logo Sign In

Last movie seen — Page 261

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) - Fun times all around. The titular Guardians are the real highlight here and, more or less, the only interesting characters. My biggest gripe with the film is it spends all this time with the extremely dull villains, who I really couldn't care less about. Those scenes are so humdrum that they really stand out in a bad way, especially in comparison to the scenes with the Guardians, which are constantly bursting with life, energy, and laughter. Thankfully the latter scenes take up most of the film, because they really are something special. Each Guardian is a treat to watch. Special shout outs to Bradley Cooper doing Joe Pesci as Rocket, and, of course, the best part of the film, Chris Pratt as Star Lord. Pratt has to be one of my favorite actors right now. His performances are always a delight. He's got this charismatic man child sweetness to him, which, combined with blockbuster heroism, makes him a truly unique leading man, the likes of which I cannot say with certainty I have seen before. I love that he's the star of next year's Jurassic World, and I can't wait to see what else he'll do. If I have one complaint about his Peter Quill, it's that we don't get enough of him. There's definitely a lot about him that hasn't been said (how does he feel about being abducted? does he want to go back to Earth? etc.), and presumably will be in a sequel. But it really should have been said here. Unfortunately I do feel like this film is rather messy in it's plotting at times. Often, I felt out of the loop. I'm sure stuff like the scene with the Collector made comic fans wet, but, to me, it was just really weird and rather random and not entirely necessary. When the film came to an end, though, and all was said and done, I couldn't help but love it. The humor, the music, all that fun stuff, that was all great. Definitely worth a watch. B+

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

Mike O said:

TV's Frink said:

Mike O said:

"I can see by your eyes you must be lying, when you think I don't have a clue. Baby you're crazy if you think that you can fool me, because I've seen that movie too."
Elton John

"Maybe it's time we stop deconstructing things and start putting them back together."
Alan Moore

"Wise men talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something."
Plato

And the geek shall inherit the earth. A combination of a pair the massive nerd-TV lords who've rapidly been overtaking Hollywood,Buffy the Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon and Cloverfieldscribe Drew Godard from J.J. Abrams's Bad Robot school, Cabin the Woods arrives after much publicity. A film that's been sitting on a shelf for a couple of years following the fallout of MGM, Hollywood's once mighty megabucks studio, Cabin the Woods was finally picked up by Lionsgate, and is at least in a multiplex near you for horror fans ready for a blast-of-fun bloodbath. Cabin in the Woods isn't a bad film, and for a certain fanboy, there's undeniable fun to be had. But I for one can't help but feel I'm outgrowing Joss Whedon. This might've seemed brilliant when I was 16, but these days, I just don't think "clever" is enough.

"You think you know the story?" So the poster proclaims, but of course, you at least partially do. A group of teens fitting into archetypes all head out for a secluded night where there's no cell phone reception, because apparently, even at this point in the 21st century, no one seems to grasp that getting off the grid to a place where you can't call for help is never a good idea. And the jock (Chris Hemsworth), the stoner (Fran Kranz), the dumb blonde (ex-Power Ranger Anna Hutchison), the nice guy (Jesse Williams), and the bookish virgin (well, as virginal as anyone nowadays-more in a minute) (sexy former soap star Kristen Connolly). They go to the cabin, ignoring the warnings of the weird old guy at the gas station who hasn't changed since The Hills Have Eyes, but beneath it, there's a massive organization reminiscent of the one in Buffy's fourth season, led by geek goddess Amy Acker, obviously designed to represent filmmakers, who manipulate the characters to make things play out as they want. In the basement, they find a variety of things from numerous horror subgenres, read out a mystic incantation in Latin, and bo and lehold, evil comes to kill.

Presumably, the idea of seeing cliches slightly subverted while still giving the audience what they want is supposed to be clever, as things play out like Whedon's usual genre mishmashing with everyone dying until the survivors break into the compound and unleash hell in the most literal sense. The last half-hour is a gorehound's paradise, as Whedon and Godard unleash every horror fan's dream of bringing together all of the genre and monsters into an action-packed battle. It's fun, certainly. But is that enough? Film buffs and horror fans have see this all before under numerous titles: Evil Dead II, the woefully unappreciatedWes Craven's New NightmareScreamI Know What You Did Last SummerFreddy vs. JasonShaun of the DeadKill BillFright NightFunny GamesArmy of DarknessTargetsPeeping Tom,Behind the MaskShadow of the VampireGrindhouse,VideodromeBody DoublePiranha, and countless others.

Post-modernism has become films about films about films about films about films and culture is now eating itself. At its best, these films off some sort of commentary on the nature of storytelling or the importance of the tales (I'll plug Wes Craven's New Nightmareagain; seriously, see it, it's brilliant.), or find some sort of social commentary like Shaun of the Dead (When Dana sneered "Me? A virgin?" and the Director quipped "We work with what we have." I was hoping for some commentary on changing social mores, but alas, it's just another smart-ass remark.), or at least attempt to do something interesting. But the genre has now been played so thoroughly from every possible angle that Whedon is just adding a new coat of paint, and his brand of smart-ass glibness is less subversive than it is simply smug and annoying. Yes, Joss, I've heard that joke before. The wording is different, the coat of pain is different, but it's stil the same. Godard certainly has skill behind the camera, but he doesn't quite make it into anything more than a fanboy dream, and his hand isn't deft enough to balance his multiple tones and balls in the air and cohere completely. That's fine, certainly. Cabin in the Woods offers up plenty of fanboy fun to be had, but ultimately the film winds up a bit between the two stools, not quite smart enough to be subversive, and not straightforward enough to just be old-fashioned fun like Dog Soldiers. In the end, the movie's self-satisfied tone, affectionate and satirical, but never quite cutting, doesn't make the pieces into the whole I would have hoped for. Again, that's fine, fun is OK, butThe Cabin in the Woods isn't as clever as it thinks. To Whedon and Godard, even the end of the world is just a big cosmic joke.

 Couldn't you just post a link to someone else's review?

Also...really?  REALLY?

 What? And that isn't somebody else's. It's mine. I wrote it. 

 Pics or it didn't happen.

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/11449095-post268.html

I posed it on Toonzone first, but that talkback frigging disappeared for some reason.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time

You want a picture of a forum post?

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time

I believe he wants photographic evidence of you at your keyboard whilst you were composing your review.

Forum Moderator
Author
Time
 (Edited)

DominicCobb said:

If I have one complaint about his Peter Quill, it's that we don't get enough of him. There's definitely a lot about him that hasn't been said (how does he feel about being abducted? does he want to go back to Earth? etc.), and presumably will be in a sequel. But it really should have been said here. 

The main purpose of this film was to establish the characters, organizations and settings of this world.

If they had explored those things about Quill in this film it would have been rushed. Leaving it to a sequel gives them an opportunity to explore it in depth in a story that has the potential to be more conducive to it.

I'm sure stuff like the scene with the Collector made comic fans wet, but, to me, it was just really weird and rather random and not entirely necessary.

I'm not familiar with the source material either but I think it's pretty apparent they're setting up the Collector to be a bigger character later on. It was already established in Thor: The Dark World that he posses one of the other infinity stones. And Benicio Del Toro is a big name actor that you don't waste on an unimportant side character.

This film is setting up a lot of things that will inevitably pay off in later sequels like Jon C. Reilly and Glenn Close's characters.

Anyway, the Collector scene was necessary from a storytelling perspective. First it allows for a breather in between action scenes and second it provides vital exposition that informs the main characters about what it is they're dealing with.

Forum Moderator
Author
Time

TheBoost said:

Watched a really good movie with Maggie Smith, some little pumpkin headed English kid, Petter Pettigrew, the chauffer and the dad from Downton Abbey and Mellisandre from GoT.  English people and ghosts. Really very good.

Some generic title.

Time and Time Again? Time After Time? Time Enough for Time? Somewhere in Time? No joke, can't recall. 

 From Time to Time.

Seriously, what a lame ass title. 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Tobar said:

DominicCobb said:

If I have one complaint about his Peter Quill, it's that we don't get enough of him. There's definitely a lot about him that hasn't been said (how does he feel about being abducted? does he want to go back to Earth? etc.), and presumably will be in a sequel. But it really should have been said here. 

The main purpose of this film was to establish the characters, organizations and settings of this world.

If they had explored those things about Quill in this film it would have been rushed. Leaving it to a sequel gives them an opportunity to explore it in depth in a story that has the potential to be more conducive to it.

I get leaving out stuff like the identity of his father for a sequel, but simple stuff like his feelings about leaving Earth behind I think is rather essential to completely understanding the character.

I'm sure stuff like the scene with the Collector made comic fans wet, but, to me, it was just really weird and rather random and not entirely necessary.

I'm not familiar with the source material either but I think it's pretty apparent they're setting up the Collector to be a bigger character later on. It was already established in Thor: The Dark World that he posses one of the other infinity stones. And Benicio Del Toro is a big name actor that you don't waste on an unimportant side character.

This film is setting up a lot of things that will inevitably pay off in later sequels like Jon C. Reilly and Glenn Close's characters.

Anyway, the Collector scene was necessary from a storytelling perspective. First it allows for a breather in between action scenes and second it provides vital exposition that informs the main characters about what it is they're dealing with.

Yeah I get it's setting stuff up (at least I hope they wouldn't waste talent like that). Still, judging this film on it's own terms, I can't let it go by with criticizing it. And yes, I realize the importance that was given to the scene with the Collector. But as it stands that's his only scene in the film and he's basically just there to be weird and dump exposition. Again, as a stand alone film it's an issue. My biggest issue with that scene is actually his slave girl and what she does which I found totally random (though again I understand that they wanted to show the power of the orb, but still this was not the best way to do that I think).

I just felt like they were throwing too much alien (as in extraterrestrial and strange) stuff at us. That made it harder to connect with the story, I felt, and made it easier to zone out when people start saying all these different names and such. It just made the film feel a little muddled. 

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

I get leaving out stuff like the identity of his father for a sequel, but simple stuff like his feelings about leaving Earth behind I think is rather essential to completely understanding the character.

 Throughout the film they give lots of hints about the resentment he fills about being torn away from his family.

Again, we're just meeting the character in this film. If they were to give everything away in their first go there wouldn't be anything to explore about the character later on.

My biggest issue with that scene is actually his slave girl and what she does which I found totally random (though again I understand that they wanted to show the power of the orb, but still this was not the best way to do that I think).

Earlier in the film they show how cruelly he treats his slaves. In the scene in question, he just got done explaining how the infinity stones bestow awesome power to those with the ability to wield them. Overhearing that and no longer wanting to be enslaved and at the mercy of this psycho she makes a play to escape. I don't get what's hard to understand about that.

Forum Moderator
Author
Time

Tobar said:

DominicCobb said:

I get leaving out stuff like the identity of his father for a sequel, but simple stuff like his feelings about leaving Earth behind I think is rather essential to completely understanding the character.

 Throughout the film they give lots of hints about the resentment he fills about being torn away from his family.

Again, we're just meeting the character in this film. If they were to give everything away in their first go there wouldn't be anything to explore about the character later on.

Yeah I do remember him telling Yondu he was not so happy about his abduction, but still, does he want to go back to Earth or not? Does he even have the ability to? I'm sorry, I get wanting to explore more things in the sequel, but this is the main character, and, more importantly, the audience's most relatable figure in this unknown world. I get leaving out bits about character back stories (Rocket, for example, is only vaguely explained), but to open with the character the way they did, and then jump so far ahead and not fill in the gaps, not just in the story (which I'm okay with) but in the mindset of the main character, I'm sorry I can't excuse that. I still love the character and the movie but I feel like leaving stuff like that out is only to the detriment of this film, and a cheap way to make the next film more interesting. If you don't think so, then agree to disagree I suppose. 

My biggest issue with that scene is actually his slave girl and what she does which I found totally random (though again I understand that they wanted to show the power of the orb, but still this was not the best way to do that I think).

Earlier in the film they show how cruelly he treats his slaves. In the scene in question, he just got done explaining how the infinity stones bestow awesome power to those with the ability to wield them. Overhearing that and no longer wanting to be enslaved and at the mercy of this psycho she makes a play to escape. I don't get what's hard to understand about that.

Alright, yeah, I forgot that early scene you mentioned. Still, I wasn't a big fan of the execution. 

Ultimately, like I said before, with so many different elements to this universe being introduced, I felt that things like the characters and the story were a bit clouded. Perhaps if I see the film again, I'll be able to appreciate it more, but opinion will still remain that the film is a bit cluttered, which leaves things (like characterization which is mostly excellent in regards to the titular team) a bit lost in the shuffle, even if it is there.

Author
Time

Tobar said:

I believe he wants photographic evidence of you at your keyboard whilst you were composing your review.

 

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time

I thought that the movie explained just enough, any more and it would have felt forced, too many movies hold your hand and explain too much, this one you were on a leash. It reminded me a LOT of Star Wars, being thrown in right in the middle of a new galaxy.....don't knock it

J

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I'm not really knocking it, I really enjoyed it (I gave it a B+, that's a really good score), it's one of the best films this summer. I'm actually saying it might have explained to much of the galaxy, or at least shown too much of it, which kind of made the whole thing a bit messy. I just wish they would have explained the main character a bit more is all. We were being thrown into a new galaxy with him. Keep in mind I'm not saying this ruined the movie, it just made it a bit lesser.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

The Returned (2013)

A Spanish-Canadian (what?) zombie thriller.  What I liked about this is that it's really not a zombie film, it's more about what happens after the zombie outbreak is contained.  A vaccine is developed that doesn't cure the virus but holds it off...and it has to be taken every day or anyone infected still becomes a zombie.  Supplies run short and what happens next?  Surprisingly little gore, but plenty of intrigue.

8/10 book tours.

JEDIT: Forgot to mention this bit of weirdness.  There is a nurse who happens to be black.  In the credits she's listed as "nurse."  But I watched this on Netflix, and the subtitles keep calling her "black nurse."  Uh, okay.

Author
Time

Mike O said:

Tobar said:

I believe he wants photographic evidence of you at your keyboard whilst you were composing your review.

 

 Nope.  That could be anyone's hands.

Author
Time

The Buddy Holly Story (1978)

Been in a music biopic mood lately. While the film never seemed to picked up its own kind of rhythm or momentum, Gary Busey did a great job in the title role.

Casting By (2013)

It's a travesty that Marion Dougherty never received an Oscar in her lifetime. The DGA is just ridiculous.

Forum Moderator
Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

Mike O said:

Tobar said:

I believe he wants photographic evidence of you at your keyboard whilst you were composing your review.

 

 Nope.  That could be anyone's hands.

 I give up.

X-Men: Days of Future Past

"Stick with me, baby. Stick with me anyhow. Things should start to get interesting right about now."
Bob Dylan

"You'd best be careful what you wish for friend, 'cause I've been to hell and now I'm back again."
Steve Earle

"Keep what is useful, discard what is useless, and add what is uniquely your own."
Bruce Lee Sing-Lung

Buckle up fanboys. Summer is here at at last, with a blast of a blockbuster to set the bar remarkable high. It's hard to believe that it's been almost 15 years since Bryan Singer first kicked off the still-strong wave of superhero films with 2000's X-Men. With top-shelf thespians and sleek direction, Singer followed in the footsteps of Donner and Burton in developing a way to depict comic-book superheroes with seriousness and a degree of intelligence. X2 was even better, a bigger and more complex sequel that set up many possibilities with its finale which unfortunately never came to fruition. Sadly, the X-Men franchise was left floundering directionless with the director's departure, devolving in a serious increasingly poor sequels. Elsewhere, Singer's career disappointed frequently, with the misconstrued Superman Returns and the amicable but unimpressive Jack the Giant Slayer. Finally regaining a degree of sanity with the the Singer-produced First Class, the man who started it all is back in the director's chair to attempt to untangle the franchise's increasingly unwieldy mythology, massive cast, and increasingly irrelevance against Marvel Studios excellent lineup. And he succeeds wildly, with easily the best superhero outing since at least Joss Whedon's The Avengers, juggling the film's ensemble cast, pop gravitas, twisty time-travel narrative, and slick, James Cameron-style action sequences, in adapting one of the comics' most celebrated storylines. It took ten years, but this is finally the sequel X-fans deserved, and more.

The story opens in the not too distant future, when the X-Men are being hunted by massive robots known as Sentinels, designed by eugenicist Bolivar Trask in an attempt to wipe out mutant-kind. Liquid metal monsters to rival the T-1000, they're adaptable and all-but invincible, and outnumber the ragtag mutants by thousands. In a horrifying holocaust in a post-apocalyptic world, the surviving mutants, hunted to near extinction, have discovered a method to travel in time and avoid their pursuers, at least in the short term, allowing the temporary avoid the ever-more powerful hunters. The whole future was instigated my Mystique's murder of Trask in the 1970s, and the time-travel just might offer a solution.But there's a catch: going back any further than a few weeks is too rigorous for anyone to survive. Except maybe a certain iconic adamantium-clawed mutant with healing powers. Going back to 1973 to stop Mystique from assassinating Trask and starting the anti-mutant mayhem, Wolverine finds Xavier a bitter and broken man from the events of First Class, and desperately tries to convince him to and his only remaining pupil, the Beast, to try to change the course of the future with the reluctant help of Magneto, who's slippery personal agenda could prove their undoing at any moment.

Wisely discarding most of the irritating "X-kids" from Vaughn's overrated X-Men: First Class while retaining the effective cast members-Mcavoy, Fassbender, Hoult, and Lawrence-and throwing in a delightful bonanza of cameos from the original cast, giving them a proper send-off after Brett Ratner's hideous X-Men: The Last Stand, Singer swings for the fences. Though the future cast is disappointingly underused as they aren't the meat of the narrative, seeing McKellen and Stewart back is simply wonderful, their chemistry and repartee remaining as delightful as ever and adding gravity to the proceedings even when delivering occasionally clunky expositon, though the majority of the narrative takes place within the past, with Hugh Jackman returning to the role he was born to play in Wolverine. Jackman remains the most perfect bit of superhero casting since Christopher Reeve donned the Man of Tomorrow's cape, Fassbender and McAvoy, especially with Stewart and McKellen alongside them (McAvoy and Stewart meet in one of the film's most inspired passages) as counterpoints, and Lawrence continues to justify her superstar status, blending sexy femme-fatale action chops with surprising vulnerability, even under layers of makeup.

Finally free of the gaudy excesses of Ratner, Vaughn, and Hood, Singer's sleek style, reminiscent of James Cameron at his peak, lends pop-gravity to the proceedings, succeeding in precisely what Vaughn attempted in First Class-tying the films historical setting with social upheavals like the original comics did. Whereas Vaughn felt like he was simply connecting the dots though, Singer properly shakes things up as much as you can in a comic-book world where nothing ever really changes, making full use of his massive budget and getting every cent up on the screen. Though the underutilized future cast feels a bit disappointing, it allows Singer to thin the ever-growing cast to allow for stronger narrative focus. The central fulcrum-the relationship between Mystique, Xavier, and Magneto-allows for an actual character-based narrative with understandable motivations on all sides. As a result, it approaches that obvious but all-too-rare point in blockbuster FX-fests of giving actual weight to the proceedings and reasons to care among the fireworks.

Elsewhere, the jokes are all zingers, particularly some lines for the fans, without spoiling too much, the resolution is wholly satisfying both on its own and a retcon to hideous previous finale, and the set pieces are all rollicking good fun. Singer's action sequences actually make spatial sense, the Sentinels are inspired in design and execution, both as futuristic hunters and clunky 70s tech, the many set pieces executed with the clean choreography of the best pop cinema, reminiscent of James Cameron at his peak, full of clean lines and a clearly delineated sense of who's doing what to whom, ending with an action climax that's both visually spectacular and emotionally satisfying. Singer cites many of his favorites as pop cinema's very best-Nicholas Meyer's Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Spielberg's Jaws-and if he's not quite in their company, he's certainly on the right track. Qucksilver is an inspired creation, his bullet-time style FX as a particular highlight. Signer's use of silence, tension, judicious slow-motion, impressive choreography (some of it courtesy of ace second-unit director Greg Smrz, a John Woo alum who's clearly learned his lessons well), and the stylish cinematography and punchy editing of his top lieutenants- superb DP Thomas Newton Seigel and and editor and composer John Ottman, who lend the film a gorgeous, slightly expressionistic color palette (shot in rich digital with some period footage shot gloriously on celluloid, and occasionally hiding some rather claustrophobic sound-stages) and strong rhythm. For once, bloat isn't a problem as the film's outward expansion actually suggests a larger universe (rumored deleted scenes hint at future treats as Blu-Ray extras) and the film's running time flies by.

Setting the bar impressively high for the rest of the summer, X-Men finally earn some of their glory back, suggesting that this franchise, once on life support, might still have some life left in it yet. Sleek, smart, stylish, funny, and thoroughly entertaining, the gang's all here, and they're better than ever. Though this proves a satisfying denouement, a post-credits stinger nonetheless hints at a new villain and future adventures. But if the world is in peril again, we needn't worry. With Singer back at the helm, we're in good hands. It's great to have him back at last. To me, my X-Men. The bar is high for Avengers: Age of Ultron. Finally, the X franchise is as good as it deserves to be again at long last.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time

Don't you think using quotes at the start of your reviews feels a little trite? And why are you writing these long reviews? Is that just how you naturally express your feelings or are you trying to get published?

I'm genuinely curious.

Author
Time

"Starship"

I bought this DVD for a buck at the local library rummage sale. Thought it was some kind of children's show, because it was a puppet musical. Barely gave it a thought along with 6-7 other purchases.

It's a freaking MUSICAL PUPPET PARODY of STARSHIP TROOPERS!!!!! The greatest thing mankind has yet achieved! 

The whole thing is also streaming on youtub. 

Author
Time

You can't say something like that and not provide a link!

Forum Moderator
Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Don't you think using quotes at the start of your reviews feels a little trite? And why are you writing these long reviews? Is that just how you naturally express your feelings or are you trying to get published?

I'm genuinely curious.

 I'm a pretentious asshole. It's supposed to sound grandiose, not trite. So goes to show how unsuccessful I was :p. I'd love to get published (I need to find a new job and fixed my messed-up life), but even if I can't, I might as well put it down in writing. Even if no one reads them, I suppose it makes me feel a little better that it's down. 

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time

Conan the Barbarian (1982), directed by John Milius

Not a straight adaptation of Robert E. Howard's literary Conan, but still a very enjoyable film. The influence of two Howard stories in particular--Queen of the Black Coast and A Witch Shall Be Born--is very evident in the plot.

There's also a surprising amount of Wagnerian imagery, which I found quite cool. Apparently several critics took issue with it, presumably thinking that anything remotely Wagnerian automatically equates with the Nazis, but I don't agree with that.

As well, I can't help but wonder if director John Milius got some of his casting ideas from his old USC film school buddy George Lucas.

We have the title character, played by Arnold Schwarzenegger; his friend and ally (invented for the film), a Mongol thief named Subotai; and the villain, Thulsa Doom, played by James Earl Jones.

This is quite similar to the casting ideas I suspect Lucas had in mind for the 1974 SW rough draft.

There the principal hero, Annikin Starkiller, was to have black hair and blue eyes, like Robert E. Howard's literary Conan; the hero's mentor, General Luke Skywalker, was apparently Japanese; and the villain, Prince Valorum, was likely meant to be cast as black.

In fact, James Earl Jones may have got the nod for Thulsa Doom precisely because of his turn as Darth Vader--the successor character to Valorum.

But getting back to Milius's Conan: very good. A surprisingly pagan film for 1980s America, too.

8 out of 10 broken swords.

“That Darth Vader, man. Sure does love eating Jedi.”

Author
Time
A series of adaptations of an individual novel, kind of interesting.

Point Blank- Existential, experimental, iconoclastic 1960s crime thriller in the mold of the then-popular French New Waves movies. Icy, odd, distant, and structurally fairly unusual, even today. Uses the novel's basic premise as the springboard for an odd tale about existential emptiness and revenge. Great performance from Lee Marvin, some stunning cinematography, and very stylish, moody direction. A touch dated, but an interesting curio of a time when American cinema was willing to fund more than blockbusters.

Payback- Directorial debut of screenwriter Brian Helgeland, recut by Mel Gibson's production company in an attempt to make it into Lethal Weapon 5, complete with Gibson's obligatory torture scene and eventually him taking on the whole mob and blowing stuff up. An odd blend of Helgeland's attempt at Stark's aesthetic and a recut by someone going in a completely different direction.

Payback: Straight Up: The Director's Cut- Though not quite as rough as the Westlake novel, Helgeland's original cut hews closer to the original. It's a small movie of a small tale, and works much better than Gibson's knowingly ridiculous cut and plays like a 70s crime thriller Helgeland wants to emulate, though without the existential underpinnings or rawness. Still pretty good for what it is, and probably the closes adaptation outside of Darwyn Cooke's graphic novel.

Full Contact- Though not officially an adaptation of The Hunter, it does have a similar setup. Chow Yun Fat stars in this version from director Ring Lam Ling-Tung, a brutally violet, viciously nihilistic tale of a double-crossed thief who then proceeds to kill his way to revenge. Shot with a sucker-punch visual style and full of grimy, disreputable people, with the unique energy you'll find only in Honk Kong Action Cinema of the period and nowhere else. Interesting, but kind of punishing and so brutal that you eventually run out of people to care about and sort of watch it like a car accident. The famous "bullet-cam" shots still have a certain novelty value.

Elsewhere...

The Crazies- George Romero's tale of infected humans and bureaucracy trying to contain a virus. Intelligent and interesting in the way it deconstruction bureaucracy and social breakdown, but its raw, low-budget quality means that time has been very unkind to it in places. Interesting, but flawed.

The Crazies- Breck Eisener's remake of the above, loses most of sociological clout and depth of the original, but works much better as a thriller, one crackerjack set piece after another, and nicely nihilistic tone and electric energy. If only there were a way to fall between the two.

...28 Days Later- Despite director Danny Boyle's usual hyperactive visual tics, this derivative but highly effective horror thriller is one of the better ones of recent years. Yes, I know "THEY'RE NOT ZOMBIES!" and the infected hew more closely to the infected of the above-mentioned Romero film, but the plot and feeling seem more like Dawn of the Dead, and the whole third act is basically stolen from Day of the Dead. That said, it's done well, there's a nice intelligence behind it, it's properly gory and viscerally frightening when it needs to be, with a nice human edge. Shot on interlaced digital video at 408i, probably in an attempt to call back to the grainy 16mm of yore.

28 Weeks Later- Though this one is shot on grain Super 16 (And looks fantastic, it must be said.), this sequel aims more broadly. I'm not sure what its budget was, but I bet it was significantly higher than its predecessor. There are lot more impressive FX shots and a much bigger scale, though still grounded in human drama. Said human drama isn't quite as effective this time around, but it's a nice backbone for the super-bloody thrills which build to splattery bloodbath finale, ending in a cruel apocalyptic joke. Selfishness has a way of coming back to haunt you, and interventionism is scarier than you bargain for.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death