Page 693 of 1111
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 1:24 am
i bought this at work yesterday for £4. it was certainly worth it. its strange, but a lot better than i expected. essentially i looked at the cast, read the back of the box and thought it would be hilarious but it was actually excellent.
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:44 am
Watched Green Lantern yesterday. Good fun film, well worth the £5 I paid.
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 3:47 pm
clare-l wrote: Darkweasel wrote:
May 4th release date?
Happy fucking Birthday to me then.
end of april here, the yanks have to wait for a change
Whether it's April or May, I'm fairly sure somebody will be getting me a ticket either way.
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:01 pm
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 1:28 pm
It's 1956, black and white, and a married couple have just eaten the brain of Manuel from Fawlty Towers. After being found guilty of many other acts of cannibalism, the couple are sent to a mental asylum to get over their rather unpleasant human habit.
The wife, still completely hatstand, manages to convince the authorities of her sanity and several years later, in the full colour 1970s, the hungry couple are released back into society.
Now it transpires the couple have two daughters, one of whom knows very little of her parents while the other sends her mother suspicious looking presents in suspicious looking brown paper bags, the slippery contents being an attempt to keep her from munching on the neighbours.
After finding out (via some lovely exposition) about the parents, the elder daughter's very bespectacled psychiatrist boyfriend rather foolishly decides to try his hand at a bit of detective work...
It may only be a forgotten slice of English schlock, but I thoroughly enjoyed every second of Frightmare. It's hideously dated of course, and there are more than a few lapses in logic, but ignore those, soak up the '70s atmosphere, and just go with it.
Made by the same people who did House of Whipcord, Frightmare is nastier, but less seedy, and with virtually no nudity. The film also features a better (if occasionally over-enthusiastic) performance from the same mad old leading lady, some well handled suspense scenes, and is surprisingly gory in places.
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 1:33 pm
A friend of mine recommended that film to me a while ago. Never got around to looking it up.. May have to now!
Got Phantom of the Mall: Eric's Revenge and Postal in the mail today, along with Wishmaster 4 and House By The Cemetery from Lovefilm.
Watched Wishmaster 2 last night/this morning.. Not bad, cheesy, gory, plenty of bad logic (at the start someone wishes they'd never been born, and his girlfriend spends the rest of the film mourning him - if he'd never been born, there'd be nobody to mourn, surely?) but if you go into a film about a demon being released from a ruby who grants wishes that turn nasty expecting something good, you're out for disappointment. 7/10, purely for the scene in which a lawyer literally fucks himself.
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:36 pm
Applecore wrote:purely for the scene in which a lawyer literally fucks himself.
Classic moment in an otherwise bobbins film.
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:11 am
I watched Hunky Dory in the cinema today
If I was to say a Welsh film, set in the 70's about school kids doing a musical, most people would likely dismiss it. But thought it was a really good film, with some really nice cinematography and some pretty good songs used, or rather arranged, on the soundtrack. Definitely one I'd watch again.
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:14 am
THE WOMAN IN BLACK
Estate agent Arthur Kipps (Harry Potter) is sent oop nurth to finalise the sale of the beautifully named Eel Marsh House, but on his arrival he is greeted by hostile locals, bad weather, and ghostly shenanigans.
I know it's based on an old story, but the film really does reflect that, falling squarely into "stop me if you've heard this one before" territory, including the compulsory "laying the body to rest" moment. It relies far too heavily on "BOO!" jumps and faces appearing at windows for it's scares and the only spooky atmosphere it creates is when we're out on the marshes. Otherwise, the interior of the house looks less like a foreboding place of evil, and more like Downton Abbey had a house fire.
Maybe I've just seen too many ghost stories, but this one did absolutely nothing new or different to any of the others. There are moments stolen from What Lies Beneath, The Frighteners, The Sixth Sense, and Ghost Story, but none of them come close to being as effective.
Radcliffe goes through the film with two facial expressions, both of which get on your tits after half an hour, and almost nothing of any interest happens in the first half an hour at all. In fact, I don't think I've ever clockwatched through a film so much before, such was the extent of nothing happening. In fact, the most effective "BOO!" jumps were the ones that stopped me from nodding off.
So basically, after all the fuss about how Harry Potter finally shed his Harry Potter chains and become something other than Harry Potter has finally died down, I'm afraid all we're going to be left with is another forgettable ghost story that the bloke who used to be Harry Potter was in.
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:19 am
Watched Phantom of the Mall: Eric's Revenge..
I don't need to go much into the plot, as the title basically says it all. Unsurprisingly, Eric's house got burned down and a mall was built over it.
What struck me, though, is that Eric "died" saving his girlfriend from the fire. So she was there. She saw the guy who burned down the house and his distinctive earring.
So, when the mall is built and hiring, she takes a job there. She was nearly killed and believes her boyfriend was killed for the place to be built, SO SHE TAKES A JOB THERE. What's more, the guy who burned the place down? HE GOT A JOB TOO. And he's still wearing that fucking earring.
Even Ken Foree's role in this film couldn't provide some class, as nobody does a good job acting in any scene. The deaths are at least somewhat original, and this is probably one of the only things that makes the film worth its time.
Only for fans of bad horror films. But even then, proceed with caution - Pauly Shore's in it.
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:02 pm
The Three Musketeers. 2011
I have been a fan of this series of films since I watched the Disney film starring Oliver Platt, Charlie Sheen, Tim Curry, and Kiefer Sutherland, and I feel that there was alot of questions relating to how on earth you top an all star cast like that. Well, the makers of this film decided not to bother, with only Milla Jovovich, Orlando Bloom and Christoph Waltz being the recognisable names in this. Whilst predictably Cardinal Richelieu's part would be played by Hans Landa of Inglorious Basterds fame, his part was completely overshadowed by annoyingly pompous and arrogant Orlando Bloom as the Duke of Buckingham, whom seems to have let down every film he has a major part in for me (granted I have only seen Lotr and Potc) - and I have absolutely no intention to watch anything else with him after the strength of this.
Otherwise the film was much like its predecessor (sometimes even borrowing the odd line or two), D'Artagnan strutting into Paris looking for the Three Musketeers and inadvertently challenges them all to a duel at various hourly intervals in the afternoon only to be mobbed by Richelieu's guards, they all become good mates and suck each other off, get the girl, get the diamonds, kill Captain Rochefort and they all live happily ever after, but I did feel that the whole idea of remaking something was to update it which they achieved using a galleon/balloon hybrid (with an onboard Gatling Gun that the Americans would invent 200 years later) capable of flying Bloom to King Louis XIII's palace and unfortunately not bursting into a ball of flames making the ridiculous film and Legolas' annoying fucking career more bearably shorter. That or improving the Disney or previous Musketeers films (I have watched the Man in the Iron Mask - which is fantastic with a great soundtrack too, and one very old one which I cannot remember which of the list I have on wiki it is), and it did not achieve this.
To summarise, don't waste your money, oh, and there is (spoiler alert) a heavy implication at the back end of the film that there will be a sequel, with what I would imagine will be laced with more Bloom, more Gloom.
...and Jovovich didnt get her tits out. 2/10.
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:16 pm
I didn't waste my money, I bought it because I liked it
I do wish Disney would release their version though on Bluray , I have the flip disc on dvd and it's a pain in the arse
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:39 pm
Fantastic film, brilliantly acted, well paced, I thought it was broken up well between the gun fights and the exciting car chases and the very visceral and realistsic, Ryan Reynolds is a great character actor and I think he is going to get more and more action roles
Denzel once again steals the show though
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 6:08 pm
Well Ryan Reynolds is already quite a busy person. they keep pushing Deadpool back because he has so many films to do.
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 6:09 pm
Orlando Bloom can't act for shit. his "sadness" at Gandalf's death looked more like he was confused and had lost something but it wasn't a big deal.
Andy what plot was there even to act in Safe House? i must've missed it