Seen any good films lately? [3]

Whoa-ho-ho! Nifty new avatar there Dave.

yes most dashing.

From Snufkin to Buff-kin

Thanks! It's my best impersonation of Sir Walter Raleigh (from Elizabeth Golden Age).

{{you ladies always make me blush }}

I watched "Jason Bourne" last night & to be honest I hope this IS the last one. I heard a rumour that Matt Damon said he's getting a bit old to play Jason much longer & in some ways I agree with him. I liked the film because it was "Jason Bourne". Ive watched the others as tho its Jason's life I'm involved in but, this one ?

Spoiler:

I liked that the music stayed the same, tho the urgent drum beat didn't stir me this time as it had before. I think the Bourne theme is one of my favourite tracks to any film & I do like a bit of Moby at the end I think I was happy with the ending of the film,

Spoiler:

I think "Jason Bourne" is more "James Bond" for me than James Bond They share the same initials but I much prefer Matt Damon's character any day !

We saw Doctor Strange in 3D this weekend. Fun time.
It is a rather typical superhero story through. Imagine it might seem a bit flat in 2D.

Amarië wrote: Imagine it might seem a bit flat in 2D.

{{{That was a pun right?}}}

Watched a few 3D movies in the last couple of weeks. Even watched the Hobbit 1, 2 and 3 in 3D again
The new 4 k tv's are not being made in 3D so don't no whats happening there.

lovely Ozzie time travel film.

I thought that was going to be a trailer when I hit play!

Interesting stuff Figgs, I don't have the time to watch all though right now. But from what I saw the writing made up for the low-budget acting.

just saw Fantastic Beasts, it confirmed my intense dislike of Yates being anywhere near HP. it was dark dismal gloomy and boring. Yates seems to be allergic to sunlight, colour, or magic for that matter. It consisted of a Muggle being amazed. that's the lot. some cute creatures though. and the 3 leads were likeable. If Yates is making the next 4 films I wont be going.

Ah, sorry to hear that Figgs. Hopefully he won't be, eh?

But then the IMDB page for the next film says that he is. I'm not sure how trustworthy that is.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4123430/

...And another web site says that Yates is directing, so it is looking that way.

Forest Shepherd wrote:Ah, sorry to hear that Figgs. Hopefully he won't be, eh?

But then the IMDB page for the next film says that he is. I'm not sure how trustworthy that is.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4123430/

...And another web site says that Yates is directing, so it is looking that way.

 bad news. bur srsly is it just me or does he make everything so dank and dark that it looks like you are watching the film through a very dirty window? where's the joy in colourless magical world? I think he is forgetting this film is for kids, and kids like bright sparkling things, not dismal gloom.
Bloody hell, 1920s New York! it could have been brilliant Art Deco nirvana with flappers a go-go. instead.....

I know what you mean. It's similar to how Medieval film-settings are usually done up in greys and browns.

It would have been fun to see the Muggles "Nomajs" reaction to things like this:




But then I guess HP already did plenty of that with Arthur Weasley.

I'm with you Figgs on this. I'm not a HP potter fan, Ive watched a few of the films, ( not read the books ) But there are many other films that Ive got pissed off with as for some demented, self centred reason known only to the director etc should be shot in its entirety in good old....sludge. Its not even black or white, its some weird colour ? Ive heard the explanation is to add realism just as they do when they think its a great idea to hand the camera to a caffine infused monkey & let him swing willy nilly with it. NOT cool, No fun, not from where I'm sitting anyhow !

yeah I agree its sludge. its not as if its black and white effect, like he was trying to recreate the photographs, because white is still white, not sludgy grey gloom. most of the film is spent down dark alleys, it was so oppressive Mr Figg walked out in the interval, saying he had to get out into the sunlight, and I followed him because I was feeling claustrophobic too.

btw did newt get his little green twiggy friend back? it was so cute. I did like the characters and they did what they could with the horrible stuff they were given. Didn't like Colin Farrel, he is not Harry Potterish at all.

yeah I agree its sludge. its not as if its black and white effect, like he was trying to recreate the photographs, because white is still white, not sludgy grey gloom. most of the film is spent down dark alleys, it was so oppressive Mr Figg walked out in the interval, saying he had to get out into the sunlight, and I followed him because I was feeling claustrophobic too. we went at 3pm to avoid the Christmas crowds.

btw did Newt get his little green twiggy friend back? it was so cute.  I did like the characters and they did what they could with the horrible stuff they were given. Didn't like Colin Farrel, he is not Harry Potterish at all, that was bad casting imo.

I just watched Lo and Behold: Reveries of the Connected World, the newest documentary by Werner Herzog. It was delightful, as I expected, and I highly recommend it to anyone.

Saw Rouge One this weekend.



While admittedly flawed, it also struck me as several times the movie, never mind Star Wars movie, The Force Awakens was. Of things I didn't love, the goofy fight/action scenes throughout jarred with the general feel of the film to me. The last part of the movie as well turned into little more than a long drawn out action set piece, instead of telling any coherent story. The closeness of margin of the whole thing being a complete failure at the end also seemed over the top. I think that could have been written in a more elegant manner.

Spoiler:

A shame, as it seemed to have the potential to be something, darker and more earnest, even a genuinely good movie. But it seemed to get caught up confirming to stereotype to a degree and to its detriment.

On the whole though, a positive experience.

Bluebottle wrote:Saw Rouge One this weekend.



While admittedly flawed, it also struck me as several times the movie, never mind Star Wars movie, The Force Awakens was.

Hm. I enjoyed The Force Awakens a lot because of its crowd-pleasing entertainment factor and grand scale. Rogue One's leads were not nearly as charismatic as Daisy Ridley and John Boyega I thought, and the dour story and 

Spoiler:

left me feeling a little sad afterwards, rather than "Star Wars!" hyped up and   .

Liked them both. Each were good in their own way. Both, had different tales to tell. In "R1" the ending was sad but, the characters had nowhere to go, unless they just disappeared into the mist of time ? they were never mentioned in the other films so... ?

Forest Shepherd wrote:

Bluebottle wrote:Saw Rouge One this weekend.



While admittedly flawed, it also struck me as several times the movie, never mind Star Wars movie, The Force Awakens was.

Hm. I enjoyed The Force Awakens a lot because of its crowd-pleasing entertainment factor and grand scale. Rogue One's leads were not nearly as charismatic as Daisy Ridley and John Boyega I thought, and the dour story and 

Spoiler:

left me feeling a little sad afterwards, rather than "Star Wars!" hyped up and   .

I guess first it should be stated that I am not a major Star Wars fan, and as such another Star Wars movie is not what I am looking for when approaching a new one. To my mind the more understated story of Rouge One was infinitely preferable to the Force Awakens. As was the cast.

Rouge One did have it's flaws, as I pointed out. But it did manage to capture some of that Star Wars magic, even for a non major fan, perhaps from not trying too hard. The Force Awakens was so off kilter storytelling wise it was emberrasing at times.

Petty mentioned Clive Barker and Hellraiser in the books thread, and although I'd never watched the film I did find it on netflix and watched it today. Really good 80s gore effects, and an interesting concept. But one thing didn't make any sense to me, how did no one smell the rotting flesh from the upstairs room?? What did Julia do with the bodies? She put the first one into the room opposite the kill room, and no one could smell the rotting corpse? Come on.

I thought the cenobites would be more involved, but they weren't until the third act. It felt a little weird to have a horror film and the main villain is a rotting corpse trapped in a room for the whole movie. I can't think of another horror movie (thinking 80s here) with a mostly static villain.

Overall it was pretty good, felt like classic 80s horror. Great visual effects, animatronics, makeup etc.

It felt a little weird to have a horror film and the main villain is a rotting corpse trapped in a room for the whole movie. I can't think of another horror movie (thinking 80s here) with a mostly static villain.

Weekend at Bernie's?

{{{In the original stroy I cant actually remember what happens to the bodies- I have a nagging feeling Frank reduces them to just dried out husks so there is nothing to go off and smell.
The Cenobites are also a bit different- Pinheads sex is ambiguous and he/she comes off as more androgynous than anything else. The other Cenobites also have more to say- for the film the prosthetics meant that it was hard for the others to speak their lines so many of them got given to Pinhead instead, creating along the way a sort of head cenobite that never existed in the original, pinhead was just one of them, not their leader.
I love Franks resurrection scene- fantastic practical 80's effects and a great scroe to accompany it.



In the book its a different room and Franks not only spilled his blod but his semen too which is why it resurrects him, its not just blood- but they left that out. Also the one off sex encounter Julia has with Frank on the eve of her wedding is more of a rape in the book that she in a twisted fashion over the years has romanticized in her head into a dangerous but sexually exciting encounter (though in the film if you notice they do, as in the book, make love on top of her wedding dress). But the biggest change is to Kristy- who isn't the daughter in the original but an old friend of Larry's (who has a different name for some reaosn in book to film) who has an unrequited flame of love for Larry and who distrust Julia and is looking out for Larry.
I suspect this change purely came about because Barker realized that on film, coming at the climax Franks line coming out of Larry, 'Come to Daddy' would have more impact and creep factor- which it does.

Its interesting to see an author adapt their own work. Most of the changes are minor or can be explained by circumstances (actors unable to deliver lines accidentally creating Pinhead as leader) or by a dramatic imperative like making Kristy the daughter instead of old friend or for reasons of the censors,like toning down or removing the books more extreme sections like Franks masturbation frenzy as a part of his summoning the Cenobites ritual. But others like changing the main characters name or including a boyfriend who doesn't actually do anything, not even die which is the usual fate for pointless characters in a horror film, or making Pinhead so definitely male, are harder to explain (though that may just be the times- horror villains tended to be male in the 80's Jason Vorhees, Michael Myers, Freddie Kruger)

The film also does not go into as much detail on exactly what the Cenobites do to you.frank thinks when he opens the box he is summing creatures who will give him pleasures not dreamed of in mortal terms.
What he doesn't understand is that the Cenobites take evry sensation to its zenith and beyond. in the book what Frank experience sis every sense heightened to the millionth degree, every sound is audible to the point of pain, his sight is so detailed its overwhelming, smell, taste the same, and every nerve ending in his body. Frank is then fucked by one of the Cenobites relentlessly and over and over with every nerve ending reacting beyond comprehension and where there is effectively no difference between exquisite pain and exquisite pleasure. Which is why they will see no difference between fucking you into exquisite agony or ripping your skin off or torturing you to the same effect.

Also I wouldn't bother with the sequels, or if you do don't go into them with hopes to high.}}}