What was the last movie you saw?

Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)

As usual, I viewed no trailers and strayed away from anyone talking about it...............

Then, I saw it. My "high hopes" were only met half way. It was an ok film, with great visual effects, familiar characters with a familiar story. The new characters were fine. So glad I saw it on DVD, instead of buying a ticket.



Willow Creek (2013)

I watched an interview with the creator of the film, (comedian - actor) Bobcat Goldthwait. He spoke very serious about the film, which was about exploring the wilderness, in search of Bigfoot. I listened to him, as he kept trying not to reveal too much about the movie, which stoked my curiosity. I got a chance to see this "Bigfoot" flick.

I was horrified to discover that it was another CLONE movie, about people filming themselves and getting terrified. It was so painful to watch this trash, using the same formula: frightened people filming themselves, and they meet a monster. The only thing that EVER changes in this TYPE of movie, are the actors and the creature. Whoop-tee-freak-ing-doo. It was a real shame that Bobcat couldn't think of anything original to film.

I sped quickly through most of the movie.



Terror in the Aisles (1984)

I finally got a chance to see this gem from the past. Actor Donald Pleasence hosts this semi-documentary about horror films. Great collection of horror movie segments are shown.

I enjoyed watching this treat again, after so many years.
 
Bridge Of Spies I'm not a big Spielberg fan but I thought this movie was superb. It also serves as a reminder that whilst we may resist our enemies, we don't have to be like them. A message that is still relevant in today's troubled times.
 
Joseph Andrews (1977)

Director Tony Richardson goes back to the source of his very successful 1963 film Tom Jones, based on the 1749 novel by Henry Fielding, by adapting another work by the same author. For some reason, unlike the previous adaptation, this one seems to be somewhat obscure. Ann-Margaret (the only non-British member of the cast, as far as I can tell) has top billing as a devious aristocrat with lustful designs on our beautiful, virtuous young hero (Peter Firth), who is saving himself for his one true love. There are lots of fine British character actors to fill up the complex, episodic plot. The tone of the film varies from slapstick, bawdy comedy, bedroom farce, and social satire to swashbuckling adventure, gruesome violence, and even a touch of Gothic horror. Quite handsomely filmed, with the heavily made-up and bewigged world of the upper class contrasting with the filth and squalor of the lower class. The complicated back story requires multiple flashbacks from a variety of characters, and a couple of these are done in innovative ways. One is shown as the character having the flashback sings a song about his experiences. The other is done without sound, and visually distorted through a fish eye lens. Recommended.
 
"Spotlight"- excellent. less a tell-all expose of the ciorruption in the Catholic Church, and more a great newspaper story.
 
London has Fallen - well you all know what to expect here (for better or worse) but it is a fun brain out film and it certainly makes a change note seeing Washington or NYC being blown up! Was curious how they ended up in various parts of London from others (but then I guess people in NYC, Washington etc think the same)
 
In my opinion there will never be a better Jungle Book than the original film staring Sabu. Simply magnificent.
 
I watched... Mall Cop 2!! It was lighthearted yknow... and the special FX near the end were funny... when the putzy security gaurds take on the heavies and destroy them, largely by accident. Then Box Trolls, and it was fun too.
 
Starbeast said:
I'm still trying to decide if the NEW Star Wars flick is worth owning.
Click to expand...

No. It's not. It is barely worth seeing. A modern rehash of Star Wars' greatest hits. A masked villain, a superweapon, rebels, a youngster hunted by an empire etc.

Poor stuff. Great if you're six mind you.
 
gdoc said:
No. It's not. It is barely worth seeing. A modern rehash of Star Wars' greatest hits. A masked villain, a superweapon, rebels, a youngster hunted by an empire etc.

Poor stuff. Great if you're six mind you.
Click to expand...


That's for sure, Gdoc. It just wasn't thrilling to me. It was one of the rare times, I wanted to believe the hype.

Put those three "death spheres" together, and you've got the Mickey Mouse symbol.
 
King of the Zombies (1941)

Pretty lame Poverty Row quickie which seems to be an attempt to cash in on the success of the 1940 Bob Hope movie The Ghost Breakers. The nonsensical plot involves a couple of bland white guys and their cowardly, wisecracking black servant (Mantan Moreland, who played this role a zillion times, and who is the real star of this thing.) Their plane crashes on an island somewhere and they meet up with a spooky guy (somebody who isn't Bela Lugosi but should be.) Throw in voodoo, hypnotism, telepathy, zombies, and spy stuff. Actually, the vast majority of this film involves comedy from its African-American cast members. Besides Moreland, we have a scary butler, a sassy maid, a cackling voodoo priestess, and a bunch of zombies. There's also pseudo-Lugosi's zombified wife and his niece (by marriage, she's careful to let us know.) Amazingly, this thing was nominated for an Academy Award, for best musical score in a dramatic film (although it's mostly a comedy.)
 
Finally got to see Star Wars: The Force Awakens

No doubt I'll be burned at the stake for this but here is my opinion...

If looked upon as a standalone movie with big action shots, minimal character development and an emphasis on simply wowing the audience, it works. It has to, however, be viewed from the perspective of its lineage within the Star Wars canon and in that aspect, it fails.

Let’s not beat about the bush here. Star Wars: The Force Awakens is quite simply a regurgitation of A New Hope. Right at the very start we have the shot of the Star Destroyer (albeit from a different angle and done in silhouette to make it more menacing), a droid escapes with an important message, there’s a bad guy dressed in black with a mask, there’s a rescue, etc. etc. by the time they’re hiding under grating in the Millennium Falcon and Han Solo decides to use a blaster on a lock I’m shouting Oh Come On!, There’s homage and there’s taking the piss out of the audience. I’ll let you decide which I think is the most relevant.

Ah! Somebody might say – but they’re using the hero’s journey trope. To which I’d answer: So What? A trope should help a writer by acting as a guide, it shouldn’t shackle them in a chain of dogmatic obedience. I use the word chain quite specifically because every link is identical and the same applies to this movie and its forebear. There is a small straying from the literary path – but only to provide a changing of the guard for the next generation

Of course, the CGI is well executed and is obviously done by masters of their craft. The photography is superb and again shows the quality behind the lenses but - let’s face it - photography literally means painting with light. This is painting by numbers.

Finally, I think it is the greatest irony of all that a movie so intent on distilling good and evil into such separate essences of light and dark that they provide the palette upon which the hero can paint his/her acts of risk and daring-do takes no risks at all.

A massive disappointment.
 
Revenge of the Zombies (1943)

Neither a sequel nor a remake of King of the Zombies, but just a rehash. We've still got Mantan Moreland as a cowardly servant and the wonderfully named Madame Sul-Te-Wan (really just Nellie Conley) as a spooky old woman, but we've got a different scary butler and a different sassy maid. The good guys are just as bland as ever. Future TV star Gale Storm appears as the good girl. Instead of some guy who isn't Bela Lugosi, we have John Carradine as the bad guy. The setting has changed from some island somewhere to Louisiana, and the vague black magic/hypnosis/telepathy of the first film is mad science in this one. The plot isn't quite as confusing. Nazi Carradine is out to create super soldiers by using a plant-derived poison which turns its victim into reanimated, obedient zombies who can't be stopped by bullets and such. Carradine's dead wife is one of his experiments and features importantly in the plot. The first couple of minutes are actually pretty moody, but it's mostly a dull affair.
 
Vince W said:
The Jungle Book. What a massive disappointment. Save your money.
Click to expand...


I decided to skip it after looking at the poster.
Jungle-book-poster-600x857.jpg

A Uran Utang in India? and if that is Ka wrapped around the arch he is one VERY big snake or maybe Bagheera is just teeny weeny -there's something really wrong with the perspective and scale in the poster.

Vince, could you help satisfy my curiosity as to why the Costume Designer gets a credit on the poster (other than contractual reasons) - are there any costumes, other than the red rag wrapped round Mowgli's boy bits? Because if there ain't, getting your name on a movie poster just for designing a loincloth seems a bit rich.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Toby Frost Lasting Impact? Game of Thrones 26
AnRoinnUltra The last days of the Lóntuisteach Promotions 0
The Judge DISTAFF -- Last Chance to Buy!! Promotions 0
Extollager Peter S. Beagle's The Last Unicorn (1968 novel -- not movie) Classic SF&F 11
N Y: The Last Man, movie or telly series? Graphic Novels & Comics 3

Similar threads


Back
Top