| ||||
Managed to get 4 films in this weekend despite the disapproval of her indoors - bit of a frosty atmosphere round Chez Joe! Worth it though, all goodies. Army of Shadows- this immersive trip into the French resistance plays like a vision of hell where it's perpetually just before dawn, you can't trust your countrymen and there's monsters everywhere. Despite the relentless bleakness it flies by - Melville had an amazing eye for a shot and was incapable of being boring. Crimewave - Not the Raimi, a 50s noir stuffed with great characters. It's your basic 'just when I was out they pulled me back in again' plot but it's the fringe detail that makes it. Loved the gentle vet/hard bitten mob doctor and the young Charlie Bronson as muscle. Ending a bit rushed and pat but this is an entertaining 75 minutes. The Stranger - Orson Welles is a Nazi hiding in small town America and about to be married to the daughter of a local judge (blimey that was quick - it's only 1946!) Edward G Robinson is the man on his tail. The tension never reaches unbearable levels - Welles (the actor) is too hammy from the off, his fiancée unbelievably dumb (he admitted poisoning your damn dog!) but as usual the set pieces and visuals are fantastic especially the famous last scene - death by medieval clock tower anyone? The Honeymoon Killers - cinematic whiplash - starts out campy and crass, becomes the blackest of comedies before heading into pure hell - the last 20 minutes rivals Henry for nihilistic horror. Surely this is screaming for the Arrow treatment? Unforgettable. |
| ||||
Watched Forbidden Planet (1956) last night on BBC 2 HD. Can see why it's a classic and such an influence on Star Trek. Even if Robby the Robot wasn't so endearing I would still give this a very high score. Considering its from the 1950's the level of technical skill and achievement on display is also extremely impressive, particularly in relation to the visuals (especially the beautifully painted planet background and cool disney-animated sub-conscious beast). Will be sure to put it high on my edited Fav Sci-Fi list. 10/10. Also watched Midnight Cowboy on Netflix earlier that evening. 9/10. Incidentally, anyone know thr best blu of FF out there? Last edited by Buboven; 14th December 2014 at 03:41 PM. |
| ||||
Dario Argento's Dracula. (2012) Dario Argento's take on Bram Stoker's classic novel Dracula is a mixed bag to say the least. At no stage did this ever register as an Argento film. It lacked all the technical flourishes and creativity that set his films apart during the seventies and eighties. Perhaps he's lost the impetus or more likely he chooses not to bother anymore. Much of the CGI is horribly inept and for the most part unnecessary. Take the mist at the railway station as a prime example, the CGI actually distracts from the conversation taking place. CGI also plays a part in the gore scenes but thankfully regular make up maestro Sergio Stivaletti and his crew also mix in practical effects making the close up gore nice and messy. Long time Argento collaborator Claudio Simonetti's score borders on an Ed Wood parody at times with it's swirly 'woo, woos'. Unfortunately the rest of it is completely unmemorable and pales into insignificance when compared to the masterpieces created for past Dracula films by James Bernard, Wojciech Kilar and Philip Glass. Visually Argento's film is what it is. A cheap European production, originally shot in 3D. Lacking the technicolour majesty of the Hammer productions or the black and white atmospherics of the Universal films. Looking distinctly modern and clean, the film stock used comes across as too clinical for suitability as a Gothic film making medium. As with his last film Giallo, and star Adrien Brody, Argento doesn't seem to have the right personnel for his lead roles. Thomas Kretschmann, like Brody, is a fine actor but he just isn't Dracula. He doesn't have the onscreen presence of a Christopher Lee for example to fully convince and it was only in the quieter moments with Mina that he seemed comfortable in the role. Argento's daughter and regular collaborator Asia fayres a little better in the role of Lucy Kisslinger (Why Dario would change her name from Westenra makes no sense). I'm not Asia's biggest fan but felt she did well and was suited to the vampish role, whereas it would have been less successful had her father cast her as Mina the wispish heroine of the story. The film's other name actor is Rutger Hauer as Van Helsing who was wasted in his role only showing up during the final twenty minutes As for the story line. At times it follows the source novel with it's recreation of scenes and dialogue yet at others it veers away so much to be a little embarrassing - Say hello praying mantis, another ropey CGI effect. Dracula isn't a patch on earlier efforts such as Deep Red, Suspiria, Inferno or even the more recent Mother of Tears. It's definitely on the bottom rung of his work but i found it more entertaining than The Card Player, Trauma and Cat o' Nine Tails, a 'classic' i personally find really quite boring. Having said all this i didn't hate the film, in fact i quite enjoyed it. Argento's mix and match of ineptitude and fun seemingly struck a chord, and Bram Stoker's novel is one of my favourite books which i read numerous times when i was in my teens, although i haven't been anywhere near it in twenty five years. So Argento would really have had to screw it up completely story wise for me not to take something out of it. Either that or the seemingly endless stream of low budget direct to dvd dross i wade through has addled my brain completely.... You decide! |
| ||||
WARNING: SYCOPHANTIC PETER JACKSON FAN AND HOBBIT REVIEW. lol. The Hobbit: Battle of five armies. Somethings in life you get or you don't - Marmite, blue cheese, olives and so on... the reason i mention these 'like them or don't' things is because Shakespear is the same, for a part of my life he was a boring chore who wrote crap books but then i saw an indie production at a small theatre of Richard III and it just made sense - it blew me away and i loved it. basicaly Shakespear writes in parts, you don't take the whole peice but instead he feeds you clumps of events and then at the end we see it all tied up and nealty resolved in an entertaining way... (in my opinion) Taking that example of a long story that is great in one sitting but enjoyed in small peices, i can to tell you the the hobbit part 3 might be nearly a perfect film (maybe perfect for just me but still i have a flow here). Jackson entertains us with the demise of smaug, tells us about the dwarfs and the arkenstone, tells us about the lake people and the elfs, and we continue to be fed small chunks of good story telling that all lead to one conclusion. Such a satisfying film to enjoy like a large meal of lots of nice tasting things that you eat in seperate segments because the meal is so good as a whole but also individually as single ingredients. IF you find yourself enjoying Tolkien then you really won't want to miss this film on the big screen. Such a brilliant film! Honestly blew me away. Loved it! Loved IT! LOVED IT! If you don't like Tolkien or the films then i apologise for the over the top review and hope you enjoy other movies as much as i enjoyed this film and series. *On a seperate note, i really hope JAckson pays homage to the fans like myself who bought several copies of bad taste/brain dead/meet the feebles and actually goes back to these films and uses some of that fat loot from his middle earth films to shower his back catalgoue with some love. imagine having the cast of bad taste for a documentary and maybe a meet the feebles documentary... i hope he does...
__________________ Soylent Green is people! |
| ||||
Quote:
|
| ||||
Quote:
I can only guess it's because you've seen so much cheap direct-to-DVD crap recently that you found Dracula in any way tolerable!
__________________ |
Like this? Share it using the links below! |
| |