[tw2113]

Alien. With the others to follow. At least up to Resurrection. Beyond that, fuck it.

[greenlight]

 

visually nice, funny at times, plenty of action but I was missing something. maybe I am just getting old for them. 6 of 10.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I couldn't agree more. I've tried countless times with it because I really really want to like it. Barker clearly has a great imagination and the scenes with the cenobites are awesome but the rest of it is just so flat. The main girl is particularly awful. Although I'm not sure if that's her fault or just poor direction from Barker (I suspect the latter). Fans will definitely disagree but, for me, if there was ever a film that warranted a remake it's that one. So long as whoever did it, didn't fuck around with the cenobites: the film's sole saving grace imo.

YES. and sure the cenobites are awesome but the problem is that here they're just an IDEA, not characters. they're almost... props.

the problem here is this was 3 stories:
-the story of the hedonist that goes too far (frank & the cenobites). could have been great. like eyes wide shut but with a guilty participant.
-the story of the horny housewife who goes postman rings twice. could have been great too.
-the story of the innocent girl who.. some shit happens in her family or somehting, she makes faces... not so good.

so you don't even know who the fuck you're following here or why. it's pretty shit.

maybe they wanted to do this like the evil dead, when we progressively find out who are these deadites (lol) but no.

also evil dead was made supercheap but had the sense to use light to create a mood even if it was obviously fake & cheaply done--those beams coming out of the cabin and those hanging silks work great even if you know they're artificial.

hellraiser looked like a hallmark movie as severian says because the light was flat as fuck. like a soap opera. since the days of german expressionism it became evident that chiaroscuro works for horror FOR A REASON. namely, that things are hidden just around the corner. all the good ones know this.

i appreciate the attempt and a lot of good ideas in the story but the movie is a bit shit. best suited for talkback tv where you can joke about the penis head monster or the lady's helmet haircut or the girl's terrible terrible acting.

[noisereductions]

watched Daredevil last night. Hadn't seen it since it first came out. It was better than I remembered, but still pretty meh especially now that we have the excellent Netflix series.

[!@#$%!]

SEASON OF THE WITCH

with hellboy, nic cage, and claire foy

*terrible movie*. bad accents, contemporary slang in the middle ages, tons of CGI and absurd shit-- but laughable and action packed, therefore entertaining.

this morning

ABBOT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN

i heard my wife laugh a lot while i played computer games next to her. that is a good way to relax. she loves buffoons.

last night:

PSYCHO

fucking masterpiece.

now here's the thing that just dawned on me last night.

in that sequence when the sister comes up to the house to look for the mother--

i'm looking at it and i go HOLY FUCK IT'S SPIELBERG! IT'S SPIELBERG!

and i realized where spielberg learned to be so good

when i pulled the epic rap battles of history hitchcock vs spielberg though it wasn't that great-- too many characters not enough comebacks

anyway, yes. fucking spielberg! hitchcock! yes!!! i saw it.

[tw2113]

Getting to the end of Aliens at this point.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

SEASON OF THE WITCH

with hellboy, nic cage, and claire foy

*terrible movie*. bad accents, contemporary slang in the middle ages, tons of CGI and absurd shit-- but laughable and action packed, therefore entertaining.

this morning

ABBOT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN

i heard my wife laugh a lot while i played computer games next to her. that is a good way to relax. she loves buffoons.

last night:

PSYCHO

fucking masterpiece.

now here's the thing that just dawned on me last night.

in that sequence when the sister comes up to the house to look for the mother--

i'm looking at it and i go HOLY FUCK IT'S SPIELBERG! IT'S SPIELBERG!

and i realized where spielberg learned to be so good

when i pulled the epic rap battles of history hitchcock vs spielberg though it wasn't that great-- too many characters not enough comebacks

anyway, yes. fucking spielberg! hitchcock! yes!!! i saw it.

Had you never seen PSYCHO? Really?

Fuckin' congrats man! I'm envious. A masterpiece indeed.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by greenlight

 

visually nice, funny at times, plenty of action but I was missing something. maybe I am just getting old for them. 6 of 10.

This is getting pretty insanely good reviews. Something like a 92% on Rotten Tomatos. Honestly it looks like a mashup of Batman Begins, Inception and latter-day Harry Potter to me, but ... y'know... those movies all kicked ass.

Bloody hate Doctor Strange though. Not at all interested in seeing him. But... I am interested in seeing the movie. Will do so. Though I'm way more amped about Arrival and Rogue One.

[noisereductions]

Did you like Ironman? It's like that... with magic.

There are plenty Marvel movies I put above it. But still very good.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Severian

Had you never seen PSYCHO? Really?

Fuckin' congrats man! I'm envious. A masterpiece indeed.

i've seen it a bunch of times, including repeated visits to "24 hour psycho" when it showed in dc, but it's one of those rare movies that gets better on rewatch. i actually own it, and i don't own movies (long story).

what was new to me yesterday was the spielberg connection. it's because of jaws a couple of months ago stuck with me. and i spotted those shots.

i need to rewatch it on blu-ray soon. dvd has limits. i meant psycho-- or jaws-- or both lol.

[h8kurdt]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i've seen it a bunch of times, including repeated visits to "24 hour psycho" when it showed in dc, but it's one of those rare movies that gets better on rewatch. i actually own it, and i don't own movies (long story).

what was new to me yesterday was the spielberg connection. it's because of jaws a couple of months ago stuck with me. and i spotted those shots.

i need to rewatch it on blu-ray soon. dvd has limits. i meant psycho-- or jaws-- or both lol.

The only thing with Psycho that bothers me is the absolute last scene. Where he's shown in hospital and there's the two psychiatrist talking about him. Hitchcock deciding to RAM home what it means was stupid. The audience has figured out that he's hearing his mum's voice and that he dresses like her already. There's no need to have a scene explaining what everyone knew.

Other than that it's a great film.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

The only thing with Psycho that bothers me is the absolute last scene. Where he's shown in hospital and there's the two psychiatrist talking about him. Hitchcock deciding to RAM home what it means was stupid. The audience has figured out that he's hearing his mum's voice and that he dresses like her already. There's no need to have a scene explaining what everyone knew.

Other than that it's a great film.

oh ha ha yes-- that last bit is clunky.

i see it as a concession to a 1950s audience more than anything (it's a 1960 film but it's a "50's" movie to me). i wonder if it was a hitchcock decision or the studio did that. i'll investigate.

the other thing is that we grew up in the aftermath of all that... psychologization (is that a word?) of life, so i don't know if the audiences from 70 years ago would have picked up on it the way we do it today. we're hitchcock's children.

the last-last shot that follows is also a bit of overexplaining... that's the car being dragged out of the swamp with a chain. i would have liked more i think not to know what happened, but again 50s audiences most likely wanted a clear ending. too early in history for something like "inception".

but shot by shot, the way douglas gordon made it explode, it's just so brilliant.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by noisereductions

Did you like Ironman? It's like that... with magic.

There are plenty Marvel movies I put above it. But still very good.

Meh. First Iron Man was pretty good and refreshing, despite he terrible music.
The second and third were fucking terrible, only RDJ's smart mouth made them watchable. I think it was super easy to compare the first one to Batman Begins though, since it came out one year later, and that wasn't a battle it or any Marvel film could ever hope to win.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

oh ha ha yes-- that last bit is clunky.

i see it as a concession to a 1950s audience more than anything (it's a 1960 film but it's a "50's" movie to me). i wonder if it was a hitchcock decision or the studio did that. i'll investigate.

the other thing is that we grew up in the aftermath of all that... psychologization (is that a word?) of life, so i don't know if the audiences from 70 years ago would have picked up on it the way we do it today. we're hitchcock's children.

the last-last shot that follows is also a bit of overexplaining... that's the car being dragged out of the swamp with a chain. i would have liked more i think not to know what happened, but again 50s audiences most likely wanted a clear ending. too early in history for something like "inception".

but shot by shot, the way douglas gordon made it explode, it's just so brilliant.

I've heard that Hitchcock wasn't keen on the psychiatrist scene but felt it necessary for audience comprehension. It was self financed so he didn't have any studio pressure, and the whole film plays havoc with the Hays code. It was just a rare case of poor judgement by Hitchcock which he thankfully learned from in time for The Birds, which benefits from explaining nothing.

[Severian]

Yeah the last scene in PSYCHO is infamously ridiculous. A pimple on an otherwise pretty much perfect face.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I've heard that Hitchcock wasn't keen on the psychiatrist scene but felt it necessary for audience comprehension. It was self financed so he didn't have any studio pressure, and the whole film plays havoc with the Hays code. It was just a rare case of poor judgement by Hitchcock which he thankfully learned from in time for The Birds, which benefits from explaining nothing.

the code was still in effect in 1960? oh hell. ha ha ha ha. not so much the great tits, but that talk of alimony... shocking. well there's all kinds of stuff censors would frown upon in it.

thanks for all that info, i had no idea this was self-financed

looking up spielberg + hitchcock this stuff came up-- sad or funny? ha ha i vote funny

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...g-1796069.html

[h8kurdt]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I've heard that Hitchcock wasn't keen on the psychiatrist scene but felt it necessary for audience comprehension. It was self financed so he didn't have any studio pressure, and the whole film plays havoc with the Hays code. It was just a rare case of poor judgement by Hitchcock which he thankfully learned from in time for The Birds, which benefits from explaining nothing.

See this is the weird thing about that sort of writing. Some directors would get slated for not explaining a massive thing like that, others get praised *cough*Lynch*cough*. I remember watching M Night Shyamalan's The Happening and he does a similar thing as Hitchcock. At the end everyone's left wondering when it's gonna happen again and not explaining anything, yet for some reason he got slated HARD for doing that. Even though he was doing a similar thing as Hitchcock.

[h8kurdt]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

the code was still in effect in 1960? oh hell. ha ha ha ha. not so much the great tits, but that talk of alimony... shocking. well there's all kinds of stuff censors would frown upon in it.

thanks for all that info, i had no idea this was self-financed

looking up spielberg + hitchcock this stuff came up-- sad or funny? ha ha i vote funny

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...g-1796069.html

Haha no that's brilliant.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

the code was still in effect in 1960? oh hell. ha ha ha ha. not so much the great tits, but that talk of alimony... shocking. well there's all kinds of stuff censors would frown upon in it.

The code lasted until the late 60s but studios had been openly flaunting its rules for quite a few years before that. Saying that there are a couple of minor censor-imposed cuts to the shower scene.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

See this is the weird thing about that sort of writing. Some directors would get slated for not explaining a massive thing like that, others get praised *cough*Lynch*cough*. I remember watching M Night Shyamalan's The Happening and he does a similar thing as Hitchcock. At the end everyone's left wondering when it's gonna happen again and not explaining anything, yet for some reason he got slated HARD for doing that. Even though he was doing a similar thing as Hitchcock.

I suppose the only way you can judge it is to ask whether it works in an individual film. I'd say it works in The Birds and, say, Mulholland Dr. but I haven't seen The Happening so can't comment on that, although I dare say there could be a bit of snobbery involved when it comes to critics dismissing filmmakers like M Night Shyamalan.