|
Post by andydecker on Jul 3, 2011 11:32:24 GMT
Dracula con´td
Top production values, but on the whole a disappointment. #
As slow as the first half was, as too fast the second half was. Too many changes for changes sake which made no sense. The worst Mina Harker ever; it is strange how they managed to re-made historical horror-stories most resourceful woman into a hysterical bystander. (Even if one does not like Stoker´s Dracula for his writing, his Mina Harker is oine of the first truly modern woman ) The new plot was a bizarre mixture of a classic re-telling and a Hammer movie.
Not recommended.
|
|
|
Post by H_P_Saucecraft on Jul 3, 2011 19:02:35 GMT
Primitives (1980)Cannibal films don't get much cheaper than this!. An Indonesian entry into the genre & it rips several scenes from Last Cannibal World. It follows typical conventions of the genre, so no need to go into the plot too much. The tribes here have bad wigs as usual & whoop more like caveman, with one noise suitable for all words. But at least they look more like they could be a tribe, rather than the scrubbed clean, though in the middle of a mudpit tribes of most cannibal films. Despite the rip-offs, it's an entertaining film & the funniest scene has to be one of the savages chucking a stone axe at the lead, only to have it come back at him like a boomerang when his quarry ducks . It's waste not, want not as the tribe decide it's time to eat their fallen comrade. When being chased by a murderous tribe, it's also a good idea to be quick - but a full raft knocked together in 2 minutes? I'm impressed. This is certainly one of the sillier cannibal films, but at least it's fun, which is more than can be said for Jess Franco's Cannibals (aka White Cannibal Queen).
|
|
|
Post by markus1986 on Jul 3, 2011 21:51:51 GMT
Dark Ride 2006
Extremely disappointed with this. The premise (although certainly NOT original by any stretch of the imagination) seemed a good one but the whole thing was shallow, weak and contrived. If you want to watch this type of film, stick with Tobe Hooper's The Funhouse.
|
|
|
Post by ghastlymcnasty on Jul 4, 2011 12:17:52 GMT
HoBo with a ShotgunA new film just out starring Rutger Hauer. OTT acting, violence, gore and blood. Filmed in an 80's style. Good film.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Jul 7, 2011 9:12:56 GMT
Season of the Witch with Nic Cage & Ron Perlman. So-so (better than the last I don't know how many films I've seen Cage in, anyway) attempt to do a Solomon Kane sort of sword-and-sorcery thing, but set in medieval Europe at the time of the Crusades. Nothing very startling or original, a bit slow in places but the last 20 minutes or so are visually quite impressive (in the standard CGI sort of way that all these films are these days). Not awful, but not great.
The Resident with Hilary Swank. Nothing remotely original about this either, but I actually quite enjoyed it. It's short and to the point, and the individual performances are good. I am tempted to say it comes across as like an homage to all those "single female rents new apartment with en suite stalker" films that have gone before, but that might be giving it just a bit more kudos than it really deserves. Like I said, I enjoyed it, but it's definitely one to watch with your brain dialled down to "just ticking over".
BTW, Christopher Lee has cameos in both of these films.
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Jul 10, 2011 17:18:00 GMT
Solomon KaneFinally watched it. Well, I read a lot of negative things about ot beforehand and as a major Howard fan I had my own expectations. And on the whole I am torn. I just don´t get the current obsession with origin movies. It is highly unlikekly that there will be part 2. I thought the story was servicable, but rather weak in parts. Still, atmosphere and action get high marks. The battles were exciting, the punishment Kane takes (and shrugs off) were spot on the character, and Purefroy was a magnificent casting as the role of Kane. Perfect. A thing I didn´t get and which was surely intentional was the vagueness of the period. Maybe I watched too much things like The Tudors or Elisabeth lately, but I never had the feeling that this was happening in England in 1600+. There was some lip-service being paid to being of puritan faith, but it didn´t grounded the story in a historical context. Now I just have to read Mr Campbells novelisation which I also got to see how he filled the blanks and the sometimes very large plotholes
|
|
|
Post by Johnlprobert on Jul 10, 2011 17:21:51 GMT
Now I just have to read Mr Campbells novelisation which I also got to see how he filled the blanks and the sometimes very large plotholes And when you do take special note of the dedication - it's got a Vault connection
|
|
|
Post by H_P_Saucecraft on Jul 10, 2011 21:21:50 GMT
Savage Messiah (1972)
I had a great time with this one. It's not as bonkers as some of Ken Russell's films, but it still has his eccentric touch.
Scott Antony & Dorothy Tutin are perfect choices, playing off each other extremely well.
I'd not heard of Gaudier before, & though I'd long heard of it - didn't know what Savage Messiah was about. But it doesn't matter, the film would be good whomever its subject was.
It also has that fun sense of irreverence that seems specific to British films of the 60s & 70s (you'll either know what I mean, or not).
Too many quotable lines
"What about the night?" "You're always looking on the dark side"
Hush (2008)
What I wish the couple in this would have done with their argument, then I'd have been spared a dire film.
Zakes (what kind of git name is that?) & Beth are the couple in question & following their spat, Beth falls asleep. Zakes notices a the shutter on a lorry briefly lift & sees a woman caged inside. Following phone calls to the police (they should be after him for using a mobile while driving), Beth turns into bitchy mode again & gives him a hard time over just handing it over to the police & not following (really a good idea, isn't it).
The film proceeds to use every slasher/horror film trope going, only badly (& Switchblade Romance called, they want their killer back).
I'd really had enough by the hour mark, but sat it out. I'd heard good things about this & being a british horror, I wanted to give it a chance. But I won't allow that to blind me, this really is a waste of time.
Deaden (2006)
Another duff one. Though it did have potential.
Rane is a cop who infiltrates a bike gang, is ratted out & has his wife raped & killed in front of him & is then shot in the head with a crossbow bolt & left for dead. Only he isn't.
It's nothing original in the plot stakes, but what could have been a brutal revenge film is left looking more like a film 2000/dtv release. I can't say exactly what it is that does it, being shot on video doesn't necessarily have this effect. Though the delivery of lines/ the feel of the acting certainly don't help & some scenes seem not exactly funny, but it's hard to take them seriously. It just feels a bit amateurish.
This sort of thing was better in Bronson's hands.
|
|
|
Post by killercrab on Jul 10, 2011 23:07:21 GMT
Last night I watched The Incredible Melting Man ( 1977) on the Horror Channel. A brilliant print that looked uncut to me. I first saw this on a double bill at the flix with probably a Deadly Bee movie back in '77 . The plot involves an astronaut called Steve returning to earth from orbiting Saturn ( we never see how) steadily melting away and eating most of the cast. Eventually a janitor sweeps him up into the garbage , a sticky mess is all that's left. Originally planned as a parody of 1950's sci-fi films , the direction changed to straight horror . You can still see bits of the humour that survived the edit. Of course if you watch this film for any other reason than to see Rick Baker's melting effects , you are probably delusional...
KC
|
|
|
Post by franklinmarsh on Jul 11, 2011 8:37:09 GMT
What A Carve Up! Comedy (Sid James, Kenneth Connor, Esma Cannon) and Horror (Donald Pleasence, Michael Gwynne, Michael Gough) blend perfectly (Dennis Price) in a hoary old tale of relatives gathering for a will reading on the Yorkshire moors. Truly wonderful - and you get Shirley Eaton in her undies!
The Hollywood Strangler Meets The Skid Row Slasher 70 minutes of blood and boobs with a killing at least every five minutes. Minimalist masterpiece - almost art but for the relentless sleaze. Fascinating, in a depraved kind of way.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Jul 11, 2011 10:08:13 GMT
Solomon KaneA thing I didn´t get and which was surely intentional was the vagueness of the period. Maybe I watched too much things like The Tudors or Elisabeth lately, but I never had the feeling that this was happening in England in 1600+. There was some lip-service being paid to being of puritan faith, but it didn´t grounded the story in a historical context. I saw this in the cinema when it was released - doesn't the opening sequence give a precise date? I seem to remember it being "1600". Or did it say something like "in the reign of Queen Elizabeth"? The reason I remember this is that straight after establishing the date, you see an English ship flying the Union Flag - which didn't exist until James VI of Scotland became king of England as well (1603).
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Jul 11, 2011 10:59:57 GMT
doesn't the opening sequence give a precise date? I seem to remember it being "1600". Or did it say something like "in the reign of Queen Elizabeth"? The reason I remember this is that straight after establishing the date, you see an English ship flying the Union Flag - which didn't exist until James VI of Scotland became king of England as well (1603). I think it said 1600, but I wasn´t sure any longer and was to lazy to check. I know one shouldn´t watch these movies for historical accuracy, but sometimes it is annoying if they are even too lazy to check fundamentals. (At least they got the hardware right; I didn´t see a flintlock pistol) Of course I always had a problem with the sketchiness of Howard´s idea of what a Puritan should be. I guess there is more to it than saying "Vengeance is mine says the Lord" a lot and donning a black garb. On the other hand this is such a complicated topic. After reading Pat Mills Defoe and watching The Tudors I became really interested in the Cromwell time and the british civil war. I read two books about and still don´t understand the reasons for the war. ;)The art of writing (affordable) understandable history books seems to be on the decline.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Jul 11, 2011 11:17:44 GMT
Yeah - the flag mistake annoyed me a lot more than it really should have, I guess. It just seemed such an obvious mistake. I'm quite interested in that period of history myself and have read a few books on it. It is all very complicated and messy and even the experts disagree on fundamentals like the "cause" of the Civil Wars. I think the best overview of that period I have read is Blair Worden's The English Civil Wars - he's a very clear writer (and his book is about a quarter of the length of some of the others I've tackled on the subject). Given the religious frenzy of the time (and the associated revival of witch hunting) it's kind of surprising that there isn't more horror films set around those times - though it's hard to imagine how the likes of Witchfinder General and Blood On Satan's Claw could be topped . And on the subject of historical misunderstandings - the notes in the recent DVD release of Blood On Satan's Claw describe the story as taking place in "medieval" times... twice.
|
|
|
Post by lemming13 on Jul 13, 2011 10:05:40 GMT
I thought the Solomon Kane movie was rather poor; the action is good, but the script really is junk. I do want to read Ramsey's version, though, because I'm sure it will be a damn sight better than that and do some justice to Howard. I finally got to start in on my Coffin Joe collection while the youngest spawn was away in Paris, but sadly didn't get past the first one (At Midnight I Will Take Your Soul). Not because of its misogynistic violence - though I think the guy was making Coffin Joe a repellent combination of all that is worst about the Hispanic macho ideal - but because of the stripy kitten which appears posing cutely on the gipsy witch's altar during the opening credits. Every time she appeared on screen hamming it up and predicting doom and damnation, I just kept seeing that little triangular tail sticking up and thinking 'Aaahhh' . So I switched to The Gravedancers, which is remarkably poor all round. It was cheap, but not cheap enough for how terrible it was...
|
|
|
Post by lemming13 on Jul 16, 2011 11:15:51 GMT
Last night's viewing, a Japanese item from 1977, House (original title Hausu), given a full remastering by Masters of Cinema. And I'm still feeling a bit shell-shocked and not sure if I liked it. It's like watching a movie version of The Double Deckers made by Sam Raimi and Jim Jarmusch. I think part of my brain has exploded...
|
|