's classic 70's thriller about a terrorist plot to blow up 80.000 people at the Super Bowl using a GoodYear blimp.

Although there are one or two action sequences including a notable chase in Miami, Frankenheimer explores obsession with a chilling portrait of a deranged Vietnam veteran as played by Bruce Dern. The film isn't just one man's lunacy though. It deals with terrorism in Beiruit and on American soil. Robert Shaw plays an Israeli counter terrorist agent attempting to track down a female bomber who relocates to the United States. The pieces all fall into place, culminating in a completely gripping final forty minutes featuring some excellent stunt work in one of cinema's more unusual chase set pieces.

Whilst perhaps not as essential as The French Connection or in my opinion, Ronin, Black Sunday is still a prime Frankenheimer thriller and a classic of 70's cinema.

Recommended.

Marked for Death (1990)

*** out of *****


Out for Justice (1991)

My personal favourite Seagal flick.

*** out of *****

Seagal's best fight sequence...


Under Siege (1992)

*** out of *****

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

Following the day-glo Gothic majesty of Tim Burton's Batman, the 60's cartoon like thrills of Joel Schumacher's films and the deadly serious nature of Chris Nolan's Batman trilogy comes Batman v Superman. A comic book brought to life on the screen.

Except under the watchful eye of director Zak Snyder it's a comic book that's been left outside in the paper collection, been pissed on by the elements until it was a soggy mess before getting trampled on by an unaware bin man before Snyder spotted he'd lost his favourite comic book, saved it from the crusher and tried his hand at putting the pages back together. However it seems poor old Zak wasn't as familiar with his beloved comic book as he thought he was because he put the pages back together in the wrong order making the story incoherent and jumbled.

It's not often a film of this ilk get's it's casting decisions so wrong. Ben Affleck, whilst fine as a grizzled Bruce Wayne is fairly faceless as Batman (Oh and what's with the god awful Batsuit?), all i can say about Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor is Jesus wept! Gal Gadot in little more than a cameo as Diana Prince was fine but as Wonder Woman she came across as small, Wonder Woman is an Amazonian princess and we canall picture exactly what they look like and Gadot never comes into the thinking. Only Henry Cavill does alright as Superman but then it was his second outing as the character, and Jeremy Irons brings a bit of cynical world weariness as Wayne's trusty aide, Alfred.

The film is so full of flaws it makes the teeth grind, without boring you i'll just mention one of them. Throughout the movie Batman hates Superman and wants to kill him. When he's finally about to plunge a Kryptonian rod into Superman's chest to deliver that fatal wound he discovers Superman's mother had the same name - Martha - as his mother...low and behold everything stops in it's tracks and everything's right in the DC superhero world. This may not seem much to someone reading this, but the film and script is riddled to the point of silliness with such flaws.

The final half hour was an inexcusable cluster**** of unoriginal creature design, terrible CGI and seen it all before, destroy everything action. So much so that it took the main theme from the earlier part of the film - the cost to human life of Superman's actions - and laughed in it's face by destroying city block after city block of Metropolis. It proved such a mess i wasn't even aware said CGI beastie was supposedly Doomsday until the credits rolled.

I will say one thing. It must be difficult to make a brilliant Superman film in the 21st century. The Christopher Reeve films, Superman and Superman II are as much as you need really before you realize the Man of Steel can't be killed except by Kryptonite, so unless film makers continue down the same road all they can really do is match the comic strips and throw planets at him. To me and many others, including the makers of the long running and highly successful series Smallville, Superman's success is not in being Superman but in being Clark Kent and discovering his powers, because once he finally becomes Superman then that's the interesting part of his story concluded.

Absolutely ridiculous at times with the odd touch of quality. Perversely i actually enjoyed this because my expectations were so low and for all it's sloppiness there are one or two very good moments. It's also infinitely superior to The Green Lantern (2011) so isn't quite at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to DC Superhero madness.

It did well at the Razzies!

WORST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Jesse Eisenberg / Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

WORST SCREEN COMBO
Ben Affleck & His BFF (Baddest Foe Forever) Henry Cavill / Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

WORST PREQUEL, REMAKE, RIP-OFF or SEQUEL
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice: Dawn of Justice

WORST SCREENPLAY
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

All awards well deserved i say. Especially Eisenberg, he should get the award to keep, so to speak.

But the film industry won't give a ****,because its made made tonnes of money and no matter what they know people will still flock to see next one, even if that's bad as well,
All their bothered about is making money and a hell of a lot of films do despite how awful they are, these days they only need to announce their going to make a character from marvel or DC and people get excited , even if that's all they announced, and even if film critics despise it people will still go to watch it , and itl never change unless people make a stand and start boycotting films ..

You make a good point, gag.

There are far too many superhero films each year. On the whole i tend to enjoy them when i get round to watching them although i'd never rush out to see one.

My first thought when reading your post was that after almost a century of Hollywood perhaps there aren't many new stories to tell, hence the many sequels and remakes, but that just isn't true.

There are hundreds of books written each year and it's only logical that some must cover new ground, so surely it's up to Hollywood producers to find these ideas and stories and bring them to the big screen. Sci-fi has been in a bit of a golden period recently with films like Interstellar, The Martian and Gravity being three examples, so the stories are out there, they just need to be gambled on.

Having said that. Horror fiction seems to have died a death. I'm sure there is a lot of quality about, it's just i don't know of any new authors. The Likes of King and Poe have been mined to death by Hollywood but i'm sure they could still find a screenplay or two in the unfilmed works of Hutson, Campbell, Laymon etc.

Is it a case of the ideas not being out there, the studio execs who can't be bothered looking for them or lazy audiences who just want two and a half hours of superheroes when they visit the cinema?

The second. Why would studio execs bother looking for new material when as gag rightly pointed out audiences (at least the moneymaking ones that count) will happily buy the same product over and over again. From the studios point of view it ain't broke so why the hell try fixing it.

The way i see it is it will break eventually. One film will crash dramatically then that will be the end of the super hero film. The execs will suddenly shit themselves when Snyder or JJ come around asking for $250m to make a Penisman movie or something because Dr Strange vs Dr Evil flopped big time.

True, but a tadge of both really eg there is a lot of films out there that do offer something different and fresh, but because they might be made say from a independent film maker they don't have the money like warner etc to advertise the film 6months ahead of its release and you get sick of seeing the advert shoved in your face everywhere ,posters, radio , TV ,internet etc .so the indie film gets a small and limited advertisement etc and disappears and becomes a film only a minority of people have heard of .. Not all films are remakes sequels reboots cash in etc .. But because these type of stuff get drummed into at every turn it feels like it and pushes every other film that's not into the background... There is fresh films out there but you have to dig deep and find them ...years ago films where just films like football was just just football..but everything gone to point where everything is now about the money and greed and how much then can get \ earn .. Bit ridiculous how a footballer can earn more in a month than kicking a ball about about , than someone running a country can in a year. And film industry similar they can't just concentrate on making a decent film and story , its all about loads of action, who who in the film, big budget , CGI , Ott crazy characters , dumb everything down a bit and actual concentrate on the film then people might not complain as much, but their not interested only interested as long as it bringing bums on the seats and making shed loads of money ..personally last film that interested me enough to go cinema was raid 2 quality and look of some films don't seem to excite me anymore (but that's just me ) if a film looks crap don't like look of it then ill avoid, I'll give it benefit of the doubt if real film fans give it the thumbs up , irrelevant if films critics like it or not , the film fans opinion matter more to me than a lot of film critics opinion ...after all how many critics have gave films good review only for us to dislike it.

I think you missed my point. I was talking about Hollywood and blockbusters not indie films.

Obviously indie film makers have to go with other things as they don't have budgets in the hundreds of millions.

I think some of it is down to cinema's as well some of whom only book big budget blockbuster films.:loco:
My local didn't even have Trainspotting 2, twats, i'm sure that would have brought some people in due to the reputation of the original, stars and director.

Sos
True but I was just making a point about films in general and how the big budget films can afford to push other films in the background and there is good and new fresh films but just have to look for them ..