What Films Have You Seen Recently?

[keirarts]

Originally Posted by anythinggoes78

London Odeon is the only Cinema in UK showing the Roadshow version, that means 6 mins extra footage shown on film 70mm reel not digital and with the 15min musical intermission

Damn! Once again the north is ignored!


WINTER IS COMING!

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Chemical Wedding (2008)

Bonkers Brit sci-fi / horror / occult flick about the spirit of legendary occultist Aleister Crowley getting resurrected in the body of stuttering Cambridge don Oliver Haddo. It then takes four days for Crowley to become whole again.

Written by Iron Maiden's Bruce Dickinson along with Julian Doyle, best known for his work with Monty Python, who also directs. Chemical Wedding is a film i just can't put my finger on. Last night was my fourth viewing and i'm sure it's probably seen by many as garbage but for some reason i really like it. It has an odd Britishness about it, it feels like it should have been made in 1974 rather than 2008. It has so much smutty humour and grossness that it should offend but it doesn't, it's as if Tom Sharpe of Blot on the Landscape fame got pissed with Dennis Wheatley and L Ron Hubbard then decided to write a screenplay.

As a horror film it doesn't really do much, it's not particularly gory or scary despite there being horrific sequences. As for the science? Well i didn't really get all the ins and outs but i don't think that really matters, it often seemed a bit random, although with the final clash between science and magic perhaps a wide knowledge of physics would have helped me.

Truth be told for the most part the acting leaves something to be desired especially the younger characters, but it was nice to see Richard Franklin (Mike Yates from Jon Pertwee's time in Doctor Who) with a big role. Having said that i'm not sure anyone could live with Simon Callow in Chemical Wedding. For it is he who plays Haddo / Crowley and he's on top form. Swearing like a trooper, ****ing and sucking, hell he even pisses on his audience at one point. There possibly aren't many Shakespearean actors who wank onto occult manuscripts whilst in the throes of flagellation, but Callow just gets on with it and seemingly has a whale of a time spouting Crowley's rhetoric as he descends into deviant madness.

Those with an in depth knowledge of Crowley and his philosophies will no doubt dislike this film but i find it strangely enjoyable. As an occult film it's probably rubbish but as a quirky example of Britishness it possesses a certain charm.

[trebor8273]

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1452802574.124154.jpg
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1452802582.094482.jpg
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1452802588.841563.jpg

First viewing of the night

[bizarre_eye@Cult Labs]

A Dangerous Method (2011)





71/100

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by bizarre_eye@Cult Labs

A Dangerous Method (2011)

71/100

Thought it might have rated higher with you.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

There's not a lot of point going into detail about the hows and whys of this film. We all know it divides opinion and we know the reasons why - Jar Jar Binks, Jake Lloyd as the young Anakin Skywalker, the kid friendly antics and the political sub plot.

All very good reasons to dislike the film i totally agree. Well, except one. I think the political machinations are vital to the whole Star Wars story and not just this one film.

It documents the rise of Naboo's Senator Palpatine and his political long game. Palpatine's alter ego, the Sith Lord, Darth Sidious, influences the corrupt trade federation to blockade the planet Naboo of which he is a senator. The vote of no confidence for the current supreme chancellor allows Palpatine to gain control of the Republic meaning he can manipulate everything for both good and bad.

It's all really well written and worked out. I've never really understood the dislike for this element of the prequel trilogy as i think it's the real crux of the whole story throughout the three films.

[bizarre_eye@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

Thought it might have rated higher with you.

It falls between Cosmopolis and Crash in Cronenberg's oeuvre for me and is by no means a lightweight (if you notice I rated it the exact same score as Key Largo, which I also enjoyed ). However, I am more than a little biased seeing as I consider Cronenberg to have never made a bad film thus far.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by bizarre_eye@Cult Labs

It falls between Cosmopolis and Crash in Cronenberg's oeuvre for me and is by no means a lightweight (if you notice I rated it the exact same score as Key Largo, which I also enjoyed ). However, I am more than a little biased seeing as I consider Cronenberg to have never made a bad film thus far.

I agree with you that Fast Company is probably his weakest, but would have Spider, A History of Violence, and Eastern Promises all above eXistenZ, which I thought was flawed and not particularly well cast.

I suppose one of the reasons I haven't grown to love it yet is because it hasn't had a proper DVD release with an anamorphic picture in the UK, nor a Blu-ray release.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

I agree with you that Fast Company is probably his weakest, but would have Spider, A History of Violence, and Eastern Promises all above eXistenZ, which I thought was flawed and not particularly well cast.

I suppose one of the reasons I haven't grown to love it yet is because it hasn't had a proper DVD release with an anamorphic picture in the UK, nor a Blu-ray release.

I've never seen Fast company so can't comment, but eXistenZ in my opinion is easily his worst film of the ones i have seen.

[bizarre_eye@Cult Labs]

Whilst I agree eXistenZ is certainly flawed, I found it entertaining and an attempt by Cronenberg to get back to his 'body horror' roots in some respects.