I have been stuck in hotels the last few weeks so have binged a bunch of movies , especially stuff on Showtime cause my room had the app haha. Also have been in a slow burn thriller mood
The Lighthouse (2019)
I remember a lot of people loving this movie on HF a few years ago, and maybe i would need to watch it again, but the story didn't really move me what so ever, though cinematography was obviously great. Old dude was a big old gaslighter and that's pretty much it 5.5/10
Scream trilogy (1996-2000)
These are movies I have always caught parts of on TV but never really watched, Good fun and loved the meta nature of all of them. David Arquette was definitely the glue of the series, and I felt the quality was fairly consistent throughout; I mean obviously the plot is over top and they have the self awareness that they're just milking it for 3(plus) movies 7.5/10
Chloe (2009)
It was reallllly predictable, but I was still about it, lovely aesthetics and acting. While it was not doing anything groundbreaking, it was still a great portrayal of the insecurities of one aging and it's effect on relationships in all facets 6/10
Nacho Libre (2006)
I know it's kind of become a cult classic, but it just feels like someone imitating a Wes Anderson film with fart jokes 5/10
Basic Instinct (1992)
Wow what a film. The score, the chemistry, you definitely spiral into madness a little bit as a viewer, it is just a great sex noir film, except one thing about the ending that bugged me.
If Sharon Stone's character was such a genius psychopath why would she consider killing him at the end after the whole thing unraveled exactly as she planned, like she couldn't get away with it again logistically whatsoever. I get it was used as a big reveal but it just bugs me more than the fact that Michael Douglas should have totaled his car like 7 times
8.5/10
Wild Things (1998)
I watched this cause I was trying to find a similar vibe as Basic Instinct. The movie is non stop twists (almost to a fault), and aesthetically is if Basic Instinct and Bring it On had a baby. It was a fun movie with mid acting, definitely something you don't need to watch more than once but also feels like something you definitely should watch at least once. Also does it not feel like Kevin Bacon is the most there actor of all time, like anybody could be playing his role as well as him, but he's also never really bad, he's just there doing his thing 6.5/10
Good Time (2017)
Now this was a hell of a film. I did not realize it was from the bros that made Uncut Gems, but then I recognized the name and looked it up in opening credits when I couldn't place it. It has just a great blend of an edgy low budget feel juxtaposed with huge cinematic moments, and like Uncut Gems just keeps you on the edge of your seat from the opening scene. So good, and Robert Pattinson killed it 9/10
War Dogs (2016)
The format and execution is cliche af, but it works in this hard to believe self destructive true crime style. I knew what I was getting going into it and was not disappointed, so really don't have anything else to say. 6.5/10
Robocop (1987)
Another one of those movies I have seen on tv before but never actually watched. The satire felt too dated and just overall it really did nothing for me, so excuse the poor rating as I understand that it is indeed a classic, just couldn't get into it at the time 5/10
Nocturnal Animals (2016)
Of everything on this list, this for sure has the most profound layered meaning about the human condition. It was just captivating, tragic, hard to watch and satisfying all at the same time. If you have not seen it I could not recommend it enough, it is just not easy viewing 9/10 (I just watched it so not sure if I would bump it up to a 9.5 on reflection, but it might be there)
Killer of Sheep has been on my radar for a long time, ever since I had seen a frame of the child with the dog mask on her head, I’ve been curious about the film. I was finally able to watch it last night and it exceed my expectations. I didn’t know it going in, but the Italian neorealism influence in the film is immediately obvious through the use of non-professional actors and the focus on the psyche of the characters in the impoverished LA neighbourhood of Watts. Shot on a shoestring budget of about $10,000, the film has the feeling of a quasi-documentary through the use of a loose narrative and characters playing themselves from the community. Despite the low budget, the images in the film are something to behold – there’s a reason that image of the child stuck with me and drew me to the film – and there’s many seemingly simple shots that Burnett lingers on that are beautifully composed and add depth, warmth, and pathos to his story. Many of these images will linger on in my mind for a long time. Also, the soundtrack for the film is killer but unfortunately also the reason why the film had to wait over 30 years to be released to theatres.
Killer of Sheep is the greatest social realism film (and top 10 of all-time, all films included) that I've ever seen and one of its greatest aspects (besides a few magical shots) is how endearing Stan's dignity (which is really the conflict/stake of the film) is never, ever, ever in question yet still seems like a major hardship. You know he's always going to hold, which makes it even more tragic. For example, his wife speaking for him isn't some sort of life-affirming, life-building moment. It's only a push to keep it going (which is all he needs) and which would be forgotten at the next bother, almost rightfully so considering their relationship and how sturdy both are. Really an example of how hardship can create sinners but always creates more saints.
Good review. You had me right up to your final sentence reiterated above. Then I sensed the spirit of Margaret Thatcher was lurking in the room. Scary stuff.
Good review. You had me right up to your final sentence reiterated above. Then I sensed the spirit of Margaret Thatcher was lurking in the room. Scary stuff.
There is nothing conservative about what I'm saying, nor did I mean it in a purely financial sense. The amount of people who keep doing the kind thing despite hardship is immeasurable and transcends politics. There are more far more human masterpieces unseen than acknowledged.
There is nothing conservative about what I'm saying, nor did I mean it in a purely financial sense. The amount of people who keep doing the kind thing despite hardship is immeasurable and transcends politics. There are more far more human masterpieces unseen than acknowledged.
That people can often be kind despite hardships is indeed praiseworthy. But that is a very different notion than claiming hardship creates saints. Real hardship usually creates stress and suffering. There isn't anything noble about it. People who believe hardship is good for the soul usually haven't faced much of it.
Killer of Sheep has been on my radar for a long time, ever since I had seen a frame of the child with the dog mask on her head, I’ve been curious about the film. I was finally able to watch it last night and it exceed my expectations. I didn’t know it going in, but the Italian neorealism influence in the film is immediately obvious through the use of non-professional actors and the focus on the psyche of the characters in the impoverished LA neighbourhood of Watts. Shot on a shoestring budget of about $10,000, the film has the feeling of a quasi-documentary through the use of a loose narrative and characters playing themselves from the community. Despite the low budget, the images in the film are something to behold – there’s a reason that image of the child stuck with me and drew me to the film – and there’s many seemingly simple shots that Burnett lingers on that are beautifully composed and add depth, warmth, and pathos to his story. Many of these images will linger on in my mind for a long time. Also, the soundtrack for the film is killer but unfortunately also the reason why the film had to wait over 30 years to be released to theatres.
Watched this thanks to @Spring in Fialta a couple of months ago. I commented on it as being as much a blues film as could be. Liked it quite a bit, but with reservations (can I say this in English?).
Also watched Mike Leigh's Naked (1993) tonight. Still forming my thoughts on it - such a bleak and nihilistic film - but man is the humour sharp and David Thewlis' performance impressive
I've considered this film as a favorite of mine as a young adult, but that was before I fell in love with Ruiz and a few French filmmakers. I don't think I'd have it in my top-80 right now, I should watch it again. Thewlis is indeed wonderful.
That people can often be kind despite hardships is indeed praiseworthy. But that is a very different notion than claiming hardship creates saints. Real hardship usually creates stress and suffering. There isn't anything noble about it. People who believe hardship is good for the soul usually haven't faced much of it.
Though Stan is noble, I have hard time associating his circumstances with it because of the reasons you mentioned. I have no doubt that some of the good in oppression would be good in wealth and while I am under no illusion that hardship is an automatic to sainthood, to think that a community of it - which always exists - cannot forge character and bring about circumstances which challenges it (i.e., it's quite easy to be nice when your world is nice and the opposite) seems dismissive to me. It's not all a trick or a trope. Not all of it is individual or inherent. Life experiences (even poor ones) can change people for the better, if only to survive. Not to mention that communities which suffer can create happiness and find relief within them. If they didn't, many of the peripheral privileged would have wiped out long ago.
No argument with any of the above.
.
I think it amazing that so many communities can find means to overcome hardship at least for a portion of their membership though that is often testimony to the power of collective action, as well. For a great many people they have no choice but to overcome hardship if they and their family are to have good lives. That takes fortitude, perseverance and courage. Much good may come out of it. But I seriously doubt the process of overcoming hardship, collectively or individually, is ennobling, at least for the overwhelming majority of people.
More directly on topic, I also think Killer of Sheep is among the best of US movies. I haven't seen it in awhile and I really should watch it again. It's one of those movies that gets better the older I get.
The Deer Hunter (Cimino, 1978) – If you youngsters haven't seen this film, drop what you're doing and go. I don't think it's one of the best American films ever made, nor one of my favorites, but I do think it's one of the more important. I hate the controversy surrounding it, the fact that it might be read as racist and that its portrait of the Vietnam war is dubious, to me only makes it more interesting. The film's structure is brilliant, the whole introductory hour – almost a complete film on itself – with at its core the wedding in the working class setting, realistic and detailed, cuts suddenly to the most chaotic and barely coherent rendition of war. We jump to the war scene (there's really just one), and then to the floating war prison with no information or transition – and the war part of the movie comes and goes with no justification or explanation - it bears a real disorienting effect that affects both spectators and characters. Someone with no knowledge of the Vietnam war just couldn't process what happened or why. The escape/fallout and return home part of the film can be read in different ways, but it's again pretty hard to receive them at face value and not as part of a well-constructed discourse, a war parable, especially following the orchestrated chaos. The film's two most effective metaphorical elements, the Russian roulette and the “God Bless America” song (that seems to start despite the characters, but that they all feel compelled to join), are also the main targets of the film's detractors. They make for some of the most unforgivable scenes, no matter how you read them or what you think of the film. I like this comment on IMDB: “I am a combat veteran of Afghanistan. We don't know why some of us come back and others do not. War is a gamble. This film deeply touched my soul.” No matter what Cimino himself said about his intention, The Deer Hunter is a great war film, about its (lack of) reason, about its inevitable random violence, and about its effects on the people who live through it. 7.5/10
The Deer Hunter really is a very interesting movie. When I watched it for the first time, I thought the escape and Russian Roulette scenes are ridiculous, especially as a history major. However, in the end, I still really like it, because even though the details are probably wrong, the sentiment is spot on, and I really connected with what the movie had to say.
Personally, I put a lot of emphasis on the distinction between film and movie, and I can never quite decide if this is the former or the latter. Right now, I still think the important plot points are ridiculous and over-the-top, but because it can evoke such a deep emotional impact, it can indeed be considered to be a work of art, though I am not quite ready to do it yet.
I recently watched a couple of Cimino movies, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, and Year of the Dragon, which are coincidentally before and after Heaven's Gate, and Cimino is a complete enigma to me. Thunderbolt and Lightfoot is as mainstream Hollywood movie as can be, but he manages to put glimpses of a social message in it that gives it extra depth, so I consider it quite impressive of a debut, and I can also see why he is seen as a potential all-time great, even just after 2 movies. Unfortunately, Heaven's Gate really affected him, because even though he still has a very ambitious vision in Year of the Dragon, as he did get the details of the Golden Triangle drug trade correct, and the cast features Asian actors who can actually speak the native language and not sound completely ridiculous, he seems to be handcuffed in some way, which is especially evident in the climatic final confrontation, as it really feels rushed and toned down.
As a result, I really do not know rather he is actually great, or a megalomaniac whose great talent cannot match his oversized ego. His work in the 70s are really brilliant, but it all went south after people want to put restraints on him, which is justified, because he did bankrupt a film studio and coincidentally brought an end of an era.
Also watched Mike Leigh's Naked (1993) tonight. Still forming my thoughts on it - such a bleak and nihilistic film - but man is the humour sharp and David Thewlis' performance impressive
This is one of my favourite films, and while I have it at 9 to 9.5/10, it is as close to a masterpiece as possible on my list. Personally, I consider it to be a cultural milestone, especially in the U.K., because if anyone wants to understand the Thatcher era, especially the after effects, no film does it better.
Thewlis gave one of the best performances I have ever watched, and while he fully deserved his Best Actor award from Cannes, I wish he would have been nominated for the Oscar. I was moved by Hanks in Philadelphia, but Thewlis emotionally devastated me, and I find that far more impressive.
The Deer Hunter really is a very interesting movie. When I watched it for the first time, I thought the escape and Russian Roulette scenes are ridiculous, especially as a history major. However, in the end, I still really like it, because even though the details are probably wrong, the sentiment is spot on, and I really connected with what the movie had to say.
Personally, I put a lot of emphasis on the distinction between film and movie, and I can never quite decide if this is the former or the latter. Right now, I still think the important plot points are ridiculous and over-the-top, but because it can evoke such a deep emotional impact, it can be considered to be a work of art.
I recently watched a couple of Cimino movies, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, and Year of the Dragon, which coincidentally are respectively before and after Heaven's Gate, and Cimino is a complete enigma to me. Thunderbolt and Lightfoot is as mainstream Hollywood movie as can be, but he manages to put glimpses of a social message in it that gives it extra depth, so I consider it quite impressive of a debut, and I can also see why he is seen as a potential all-time great, even just after 2 movies. Unfortunately, Heaven's Gate really affected him, because even though he still has a very ambitious vision in Year of the Dragon, as he did get the details of the Golden Triangle drug trade correct, and the movie actually featured a cast of Asian actors who can actually speak the native language, he seems to be handcuffed in some way, which is especially evident in the climatic final confrontation, as it really feels rushed and toned down. As a result, I really do not know rather he is actually great, or just a megalomaniac whose great talent just cannot match his oversized ego. His work in the 70s are really great, but it all went south after people want to put restraints on him, which is justified, because he did bankrupt a film studio and coincidentally brought an end of an era.
I guess he did bankrupt a studio, but I always thought Heaven's Gate was a very good Western. It's dismal reputation among many critics seems more a case of guilt by association than anything to do with the actual quality of the movie.
I guess he did bankrupt a studio, but I always thought Heaven's Gate was a very good Western. It's dismal reputation among many critics seems more a case of guilt by association than anything to do with the actual quality of the movie.
I have yet to watch Heaven's Gate, but because many critics have went back and revised the opinion of it, so I tend to agree with you. There is no doubt that movie had a huge impact on him, both professional and personal, because he seems rather handcuffed in his latter works. What is unknown is rather it was external pressure, or from his own subconscious.
I too dipped into a Cimino movie. Year of the Dragon. As @nameless1 noted, it's an ambitious movie, but Cimino doesn't seem to have much control over it. The globe-hoping Golden Triangle aspect of it and John Lone's charismatic performance hints at a Godfather-esque rise-to-power tale that would've been far more interesting than what we do get. Unfortunately the other 75% of the movie is Mickey Rourke strutting through his own version of The French Connection, bouncing between "Yeah I'm racist, but I'm racist against EVERYBODY" hardass posing in the loud parts and his Brando-aping mumble-emoting in the few quiet parts.
I don't for a second buy his silly Untouchables-style outfits (which seem to be ditched halfway through the movie). I don't buy a single personal relationship he has in the movie. I really don't buy that he's actually good at his job (a key difference between Gene Hackman's Popeye Doyle). And I definitely didn't buy that he's a grizzled Vietnam vet. Though his actual age makes that possible his persona is such a mix between 50s tough guy and modern 80s wiseass it's hard to put any stock into the moments where the war comes up. His graying hair seems fake too.
Cimino has a couple of good set pieces. I'll give him that. But this was mostly parts of other, better movies.
Ok well, my other thread being a waste, I'm quoting myself (yes) in order to continue with my amazon sexy ladies subgenre exploration...
Barbarian Queen (Olivera, 1985) – A lot more fun than Amazons, and – devoid of magic and sorcerers – a lot less silly too (don't get me wrong, it's still garbage). I'm ready to give this one the coveted SoBIG tag – funniest thing is that it's such a dishonest movie, with the empowered female hero claiming that she'll be slave to no man, she'll be whore to no man, while running around naked for us (and the male filmmakers directing her) to enjoy. 1/10
As much as I would have liked to follow @KallioWeHardlyKnewYe again and go straight to the Sorceress, it was already too much for me and I had to take a break (maybe I'll get to it later).
Yes!! This movie is a giver, should be mandatory in gender studies. But well, nothing compared to this one:
They're girls!!!
Sorceress (Hill, 1982) – Now some movies get a SoBIG tag out of pity, not this one, this is the real deal, an absolute gem of z-trash. The prologue's vaginal torture and overacting (the villain gives quite a show) isn't exactly banal but does not prepare for the hilarity to come. From the moment we get to the twins bathing naked together, I pretty much laughed the whole way through. It might be the most uplifting movie ever, impossible not to watch with a grin. Now, IMDB informs me that the director asked for his name to be removed from the film (which is credited to Brian Stuart, a name made up of Roger Corman's sons' names), because he was unhappy with the f/x and because of some quarrel with Corman, but man... the f/x ain't the problem here. You were there when you shot the scene with the naked twins wondering if the goat-man's penis is a weapon, or the one where the monkeys attack with the laughing gas, or when the twin “feels” her sister being deflowered, or the one with the greased phallic pole – you think the best f/x in the bizz would have saved this? It's been hours now and I still laugh to tears thinking of the twins undressing for everybody (including themselves) to realize they're not boys. Man, you've been running around with two playmates who make zero effort to conceal their boobs or change their voices (and why would they? They think they're boys... imagine the troll job by the parents), you must feel like a genius now. Great thanks to @KallioWeHardlyKnewYe for this, pure bliss. 1/10
I have a theory about The Deer Hunter, and why I look at it so differently now than I did when it was released. The Viet Nam war ended in 1975, but by 1978, the year The Deer Hunter came out, emotions about the war had hardly cooled at all; angry feelings on both sides were still extremely intense--if anything, the right wing was even more incensed than during the war. So I think The Deer Hunter opened to almost exclusively partisan viewership. If one, like me, was liberal and anti-war, the movie disappointed because it didn’t seem to condemn the war or war itself enough. Meanwhile, the pro-war crowd embraced the film as portraying “real” god-fearing, flag-waving Americans, not long-haired hippies. How one saw the movie depended on the political side one was on, and that blinded people. Released a year later, Apocalypse Now scratched the itch that I had hoped The Deer Hunter would scratch, and, of course, right-wing commentators hated that one.
As I became older, that sense of partisanship began to fade. It was easier to see The Deer Hunter as just a movie, not as a litmus test in the battle between good and evil. I began to change my opinion of the film. I started to see The Deer Hunter as an honest attempt to reflect blue collar feelings about the war and about the United States participation in it. And I think Cimino did a very fair job of capturing this perspective with honesty and integrity. It seemed to me that this is how the war might indeed look to working class white people, the people, along with a huge, disproportionate percentage of black-Americans, who were most likely to fight and suffer in the war, people who had to accept the war because if their country was wrong, their sacrifices would be not just pointless but unbearable. Looked at from that perspective, the characters in the film began to transform for me and I saw them as individuals rather than as political stereotypes.
The fact that the movie, if one looks closely enough, does show the destructive, inhuman nature of war in existential terms, well, that was way too subtle for me at the time. I think Pranzo’s analysis of what was going on in the movie is spot on. Again, I think I had to divorce myself from my own initially polarized feelings before I could see some of these shapes that were moving just beneath the surface of the narrative that I was watching. So, I have gone from being disappointed in the film to seeing it as essentially a humanist work that gives voice to how millions of blue-collar Americans saw the war and what that war’s legacy was for too many of them.
Yes!! This movie is a giver, should be mandatory in gender studies. But well, nothing compared to this one:
They're girls!!!
Sorceress (Hill, 1982) – Now some movies get a SoBIG tag out of pity, not this one, this is the real deal, an absolute gem of z-trash. The prologue's vaginal torture and overacting (the villain gives quite a show) isn't exactly banal but does not prepare for the hilarity to come. From the moment we get to the twins bathing naked together, I pretty much laughed the whole way through. It might be the most uplifting movie ever, impossible not to watch with a grin. Now, IMDB informs me that the director asked for his name to be removed from the film (which is credited to Brian Stuart, a name made up of Roger Corman's sons' names), because he was unhappy with the f/x and because of some quarrel with Corman, but man... the f/x ain't the problem here. You were there when you shot the scene with the naked twins wondering if the goat-man's penis is a weapon, or the one where the monkeys attack with the laughing gas, or when the twin “feels” her sister being deflowered, or the one with the greased phallic pole – you think the best f/x in the bizz would have saved this? It's been hours now and I still laugh to tears thinking of the twins undressing for everybody (including themselves) to realize they're not boys. Man, you've been running around with two playmates who make zero effort to conceal their boobs or change their voices (and why would they? They think they're boys... imagine the troll job by the parents), you must feel like a genius now. Great thanks to @KallioWeHardlyKnewYe for this, pure bliss. 1/10
I'm glad you enjoyed it. I feel pretty well educated in the SoBIG realm but this was something I just stumbled on. A true gem for many many reasons. I'd also note that the production values are actually decent for this sorta thing. Certainly not good, but there's a level of work here that's better than many similar movies. And the tone is perfect. Not so serious as to be awkward but not so cheap and jokey that it verges on parody.
Also I can't stop laughing about how it's called Sorceress but there's TWO of them.
I'm glad you enjoyed it. I feel pretty well educated in the SoBIG realm but this was something I just stumbled on. A true gem for many many reasons. I'd also note that the production values are actually decent for this sorta thing. Certainly not good, but there's a level of work here that's better than many similar movies. And the tone is perfect. Not so serious as to be awkward but not so cheap and jokey that it verges on parody.
Also I can't stop laughing about how it's called Sorceress but there's TWO of them.
But they're two... as one! And IMDB also informs us that the title was selected by high school kids (who obviously had not seen the film) Corman polled with a bunch of possible titles.
Freddy Krueger - forgotten by the new generation of Springwood kids and thus powerless - manipulates Jason Voorhees into terrorizing the small town in order restart his reign of terror.
I've been watching the Friday the 13th movies for a few weeks now, and though there have been some stinkers along the way, this is the movie the that feels least like it's part of the series. This is more of a Nightmare on Elm Street movie, which isn't surprising considering this is another New Line Cinema production - aka 'The House That Freddy Built'.
Freddy is the focus of the movie. He's the character driving the plot, he gets a ton of screen time, and we even see flashbacks to Nightmares 1-6. By comparison, Jason is just a plot device. He's a big, slow dummy whose backstory is tweaked for this movie, and is given character traits he never had before to fit the narrative (he's afraid of water?). By this point, I doubt anyone gave a crap though; audiences had just seen Jason in outer space.
Freddy vs Jason is a huge mixed bag. There is way, way too much going on with the plot, specifically for forgettable main character Lori. She has stayed a virgin (yes, they talk about this a lot for some reason) because a few years ago her high school (or middle school?) boyfriend moved away and stopped writing. Turns out missing boyfriend has been in a nearby metal institution thanks to being tormented by Freddy, and said establishment just so happens to be run by her father. They also shoehorn in there that Freddy previously killed her mother, which is supposed to be some shocking reveal even though nary a word is said about her previously, other than the fact her dad is a widower.
Lori's story is a mess. In addition to a weak lead with a tangled backstory, the rest of the characters are forgettable and very poorly written. The only two characters I ever remember are Kia and a guy how looks like low-rent Jason Mewes. The new deputy in town, played by recognizable character actor Lochlyn Munro, has the makings of a decent character until he is abruptly killed by Jason mid-way through. Why did they even bother building him up?
At this movie's worst moments, it's boring; a cardinal sin for a film featuring two horror icons. I just sat through the abomination Jason Goes to Hell with no problems, yet this is the movie that was putting me to sleep.
Fortunately, things pick up a bit in the second half, and the final fight between Freddy and Jason is pretty good. It's funny though; the final fight happens at Camp Crystal Lake (New Jersey), but the rest of the movie takes place in Spingwood (Ohio). We do see the characters drive there, but in movie time seems to be a quick trip (~30 minutes). In actuality it should've taken 8+ hours.
As you can tell, I'm not a fan of the movie. It's very forgettable and feels like a chore at times to watch, despite very fast pacing. New Line Cinema had the rights to the Jason character since the early 1990's, but held off making a movie because they didn't have the right script; yet this is what they settled on.
Personally, even with a mediocre script, it would've been much better to have seen this moving come out in the early-90's, when both characters were in their heyday. In 2003, we had only gotten one Freddy movie in the previous 11 years, and only one Jason movie in the previous 9 years. Both series were on life support, and Freddy vs Jason officially pulled the plug, as it was the last original timeline movie in both series.
For the record, my score is below consensus; IMDB has this film at a 5.7. Take my review with a grain of salt.
Regardless of what I think, Freddy vs Jason cleaned up at the box office. With a $30M budget (a high for either series), the movie made almost $117M worldwide.
I have a hard time reviewing movies without giving spoilers but I won't drop any spoilers so take this for what it is.
I don't know what to really think about this movie before I get a 2nd viewing. It was a fun movie with Dinosaurs.
Didn't have a Jurassic Park/World feel to it, was more like a Action/Thriller with Dinosaurs.
I have to wonder how the military hasn't stepped in to destroy them, That's what happened in the books they came in and completely wiped out the original Park and I have a hard time remembering but think they were on their way to destroy all Dinosaurs in The Lost World because Costa Rica depends on tourism and it was too risky because they got off the island from time to time, Thats the reason in the book atleast from what I can remember.
The mix of the two trilogy's stars felt forced, basically 2 stories going on at the same time and they kinda meet up near the end Grant, Sattler and Malcolm coming back felt a little forced I mean what they are doing is important I dunno you will see what I mean when you watch it.
6/10
Freddy Krueger - forgotten by the new generation of Springwood kids and thus powerless - manipulates Jason Voorhees into terrorizing the small town in order restart his reign of terror.
I've been watching the Friday the 13th movies for a few weeks now, and though there have been some stinkers along the way, this is the movie the that feels least like it's part of the series. This is more of a Nightmare on Elm Street movie, which isn't surprising considering this is another New Line Cinema production - aka 'The House That Freddy Built'.
Freddy is the focus of the movie. He's the character driving the plot, he gets a ton of screen time, and we even see flashbacks to Nightmares 1-6. By comparison, Jason is just a plot device. He's a big, slow dummy whose backstory is tweaked for this movie, and is given character traits he never had before to fit the narrative (he's afraid of water?). By this point, I doubt anyone gave a crap though; audiences had just seen Jason in outer space.
Freddy vs Jason is a huge mixed bag. There is way, way too much going on with the plot, specifically for forgettable main character Lori. She has stayed a virgin (yes, they talk about this a lot for some reason) because a few years ago her high school (or middle school?) boyfriend moved away and stopped writing. Turns out missing boyfriend has been in a nearby metal institution thanks to being tormented by Freddy, and said establishment just so happens to be run by her father. They also shoehorn in there that Freddy previously killed her mother, which is supposed to be some shocking reveal even though nary a word is said about her previously, other than the fact her dad is a widower.
Lori's story is a mess. In addition to a weak lead with a tangled backstory, the rest of the characters are forgettable and very poorly written. The only two characters I ever remember are Kia and a guy how looks like low-rent Jason Mewes. The new deputy in town, played by recognizable character actor Lochlyn Munro, has the makings of a decent character until he is abruptly killed by Jason mid-way through. Why did they even bother building him up?
At this movie's worst moments, it's boring; a cardinal sin for a film featuring two horror icons. I just sat through the abomination Jason Goes to Hell with no problems, yet this is the movie that was putting me to sleep.
Fortunately, things pick up a bit in the second half, and the final fight between Freddy and Jason is pretty good. It's funny though; the final fight happens at Camp Crystal Lake (New Jersey), but the rest of the movie takes place in Spingwood (Ohio). We do see the characters drive there, but in movie time seems to be a quick trip (~30 minutes). In actuality it should've taken 8+ hours.
As you can tell, I'm not a fan of the movie. It's very forgettable and feels like a chore at times to watch, despite very fast pacing. New Line Cinema had the rights to the Jason character since the early 1990's, but held off making a movie because they didn't have the right script; yet this is what they settled on.
Personally, even with a mediocre script, it would've been much better to have seen this moving come out in the early-90's, when both characters were in their heyday. In 2003, we had only gotten one Freddy movie in the previous 11 years, and only one Jason movie in the previous 9 years. Both series were on life support, and Freddy vs Jason officially pulled the plug, as it was the last original timeline movie in both series.
For the record, my score is below consensus; IMDB has this film at a 5.7. Take my review with a grain of salt.
Regardless of what I think, Freddy vs Jason cleaned up at the box office. With a $30M budget (a high for either series), the movie made almost $117M worldwide.
I seen this in the theaters when I was like 15 or 16 and I can tell you for as crappy of a overall movie it is, it was awesome. was funny too. then again i was really stoned
After the longest time, I finally watched The Godfather trilogy over one weekend, and while I am not disappointed, and I can understand how influential they are, I also do not think they match the hype.
Out of the three, I like the first one the most. Frankly, the plot is a long soap opera filled with cliche themes of loyalty, betrayal, and revenge, which are all overdone even then. However, it is masked, first of all, by the great characters, because all of them, even the minor ones, are memorable and distinct. Secondly, everyone is well-casted, and the leads, the supports, to even one-off appearances, all gave great and memorable performance, which is downright amazing. Third, there are many iconic scenes and set pieces that are still beautiful to look at today, which is probably why they continue to be parodied to this day. Finally, it gives a very accurate portrayal of the mafia structure and lifestyle. In fact, I once read in an article that says that after the movie was released, many of the mafia and wise guys actually based their lifestyle and business model after the movie, which demonstrates how influential the movie is. While I have issues with the lighting, as the colours of some scenes look radically different from others, it is minor, and it did not distract me from the movie. For a while, I thought the techniques are rather basic, but then I watched other movies from that era, and it turns out Coppola is actually quite advanced, and his style becomes a template future filmmakers build off of. Plus, when one considers the fact that the movie is made in the days of film stock, it is clear that Coppola is definitely ahead of his time. Right now, I have it at 8/10, but I can see myself bump it to 8.5/10 on other days.
In the second one, the plot goes beyond the criminal underworld, as it involves interactions with the outside world, in particular law enforcement and even politics, and it even incorporates real life events. As a result, these aspects give the movie another dimension, and the movie feels bigger, which seems like the right way a sequel should progress. Unfortunately, at this point, even though the acting is just as good, and I really like Pacino's decision to play Michael slouched, in order to give the image of a man burdened by the weight of his position and situation, the characters are pretty much established, so the performances can no longer distract the rather weak and cliche soap opera plot. Thus, I find it hard to become fully involved in the story. It also does not help that Coppola decides to intersperse the main plot with Vito Corleone's backstory. While I understand that Vito Corleone is a central figure, and Coppola wanted to use his mercy to contrast his son Michael's ruthlessness in their respective rise to power, I actually find the comparability to be rather frail until the very end, when Vito is together with his family, while Michael almost loses them all. Unfortunately, that payoff comes way too late, and as a result, the whole movie feels jumbled and messy, which in turn makes it even less interesting. Critics often hold this in higher regard than the first one, but I am not as impressed, so I have it at 7 to 7.5/10, as there are just as many pros as cons.
In the final chapter, Coppola becomes even more polished with his techniques, so it looks the best out of the three movies, but it is clear that the story has fully run its course. Suddenly, the mob is portrayed as the heroes, and they even tried to save the pope, which makes no sense at all. Pacino is as charismatic as ever, but almost everyone else just weights him down. Many critics panned Sophia Coppola, and her performance is indeed so poor that it threatens to sink the movie, but her lack of ability is only magnified by her big role. It also does not help that she has a borderline incestual romance angle that only Rudy Giuliani can enjoy, and I find it rather uncomfortable that the characters objected because of the danger it posed, but not the morality issue inherent with it. The only other interesting character is Garcia's character, but I attribute it to Garcia's natural charisma. Nothing about him seems realistic, especially his rise, but since he is never in the original source material, he feels exactly like the plot device that he is created as. While I did not like the movie all that much, at least an effort was made to give one of cinema's most memorable character a proper send-off, so I can still respect that, and I give it 6.5/10.
Overall, it is not a bad trilogy, so I will probably give it a 7/10. Three could and should have been a lot better, but at least I had fun with the 9 hours overall run time, and I am glad I did it once. That is enough though, because it is not interesting enough for me to want to go back again.
After the longest time, I finally watched The Godfather trilogy over one weekend, and while I am not disappointed, and I can understand how influential they are, I also do not think they match the hype.
Out of the three, I like the first one the most. Frankly, the plot is a long soap opera filled with cliche themes of loyalty, betrayal, and revenge, which are all overdone even then. However, it is masked, first of all, by the great characters, because all of them, even the minor ones, are memorable and distinct. Secondly, everyone is well-casted, and the leads, the supports, to even one-off appearances, all gave great and memorable performance, which is downright amazing. Third, there are many iconic scenes and set pieces that are still beautiful to look at today, which is probably why they continue to be parodied to this day. Finally, it gives a very accurate portrayal of the mafia structure and lifestyle. In fact, I once read in an article that says that after the movie was released, many of the mafia and wise guys actually based their lifestyle and business model after the movie, which demonstrates how influential the movie is. While I have issues with the lighting, as the colours of some scenes look radically different from others, it is minor, and it did not distract me from the movie. For a while, I thought the techniques are rather basic, but then I watched other movies from that era, and it turns out Coppola is actually quite advanced, and his style becomes a template future filmmakers build off of. Plus, when one considers the fact that the movie is made in the days of film stock, it is clear that Coppola is definitely ahead of his time. Right now, I have it at 8/10, but I can see myself bump it to 8.5/10 on other days.
In the second one, the plot goes beyond the criminal underworld, as it involves interactions with the outside world, in particular law enforcement and even politics, and it even incorporates real life events. As a result, these aspects give the movie another dimension, and the movie feels bigger, which seems like the right way a sequel should progress. Unfortunately, at this point, even though the acting is just as good, and I really like Pacino's decision to play Michael slouched, in order to give the image of a man burdened by the weight of his position and situation, the characters are pretty much established, so the performances can no longer distract the rather weak and cliche soap opera plot. Thus, I find it hard to become fully involved in the story. It also does not help that Coppola decides to intersperse the main plot with Vito Corleone's backstory. While I understand that Vito Corleone is a central figure, and Coppola wanted to use his mercy to contrast his son Michael's ruthlessness in their respective rise to power, I actually find the comparability to be rather frail until the very end, when Vito is together with his family, while Michael almost loses them all. Unfortunately, that payoff comes way too late, and as a result, the whole movie feels jumbled and messy, which in turn makes it even less interesting. Critics often hold this in higher regard than the first one, but I am not as impressed, so I have it at 7 to 7.5/10, as there are just as many pros as cons.
In the final chapter, Coppola becomes even more polished with his techniques, so it looks the best out of the three movies, but it is clear that the story has fully run its course. Suddenly, the mob is portrayed as the heroes, and they even tried to save the pope, which makes no sense at all. Pacino is as charismatic as ever, but almost everyone else just weights him down. Many critics panned Sophia Coppola, and her performance is indeed so poor that it threatens to sink the movie, but her lack of ability is only magnified by her big role. It also does not help that she has a borderline incestual romance angle that only Rudy Giuliani can enjoy, and I find it rather uncomfortable that the characters objected because of the danger it posed, but not the morality issue inherent with it. The only other interesting character is Garcia's character, but I attribute it to Garcia's natural charisma. Nothing about him seems realistic, especially his rise, but since he is never in the original source material, he feels exactly like a plot device that he is created as. While I did not like the movie all that much, at least an effort was made to give one of cinema's most memorable character a proper send-off, so I can still respect that, and I give it 6.5/10.
Overall, it is not a bad trilogy, so I will probably give it a 7/10. Three could and should have been a lot better, but at least I had fun with the 9 hours overall run time, and I am glad I did it once. That is enough though, because it is not interesting enough for me to want to go back again.
I'm one of those rare people that doesn't see the greatness in part 2. It's a good movie but it's pretty disjointed at places. A minor spoiler:
I still don't understand how Tom became the temporary boss of the mob, he isn't a made man because he is half irish and half german.
I think that the first movie is a great movie that works well as a stand alone movie because the ending is a nice full circle moment, i would still recomend part 2 (unlike part 3) but unlike the first movie i feel that the story is weak but is saved by the characters.
I seem to be on the same wavelength of as several posters here ...
Godfather III. Coppola's recent "Coda cut." He reorganized the start with some other tweaks. I guess it's actually shorter than his original version.
Faults are WELL documented (Sophia Coppola, swapping Duvall for George Hamilton). The cousin love storyline has always been a weird one to me. Still feels unnecessary -- the realations, not the relationship.
A new complaint I didn't have before! As good as Garcia is, his move from hot head outsider to smooth right hand man felt really abrupt. I suspect more time passes in the movie than I am giving it credit for. But it feels very sudden.
Pacino is great. It's nice to see Talia Shire get more to do than shout and cry. Joe Mantegna might be my favorite thing in the movie though. It looses steam when he's out of the picture and it shifts gears from the US to Italy.
I'm one of those rare people that doesn't see the greatness in part 2. It's a good movie but it's pretty disjointed at places. A minor spoiler:
I still don't understand how Tom became the temporary boss of the mob, he isn't a made man because he is half irish and half german.
I think that the first movie is a great movie that works well as a stand alone movie because the ending is a nice full circle moment, i would still recomend part 2 (unlike part 3) but unlike the first movie i feel that the story is weak but is saved by the characters.
Yeah, I agree with you, though I think the acting is still a tad below the first one. That is one reason why the weak plot becomes that evident too.
The major issue with Part 2 is, quite simply, that it suffers from structural failure. There is absolutely no need to jam Vito's backstory in there, because the whole storytelling just becomes a jumbled and clogged mess. While there is a payoff, and it is a good one, it comes way too late, and it is just not worth the wait.
I seem to be on the same wavelength of as several posters here ...
Godfather III. Coppola's recent "Coda cut." He reorganized the start with some other tweaks. I guess it's actually shorter than his original version.
Faults are WELL documented (Sophia Coppola, swapping Duvall for George Hamilton). The cousin love storyline has always been a weird one to me. Still feels unnecessary -- the realations, not the relationship.
A new complaint I didn't have before! As good as Garcia is, his move from hot head outsider to smooth right hand man felt really abrupt. I suspect more time passes in the movie than I am giving it credit for. But it feels very sudden.
Pacino is great. It's nice to see Talia Shire get more to do than shout and cry. Joe Mantegna might be my favorite thing in the movie though. It looses steam when he's out of the picture and it shifts gears from the US to Italy.
That relationship between Coppola and Garcia is just weird. Gene Siskel was spot on when he said that Garcia feels more like Coppola's babysitter than anything. I get the necessity of the relationship, since she is the Don's daughter, and he wants to be in the family, and perhaps a better actress would have developed better chemistry, but I will always have a problem with how borderline incestual it is, so it probably would have been best if it is just taken out.
I never saw the appeal of Shire. I can never understand how she was nominated for an Oscar, when she only had about 5 to 10 minutes of screentime, and she did nothing with that time. While she was given more to work with in 3, I still find her character to be hollow, as I barely noticed her presence.
Duvall was offered about a third or a quarter of what Pacino got paid, so I can understand why he dropped out. He would have been way better than Hamilton, but at least Hamilton was pretty much net even, and he was not the reason why the movie was bad.
As for Mantegna, he was fine, but for a character that is set up to be a force, it is very anti-climatic when he gets killed off in such a weak and abrupt manner. That is all on Francois Ford Coppola though, who is very overrated in his storytelling.
It will not remake the genre or anything, but I enjoyed it well enough. There were a couple of out-of-the-ordinary approaches for a slasher pic like
how you know who committed almost all of the murders the entire time
and a few funny shots at modern online discourse. I think I am aged well past the target demographic of this film, and not all of it hit home, but it was not a bad way to spend an hour and a half.
I find Mike Leigh films to be a bit too tryhard abrasive but this one while having those bits does a decent job overall at the more human side. It still requires people to have an emotion breakdown but it gets there. Just the nicer scenes of people chatting and the light-hearted moments are good enough for me to be honest, the more dramatic ones are a bit much but they aren't forced like you usually see. Also this review from someone else sums it up lol: "Very, very british. This means amazing dialoge and acting, and terrible lighting and camerawork."
Although I watched it from a Criterion rip on an IPS monitor rather than a VHS on some CRT TV from the 90s so I thought the lighting was fine.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
