What Films Have You Seen Recently?

[MrBarlow]

The Golden Child. 1986.

A private investigator who searches for missing children is tasked with finding a special child that evil wants to destroy.

The premise of the movie may not be good but even Eddie Murphy character doesn't seem to take it seriously and thinks it may be a joke and travels to Tibet at one point. Charles Dance plays the somewhat satanic devil worshiper who tries to do his master's bidding and kill the child to let the powers of darkness rule the world. I still laughed at Murphy's antics and few comments and jokes.

26_midi.jpg

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

After Death (1989)

Clyde Anderson aka Claudio Fragasso directs this zombie yarn in which a voodoo curse enables the dead to rise from their graves, borrow make up effects from Bava's Demons and become what look like zombies in Ninja gear as they hunt a group of island explorers. Oh and there's something about an amulet around a woman's neck that does something or other.

Daft, ever so slightly incompetent but ludicrously fun, After Death really is one of those films where you just sit back and go with the flow as any sort of critical analysis goes out the window in the first two minutes. Anderson shows a modicum of flare when directing the lengthy action sequences but this lacks a truly memorable 'water cooler' moment in the killing department.

Still for all it's flaws and yes, there are one or two, this is a minor masterpiece when compared to Fragasso's Troll 2.

[MrBarlow]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

After Death (1989)


this is a minor masterpiece when compared to Fragasso's Troll 2.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by MrBarlow

[MrBarlow]

Until Death. 2007.

Anthony Stowe a New Orleans detective and a heroine user trying to bring down a crime lord who was once a friend. When Stowe is put into a coma, he wakes to amend his past and put things right.

This one starts off a bit slow, maybe for the purpose of character build up with JCVD as the detective addicted to drugs and nobody seems to like him pretty much for the screw ups he creates in his path. Stephen Rea plays the former friend and crime boss who likes to play cat and mouse and does make a convincing bad guy. Selina Giles plays the wife who seems to be fed up of the excuses being made by Stowe and seeks solace from someone else.

This isn't really your typical Van Damme movie, yes there is plenty of action with the shoot outs, but also shows a bit of drama on righting the wrong things and how someone coming out of a coma can adjust to a new way of life.

MV5BMjExMDU2NTgxM15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNTY1ODY0MQ@@._V1_.jpg

[MrBarlow]

The Secret Of The Loch. 1934.

A Scottish professor attempts to prove that there is a monster in Loch Ness while a reporter tries to get the story.

Released in the year of the first picture taken of "Oor Nessie" which was later revealed to be a hoax, producer Bray Wyndham teamed with director Milton Rosmer to create this film based on a story by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that probably marks the first movie to be made on the infamous Scottish legend of the loch.

Seymour Hicks plays the batty Professor who intends to prove that there is something in the water and prove to the locals while they all think he is mad. Back then the effects were dated and the underwater sequence looks like it was filmed in a somewhat glass tank and the monster...well I will leave that to you to figure out what it looks like. to be honest, this was enjoyable.

ppjrOc4jV7o9OBtfsHjukkmHNtN.jpg

[J Harker]

Rare cinema trip tonight to see Top Gun: - Maverick. I have to admit I loved it, but I was surprised it's being so universally praised given it at times felt very disjointed, with scenes just opening and closing without any real bridging, (sort of thing I'd expect the critics to bitch and moan something chronic about). It almost felt like bits had randomly been cut.
That said, it's a film that knows it's audience and takes absolutely no shame in being what it is. A true popcorn blockbuster, something that despite all the mega bucks making marvel/dc stuff or any of the other "planet chucking" franchises as a certain Mr Dike calls them, doesn't really exist these days.
As has been mentioned in some of the reviews, Cruise slips back into the role of Pete 'Maverick' Mitchell effortlessly, but I felt he did more to be honest. He portrayed the character 30 something years later. And he did it extremely well, still larger than life and cocky as hell. But with visible insecurities, this character is getting older, and he knows it, his uncertainty about life's more difficult realities now shows. Cruise gave the character an interesting transition to an older more vulnerable version of Mavericks former self. It felt very believable that this was the same guy 30 years later, looking at a future that quite honestly wouldn't really need him much longer. It would have been interesting to at least have heard what had happened to Kelly McGillis character but hey ho, Jennifer Connelly makes for an excellent replacement as the love interest here, and frankly I thought the chemistry worked much better.
The cast overall were great, would have been nice to see more of Ed Harris's Cain. But still, he basically plays this sequels version of James Tolkan's Stinger.
Special mention to Miles Teller as Rooster. The casting here is impeccable once you realise who the character actually is.
Anyway, forgive my late night rambling. Top Gun: Maverick was a joy. It was a flawed film that really felt like it was from another era, from when movies were events and not just time passers, and as such the flaws were irrelevant. To this viewer anyway.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by MrBarlow

The Secret Of The Loch. 1934.

A Scottish professor attempts to prove that there is a monster in Loch Ness while a reporter tries to get the story.

Released in the year of the first picture taken of "Oor Nessie" which was later revealed to be a hoax, producer Bray Wyndham teamed with director Milton Rosmer to create this film based on a story by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that probably marks the first movie to be made on the infamous Scottish legend of the loch.

Seymour Hicks plays the batty Professor who intends to prove that there is something in the water and prove to the locals while they all think he is mad. Back then the effects were dated and the underwater sequence looks like it was filmed in a somewhat glass tank and the monster...well I will leave that to you to figure out what it looks like. to be honest, this was enjoyable.

Attachment 241780

I've always wanted to see this. Is it on YT?

@J Harker - Nice review. Great to read your thoughts on Top Gun:Maverick.

[MrBarlow]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

I've always wanted to see this. Is it on YT?

It certainly is on YT, if you do manage to watch it hope you enjoy it

[MacBlayne]

Originally Posted by J Harker

Rare cinema trip tonight to see Top Gun: - Maverick. I have to admit I loved it, but I was surprised it's being so universally praised given it at times felt very disjointed, with scenes just opening and closing without any real bridging, (sort of thing I'd expect the critics to bitch and moan something chronic about). It almost felt like bits had randomly been cut.
That said, it's a film that takes knows it's audience and takes absolutely no shame in being what it is. A true popcorn blockbuster, something that despite all the mega bucks making marvel/dc stuff or any of the other "planet chucking" franchises as a certain Mr Dike calls them, doesn't really exist these days.
As has been mentioned in some of the reviews, Cruise slips back into the role of Pete 'Maverick' Mitchell effortlessly, but I felt he did more to be honest. He portrayed the character 30 something years later. And he did it extremely well, still larger than life and cocky as hell. But with visible insecurities, this character is getting older, and he knows it, his uncertainty about life's more difficult realities now shows. Cruise gave the character an interesting transition to an older more vulnerable version of Mavericks former self. It felt very believable that this was the same guy 30 years later, looking at a future that quite honestly wouldn't really need him much longer. It would have been interesting to at least have heard what had happened to Kelly McGillis character but hey ho, Jennifer Connelly makes for an excellent replacement as the love interest here, and frankly I thought the chemistry worked much better.
The cast overall were great, would have been nice to see more of Ed Harris's Cain. But still, he basically plays this sequels version of James Tolkan's Stinger.
Special mention to Miles Teller as Rooster. The casting here is impeccable once you realise who the character actually is.
Anyway, forgive my late night rambling. Top Gun: Maverick was a joy. It was a flawed film that really felt like it was from another era, from when movies were events and not just time passers, and as such the flaws were irrelevant. To this viewer anyway.

I adored this one, but I do suspect it's because I'm starved of spectacle cinema. Blockbusters were often criticised for a lack of story, but they excelled at producing visuals that swept the audience away with beautiful vistas, and extraordinary stunts.

Now, we have dreck drowning in plot (to set up the next 50 sequels), and boring, flat imagery with shoddy CGI. No stunt work. No elaborate set-pieces.

Then Top Gun: Maverick shows up and lets us see what we have been missing. And by God, I missed it.

If this came out 20 years ago, we'd probably be tepid towards it. But after a nightmarish decade plus of Marvel and Disney, it was like a cool glass if ice-water after trekking the desert.