:lol:

'Whiskey' is actually the Irish spelling (perhaps also why it's translated over to the states) and 'whisky' is the Scottish.

I really like Olivia Wilde, I'll check this one out, it seems like the type of film which is probably on sky movies!

Speaking of which, and I don't want to derail the thread, but I was about to go to Asda for some White & Mackay and Grants but it looks like the rollback offer has ended and they are back to normal price. Hmph.

Whyte and Mackay was £15 a litre in my Asda last night Nos. Grants was £12 for a standard 70cl bottle. As was Jim Beam.

That's not what it says on the website but, as it may be different in the shops, so I may have a trip out anyway.

Unless it finished yesterday? I was in there about 9.30 last night.

Like I said, I'll have a short trip out and have a look and report back. In the meantime, :focus:

You brought it up![emoji1]

I also said I didn't want to derail the thread, so :focus:

Curious. What happens if we discuss films on the tipple thread?

That would be a whole Withnail and I situation!

My source. Or should i say sauce. :happy:

https://www.masterofmalt.com/whisky-or-whiskey/

Thread derail alert!!!

Scar (2007)

My first revisit to this film since it first hit dvd 9 years ago. Back then i watched the 3d version of the film also included on the disc. You can probably tell by the length of time between viewings what i initially thought of it, so did the film improve on second watch all these years later?

Sadly no. Scar, especially when the 3d gimmick is removed, is generic torture porn and despite the welcome presence of Angela Bettis Scar hasn't many redeeming features.

Riding in on the coat tails of Hostel, Scar is one of those horror films that makes you think you've seen more gore than you actually have. Truth be told there's very little onscreen gore but the films buckets full of chocolate sauce masquerading as blood and strange sepia tint throughout con you into thinking what you are seeing is genuinely shocking when in reality there's a lot of talk and screaming but barely any blood letting.

Unlike my previously reviewed The Lazarus Experiment, the script never manages to make you care or feel for any of the characters. Even Bettis has nothing to work with other than looking like she's about to cry constantly meaning i really didn't give a shit as to any of their fates.

Oddly none of the stills on Google have that strange sepia tint to them. Wonder if they authored the dvd incorrectly?

Scar is, in the cold light of day, a bit rubbish.

I actually post the odd review in and around discussing whisky though. ;)

I thought pretty much the same as you when I first saw it all those years ago (with the 3D gimmick). I off-loaded my DVD soon afterwards and won't be attempting a re-watch.

Watched Spies Like Us (1985, John Landis)
For the first time. A very strained "comedy" centred around two hapless idiots thrust into the world of espionage. Some laughs in the first half (the operation scene etc) drying up towards a incredibly lazy and perfunctory ending. Some of these 80s films are dire.

American Ultra (2015, Nima Nourizadeh)
Another take on spooks is this rather cheeky wee tale. Still the best thing I've seen Stewart in (though that wouldn't be hard haha).

It's on the list. TWG is indeed truly terrifying.

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...c469b43a6a.jpg

Enjoyable B grade slasher with likeable characters and some decent kills for its time. Moral of the story here is don't shoot your mother with a shotgun, but if you happen to make sure to kill your father as well. 6.8/10

Next up tonight

First episode of this

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...0953a4fc1a.jpg

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...f1745d298a.jpg

First viewing

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...04b2fc0c54.jpg

And will end the night with this

What? You mean by talking about something pointless, like "WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN RECENTLY"!

Precisely. I watched Inside Out again a few days ago and, just like the other occasions, cried several times, laughed anymore and generally loved it for the brilliant film it is.

I'm near the end of the film now with the commentary, which is worth a listen.

Deadlier Than the Male (1967)

Directed by Ralph Thomas with a screenplay by Jimmy Sangster this Bond-lite adventure based on H. C. McNeile's 20's and 30's fictional character Bulldog Drummond, although the film's title came from a Rudyard Kipling poem, The Female of the Species.

Although a lot of fun the film isn't played as a comedy as many Bond style productions were at the time, see James Coburn's marvellous Flint movies as a prime example. Indeed Richard Johnson who portrays Drummond plays it totally straight down the line in a portrayal that would have made a fine James Bond. Much of the humour comes in the shapely forms of Elke Sommer and Sylva Koscina who play two of the sexiest assassins you'll see and are proven much more deadly than the male. The two are wonderful together. Practically playing a game of one upmanship as they go along murdering the directors of Phoenecian Oil, a company who want to grab oil rights in an fictitious country and eventually the the murder of the country's King.The girls constantly bicker and spar with one another and bring a wicked streak to the production. Of the two, Koscina wins out for me with her mischievous smile and almost innocent attitude to things, including murder.

The film has high production values or at least it appears that way with parts of the film playing out in exotic Mediterranean locales. Also hinting at a decent budget are a fine guest cast including Nigel Green, Suzanna Leigh, Leonard Rossiter and seemingly in a precursor to his role in The Persuaders, Laurence Naismith.

The film is tremendously entertaining. The kills are stylish and innovative and some sequences, including a very bizarre chess game, seem straight out of The Avengers also a devilish henchman played by Milton Reid gives Drummond someone to scrap with meaning the whole thing is surprisingly good but quaint entertainment if a little dated by today's building flattening standards of movie making.

Still, Deadlier than the Male is highly recommended.

"Kaante" is a 2002 Indian film. The title translates as "Thorns"

6 men concoct a plan to rob the bank in which lie the fundings for the LAPD. All goes well, until they make their escape, only to meet a SWAT team, waiting for them outside the bank. They engaged in a gunfight and one of the thieves is hit by a bullet. However, they all manage escape and meet at their hideout, where they come to the conclusion that one of their members is, in fact, an undercover cop. But which one?

Does that synopsis sound familiar? Well, if you have seen 'Reservoir Dogs' it should do! However, being a Bollywood version of that tale, this film has something that Tarantino's movie didn't have - the obligatory songs that cast members break into at inappropriate moments!!

"Kaante" is an enjoyable film, and at 154 minutes doesn't feel over long

Personally, I liked it more than Tarantino's film, and just for the record, the person who I had pegged as being the cop turned out to be the equivalent of Mr. Blonde - the crazy psycho character!

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...f43e9a40ba.jpg

Taking place straight after the first movie the residents of a neighbouring town to Gatling( the town in the first film) Taking in the remaining children( big mistake ). A newspaper reporter who is traveling with his son comes to the town and sets out to investigate the events of Gatling. It's not long before strange things start to happen and people turn up dead. queue creepy kids, supernatural going on's and some interesting and bloody kills. For me the best of the series. 8/10

Next up tonight a Cushing / Lee double bill

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...d110c5d754.jpg

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...bb4cd4bda9.jpg

Nah! Part 3 is. :nod: :lol:

Knock Knock, Eli Roth.

I actually enjoy Roths films, i haven't got as far as reviewing Green Inferno yet but i really enjoyed it. But Knock Knock? Basically architect and devoted family man Keanu is left alone in his big snazzy LA house working while his wife and kids go to their beach house for the weekend. When two young girls turn up during a torrential storm asking to use the phone Keanu does the gentlemanly thing and lets them in, arranges a cab and lets them use the dryer. During the wait for the cab the girls Genesis and Bel continually flirt with a clearly uncomfortable Keanu and despite his resistance to their advances eventually manage to seduce him into a threesome. Next morning he wakes up and is surprised to find the girls in his kitchen making breakfast. He tries to get them to leave and things get more and more awkward and when he threatens to phone the police the girls reveal themselves to be under the age of consent and point out the obvious consequences. When he finally picks up the phone they leave. Not before vandalising his house. Late that night while working Keanu hears noise and the next thing is knocked unconcious by Genesis and wakes up tied to the bed. So begins a night of twisted cat and mouse games with the increasingly psychotic girls.
Problem? Well firstly Keanu. I actually like him in most things and have never really got the whole 'whoa dude' thing that seems to have followed him throughout his career. Unfortunately in this he is terrible, particularly in the early scenes with his family. Chemistry with his children is awful. After his family leave his performance improves and the early scenes with Genesis and Bel aren't bad with him playing awkward and uncomfortable quite well. Once the girls reveal there true character though that all goes out the window and i found him to be cringeworthy. I don't know if this is just my thoughts but the film comes across as Roths take on Michael Haneke's Funny Games with Peter and Paul replaced by pretty girls. I actually think the film would have worked a lot better with a different actor, this simply didn't suit Reeves and he's acted off the screen by Lorenzo Izzo and Ana de Armas as Genesis and Bel respectively.

Great review, J.:nod:

Cheers Dem.

I've never seen Funny Games. Never really fancied it. Home invasion like that isn't really a genre i buy a lot of. I tend to think once you've seen them then that's it. I think it's because generally they are set in just one or two rooms and events tend to blur into one.

I prefer Haneke's own American remake with Tim Roth and Naomi Watts.

I'll get round to it at some stage.

Thinking back i might have seen the original on tv tears ago. Were the couple sat on a sofa in a white room? Something about it being white rings a bell.

Sorry to be so vague.

Sounds right but i wouldn't want to say for definite. A good chunk of it does take place in living room on a sofa. The US version is practically a shot for shot remake as i recall.

I've just had a browse of screen shots. The assailants both wear white. I knew white had something to do with it. :lol:

I'm not sure why, but I couldn't get away with the remake, whereas the original was a fresh and original – albeit irritating – meta piece of cinema. There was something galling about being 'told off' for liking horror films and being informed, in a moralistic way, that if I had any scruples, I should stop watching immediately.

It is a long time since i watched the original but i don't recall it bring much different to the remake. To be fair if i watched them now i might prefer the original as i want so open minded with world cinema back then. Neither are masterpieces but with a watch. As for the films mostly judgmental tone i just think its a somewhat cumbersome way of trying to make the audience complicit in the horrors onscreen. Something done far better when subtle.

As far as I remember, they are basically the same, with the American one being practically a shot-for-shot remake, even with the 'rewinding' gimmick.

I agree with you that the idea of making the audience complicit in something better to do subtly so you only realise very late on – or perhaps afterwards in conversation with someone – that you have been siding with the villain. I think this 'sympathy for the Devil' part of storytelling is what made those who saw Psycho and Peeping Tom in 1960 so uncomfortable.

The dinner table scene in Texas Chainsaw Massacre. When the family have Sally tied up and a hammer in grandpas hand trying to get him to brain her. First time i ever saw it i was in hysterics. Second time even, even now it is funny in the blackest sense. But when you stop and think what is actually taking place in the scene it means i have been laughing at something pretty nasty and unpleasant. That i think makes me somewhat complicit. Films like Natural Born Killers does it to some extent. I'm sure there are other better examples. Funny Games just kind of gets in your face with it, which is a problem because the film isn't exactly entertaining in the strictest sense.

Funny Games is excellent, Dem.

I prefer the original to the remake but both have their merits.

Some Girls Do (1969)

Three years after his first outing, Richard Johnson returns as Hugh 'Bulldog' Drummond as he sets out to prevent his old foe, Carl Peterson, this time played by James Villiers, from sabotaging the test flight of a brand new supersonic aircraft. In true Bond sequel style more is always best as Peterson employs beautiful female assassins again, but this time seven of them, however things aren't quite what they seem.

A second thoroughly entertaining outing for Drummond. Richard Johnson seems at home as the suave and cool Bulldog and adds a touch more laconic wit to the role. As with the first film Drummond is up against some beautiful opponents this time in the stunning forms of Daliah Lavi, Beba Loncar, Yutte Stensgaard, Vanessa Howard and Sydne Rome, in her first film role, as double agent Flicky.

Some Girls Do is perhaps more entertaining than Deadlier Than the Male, it's certainly a lot more action packed and the story a tad more challenging with a couple of cool twists at the end. It makes for a fun hour and a half's entertainment.

Recommended.