Sign In

Last movie seen — Page 225

Author
Time

Marnie (1964)

The film that divides all Hitchcock fans. Some say it's the worst thing Hitchcock ever made, others say it's one of his crowning achievements.

I'm a huge fan of Hitchcock's 50's and early 60's films. I'll honestly say I loved Marnie, and I feel it fits in perfectly with Hitchcock's other films of the era. What more do people want? I don't think it's his greatest film, I don't have the guts to decide what his best film was, but I think it definitely deserves more praise as one of his greatest films.

Really enjoyed Sean Connery in the film, as usual he stole the show with a smirk.

No rating, I'll just say you're a fool to call yourself a Hitchcock fan without at least watching it. I thought it was classic Hitchcock.

"The other versions will disappear. Even the 35 million tapes of Star Wars out there won’t last more than 30 or 40 years. A hundred years from now, the only version of the movie that anyone will remember will be the DVD version [of the Special Edition], and you’ll be able to project it on a 20’ by 40’ screen with perfect quality. I think it’s the director’s prerogative, not the studio’s to go back and reinvent a movie." - George Lucas

<span> </span>

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Them that say it's the worst thing he made clearly haven't seen Frenzy (1972) (not just behind the times and repellent but also rather badly made).

Me rather like Marnie (or Catpeople Sans Cat as I prefer to call it).

The film hinges on presenting contradictions.

We have two rapes one that doesn't happen and one that does.

Blackmailing women into marrying you and raping them isn't good (much the same can be said of Deckhard in Blade Runner) but the film doesn't make out that it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6Dp2OfIT_M

Author
Time

Marnie (1964)- 6/10- Heavy-handed, melodramatic. Sean Connery was cast because of his popularity in the James Bond films; I'm not sure he was the best choice, as much as I like him. Bingowings is right about the contradictions, though to be honest I like Frenzy better (I say that lightly). Hitchcock's last good movie for me was Psycho (1960). The Birds (1963) is massively over-rated, IMHO.

Compare Marnie to Vertigo. Watching them back-to-back is just awful. Vertigo's a dramatic creepy love story done right.

Bingowings said:

(much the same can be said of Deckhard in Blade Runner

Freudian slip, Bingo?
Author
Time

Based on your reviews, I just saw Zardoz. I can't say it was the strangest movie I've ever seen. That honor may go to The American Astronaut. But it was still really interesting, conceptually.

By the Way, The American Astronaut is both the worst thing ever and the best, then the worst, and the best, in that order.

You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Workprint V4 Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)

Author
Time

Johnny Ringo said:

Finally saw The World's End.

Overall I enjoyed it but the tone kind of shifts around a bit. It's not their best film but it was pretty funny.

3 balls.

I saw it the other day too.

I really enjoyed it, thought it was way better than the abysmal Paul, but a far cry from Hot Fuzz or Shawn of the Dead.

Author
Time

xhonzi said:

greenpenguino said:

xhonzi said:

 Star Trek Into Darkness.

 I've heard a lot of 'love 2009, really liked STID" and a lot of "hate both of them" "they're the 2 best 'Trek movies ever" kind of commentary... but I haven't heard/seen my response- detest 2009, quite enjoyed STID.

4/5 proton coffins

Hmmm... I'm in the "fairly enjoyed '09 (even with all the stupid stuff in it) and utterly loathe Into Darkness camp"... so...

I guess I need to read more articulated "utterly loathe" reviews.  I don't know where they are coming from.

 

I thought Into Darkness was a lot better than '09, like going from painfully terrible to watchable and even a bit fun, but I still didn't think it was very good. 

I have friends who really aren't into Star Trek who thought '09 was okayish, and absolutely loved STID.

Author
Time

Anyone who's never seen TWOK would love STID. ;)

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

NeverarGreat said:

Absolutely agree about Vertigo being far better than The Birds. I actually didn't think much of Hitchcock until I saw Vertigo.

The Birds, isn't a patch on the source material and the awful special effects really spoil it for me.

Vertigo is a masterpiece.

Frenzy has all the looks of of Sweeney The Movie (1977) but lacks the quality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6Dp2OfIT_M

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Bingowings said:

NeverarGreat said:

Absolutely agree about Vertigo being far better than The Birds. I actually didn't think much of Hitchcock until I saw Vertigo.

The Birds, isn't a patch on the source material and the awful special effects really spoil it for me.

Vertigo is a masterpiece.

Frenzy has all the looks of of Sweeney The Movie (1977) but lacks the quality.

'Vertigo' is good but I was always more into 'Rear Window', 'Rope', 'North By Northwest' and a few others. It might not even be in my top 5 Hitchcock.

'Birds' never really grabbed me because I didn't care about the characters. But I thought the Birds were scary because of the sound rather than the visuals. The fictionalised drama about the filming of it, is better than the actual film IMO.

On the subject of violece in films...

'Frenzy' is very disturbing but it seemed intentionally so to me. A POV shot halfway through where you see through the eyes of the murderer as he's strangling a woman is really horrible. Not a film to be enjoyed, but not a badly made film if you can stomach it.

But I wouldn't recommend 2010's 'The Killer Inside Me' to anyone, as it left me shocked and upset. Seriously the violence in that has stayed with me, burned on my retina. I'm generally against censorship so I've no problem with the film existing, but I wouldn't watch it again if you paid me.

However the film that reviled me the most in my life was 2002's 'The Magdalene Sisters'. I actually felt physically sick watching it but it's a superbly made film based on true history. Again I wouldn't really want to see that again but I would recommend it to others because of the social and historical lessons.

VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.

Author
Time

CP3S said:

Johnny Ringo said:

Finally saw The World's End.

Overall I enjoyed it but the tone kind of shifts around a bit. It's not their best film but it was pretty funny.

3 balls.

I saw it the other day too.

I really enjoyed it, thought it was way better than the abysmal Paul, but a far cry from Hot Fuzz or Shawn of the Dead.

 

The worlds end was filmed in the town where I live...Yep!!!

Still haven't seen it, although I kinda live it everyday...Yep!!

http://www.facebook.com/DirtyWookie

Author
Time

I don't really like Hitchcock's films at all. The only film of his I really like is Rear Window.

真実

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Watched the Blade Runner Final Cut last night. I am becoming increasingly fond of that version, even though it is meddled with and touched up, I feel like it takes my favorite elements from all the other versions and puts them into one very clean and pretty looking cut. The fact that all the other versions share the same case with it makes me feel more than okay with the meddling. 

This is the way revisiting an old film and touching up effects should be done, if it must be done. There was a lot done to it, but it was all done in great respect of the original, and none of it looks glaringly noticeable or out of place. 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Upside Down -

This isn't a great movie, but it was such a unique experience that I can't fault it for its faults. 

ITS FAULTS:

We watched it in 2 parts, and I felt that the first half was stronger than the second.  The ending sort of comes up too fast and the resolution to the central plots comes too easily.  But, it was still a lot of fun.

Somehow this movie flew completely below my radar, though given the actors, the sci-fi hook, and the 3Dimensionalities of it... I'm really surprised I didn't hear about it until recently.  It seems like I'm the perfect audience for it, yet none of their marketing made it to my face.

4.5 upside down CG martinis  (okay, just a little faulting it for its faults)

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!

 

Author
Time

Don Jon (2013) 9/10 - Awesome movie. Stylish, funny, and subtly heartfelt. Worth seeing for sure.

Author
Time

Willow Creek (2013) 8/10 - Bobcat Goldthwait's new film that he just screened at my school. I didn't know what to expect, but I found it was very funny, original, and surprisingly suspenseful. It was kind of like Paranormal Activity, but with Bigfoot, and better in every imaginable way. There was a Q&A afterwards. I asked him why he wanted to make this movie. I guess he's always been interested in Bigfoot, and with this he wanted to see if he could make a suspenseful film in the vein of, say Tarantino, where nothing is really happening, but you're on the edge of your seat. I think he succeeded. I shook his hand after and told him he did a great job. All in all it was a really cool experience and I hope the film ends up with a good distribution. 

Author
Time

Will keep a lookout for that one. I really like Goldthwait's last film 'God Bless America'. Is it better than the Norwegian film 'Troll Hunter'? (The bar by which found footage monster movies should be judged).

VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.

Author
Time

I must admit I have not seen Troll Hunter, though I really want to. So I can't compare.

As for the found footage aspect, Goldthwait mentioned that he tried to make it as seem as real as possible, with minimal edits (there's this awesome single take that lasts 19 minutes); so as to make it look like the footage was actually just found (he made a joke about the fictional finders of those other found footage films think, "hey, if I edited this footage of people getting raped and killed it would make a great movie"). Anyway, it works.

And it's not so much a monster movie as a mockumentary that goes wrong.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Since my teen years I have been a fan of H.P.Lovecraft.

The films directly based on his works all seem to be utter bobbins though.

It's almost as if someone is trying to discredit his memory by deliberately making them into goofy low-budget sexist poop.

I resisted watching the films loosely based on The Dunwich Horror after reading they are pretty awful but recently I listened to the BBC's reading of At The Mountains Of Madness and wanted to continue the vibe over to something visual.

Oh cruel and unfathomable universe! What febrile urgency had compelled my insatiable psyche?

These films are separated by decades but united in there awfulness.

The Dunwich Horror (1970).

After a brilliant Saul Bass style title sequence by Sandy Dvore, the film has one or two good things going for it.

The use of colour is interesting. It's a lush looking film especially when the strobing (2001 style) solarisation effects kick in.

The first monster attack is very well handled considering the limitations of the day.

I cant shake the suspicion that David Lynch is a fan of this movie.

It has some of the stilted dream like performance style seen in Carnival Of Souls (1962) and there are plenty of ultra-close-up shots of Dean Stockwell's face which brings to mind Lynch's Dune adaptation.

Sandra Dee of lousy virginity fame immortalised in Grease (1978) is horribly reduced to a sex object in this film.

She is essentially a writhing pink cushion onto which Stockwell can rest his Necronomican first edition.

The film owes more to Dennis Wheatley than Lovecraft.

It's crap but watchable.

The Kindred (1987).

Carries some of themes of the story but takes a more straight Frankenstein biotech horror stance than the cosmic horror of the original.

It's a schizoid movie. You can tell half the cast and the writer are desperate for work and are trying to impress future employers by giving more than the project deserves. The other half of the cast and the crew are shamelessly prostituting their lack talent.

Kim Hunter and Rod Steiger (who spends much of the film abusing skinned cats and squid babies and gets covered in spunk) particularly deserve pity for associating themselves with this riot of eighties awfulness.

Almost so bad it's good but not quite.

The Dunwich Horror (2009).

More big name stars desperate for cash.

Dean Stockwell this time playing a different role and repeat offender in Lovecraft circles Jeffrey Combs are astonishingly committed in this film.

It's astonishing the writers and director were not committed after making it.

It has one good sequence.

The rest of it is so awful it has to be seen to be believed.

Honestly this is so bad it must be seen but I doubt if it can be enjoyed.

I dare you to watch all three.

A ball or two for the titles of the 1970's film but everything else is a load of bollocks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6Dp2OfIT_M