SONIC THE HEDGEHOG
7/10
Cute family movie derived from the Sega game franchise shows signs of both budgetary thriftiness (after a fantasy land-set open, the movie settles into the familiar confines of rural Vancouver) and heavy post-production cutting (characters come and go especially early on, with narration used to cover the edits). That said, this is a likeable film for kids with Sonic trying to fit into his human surroundings on Earth while taking on a maniacal scientist (Jim Carrey, who's invested if nothing else). James Mardsen is agreeable also as Sonic's human sidekick, a small-town sheriff, while there are enough in the way of VFX and direct shoutouts to the long-running game series to hook parents who may have grew up on it.
rate the last movie you saw
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35761
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9037
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Winning (1969) 6 of 10
-I've been on a racing binge of late, organizing my files of vintage TV and radio broadcasts of classic races, especially the Indy 500 so that got me into the mood to get the new Blu-Ray release of this film. This may set the standard for the most barebones Blu-Ray release of all time without even a menu screen and only a subtitles option that's hard to navigate! But that kind of ties in to how this film was originally set to be just a Universal assembly-line TV-movie about a race car driver but when Paul Newman heard about it, he wanted to do it and it became a bigger budget movie filmed on location at Indianapolis and other racetracks.
The problem is while we got a lot of great looking footage of Indy in the late 60s in its prime, and where we get to see the long-vanished wooden garages of Gasoline Alley (demolished in the mid-80s) and other parts of the track that have changed, the story is still a thin TV-movie type soaper that has little relevance to the world of racing or makes a statement about racing. "Grand Prix" despite its flaws (the awful Eva Marie Saint-Yves Montand subplot) was still a story about racing and the impact of racing on the lives of the characters. "Winning" could be a story set in any other profession, in which Newman has a much too implausible rapid romance with single mom Woodward, then within months the romance is out of their marriage because he's not giving enough time to her and so when she arrives at Indy he catches her in a quickie with fellow race driver Robert Wagner and then walks out on her etc. Newman's motivation to win Indy is totally incidental and unfortunately while we got a lot of authentic race footage in which drivers like Johnny Rutherford participated and while Newman's car is painted to match that of 1968 Indy winner Bobby Unser (who has a cameo) it's not an authentic racing story which makes it pale to "Grand Prix" (though it's a million times better than "Le Mans" which I also got a Blu-Ray upgrade of at last).
Like McQueen and Garner, Newman would step up his involvement in racing and in 1983 became co-owner of the powerful Newman-Haas Indycar team (too powerful IMO along with the Roger Penske team) that would remain a presence for the next twenty years.
-I've been on a racing binge of late, organizing my files of vintage TV and radio broadcasts of classic races, especially the Indy 500 so that got me into the mood to get the new Blu-Ray release of this film. This may set the standard for the most barebones Blu-Ray release of all time without even a menu screen and only a subtitles option that's hard to navigate! But that kind of ties in to how this film was originally set to be just a Universal assembly-line TV-movie about a race car driver but when Paul Newman heard about it, he wanted to do it and it became a bigger budget movie filmed on location at Indianapolis and other racetracks.
The problem is while we got a lot of great looking footage of Indy in the late 60s in its prime, and where we get to see the long-vanished wooden garages of Gasoline Alley (demolished in the mid-80s) and other parts of the track that have changed, the story is still a thin TV-movie type soaper that has little relevance to the world of racing or makes a statement about racing. "Grand Prix" despite its flaws (the awful Eva Marie Saint-Yves Montand subplot) was still a story about racing and the impact of racing on the lives of the characters. "Winning" could be a story set in any other profession, in which Newman has a much too implausible rapid romance with single mom Woodward, then within months the romance is out of their marriage because he's not giving enough time to her and so when she arrives at Indy he catches her in a quickie with fellow race driver Robert Wagner and then walks out on her etc. Newman's motivation to win Indy is totally incidental and unfortunately while we got a lot of authentic race footage in which drivers like Johnny Rutherford participated and while Newman's car is painted to match that of 1968 Indy winner Bobby Unser (who has a cameo) it's not an authentic racing story which makes it pale to "Grand Prix" (though it's a million times better than "Le Mans" which I also got a Blu-Ray upgrade of at last).
Like McQueen and Garner, Newman would step up his involvement in racing and in 1983 became co-owner of the powerful Newman-Haas Indycar team (too powerful IMO along with the Roger Penske team) that would remain a presence for the next twenty years.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7535
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Harriet (9/10)
Powerful, compelling portrait of one of America's greatest heroes, Hariet Tubman, who I'm sorry to say has not gotten the recognition she deserves.
Not a generously-budgetted picture, but this is more than made up for in Kasi Lemmons' riveting script, and her skillful direction, which squeezes an impressive result out the modest $17 million budget. Cynthia Erivo portrays the titular character with inspiring passion and sensitivity, and I appreciated how the film acknowledged Tubman's faith, and the belief that hers was a divine calling (in addition to depicting the prophetic "second sight" which got her out of many scrapes).
Art direction and period evocation are of a high standard, as is John Toll's photography. The only real weak link is Terrence Blanchard's score. I have a lot of respect for Blanchard as a musician, but he's just not a dramatist. The music doesn't ruin the film, the problem is it doesn't do much of anything at all -- except fill the silence, and it fails to provide that "extra something" a great score could have (this is the movie John Williams should have scored instead of Episode 9).
Overall though, this is honestly the best film I've seen in years -- and infinitely superior to the overrated 12 Years A Slave and the convoluted Lincoln. Harriet is in fact so emotionally severe, I am physically tired after watching it.
Seriously, a turd like Parasite won Best Picture -- but Harriet wasn't even nominated in that catagory?
Powerful, compelling portrait of one of America's greatest heroes, Hariet Tubman, who I'm sorry to say has not gotten the recognition she deserves.
Not a generously-budgetted picture, but this is more than made up for in Kasi Lemmons' riveting script, and her skillful direction, which squeezes an impressive result out the modest $17 million budget. Cynthia Erivo portrays the titular character with inspiring passion and sensitivity, and I appreciated how the film acknowledged Tubman's faith, and the belief that hers was a divine calling (in addition to depicting the prophetic "second sight" which got her out of many scrapes).
Art direction and period evocation are of a high standard, as is John Toll's photography. The only real weak link is Terrence Blanchard's score. I have a lot of respect for Blanchard as a musician, but he's just not a dramatist. The music doesn't ruin the film, the problem is it doesn't do much of anything at all -- except fill the silence, and it fails to provide that "extra something" a great score could have (this is the movie John Williams should have scored instead of Episode 9).
Overall though, this is honestly the best film I've seen in years -- and infinitely superior to the overrated 12 Years A Slave and the convoluted Lincoln. Harriet is in fact so emotionally severe, I am physically tired after watching it.
Seriously, a turd like Parasite won Best Picture -- but Harriet wasn't even nominated in that catagory?
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35761
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
FROZEN II
7/10
Sequel to the highest-grossing 'toon feature of all-time quickly became the, well, highest-grossing 'toon feature of all-time. Despite some clunky and disposable songs, “Frozen II” is a visual feast and a commendable effort in that the picture doesn't at all recycle the plot of its predecessor. Here, Arendelle royalty Princesses Elsa and Anna head out into the Enchanted Forest on a journey that continues Elsa's spiritual awakening while answering a call that beckons them into finding out truths about their parents. There, they counter both Arendelle soldiers and native people – plus plenty of magic – as they attempt to save their kingdom and right previous ancestral wrongs.
While a little bit preachy and obvious in its ecological point of view, “Frozen II” looks absolutely, positively breathtaking. This is one jaw-droppingly designed visual experience from start to end, with flowing, detailed, believable water imagery being the film's most impressive attribute. Horses improbably gallop past towering waves, colorful, autumnal scenes punctuate the landscape, and individual shots look like paintings come to life.
It's a vibrant feast for the eyes, and while the story is a little bit downbeat and a couple of the songs could've easily been jettisoned (there's no “Let It Go” in this soundtrack), “Frozen II” nevertheless manages to function on a certain level sure to engage kids while adults will likely marvel at the spectacular images it consistently conjures.
Disney's “Frozen II” 4K UHD presentation is immense – the HVEC encoded transfer (2.39) is utterly spectacular and backed with sensational colors. The Dolby Atmos audio is finely layered with extras including deleted scenes, songs, outtakes, music videos, a Blu-Ray (with 7.1 DTS MA sound) and Digital HD copy rounding out the release.
7/10
Sequel to the highest-grossing 'toon feature of all-time quickly became the, well, highest-grossing 'toon feature of all-time. Despite some clunky and disposable songs, “Frozen II” is a visual feast and a commendable effort in that the picture doesn't at all recycle the plot of its predecessor. Here, Arendelle royalty Princesses Elsa and Anna head out into the Enchanted Forest on a journey that continues Elsa's spiritual awakening while answering a call that beckons them into finding out truths about their parents. There, they counter both Arendelle soldiers and native people – plus plenty of magic – as they attempt to save their kingdom and right previous ancestral wrongs.
While a little bit preachy and obvious in its ecological point of view, “Frozen II” looks absolutely, positively breathtaking. This is one jaw-droppingly designed visual experience from start to end, with flowing, detailed, believable water imagery being the film's most impressive attribute. Horses improbably gallop past towering waves, colorful, autumnal scenes punctuate the landscape, and individual shots look like paintings come to life.
It's a vibrant feast for the eyes, and while the story is a little bit downbeat and a couple of the songs could've easily been jettisoned (there's no “Let It Go” in this soundtrack), “Frozen II” nevertheless manages to function on a certain level sure to engage kids while adults will likely marvel at the spectacular images it consistently conjures.
Disney's “Frozen II” 4K UHD presentation is immense – the HVEC encoded transfer (2.39) is utterly spectacular and backed with sensational colors. The Dolby Atmos audio is finely layered with extras including deleted scenes, songs, outtakes, music videos, a Blu-Ray (with 7.1 DTS MA sound) and Digital HD copy rounding out the release.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7535
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
The Irishman (6.5/10)
Despite some fine performances -- Al Pacino steals the show -- The Irishman (or, as I call it, "Oldfellas") offers nothing new. It is just another gangster picture from Martin Scorsese with Robert DeNiro and Joe Peschi. A running-time nearly as long as Ben-Hur's doesn't help (especially for a "talkie" like this). The film is never really boring, but it isn't especially compelling either. It is just a slow time-passer (whose sometimes-labored pace sadly mirrors DeNiro's flagging energy level).
The use of CGI to "youthen" DeNiro is clever -- but doesn't completely work for me. It smooths-out DeNiro's sagging cheeks, but his lips are still thin (like that of an old man) and he comes off looking more like someone with a bad botox job than a man in his 30s and 40s.
Finally, The Irishman is not at all ground-breaking, and comes-off as Scorsese trying to rekindle the glory days of Goodfellas, with a final result of "been there, done that". Imagine if Spielberg was still making "alien visitor" movies (with Richard Dreyfus) up to this day. That's what The Irishman feels like.
Despite some fine performances -- Al Pacino steals the show -- The Irishman (or, as I call it, "Oldfellas") offers nothing new. It is just another gangster picture from Martin Scorsese with Robert DeNiro and Joe Peschi. A running-time nearly as long as Ben-Hur's doesn't help (especially for a "talkie" like this). The film is never really boring, but it isn't especially compelling either. It is just a slow time-passer (whose sometimes-labored pace sadly mirrors DeNiro's flagging energy level).
The use of CGI to "youthen" DeNiro is clever -- but doesn't completely work for me. It smooths-out DeNiro's sagging cheeks, but his lips are still thin (like that of an old man) and he comes off looking more like someone with a bad botox job than a man in his 30s and 40s.
Finally, The Irishman is not at all ground-breaking, and comes-off as Scorsese trying to rekindle the glory days of Goodfellas, with a final result of "been there, done that". Imagine if Spielberg was still making "alien visitor" movies (with Richard Dreyfus) up to this day. That's what The Irishman feels like.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7535
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
The Hateful Eight (4/10)
I give this film points for good dialog, excellent performances and a few interesting plot twists, but (for me) it doesn't ultimately work. For all the adroitly-written dialogue, the film is excessively talky, revels in distasteful, cartoon-like violence and imprisons the viewer in a claustrophobic single location for 90% of its (three hour!) running time.
The Hateful Eight takes the 12 Angry Men idea of an ensemble cast in a single location, and drops it into the "nihilistic western" genre of the 1970s. On the surface, it resembles a "character study" -- but it has only rudimentary characterization, no character development whatsoever. For all the long monologues and character interactions, there is no subtext, no observations about human nature, nor any real depth. There are moments of genuine suspense, but mostly the film is just endless dialog, occasionally interrupted by moments of sadistic behavior -- and violence towards women -- from totally unsympathetic characters.
I do give kudos to Tarantino for refrigerating the set so the actors are performing in an environment as cold as the story purports it to be, which brings a considerable level of realism to the film. On the other hand, much was made about shooting the film in 70mm -- which is impressive, but why bother? One could have achieved the same result with a 4K Red camera (which is a considerably cheaper -- and logistically easier -- format to shoot in, especially in the freezing cold). Moreoever, 70mm is a format for epics -- Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, Spartacus -- not interior "talkies". It's like shooting My Dinner With Andre in 70mm.
Ennio Morricone's Oscar-winning "original" score amounts to maybe ten minutes of work. Over half the music in this film is actually from Morricone's score from John Carperter's The Thing, with a brief appearance of his main title from Exorcist II: The Heretic.
There's not much else to say, except I found this one of Tarantino's most caustic, twisted (and least-impressive) efforts.
I give this film points for good dialog, excellent performances and a few interesting plot twists, but (for me) it doesn't ultimately work. For all the adroitly-written dialogue, the film is excessively talky, revels in distasteful, cartoon-like violence and imprisons the viewer in a claustrophobic single location for 90% of its (three hour!) running time.
The Hateful Eight takes the 12 Angry Men idea of an ensemble cast in a single location, and drops it into the "nihilistic western" genre of the 1970s. On the surface, it resembles a "character study" -- but it has only rudimentary characterization, no character development whatsoever. For all the long monologues and character interactions, there is no subtext, no observations about human nature, nor any real depth. There are moments of genuine suspense, but mostly the film is just endless dialog, occasionally interrupted by moments of sadistic behavior -- and violence towards women -- from totally unsympathetic characters.
I do give kudos to Tarantino for refrigerating the set so the actors are performing in an environment as cold as the story purports it to be, which brings a considerable level of realism to the film. On the other hand, much was made about shooting the film in 70mm -- which is impressive, but why bother? One could have achieved the same result with a 4K Red camera (which is a considerably cheaper -- and logistically easier -- format to shoot in, especially in the freezing cold). Moreoever, 70mm is a format for epics -- Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, Spartacus -- not interior "talkies". It's like shooting My Dinner With Andre in 70mm.
Ennio Morricone's Oscar-winning "original" score amounts to maybe ten minutes of work. Over half the music in this film is actually from Morricone's score from John Carperter's The Thing, with a brief appearance of his main title from Exorcist II: The Heretic.
There's not much else to say, except I found this one of Tarantino's most caustic, twisted (and least-impressive) efforts.
Last edited by Paul MacLean on Mon Apr 06, 2020 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35761
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
UNCUT GEMS
5/10
Though widely acclaimed, the strident UNCUT GEMS is a near-torturous tale of a New York City jeweler (Adam Sandler) attempting to balance his work, gambling addiction, debts, disintegrating marriage (to Idina Menzel), and mistress (Julia Fox) all in equal order. Josh and Benny Safdie's caustic film relies heavily on the viewer being able to penetrate its assortment of wholly unappealing characters and grating tone – plus an abhorrent score by Daniel Lopatin that's one of the worst I've heard in recent years. Sandler tries hard – and there are appearances by everyone from Mike Francesa to Kevin Garnett, playing himself – yet this is a one-note piece whose failure to be widely embraced on an audience level is all too easy to understand.
BOMBSHELL
5.5/10
While we anxiously await “Under the Desk: The Matt Lauer Story” to never be produced, Hollywood serves up a heap of red meat to those on the left side of the political spectrum with this slickly performed but also mostly vapid expose on the Fox News sexual harassment scandal. Charlize Theron does “become” Megyn Kelly in a superb recreation of the ex-primetime host, with Nicole Kidman as Gretchen Carlson and a heavily-made up John Lithgow as the monstrous, late Roger Ailes. Yet, with “Austin Powers” vet Jay Roach's expertise stemming from comedic fare, the tone ends up being a lot lighter and more frivolous than you'd expect, while the inclusion of a totally fictional Fox staffer (Margot Robbie) ends up detracting from its truthfulness.
5/10
Though widely acclaimed, the strident UNCUT GEMS is a near-torturous tale of a New York City jeweler (Adam Sandler) attempting to balance his work, gambling addiction, debts, disintegrating marriage (to Idina Menzel), and mistress (Julia Fox) all in equal order. Josh and Benny Safdie's caustic film relies heavily on the viewer being able to penetrate its assortment of wholly unappealing characters and grating tone – plus an abhorrent score by Daniel Lopatin that's one of the worst I've heard in recent years. Sandler tries hard – and there are appearances by everyone from Mike Francesa to Kevin Garnett, playing himself – yet this is a one-note piece whose failure to be widely embraced on an audience level is all too easy to understand.
BOMBSHELL
5.5/10
While we anxiously await “Under the Desk: The Matt Lauer Story” to never be produced, Hollywood serves up a heap of red meat to those on the left side of the political spectrum with this slickly performed but also mostly vapid expose on the Fox News sexual harassment scandal. Charlize Theron does “become” Megyn Kelly in a superb recreation of the ex-primetime host, with Nicole Kidman as Gretchen Carlson and a heavily-made up John Lithgow as the monstrous, late Roger Ailes. Yet, with “Austin Powers” vet Jay Roach's expertise stemming from comedic fare, the tone ends up being a lot lighter and more frivolous than you'd expect, while the inclusion of a totally fictional Fox staffer (Margot Robbie) ends up detracting from its truthfulness.
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 10550
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: rate the last movie you saw
-The Invisible Man (2020): 9.5/10
Woooooooooooooooow, this is a brilliantly-crafted suspense thriller, wound up like a rubber band ready to snap at a moment's notice. Writer/director Leigh Whannell continues to hone his craft, and this is easily the best of the three films he's made to date. Elisabeth Moss brings a wounded conviction to the film's terrorized heroine, and while some critics will probably fall all over themselves inserting a #MeToo connection to the material, the film is smart enough not to fall into the trap of chasing a socio-political trend to make a film "relevant" in the short term but unsatisfactory in the long run. This film is scary as hell (there's one visual moment in particular that made me authentically suck in my breath), and Whannell directs with a sinuous creativity -- an eye for ominously empty frames filmed with devilishly precise camera movements -- that recalls the primes of Hitchcock and De Palma. It's also less overtly sleazy than Paul Verhoeven's Hollow Man, and while it lacks that film's razzle-dazzle F/X, what effects the film's modest budget allow are expertly realized. This is honestly one of the best major studio horror films in recent memory, and I say give Blumhouse the reins to any Universal Monster properties they want after this, provided they attract filmmakers as skilled and intelligent as Whannell.
Oh, and Benjamin Wallfisch's score is pretty solid as well. There are the obligatory bursts of low-frequency BZZZTT-BZZZZTT white noise that grate a bit but also some emphatic orchestral scoring that accentuate Moss' fragile emotional state. It's not a great score, but compared to what we usually get for horror films these days, I'll take it.
Also, a mild SPOILER of sorts, but it's authentically weird how closely the film's plot resembles an old episode of Batman: The Animated Series titled "See No Evil". And the imperiled little girl in that episode? She was voiced by...a young Elisabeth Moss.
Woooooooooooooooow, this is a brilliantly-crafted suspense thriller, wound up like a rubber band ready to snap at a moment's notice. Writer/director Leigh Whannell continues to hone his craft, and this is easily the best of the three films he's made to date. Elisabeth Moss brings a wounded conviction to the film's terrorized heroine, and while some critics will probably fall all over themselves inserting a #MeToo connection to the material, the film is smart enough not to fall into the trap of chasing a socio-political trend to make a film "relevant" in the short term but unsatisfactory in the long run. This film is scary as hell (there's one visual moment in particular that made me authentically suck in my breath), and Whannell directs with a sinuous creativity -- an eye for ominously empty frames filmed with devilishly precise camera movements -- that recalls the primes of Hitchcock and De Palma. It's also less overtly sleazy than Paul Verhoeven's Hollow Man, and while it lacks that film's razzle-dazzle F/X, what effects the film's modest budget allow are expertly realized. This is honestly one of the best major studio horror films in recent memory, and I say give Blumhouse the reins to any Universal Monster properties they want after this, provided they attract filmmakers as skilled and intelligent as Whannell.
Oh, and Benjamin Wallfisch's score is pretty solid as well. There are the obligatory bursts of low-frequency BZZZTT-BZZZZTT white noise that grate a bit but also some emphatic orchestral scoring that accentuate Moss' fragile emotional state. It's not a great score, but compared to what we usually get for horror films these days, I'll take it.
Also, a mild SPOILER of sorts, but it's authentically weird how closely the film's plot resembles an old episode of Batman: The Animated Series titled "See No Evil". And the imperiled little girl in that episode? She was voiced by...a young Elisabeth Moss.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35761
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Crazy. Moss has been acting since she was a kid...has extensive credits as a child actress (voice over work, on screen roles, etc.).
Also has been linked to Tom Cruise since they're both scientologists.
I won't hold it against her as an actress though, I was a big fan of her on Mad Men.
Also has been linked to Tom Cruise since they're both scientologists.
I won't hold it against her as an actress though, I was a big fan of her on Mad Men.
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 10550
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Yeah, Moss is a very talented actress, and she deserves a big career boost from this.
Sadly, she'll probably be this year's version of Toni Collette from Hereditary, delivering a wrenching, award-worthy performance in a well-reviewed hit movie the Academy will snub next year due to their notorious disdain for the horror genre.
Sadly, she'll probably be this year's version of Toni Collette from Hereditary, delivering a wrenching, award-worthy performance in a well-reviewed hit movie the Academy will snub next year due to their notorious disdain for the horror genre.
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 10550
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Attending my friend's annual 24-hour Film Fest tomorrow, starting at 6:00 PM sharp. After I awaken from my coma at some point on Sunday, I'll post about it here. 
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 10550
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Woke up a few hours ago from my post-Fest slumber, still a bit high and addled from sleep deprivation, but happy from another 24 hours' worth of insane cinema. Here's what I was witness to from the dozen movies that were shown (cookies for whoever ID's them all)...Monterey Jack wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:18 pm Attending my friend's annual 24-hour Film Fest tomorrow, starting at 6:00 PM sharp. After I awaken from my coma at some point on Sunday, I'll post about it here.
1.) John Carradine doing his best Gandalf imitation in a creepy lab's hidden dungeon.
2.) Tommy Lee Jones, at age 32 but looking 56, playing an NYC cop with a terribly unreliable murder witness.
3.) A freshly-snipped finger being prepared in a skillet with some nice oregano seasoning.
4.) A found-footage movie about a dude who has found his own personal version of the Upside-Down.
5.) A sleepwalker who has a particularly unsavory preference for midnight snacks.
6.) A man of the cloth who transforms into a prehistoric avenger of evil.
7.) Samwise Gamgee -- in a terrible wig -- being devoured by desert creatures.
8.) Women being terrorized by home invaders...but is it live, or is it Memorex...?
9.) C-3PO getting his fingers bitten off by a bloodthirsty motorcycle.
10.) A young man getting killed by a lion and resurrected in a most unusual -- and considerably larger -- host body.
11.) A Finnish heavy-metal group with a band name that's real pain-in-the-ass.
12.) A triptych of drive-in horror spoofs, with extra, neon butter.
Re: rate the last movie you saw
I can only identify two without doing an internet search.Monterey Jack wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 11:28 amWoke up a few hours ago from my post-Fest slumber, still a bit high and addled from sleep deprivation, but happy from another 24 hours' worth of insane cinema. Here's what I was witness to from the dozen movies that were shown (cookies for whoever ID's them all)...Monterey Jack wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:18 pm Attending my friend's annual 24-hour Film Fest tomorrow, starting at 6:00 PM sharp. After I awaken from my coma at some point on Sunday, I'll post about it here.
Velocipastor - saw a Facebook post about this a few months ago6.) A man of the cloth who transforms into a prehistoric avenger of evil.
I Bought a Vampire Motorcycle - My college roommate saw this on a class trip to London and came back with the poster.9.) C-3PO getting his fingers bitten off by a bloodthirsty motorcycle.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35761
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Got the EYES OF LAURA MARS but the rest sound like nonstudio MST3K recent fodder...the one about the priestraptor I remember reading a description about though I had no motivation to watch it. 
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35761
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
HEAVEN'S GATE (149 min. Theatrical Re-Cut)
Michael Cimino's recut, 149 min. version of "Heaven's Gate" was never released on home video in North America and only reappeared in public after MGM HD started broadcasting it a decade ago. Otherwise, its sole high-definition release came via a German Mediabook Blu-Ray which I imported in 2018 (which also houses the current, Criterion-released "director's cut" which runs for an unmanageable 216 minutes).
What's interesting is that, while there's an instant dismissal of this version, few people have ever seen the 149 min. cut, which Cimino himself produced after the initial release version was laughed out of theaters. No, there really isn't less story -- the movie still doesn't have enough! -- and the film isn't compromised by the running time losing an hour.
Instead, the film is more watchable at this length, and one can still admire the beautiful images conjured up by Cimino and Vilmos Zsigmond -- while trying to tune out the ineffective, slight story that never takes off (I also found Sam Waterston's "Snidely Whiplash" villainy, complete with his "evil moustache," totally ineffective). Meanwhile, a host of unnecessary elements are effectively discarded (John Hurt's opening speech at Harvard -- a sequence that still plays with little purpose) and the ending more effectively delivered at the same time.
"Heaven's Gate" certainly isn't a classic -- it seems to have been beloved by European critics for its "anti U.S. government" stance, regardless of how flaccid the character drama is -- but as a technical achievement, this bloated, infamous auteurist vision remains compelling. And as miscast as she is as a Wyoming brothel madam, French actress Isabelle Huppert is quite fetching, clothes on OR off!
Michael Cimino's recut, 149 min. version of "Heaven's Gate" was never released on home video in North America and only reappeared in public after MGM HD started broadcasting it a decade ago. Otherwise, its sole high-definition release came via a German Mediabook Blu-Ray which I imported in 2018 (which also houses the current, Criterion-released "director's cut" which runs for an unmanageable 216 minutes).
What's interesting is that, while there's an instant dismissal of this version, few people have ever seen the 149 min. cut, which Cimino himself produced after the initial release version was laughed out of theaters. No, there really isn't less story -- the movie still doesn't have enough! -- and the film isn't compromised by the running time losing an hour.
Instead, the film is more watchable at this length, and one can still admire the beautiful images conjured up by Cimino and Vilmos Zsigmond -- while trying to tune out the ineffective, slight story that never takes off (I also found Sam Waterston's "Snidely Whiplash" villainy, complete with his "evil moustache," totally ineffective). Meanwhile, a host of unnecessary elements are effectively discarded (John Hurt's opening speech at Harvard -- a sequence that still plays with little purpose) and the ending more effectively delivered at the same time.
"Heaven's Gate" certainly isn't a classic -- it seems to have been beloved by European critics for its "anti U.S. government" stance, regardless of how flaccid the character drama is -- but as a technical achievement, this bloated, infamous auteurist vision remains compelling. And as miscast as she is as a Wyoming brothel madam, French actress Isabelle Huppert is quite fetching, clothes on OR off!