melkur
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 3,967
|
Post by melkur on Jul 17, 2020 23:39:46 GMT
Today and yesterday I've been watching the two-part adaption of 'Batman - Return Of The Dark Knight'. Whilst I'm not going to say that it's my favourite watch in the world, ok, I'm enjoying it ok...
|
|
|
Post by Timelord007 on Jul 18, 2020 6:06:48 GMT
Ad Astra, i enjoyed it Brad Pitts always good.
Godzilla KOTM, better than the previous film but the filmmakers haven't learned from the previous films mistakes.........DONT KEEP CUTTING AWAY FROM THE MONSTER SMACKDOWNS TO CHARACTERS I COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT.
|
|
|
Post by polly on Jul 18, 2020 6:14:38 GMT
Monty Python's The Meaning of Life - I find this the weakest of the three films (not counting Something Completely Different), though to be fair, Holy Grail and Life of Brian are stiff competition. I think the sketches are pretty hit-and-miss. Some are good, some go one for too long, some of them are just kind of gross. The best thing about this film is the musical numbers. The Galaxy Song alone is worth watching for.
I do like that the Pythons went back to the sketch format for this one. I don't know if it was intended to be their grand finale or not, but as it turned out it was. And it gives a sense of coming full circle with Flying Circus and a surprising amount of closure as that TV spins off into space at the end.
|
|
|
Post by grinch on Jul 18, 2020 19:16:31 GMT
Dick Tracy (1990)
A lot of fun albeit with some story issues. Absolutely beautiful to look at though and is the closest I think we’ve had to what the pages of a comic strip would look like in live action. Could gush about the use of colours alone for hours. I also think his Rogues Gallery rival that of Spider-Man or Batman’s even if they’re mostly just generic gangsters.
Don’t go waiting for any sequel to this though. I honestly don’t know why Warren Beatty keeps pretending it’s going to happen when it clearly won’t.
Would love to see a Dick Tracy Netflix series though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2020 19:32:50 GMT
Dick Tracy (1990) A lot of fun albeit with some story issues. Absolutely beautiful to look at though and is the closest I think we’ve had to what the pages of a comic strip would look like in live action. Could gush about the use of colours alone for hours. I also think his Rogues Gallery rival that of Spider-Man or Batman’s even if they’re mostly just generic gangsters. Don’t go waiting for any sequel to this though. I honestly don’t know why Warren Beatty keeps pretending it’s going to happen when it clearly won’t. Would love to see a Dick Tracy Netflix series though. Haven't seen that in decades, but by coincidence saw a meme of Pacino's character the other day. I like the fact that they achieved with old fashioned prosthetic make-up what these days would be a CGI digital job. All the better for it. Like the recent Disney CGI 'live action' remakes of the likes of the Lion King, just because you can, does not mean you should.
|
|
|
Post by pazzer on Jul 18, 2020 19:54:24 GMT
The Old Guard Had to see what all the hype was about. Think it would have worked better as a tv show. But if there's a sequal will watch it.
|
|
|
Post by Digi on Jul 18, 2020 19:55:26 GMT
Watching Yojimbo a few days ago has really put me in a Kurosawa mood, so I decided to go back to the beginning of his works. I'm not going to watch ALL of them, but I've decided that I'll do a good number (regardless of whether I've already seen them). Over the last few days: Sanshiro Sugata ( Judo Saga) - Very much a first-time effort, but interesting in how you can see, right from the start of his directorial career, that Kurosawa has a very distinctive style. This one came out in 1943, when Japan was six years into aggressive war throughout the South Pacific (and two years after Pearl Harbor) so I was trying to figure out how the mood and mentality of wartime Japan fit into the movie's themes, but came up empty. Maybe I just didn't put the pieces together, maybe Kurosawa was deliberately avoiding that, I don't know. I liked it well enough, but I doubt it'll ever be a favourite for me. Not going to bother with the sequel. Tora no o o Fumu Otokotachi ( The Men Who Tread on the Tiger's Tail) - Kind of floored that this one is only an hour long. It felt like a full feature film even within that runtime, and I absolutely loved it. Everything about it felt fleshed out and real, with my imagination firing on all cylinders to sketch in the broader world that's described in text and dialogue. I love it when a movie does that. Fun bit of trivia: Kurosawa made the movie in 1945, but the American occupying authority banned it from release because McArthur thought it was dangerous for a film to depict feudal Japanese values even as they were in the process of tearing down the Japanese militaristic and monarchical structures--the film wasn't released publicly till 1952. Waga seishun ni kuinashi ( No Regrets for Our Youth) - Kurosawa's first post-war film, released in 1946. And where previous films might've been subtle, this one addressed Japan's recent past head-on. From the Takigawa incident in the early '30s, through rising militarism and the war, into just after the war.... At times I was frustrated because I couldn't really see where the characters' plots were going, but once it did get there, wow. Jeez did I ever end up enjoying this one. Today and yesterday I've been watching the two-part adaption of 'Batman - Return Of The Dark Knight'. Whilst I'm not going to say that it's my favourite watch in the world, ok, I'm enjoying it ok... Oh I really enjoy that one. It's a bit over-long, and it's 100% Frank Miller so you kinda need to just accept that, but I thought it was a terrific adaptation of the source material (though the also-Miller Year One was better IMO).
|
|
|
Post by timegirl on Jul 18, 2020 20:15:29 GMT
Monty Python's The Meaning of Life - I find this the weakest of the three films (not counting Something Completely Different), though to be fair, Holy Grail and Life of Brian are stiff competition. I think the sketches are pretty hit-and-miss. Some are good, some go one for too long, some of them are just kind of gross. The best thing about this film is the musical numbers. The Galaxy Song alone is worth watching for. I do like that the Pythons went back to the sketch format for this one. I don't know if it was intended to be their grand finale or not, but as it turned out it was. And it gives a sense of coming full circle with Flying Circus and a surprising amount of closure as that TV spins off into space at the end. It is an odd one isn’t it? Sort of a darker and edgier flying circus. The Galaxy Song is glorious isn’t it?!
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Jul 18, 2020 20:58:13 GMT
Ad Astra, i enjoyed it Brad Pitts always good.
Godzilla KOTM, better than the previous film but the filmmakers haven't learned from the previous films mistakes.........DONT KEEP CUTTING AWAY FROM THE MONSTER SMACKDOWNS TO CHARACTERS I COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT. Reminded me of 2001 without HAL but the same debate being played out by the light and dark side of human nature embodied by Pitt and Lee Jones. Regards mark687
|
|
melkur
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 3,967
|
Post by melkur on Jul 18, 2020 21:17:25 GMT
Today and yesterday I've been watching the two-part adaption of 'Batman - Return Of The Dark Knight'. Whilst I'm not going to say that it's my favourite watch in the world, ok, I'm enjoying it ok... Oh I really enjoy that one. It's a bit over-long, and it's 100% Frank Miller so you kinda need to just accept that, but I thought it was a terrific adaptation of the source material (though the also-Miller Year One was better IMO). Whilst I don't know if they're my favourite Batman films in the world, I did enjoy them (though I think watching them across two evenings whilst I 'wound down' for bed helped). I can't say that I've read the source material (I'm a bit lapsed when it comes to comic reading), but if there are some good 'compilations' going, I'd happily consider them... I can't really complain tooooo much about the running time (two lots of 72minutes, after all), but yeah, they did feel like they dragged a little in places (especially with part two!) I don't think I've seen 'Year One', but I will definetly consider it when I have the chance!
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Jul 18, 2020 21:21:30 GMT
The aforementioned Ad Astra
The Kidnapping of Freddy Heineken
(Another random YouTube pick. Drama based on true events. Antony Hopkins plays the Titular head of the Brewing Empire, kidnapped by small time Dutch criminals {oddly played mostly by Australian Actors, including Sam Worthington and Ryan Kerwin [True Blood's Jason])
Bad Therapy
(Dark Comedy A married couple in a rut seek counseling, unfortunately the consular becomes enamored with their lifestyle and tries to convince ether of them to leave so she can take their place.)
Regards
mark687
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2020 21:28:59 GMT
The Mummy 1932.
Not that horrible old 1999 nonsense with Brendan Fraser. Not even that inferior Hammer re-imagining from 1960. This is the real Mymmy. Slow and dusty, like an aged lizard. Boris Karloff under wrinkling prosthetics care of make-up guru Jack Pierce, plays Ardath Bey (an anagram of Death By Ra); Zita Johann is an apparent reincarnation of an Egyptian Princess (soon to become standard in this Universal Mummy films). Filmed in some huge sets and convincing locations, this early talkie doesn't bother with (what has become) the traditional cloth-wrapped image of the title character (except at the beginning) and also foregoes much in the way of scares. Even so, there's something wonderful about the sluggish pace and occasionally stilted performances - Karloff strides above it all: one of the most convincing walking dead men you ever did see.
Well I love it anyway!
|
|
|
Post by Digi on Jul 18, 2020 21:34:57 GMT
The Mummy 1932.
Not that horrible old 1999 nonsense with Brendan Fraser. Not even that inferior Hammer re-imagining from 1960. This is the real Mymmy. Slow and dusty, like an aged lizard. Boris Karloff under wrinkling prosthetics care of make-up guru Jack Pierce, plays Ardath Bey (an anagram of Death By Ra); Zita Johann is an apparent reincarnation of an Egyptian Princess (soon to become standard in this Universal Mummy films). Filmed in some huge sets and convincing locations, this early talkie doesn't bother with (what has become) the traditional cloth-wrapped image of the title character (except at the beginning) and also foregoes much in the way of scares. Even so, there's something wonderful about the sluggish pace and occasionally stilted performances - Karloff strides above it all: one of the most convincing walking dead men you ever did see.
Well I love it anyway!
The 1932 version is unquestionably the best one, but I have a lot of time for the 1999 one too. None of its crappy sequels or spin-offs, just the 1999 one in isolation. To me it's just got that perfect tone of horror, but horror that very deliberately doesn't take itself seriously. Camp humour like Adam West Batman, in the best kind of way
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2020 22:01:45 GMT
The Mummy 1932.
Not that horrible old 1999 nonsense with Brendan Fraser. Not even that inferior Hammer re-imagining from 1960. This is the real Mymmy. Slow and dusty, like an aged lizard. Boris Karloff under wrinkling prosthetics care of make-up guru Jack Pierce, plays Ardath Bey (an anagram of Death By Ra); Zita Johann is an apparent reincarnation of an Egyptian Princess (soon to become standard in this Universal Mummy films). Filmed in some huge sets and convincing locations, this early talkie doesn't bother with (what has become) the traditional cloth-wrapped image of the title character (except at the beginning) and also foregoes much in the way of scares. Even so, there's something wonderful about the sluggish pace and occasionally stilted performances - Karloff strides above it all: one of the most convincing walking dead men you ever did see.
Well I love it anyway!
The 1932 version is unquestionably the best one, but I have a lot of time for the 1999 one too. None of its crappy sequels or spin-offs, just the 1999 one in isolation. To me it's just got that perfect tone of horror, but horror that very deliberately doesn't take itself seriously. Camp humour like Adam West Batman, in the best kind of way I agree, the 99 film is not supposed to be horror in any real way - it was a summer popcorn movie and taken as such it's really quite fun. It's more Indiana Jones than The Mummy (intentionally) and in a summer that had both The Matrix and Phantom Menace opening was something of a sleeper hit through word of mouth. Brendan Fraser's knowing charisma and great chemistry with Rachel Weisz are fantastic, John Hannah and Kevin J O'Connor are wonderful comic relief, Arnold Vosloo gives the villain more sympathy than you'd expect and Oded Fehr gives it some cool. It holds up well, especially post-Tom Cruise Mummy. The CGI is a bit dated but hey, it's 21 years old and wasn't "supposed" to be a massive hit, just a solid punt. The 1932 version is fantastic but it's interesting to me that as great as Karloff is, when pop culture references a Mummy, it tends to be something from the sequels with the mute, bandage clad almost Slasher villain mummy Karras being the one that you'll see people dress as, or get collectable figurines of etc. Karloff's being mummified is almost incidental to the plot, he could be easily re-written to be a vampire. Universal did that intentionally to follow up Dracula and Frankenstein of course and the sequels are where we'd see something more what we think of as a mummy. Hammer's Mummy films (well, the first 3) were much more re-writes of the Universal sequels too, ignoring the 1932, leaving the positively urbane chatty Karloff one as something of a unique oddity even now all these years later. I think it's an important film in Karloff's career as Universal saw him as "the monster" and didn't see the value of his voice. Frankenstein, Bride Of.. and The Old Dark House saw him effectively as a mute, it was The Mummy where he got to show that he could do the talking as well as any of the "real" actors and wasn't just cast because of his stature. His run of films afterwards, especially The Raven and The Black Cat with Bela Lugosi, are my favourite Universal horrors and I'm not sure that he'd have gotten to make them if he wasn't in The Mummy. And like Davros, I don't care for the Hammer Mummy. It's, to me, the weakest Hammer Cushing and Lee did together. Cushing isn't often miscast but he was there. Lee proves again, as he did as the creature in Frankenstein that he's a fantastic physical performer though but...the script just wasn't there. Everyone you'd think WOULD make it great - Cushing, Lee, Sangster, Fisher, Bernard et al are on board but it's just plodding and dull. I've never understood why some hold it up so highly other than they see it as part of the trinity of monsters with Frankenstein and Dracula but in their wake it's a nothing piece. The Gorgon a good few years later would reunite all the players to much better effect. Though I do like the trivia that for the million and one Hammers that Lee, Cushing and Michael Ripper made - the Mummy is the only one that all three are in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2020 22:08:07 GMT
Dick Tracy (1990) A lot of fun albeit with some story issues. Absolutely beautiful to look at though and is the closest I think we’ve had to what the pages of a comic strip would look like in live action. Could gush about the use of colours alone for hours. I also think his Rogues Gallery rival that of Spider-Man or Batman’s even if they’re mostly just generic gangsters. Don’t go waiting for any sequel to this though. I honestly don’t know why Warren Beatty keeps pretending it’s going to happen when it clearly won’t. Would love to see a Dick Tracy Netflix series though. A sequel sorta/kinda did happen in the oddest way which I had NO idea about until a few years ago. In 2010 he did a TV special documentary where he's interviewed in character as Dick, and goes back through the films and comics, even to the serials etc as though they were made about him as a "real" crimefighter. Certainly a fun curio for fans. www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdFbiRK-UaYFor me I've loved the film since 1990, one of the first films I saw at the cinema and one of the first videos I owned. With that kinda nostalgia I couldn't be objective about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2020 22:26:00 GMT
The 1932 version is unquestionably the best one, but I have a lot of time for the 1999 one too. None of its crappy sequels or spin-offs, just the 1999 one in isolation. To me it's just got that perfect tone of horror, but horror that very deliberately doesn't take itself seriously. Camp humour like Adam West Batman, in the best kind of way I agree, the 99 film is not supposed to be horror in any real way - it was a summer popcorn movie and taken as such it's really quite fun. It's more Indiana Jones than The Mummy (intentionally) and in a summer that had both The Matrix and Phantom Menace opening was something of a sleeper hit through word of mouth. Brendan Fraser's knowing charisma and great chemistry with Rachel Weisz are fantastic, John Hannah and Kevin J O'Connor are wonderful comic relief, Arnold Vosloo gives the villain more sympathy than you'd expect and Oded Fehr gives it some cool. It holds up well, especially post-Tom Cruise Mummy. The CGI is a bit dated but hey, it's 21 years old and wasn't "supposed" to be a massive hit, just a solid punt. The 1932 version is fantastic but it's interesting to me that as great as Karloff is, when pop culture references a Mummy, it tends to be something from the sequels with the mute, bandage clad almost Slasher villain mummy Karras being the one that you'll see people dress as, or get collectable figurines of etc. Karloff's being mummified is almost incidental to the plot, he could be easily re-written to be a vampire. Universal did that intentionally to follow up Dracula and Frankenstein of course and the sequels are where we'd see something more what we think of as a mummy. Hammer's Mummy films (well, the first 3) were much more re-writes of the Universal sequels too, ignoring the 1932, leaving the positively urbane chatty Karloff one as something of a unique oddity even now all these years later. I think it's an important film in Karloff's career as Universal saw him as "the monster" and didn't see the value of his voice. Frankenstein, Bride Of.. and The Old Dark House saw him effectively as a mute, it was The Mummy where he got to show that he could do the talking as well as any of the "real" actors and wasn't just cast because of his stature. His run of films afterwards, especially The Raven and The Black Cat with Bela Lugosi, are my favourite Universal horrors and I'm not sure that he'd have gotten to make them if he wasn't in The Mummy. 1999's 'The Mummy' isn't a film I would have usually gone to see - but I didn't realise that before I was sat in the cinema. A perfectly good knockabout caper, but not really my cup of tea (I hated the otherwise respected John Hannah's horrible 'British' stereotype) - I just wish it hadn't been called 'The Mummy!' It was a big hit, so clearly I'm in the minority, which is fine
1932's film definitely is an oddity, and that's one reason I like it so much. Karloff really excels in this, I think. No theatrics, in fact he positively underacts - which is perfect for My Bey given his backstory. I loved the sequels too - reassuringly formulaic. I wish Tom Tyler (who was cast as the Mummy in the following film given his passing resemblance to Boris) had played the character throughout - he was terrifically melancholic, and gave character to the shambling Kharis, far more so than Lon Chaney Jr, who hated the role.
This film certainly proved Karloff's worth. Was it The Old Dark House (the same year), that saw Universal put up an official notice stating the actor was indeed the same one who had played Frankenstein's Monster the previous year? A publicity drive to be sure, but underlining his 'great versatility' like that showed what faith they had in him.
|
|
|
Post by aussiedoctorwhofan on Jul 18, 2020 22:33:22 GMT
Harry Potter 6 was on tv the other night.. Still makes me laugh they all think Harry is "the boy who cried wolf".. Fools! LOL
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2020 22:37:56 GMT
I agree, the 99 film is not supposed to be horror in any real way - it was a summer popcorn movie and taken as such it's really quite fun. It's more Indiana Jones than The Mummy (intentionally) and in a summer that had both The Matrix and Phantom Menace opening was something of a sleeper hit through word of mouth. Brendan Fraser's knowing charisma and great chemistry with Rachel Weisz are fantastic, John Hannah and Kevin J O'Connor are wonderful comic relief, Arnold Vosloo gives the villain more sympathy than you'd expect and Oded Fehr gives it some cool. It holds up well, especially post-Tom Cruise Mummy. The CGI is a bit dated but hey, it's 21 years old and wasn't "supposed" to be a massive hit, just a solid punt. The 1932 version is fantastic but it's interesting to me that as great as Karloff is, when pop culture references a Mummy, it tends to be something from the sequels with the mute, bandage clad almost Slasher villain mummy Karras being the one that you'll see people dress as, or get collectable figurines of etc. Karloff's being mummified is almost incidental to the plot, he could be easily re-written to be a vampire. Universal did that intentionally to follow up Dracula and Frankenstein of course and the sequels are where we'd see something more what we think of as a mummy. Hammer's Mummy films (well, the first 3) were much more re-writes of the Universal sequels too, ignoring the 1932, leaving the positively urbane chatty Karloff one as something of a unique oddity even now all these years later. I think it's an important film in Karloff's career as Universal saw him as "the monster" and didn't see the value of his voice. Frankenstein, Bride Of.. and The Old Dark House saw him effectively as a mute, it was The Mummy where he got to show that he could do the talking as well as any of the "real" actors and wasn't just cast because of his stature. His run of films afterwards, especially The Raven and The Black Cat with Bela Lugosi, are my favourite Universal horrors and I'm not sure that he'd have gotten to make them if he wasn't in The Mummy. 1999's 'The Mummy' isn't a film I would have usually gone to see - but I didn't realise that before I was sat in the cinema. A perfectly good knockabout caper, but not really my cup of tea (I hated the otherwise respected John Hannah's horrible 'British' stereotype) - I just wish it hadn't been called 'The Mummy!' It was a big hit, so clearly I'm in the minority, which is fine
1932's film definitely is an oddity, and that's one reason I like it so much. Karloff really excels in this, I think. No theatrics, in fact he positively underacts - which is perfect for My Bey given his backstory. I loved the sequels too - reassuringly formulaic. I wish Tom Tyler (who was cast as the Mummy in the following film given his passing resemblance to Boris) had played the character throughout - he was terrifically melancholic, and gave character to the shambling Kharis, far more so than Lon Chaney Jr, who hated the role.
This film certainly proved Karloff's worth. Was it The Old Dark House (the same year), that saw Universal put up an official notice stating the actor was indeed the same one who had played Frankenstein's Monster the previous year? A publicity drive to be sure, but underlining his 'great versatility' like that showed what faith they had in him.
Yes, indeed - Universal just billed him as "Karloff" to keep him exotic for a while and in publicity and some posters he was billed as "Frankenstein's Karloff", and sometimes even in the credits of films. Just as they promoted "Bela 'Dracula' Lugosi" on bills - they were taking no chances that audiences would forget who their stars were! I agree with you on Tyler Vs. Chaney Jr. too, though I must confess I never thought Jr. had much going for him bar his name. He was often the weak link in his films and if it wasn't for that name and his working cheaply to fund his drinking I don't think he'd have had anywhere near the same amount of success. There are moments as Lyle Talbot in the Wolfman films where he works but they're sparse. Actors like Karloff, Rains and Lugosi (who may not have been the best himself but had charisma to spare) really showed him up.
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,677
|
Post by shutupbanks on Jul 19, 2020 1:05:25 GMT
Rise, Dawn and War Of/For The Planet Of The Apes. Picked up all 3 for $10 a few days ago and binged them in one session. Really, really good. When I watched the original five movies a couple of years ago I was impressed at how the entirety of the series managed to keep a coherent, though completely bonkers, storyline in place. This new series manages to do the same thing, but a lot more sensibly, almost as though they had a plan for what might happen if they had a series of films to produce. Andy Serkis is brilliant and the supporting casts in all three are fantastic. All three films are different as well, but still tell different parts of the same story. The nods to the original films are great fun, although when Tom Felton uttered the “damned dirty ape” line I was expecting, given his relationship to the manager of the facility, something about “My father will hear about this.” I’m hoping that if there’s a fourth movie, we get the space mission that was mentioned in Rise coming back after its “disappearance.”
I’m hoping to find the live action and cartoon series somewhere: the cartoon was ridiculously grim for a 70s animated series and I’ve caught a couple episodes of the live action series on YouTube. Later this year I’m hoping to get a copy of Pierre Boulle’s novel from the Folio Society (it looks beautiful, and I love the novel). I haven’t seen the Burton remake in years but I may have to get it for completion sakes if nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by Digi on Jul 19, 2020 1:11:56 GMT
I’m hoping to find the live action and cartoon series somewhere: the cartoon was ridiculously grim for a 70s animated series and I’ve caught a couple episodes of the live action series on YouTube. They're on DVD! I have both! I like both!
|
|