[vwinter]

A History of Violence [3/10]

I had some expectation bias going in and it may have tainted my opinion, but I gave it a shot anyway on the back of Cronenberg.

Unfortunately, and this is pretty harsh, I thought this was a waste of pretty much everyone involved. Some cool scenes and all but it was all just a bit eyeroll inducing and you could see mostly all of it coming a mile away. This is one of those times that either the source material wasn't strong or it should have stayed on the page.

Worst of all was that after it ended, I saw no point in it at all. Nothing that made me say "still glad I watched that." I guess it's saving graces we're the short runtime (which actually potentially hurt the suspense setup in hindsight) and the solid clean camerawork used by Cronenberg. The film spent way too long setting up this family I still didn't care about and with partially useless, if short, subplots at that. And then it went through the motions. The tension was only mildly there and every scene that tried to carry it was ushered out in short order.

Kind of tempered my interest in Eastern Promises tbh.

 

[WraithApe]

A History of Violence [3/10]
I had some expectation bias going in and it may have tainted my opinion, but I gave it a shot anyway on the back of Cronenberg.

Unfortunately, and this is pretty harsh, I thought this was a waste of pretty much everyone involved. Some cool scenes and all but it was all just a bit eyeroll inducing and you could see mostly all of it coming a mile away. This is one of those times that either the source material wasn't strong or it should have stayed on the page.

Worst of all was that after it ended, I saw no point in it at all. Nothing that made me say "still glad I watched that." I guess it's saving graces we're the short runtime (which actually potentially hurt the suspense setup in hindsight) and the solid clean camerawork used by Cronenberg. The film spent way too long setting up this family I still didn't care about and with partially useless, if short, subplots at that. And then it went through the motions. The tension was only mildly there and every scene that tried to carry it was ushered out in short order.

Kind of tempered my interest in Eastern Promises tbh.

I don't often disagree with you, but...

I'll always prefer Cronenberg's 80s golden era of body horror, which produced some of my favourite films of all time (Videodrome, The Brood, The Fly, Naked Lunch) but I still find something of worth in most of his output - I guess it's a mark of how highly I rate him as a director that I've seen pretty much all of his films. The only ones I had anything like a similarly negative reaction to were Spider and Crash (especially Crash, which, as a study of other peoples' fetishes, I found tedious in the extreme). I do wish he would revisit the kind of reality-bending prosthetics paradise he tapped into with films like Naked Lunch and eXistenZ, but it probably ain't gonna happen. The closest it got in recent times was his debut novel, Consumed, and his son's film, Antiviral - both interesting but flawed in their own way. As for A History of Violence, isn't it about how violence begets violence; the family diorama in the film being a microscopic study of this phenomenon at a societal level? That's what I took from it anyway. I also liked the film aesthetically - thought it was nicely shot, with a judicious use of colour (the diner scene specifically sticks in my mind). Still, each to his own eh? I guess I slated The Equalizer and you dug that.

 

[vwinter]

I don't often disagree with you, but...

I'll always prefer Cronenberg's 80s golden era of body horror, which produced some of my favourite films of all time (Videodrome, The Brood, The Fly, Naked Lunch) but I still find something of worth in most of his output - I guess it's a mark of how highly I rate him as a director that I've seen pretty much all of his films. The only ones I had anything like a similarly negative reaction to were Spider and Crash (especially Crash, which, as a study of other peoples' fetishes, I found tedious in the extreme). I do wish he would revisit the kind of reality-bending prosthetics paradise he tapped into with films like Naked Lunch and eXistenZ, but it probably ain't gonna happen. The closest it got in recent times was his debut novel, Consumed, and his son's film, Antiviral - both interesting but flawed in their own way. As for A History of Violence, isn't it about how violence begets violence; the family diorama in the film being a microscopic study of this phenomenon at a societal level? That's what I took from it anyway. I also liked the film aesthetically - thought it was nicely shot, with a judicious use of colour (the diner scene specifically sticks in my mind). Still, each to his own eh? I guess I slated The Equalizer and you dug that.

I'd have not a bad thing to say about the cinematography or camerawork. Some memorable scenes to be sure. Even the Howard Shore soundtrack was layered in with finesse. It was just the story was too... on the nose. Very little nuance imo which is key for this kind of a movie that deals with a family in crisis. It kind of reminds me of of Inception ( I know ) where they are like:

Arthur: Okay, this is me, planting an idea in your mind. I say: don't think about elephants. What are you thinking about?

Saito: Elephants?

Arthur: Right, but it's not your idea...


I really do think it's about source material, script and maybe budget. And there was my expectation bias: generally do think these types of stories lend better to written word and they lose something in transition, generally. Or maybe I'm just a heartless cynical unfeeling shadow of a person.

In hindsight, this might actually make a pretty good live play where the action scenes are entirely left to the audience's imagination, framed by loud sounds in darkness and fading lights, told in words thereafter and the focus is on the family and the struggle of knowing someone and intimacy as everything happens... and the scene with the brother is entirely wiped from existence.

I need to go delete that Equalizer post lol

 

[Redcarmoose]

After seeing the 2017 Suspiria trailer above, I'm pretty disappointed about how the film looks. It's probably going to be well acted, well cast and well directed........but it simply does not seem to follow the original. Dario Argento had made a bunch of "OK" Giallo movies prior to his masterpiece. His style changed with Suspiria. The difference was Suspiria had more mood quality than what was to come later. Films like Tenebre, Phenomena or Opera, or the films, Demonie and Demonie 2 are great but.................?


Obviously Tenebre had a bunch of more modern effects and dynamics and Demonie 1/2 had the modern "Zombie-Demon" effects so popular at the time of the release. Still for a list of reasons Suspiria seems to age really well. Is it the music, the acting or the editing and sets? Is it simply the way the story unfolds the first time you see it? I don't know, maybe everything!

But Suspiria stands out even more today in comparison to all Argento has done! IMO it's in even more in contrast to the Giallo style before it.

Suspiria had the complete package where the set became another character in the film. The music and sound effects became another aspect adding to the mood. And..........if you note closely, there is not that many kills at the start. It's just that the level of detail and extreme cinematic force which sets up a momentum at the start. It's one of those films that holds a jaw-dropping quality, which still has never been topped! IMO

All the primary colors go together like a painting. Strangely there still has never been a film that even comes close to copying the look? Most only have to see the first 1/2 hour to realize the level the film is at. For me even the first 5 minutes of the film is like no other.

I just would guess this modern film will not come close, sadly. But in reality I don't know how anyone would even attempt a remake?

 

[oqvist]

Beauty and the beast 2/5

Not sure why I saw this but it was free and just did a 24h lemans endurance race so needed something as non challenging for the brain as possible.

I have already seen the cartoon version much more interesting from an artistic level at least. Felt exact same as the cartoon version. Writers probably also seen the previous because they skipped beats The prince went from grumpy to silly in no time. Gaston was mildly entertaining at least. Would be better have him as the beast that would been a nice twist to the story!

Just horrible avoid!

 

[WraithApe]

After seeing this trailer I'm pretty disappointed about how the film looks. It's probably going to be well acted, well cast and well directed........but it simply does not seem to follow the original. Dario Argento had made a bunch of "OK" Giallo movies prior to his masterpiece. His style changed with Suspiria. The difference was Suspiria had more mood quality than what was to come later. Films like Tenebre, Phenomena or Opera, or the films, Demonie and Demonie 2 are great but.................?

Deep Red and The Bird With the Crystal Plumage are more than just "OK" in my book! They're two of the finest examples of Giallo out there - at least from the selection of Giallo films I've watched. I do agree that Suspiria is his masterpiece though, and it's basically a lost cause even trying to remake it. Knowing a bit about Argento's working practices, I'm willing to bet some of what gives Suspiria its magic was the result of happy accidents (as well as a singular vision) and trying to recplicate that is pointless. As you say, there are so many elements - audio, visual, script, set design, atmosphere - it takes more than a few primary-coloured lenses! They might superficially recreate the look of the original, but not the essence. I doubt I'll even watch the remake tbh, unless I hear that it's some kind of unexpected revelation!

 

[Redcarmoose]

I had a feeling someone was going to bring up Deep Red. I've seen both Deep Red and The Bird With the Crystal Plumage, but it was such a long time ago........lol.

As noted Deep Red is many people's favorite.

I just didn't list it as I don't actually remember it. I own the rest so I watch them from time to time.

I actually have a small collection of Giallo films on DVD but just never get around to watching them, I could not even tell you the titles?

For me the Giallo subgenre simply represents another time and a stepping stone to how thrillers would become. Though I do still enjoy Franco's 1962 "The Awful Dr. Orlof" as the beginning and very first "Body Count" movie. Orlof is essentially a Giallo but historically gets put right there with 1960's Psycho as being the basic start of the whole genre. IMO

 

[Redcarmoose]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ztb3l_the-awful-dr-orloff-1962_shortfilms

Strangely "The Awful Dr Orloff" ends up being Franco's most "normal" movie ( from all his films I have searched out and viewed). He seems to almost tie himself to older conventions on Orloff.... ( as far as Jesus goes?) in plot and filming. The remastered DVD shows the photography as an amazing tool to tell this simple story in such detail and high contrast. In many ways it reflects ideas from the golden age films like Browning's Dracula.

A story of a castle where the simple towns folk have fear and suspicion.

Still the plot is the basic Giallo in structure.

 

[Redcarmoose]

That's a great point to say that Suspiria was a happy accident in ways. It fell together the way Abby Road fell together for the Beatles.


Though I see Suspiria more like a fine Swiss timepiece where somehow everything in detail fell (or was placed) together and functioned as a whole? To say it could not be made "right" again is true. Suspiria 2017 is like a cash grab which takes a known name to draw ticket sales. Though we must remember our seedy subgenre of film has always used tricks and hype to sell a movie ticket!

Still I would maybe someday like to see the ideas introduced in the original film used as a stepping stone to make more "art"?

 

[tdockweiler]

Megan Leavy - 9.5/10

Hollywood needs more real life true stories. Loved every minute of this and i'm glad I saw this over "The Mummy".
Megan Leavy was the marine trainer of a bomb sniffing dog that went to the Iraq War.

Somehow this didn't feel like one of those Disney sugar-coated "inspirational" movies that are just too dumbed down.
This isn't really a kid's movie, but younger people could enjoy it too I think.

BTW this is also an extremely well made movie. No really bad acting by anyone.
The director's previous film was "Blackfish". I should watch that one.

 

[Hutnicks]

That's a great point to say that Suspiria was a happy accident in ways. It fell together the way Abby Road fell together for the Beatles.


Though I see Suspiria more like a fine Swiss timepiece where somehow everything in detail fell (or was placed) together and functioned as a whole? To say it could not be made "right" again is true. Suspiria 2017 is like a cash grab which takes a known name to draw ticket sales. Though we must remember our seedy subgenre of film has always used tricks and hype to sell a movie ticket!

Still I would maybe someday like to see the ideas introduced in the original film used as a stepping stone to make more "art"?

Valid points. I question the remakes conscious decision not to replicate the look of the original. One the one hand I doubt they would have got it right, on the other hand going your own may (much like GITS) makes me think it should be retitled with an opening credit "Based on Dario Argenta's Suspiria" I hope it generates enough interest to get people interested in the original

 

[Double-A]

Enemy (2014): ~7/10

Not a bad movie per se, but a strange one.

The Myth of the American Sleepover: ~8/10

The debut film of It Follows director David Robert Mitchell. This was a cute movie. David Robert Mitchell is, thus far, 2-0. I'm looking forward to Under the Silver Lake, which is supposed to come out sometime this year. Based on the few noir films I've seen, I'm not a big fan of the genre [Laura (1944) and Following (1999) are the two exceptions to this rule off the top of my head], but I'm hoping that Mitchell will still impress me with his.

 

[Hutnicks]

Megan Leavy - 9.5/10

Hollywood needs more real life true stories. Loved every minute of this and i'm glad I saw this over "The Mummy".
Megan Leavy was the marine trainer of a bomb sniffing dog that went to the Iraq War.

Somehow this didn't feel like one of those Disney sugar-coated "inspirational" movies that are just too dumbed down.
This isn't really a kid's movie, but younger people could enjoy it too I think.

BTW this is also an extremely well made movie. No really bad acting by anyone.
The director's previous film was "Blackfish". I should watch that one.

Be very glad you did. Something about Tom trying to knock 30 years off himself with a hairpiece and makeup creeped me out so bad I walked out and into the next theatre to see.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol2 (2017) 6.5/10

Wildly entertaining and completely foolhardy in plotting. More camp than Deadpool and much better executed. A comic book on film that does not take itself at all to seriously. I mean really who would care to risk putting Howard the Duck in another film The Kurt factor has this one giving off a young John Carpenter vibe with the humour and not the gore. It's a parody of itself and succeeds where all the other marvel dreck fails due to it's relentless adherence to not taking itself seriously for one second. The cast is working the material for all it's worth knowing full well who their audience is going to be. Well done for simple relief from all the other Uberheroes in the marvel world that really need a good slap upside their heads.

Just a fun film to watch.

I am not looking forward to the Avengers installment that includes this cast as they really deserve to be left on their own and not dragged into the self absorbed messes that the other marvelites are.
That said I would not mind seeing Drax tell Black Widow she's a hideous hag or Rocket taking a leak on the front seat of Stark's Audi R8.

 

[WraithApe]

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol2 (2017) 6.5/10

Wildly entertaining and completely foolhardy in plotting. More camp than Deadpool and much better executed. A comic book on film that does not take itself at all to seriously. I mean really who would care to risk putting Howard the Duck in another film The Kurt factor has this one giving off a young John Carpenter vibe with the humour and not the gore. It's a parody of itself and succeeds where all the other marvel dreck fails due to it's relentless adherence to not taking itself seriously for one second. The cast is working the material for all it's worth knowing full well who their audience is going to be. Well done for simple relief from all the other Uberheroes in the marvel world that really need a good slap upside their heads.

Just a fun film to watch.

Just out of curiosity, did you also find the first GOTG film to be a fun watch?

 

[Hutnicks]

Just out of curiosity, did you also find the first GOTG film to be a fun watch?

I did not mind it at all. I mean it's not ever going to sweep a festival for awards or anything, but for light comic space opera entertainment it worked quite well. I think it delivers due to the fact that my expectations with comic book films are really low at this point and these films fit that niche perfectly. I am not looking for David Mamet (or Watchmen to stay within the genre) cleverness in dialogue and direction which seems to be the calibre all the other Superhero films tout themselves as, so I can sit back and not nit pick. It is almost as if the plot holes themselves were engineered in to add to the absurdity and tongue in cheek factor.

Either that or Karen Gillan as a fratricidal cyborg really works for me