Last movie seen — Page 158

Tobar said:

Total Recall (1990)

Been a while since I'd seen it last. There is no doubt that this is a Paul Verhoeven film. =P I hope they don't royally screw up the remake but the fact that there's no Mars already has my head shaking.

As a fan of the original short story (there was a delicious reading of it done by the BBC which I wonder if it's commercially available) I loathe the Verhoeven film with a passion.

Arnie is just so wrong for the story it boggles the mind.

He is meant to be a nobody the sort of person who would opt for an artificial memory of heroism and adventure because he could never have that in real life.

You can never believe that of Arnie.

He is a superman.

The Cronenberg treatment sounded much more interesting, Dustin Hoffman is much more plausible.

Also at the time it was the most expensive movie every made (in unadjusted dollars) but it looked like crap (especially the Martian sequences).

It's just another Arnie violent Roger Moore pastiche film. 

Last week I watched both of the Guy Ritchie Holmes films.

Not as bad as I imagined.

The only real problem I have with them is Robert Downey's bizarre speaking voice.

It's not remotely an English accent but in his effort to sound English he huffs and whispers with such speed that he is at times almost impossible to make out.

As these are revisions (and as such hold up rather well) why not make this Holmes an American (who is written up as an Englishman in the Strand because they think the stories would sell better that way)?

That way Downey could clearly speak in his natural voice.

They are both pretty much equally fun so I'd give them three pipes a piece. 

Both of the Granada TV Watson's were good but I prefer David Burke to Edward Hardwicke.

Burke and Brett were perfect casting.

Hausu AKA House (1977)

This is the weirdest fucking movie I've ever seen, full stop! It's like Lynch and Tarantino decided to have a baby, who then went on to edit The Evil Dead and Pink Floyd: The Wall into a movie based on his most intense nightmare while on a severe acid trip! If there's any movie anywhere more bizarre than this movie, I do not want to see it; anything that can outdo this film in sheer batshit craziness would surely drive me completely and irreversibly insane!

6/10

TRON (1982) - 5/10

xhonzi said:

 

DuracellEnergizer said:

TRON (1982) - 5/10

 

Fixed.

I finally have seen all the films leading up to The Avengers, a bit out of order I admit, since I'd only seen Iron Man 1 and Captain America beforehand.  Iron Man is of course a good flick, as most agree.  Capt. America was a bit weaker, and while we get a good sense of this character's nobility, we never really get to see him be as cool as he was in the comics.  Iron Man 2 was full of cliche and it just felt off in a lot of ways.  And I can't get over their replacing Terence Howard with Don Cheadle (a better actor in my opinion, but with nothing in common with Howard other than being African American).  Thor was a film I had no desire to see, but after seeing the Avengers, I had to give it a go, and liked it better than expected, though it was still cheesy.  I mentioned once before in this thread that its greatest strength was an interesting antagonist, better than he is conveyed in Avengers IMO.  And last night I completed The Incredible Hulk.  This movie really lacks character development, but it was miles ahead of Ang Lee's Hulk in terms of effects, my ability to suspend disbelief, action, and all-around fun.  Despite the fact that I don't really ever feel like I got to know Bruce Banner, I still really liked the movie.  William Hurt as Ross was really the best actor/character, I feel.  All in all, not a bad set of films leading up to Avengers.

I did forget to mention something that is common in both comics and the films based on those comics, and it's something that is really starting to annoy me:

Far too many villains hold the same capabilities as the hero.  Iron Man faces a bigger Iron Man suit.  Spider-man faces Venom.  Wolverine faces Lady Deathstrike.  Iron Man faces another guy who mimicks his technology but has some crazy whips and a bunch of robot Iron Men.  Hulk faces Abomination.  Thor faces Loki (not quite as bad, given the more reasonable backstory to both of them).  All of them are two sides to the same coin, cast from the same mold, and in too literal a sense.  Batman's polar opposite is Joker, and many could say they are reflections of one another, but the backstory and parallels are far more interesting.  Superman and Lex Luthor are quite different, where one is a noble, fantastically-powered moron who is continually outwitted by a normal human with some critical thinking skills.  I enjoy this interplay between protagonist and antagonist far better.  Even if the comics do utilize a similar character as the bad guy, the films should probably lean more on other villains, or else find a more unique way to introduce the parallel villain.

darth_ender said:

Superman and Lex Luthor are quite different, where one is a noble, fantastically-powered moron who is continually outwitted by a normal human with some critical thinking skills.

Yes, well, it is a bit of a tease.  Superman has always bugged me, as he really seems to be more a a reactive hero, while Batman (my favorite) actually is a step ahead of the bad guys and is quite proactive.  And at least in the films he falls for some ridiculous traps to be truthful.  My apologies for offending those who adore Jor-El's boy.

"Don't make me Ang Lee".

I liked the Banner scenes of Hulk (2003) the Hulk bits, the mutant dogs, the Zzaxish thing were bobbins.

I have the other film so I must give it a spin.

The Woman In Black (2012).

This average film has practically nothing to do with the story it's meant to be an adaptation of (it plays more like an Edwardian Ringu).

The key moments are missing (one I imagine was left out to allow for a sequel *shudders*) and loads of scenes from films which did them better have been added in a rather witless fashion.

Maybe I'm getting jaded in my dotage but jump scares have to be really clever to work on me.

On the whole I find the more annoying than exciting (like some daft bugger has wandered in the room and taken it upon himself to flip the volume control to my wax pornograph cylinder up and down randomly *STOB IT! STOB IT NOW!*).

The clever delicate slow build up of the original piece is replaced by images and actions shoveled on like heavy sod.

There also seems to be a rather sick fixation with images of children in pain and distress which isn't in the book either.

In the book we hear of horrible things happening to children and see something horrible prevented but most of the distress comes from and is inflicted upon the adults witnessing or remembering those events.

The ending is bizarrely mawkish considering the source material too.

It's a shame because the sets, the costumes, the locations are really atmospheric and well shot but proven acting talent is really wasted on this pile.

As much as I want the Hammer brand to rise from the grave they will have to learn not to do this sort of by the numbers crap.

Another source of frustration about this film is that because of the recorded media rights being sold on to the goons behind this disaster the utterly chilling 1989 Nigel Kneale scripted Television version can not be redistributed on DVD or rebroadcast.

So good luck tracking down an out of print copy of the original disc because it's everything this film isn't.

Quiz Show 9/10

Adaptation. 9/10

Fido 7/10

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind 10/10

Lost in Translation 10/10

DominicCobb said:

Quiz Show 9/10 = great

Adaptation. 9/10 = great

Fido 7/10 = horrible, barely watchable

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind 10/10 = fantastic

Lost in Translation 10/10 = fantastic

Clarified that a bit fer ya.

Scott Pilgrim Vs The World

Gets better every time. 8/10

Tobar said:

Everything Must Go (2010)

Another film I decided to watch on a whim. Imagine my surprise when I discovered it was filmed here!

How did they film it at a forum?