What Films Have You Seen Recently?

[Gojirosan]

Originally Posted by stevoj

Why did you torture yourself like that?

I figured I should "know my enemy" and I had been giving enough people grief about their obsessions with it it seemed hypocritical that I hadn't actually seen it.

I am now fully armed and packing serious ammunition.

[Kyle]

i just watched the cube, another great film today!

[Kyle]

what a strange sequel this was , there were parts i loved but there was also parts that just didnt work

[Gojirosan]

Originally Posted by bitchslicer

what a strange sequel this was , there were parts i loved but there was also parts that just didnt work

I've never been able to bring myself to watch that. I didn't see how Cube (which I thought was excellent) could have or needed a sequel.

[Kyle]

its a lot cheaper and tries to be too clever which is its downfall in places as the budget doesn't stretch to what they tried to achieve! i still enjoyed it though im going to try and watch the 3rd one later

[bizarre_eye@Cult Labs]

Have you seen Cube Zero BS? Another strange sequel... well prequel. I found it enjoyable though.

[Kyle]

Originally Posted by bizarre_eye

Have you seen Cube Zero BS? Another strange sequel... well prequel. I found it enjoyable though.

no not yet hopefully ill get to watch it tonight!

[Gojirosan]

Camp Blood

An odd one this, very much the cheap, made on video for video, rip off, piece of crap, but it actually does achieve a few scenes of intensity and horrific desperation towards the end.

Don't get me wrong, it is amateurish rubbish, but there's a little spark of something interesting in the film-makers.

I've just seen that it was originally shot in a 3D process which might help explain the awful colour problems throughout the film and several curious shot choices.

[42ndStreetFreak]

Originally Posted by Gojirosan

Camp Blood

An odd one this, very much the cheap, made on video for video, rip off, piece of crap, but it actually does achieve a few scenes of intensity and horrific desperation towards the end.

Don't get me wrong, it is amateurish rubbish, but there's a little spark of something interesting in the film-makers.

I've just seen that it was originally shot in a 3D process which might help explain the awful colour problems throughout the film and several curious shot choices.

Yeah, the awful colour almost destroyed the film. Pretty dire any way.

Actually "Camp Blood 2" is much better (relatively speaking).
The colour is fine, it recaps all you need to know from "Part 1" and then has its own kills that are not only better...but actually feature some proper gore FX.

Nothing great, but not bad, vastly better than "1" and thanks to the recap...it actually means "1" isn't even needed.

[42ndStreetFreak]

"Dracula" (1979)


A pretty unique version of the story (based on the old Hamilton Deane play as well as Stoker's novel itself) sees the entire Harker/Transylvania portion of the plot removed.

This is a mixed bleesing though.
Unlike any other version we actually have a lot of time to cover Dracula's 'stay' in England. But it comes at the expense of perhaps the best portion of the story that contains some of the most memorable, effective and atmospheric set-pieces.

The screenplay does cover a few of the Transylvania moments by inserting them throughout the English sequences and changing their context;
Like the wall climb, the cut finger, the mirror, the fed upon baby and the (strangely altered) "Children of the night' speech.
But they lose much of their mysterious, scary, atmospheric power by not happening in Dracula's castle to a stranded and frightened Harker.

The less said about some of the cheesy seduction visual effects (a notorious sequence) and the soppy 'romance' scenes between Lucy and Dracula the better though.

But we have some very good moments here.
The shape changing aspect of Dracula is used well (even the bat looks not too bad, though it's stupid to have him change back from being a Wolf and be wearing clothes!!), the SFX and matte work is very good, Dracula has some good conversation sequences and sly manipulation scenes (at last 'The Count' part of Dracula is given a vital chance to shine), there are some effective scenes in the asylum and the sets are wonderful (even if Carfax Abbey has the most over the top cobwebs in cinematic history).

Some of the changes to the novel (you can edit Stoker's novel, but only idiots try to change it and do so at their peril) are interesting but some are annoying.
Why on Earth switch Lucy with Mina? It's a needless and silly change that grates having Mina be killed and turned instead of Lucy.
Making Mina the Daughter of Van Helsing is pointless artistically but gives a quicker way the get Abraham Van Helsing into the story.
Sadly not much is made of the father/daughter aspect though...not even when Van Helsing has to despatch his own undead child.
And the big finale change as far as Van Helsing goes works okay as entertainment amazingly...but again to any fan of the story it does grate.

Olivier is pretty good, if rather hammy, as Van Helsing (a million times better and less hammy than Anthony Hopkins though!), Donald Pleasence is fun as a very much changed Dr Seward, Trevor Eve makes a pretty poor Harker and as 'The Count' Frank Langela is actually very, very good (hair aside) but is rather a damp squib as far as being a scary Vampire goes (much like Louis Jourdan in the more faithful UK TV version from 1977).

The ending though (after a pretty exciting finale fight with an effective, rare indeed, change as far as Dracula's 'demise' goes) is thrown into the toilet with a nonsensical, stuck with unintentionally funny visuals, 'twist' that seems like it was shoe-horned in to make way (though Director John Badham denies this) for a sequel.

It's directed with lots of style by Badham, but also at a rather leaden pace which is not helped by the strong emphasis on the 'romantic Count'.
At least we are spared the God-awful 'love though the ages' garbage of the mostly awful "Bram Stoker's Dracula" though.

Some good things, some weak things, some bad things. But it is a better film than its often thought of and what it does good it actually does better than most other "Dracula" films.
So, not as remotely good as it really should have been, but a pretty nice try.