AndyDursin wrote:On the downside, this has -- undoubtedly -- one of THE all-time worst scores of all-time by Michel Colombier and Larry Carlton. It's so bad, there are sequences in the film where the music doesn't even remotely fit the emotions and drama of what's going on. It's loud, awful 80s synths and guitar, absolutely clueless...imagine if Brad Fiedel had scored BODY HEAT and scored it the same way he did THE TERMINATOR. I wish there was an ISOLATED DIALOGUE track so I could just not hear it!!
AndyDursin wrote:
On the downside, this has -- undoubtedly -- one of THE all-time worst scores of all-time by Michel Colombier and Larry Carlton. It's so bad, there are sequences in the film where the music doesn't even remotely fit the emotions and drama of what's going on.
AndyDursin wrote:
On the downside, this has -- undoubtedly -- one of THE all-time worst scores of all-time by Michel Colombier and Larry Carlton. It's so bad, there are sequences in the film where the music doesn't even remotely fit the emotions and drama of what's going on.
Now I HAVE to see this movie!
Yeah you'll have to see it Paul! It's....unbelievably, unrelentingly awful!
The movie is still pretty good, though I'm not sure what I make of Rachel Ward. Probably not much lol. DEAD MEN DONT WEAR PLAID was her high point.
Watched the DVD of LET ME IN just a little while ago...
Fascinating film and actually a bit heartbreaking-you really feel for the two kids in it and I love the way the big climactic scene at the end was handled: with one exception the whole thing is done with sound effects and some very impressive visual effects with water. Nice for a filmmaker to leave some violence to the imagination for a change yet keeping it satisfying storywise.
I also thought that Michael Giacchino's score almost bordered on the operatic but considering we have the improbable combination of coming-of-age, first love and vampires, for me it really worked.
AndyDursin wrote:
On the downside, this has -- undoubtedly -- one of THE all-time worst scores of all-time by Michel Colombier and Larry Carlton. It's so bad, there are sequences in the film where the music doesn't even remotely fit the emotions and drama of what's going on.
Now I HAVE to see this movie!
Right? This thing's got MSt3k laugh-at-its-expense fodder written all over it!
BLACK CAESAR (1973) - 3/10. This is a film about a street kid who manipulates the system and ends up being the Big Crime Lord in New York. He uses lawyers, the police, and rival mobs to his advantage as he gains money using ruthless and despicable practices. However, what goes up must come down. The story is just a series of moments pasted together which results ina film with no fluidity and even less drama. I will say though, that the white cop's "come-uppance" scene towards the end made me very uneasy as I watched it; it's probably the one good thing in the film and the one thing worth seeing in the entire film. The acting is okay, adn James Brown's song score is cool but seems a bit out of place to me. Not the best blaxploitation flick I've seen.
3:10 TO YUMA - 8/10. I actually kind of liked this film, mostly for Russell Crowe and his screen presence. I'm not normally a fan of his, but I think he played a very dangerous villain superbly. Christian Bale was pretty good too...Crowe's right hand man was also good as the crazy outlaw. The story moved along pretty well and I really liked the dimensions of and focus on the characters; Crowe was a Western Hannibal Lector in a way (hate to use that comparison but that's what I was thinking of during the movie), and I liked how it ended. I didn't see the original version, so I don't know how close to that one this movie is, but I liked it.
Completely winning remake of the 80's favorite, with excellent performances by Jaden Smith and Jackie Chan and one of James Horner's best scores in years (not ONE appearance of the Danger Motif! ). Considering what a childhood favorite the original is, I was prepared to grumble all the way through this, but aside from being ridiculously overlong (140 minutes?!), this new version is equally as enjoyable as the first film. Just sweet, charming, and all-around entertaining.
I totally agree with you, Monterey Jack-it was vastly superior to the original and Horner produced one of his best scores in years. I also thought that Chan showed acting talent he had never really had the chance to show before and I wish he had gotten more recognition for that. Plus, I think the direction was miles ahead of John Avildson's original.
Jedbu wrote:I totally agree with you, Monterey Jack-it was vastly superior to the original and Horner produced one of his best scores in years. I also thought that Chan showed acting talent he had never really had the chance to show before and I wish he had gotten more recognition for that. Plus, I think the direction
was miles ahead of John Avildson's original.
Wow, I couldn't disagree more. "Vastly superior"? I found it respectable but mediocre on the whole and Horner's score completely forgettable.
But different strokes for different folks
I just can't wait for Will Smith to pillage more "white-bread" projects for his kids like he's about to do with ANNIE.
BATTLE:LOS ANGELES (0.1/10). Ugh! Nothing new in this film; horrid dialogue, a lot of Terminator meets Independence Day meets Starship Troopers means garbage. It gets 0.1 points because of the (brief) opening mystery about meteor showers that unfortunately was the best thing about this turkey. Avoid this like Mars Needs Moms (which I did not see, BTW). The theater was packed though, and the guy that was sitting next to me was totally into the film and cheering whenever the Marines scored a victory over the invaders. I think maybe this one will at least get close to its budget back.