Re: movies
Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:09 pm
andeh wrote:Saw The Watchmen yesterday, thought it was absolutely fucking brilliant.
agreed! Rorschach ftw
agreed! Rorschach ftw
Bloodstock Community
Bloodstock Metal Community Forum
https://community.bloodstock.uk.com/
movies
https://community.bloodstock.uk.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=6183
Page 80 of 1111
agreed! Rorschach ftw
Re: movies
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:21 pm
orgone wrote:Inside [unrated]
Don't watch with pregnant wife/girlfriend.
french flick with subtitles. definately worth a watch, not for faint of heart
Seen this 2 weeks ago. Took me several attempts over a few days to finish watching it, it was that sick. But I've finally found a film that can make me feel that way so well done to it
Just finished watching The Elephant Man. Was pretty good and made me wana find out more about his life. Poor man.
Re: movies
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:42 pm
i been watching Loads o fold X-Men cartoons (I know it's not a film but it;s still bloody fun )
)Re: movies
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:05 am
.
Re: movies
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:18 am
Dan Jenkins wrote:SirGinger85 wrote:i been watching Loads o fold X-Men cartoons (I know it's not a film but it;s still bloody fun
I really like the early 90s X-Men animated series, not half bad. The Spider Man from around the same time and the Batman with the Danny Elfman score and Mark Hammil voicing the Joker were also very enjoyable.
I'm a big fan of the Justice League cartoon, myself.
Re: movies
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:16 pm
Littlemissmetal wrote:Darkweasel wrote:TAKEN
Take the Mel Gibson film, Ransom, give it a massive kick up the backside turning it into the film it should have been, and you have Taken. Liam Neeson kicks more arse than a Jedi and has you urging him on to kill the bad guys like Kevin Costner at the end of The Untouchables.
Not exactly original but bloody marvellous nonetheless. 9/10.
quote]
Finally, somebody else who liked Taken!
Everybody I know hated it for some reason
everybody I know Loved it.
it's an Amazing film
my personal score be 10/10
@DanJenkins & bigD : the Spiderman cartoon was good and the batman aswell i didn't realise (i've not watched it since i was small) that mark hammil voiced the joker in that
however Justice league i haven't seen yet - i've seen a bit here an there but never actually a full epsiode yet
my friend keeps trying to get me to do it but i've got so many others on the list of 'up next' that i've still not got round to it... I will soon enough though
then can have a good ole' banter about it
Re: movies
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:20 pm
Just watched Underworld 3 - not bad, though Bill Nighy and Michael Sheen make the film for me.
Re: movies
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:34 am
My copy of Underworld 2 is still in Germany. Im hoping Lisa brings it over so I can watch the film in German with her for lolocaust.
Re: movies
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:12 pm
REVOLUTIONARY ROAD
Feeling low, depressed or plain suidical? Then steer away from this one then. Winslet and DiCaprio realise that true love leads to nothing much other than a dead end job, paying the bills and staying at home raising the kids. They fight, they bicker, they get on with things, they fight again, they bicker again and it all ends up in a big black sea of hopelessness and depression.
Great performances and a top film.
But not a comedy.
8/10
Feeling low, depressed or plain suidical? Then steer away from this one then. Winslet and DiCaprio realise that true love leads to nothing much other than a dead end job, paying the bills and staying at home raising the kids. They fight, they bicker, they get on with things, they fight again, they bicker again and it all ends up in a big black sea of hopelessness and depression.
Great performances and a top film.
But not a comedy.
8/10
Re: movies
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:02 pm
LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT
(2009 Remake)
Warning: This film is about brutal rape.
Not so much of the female lead but mainly of Wes Craven's original film.
Well produced, packaged and acted rape, but rape nonetheless.
Where to begin?
KRUG: In the original he is an ugly, hulking mass of barely masked rage, bitterness and insanity. In this version he's good looking, far too lightweight, not physically imposing and spends most of the time using the patented Anthony Hopkins "If you don't blink you look scary" approach. It works some of the time but other times it just looks like he's forgotten his lines.
SADIE: In Craven's film she is a deranged madwoman full of uncontrolled explosive violence. Krug is the only person who can keep her in line. Just. She loves to degrade and humiliate her victims as much as, if not more so, than her man does.
However, in the remake she's basically just a lethargic crack whore who gets a bit angry once or twice.
WEASEL: Now just called Frank, he's got none of the false charm and latent violence of the original character, he basically looks like a creep you wouldn't let into your house in the first place.
JUNIOR: Now renamed Justin, he's the only "bad guy" in the film who bears any resemblance to his original counterpart. Yet they still manage to f**k that up with a typically modern outcome for his character.
The two girls are pretty much like in the original, although Mari is given a super swimming talent as an obvious plot contrivance.
As sympathetic as you are to the parents' situation, they turn into cold blooded homicidal killers far too easily to have any actual resonance. Yes, they would want to hurt the people who raped and nearly killed their daughter. Of course they would. But there's a fine line between a sudden and spontaneous violent lashing out and cold-blooded, calculated and merciless revenge.
As for the film itself, even though it borders on "torture porn" during a couple of scenes, it's still nowhere near as shocking as the original was 37 years ago. Not even close. The mental and physical torture the girls endure in the original ("Piss. Your. Pants") takes much longer and is far worse than in this version. Sure, the rape scene is pretty damn brutal but there was far more to the original than just rape. They also completely bottle out of the best, and still most talked about, death scene featured in Craven's version.
And as for the ending? I honestly don't know what they were thinking. For a film that tried to be so dark in tone, the climax is utterly (and I would assume completely unintentionally) hilarious. Simply the worst ending to a film I've seen in quite some time.
5/10
(2009 Remake)
Warning: This film is about brutal rape.
Not so much of the female lead but mainly of Wes Craven's original film.
Well produced, packaged and acted rape, but rape nonetheless.
Where to begin?
KRUG: In the original he is an ugly, hulking mass of barely masked rage, bitterness and insanity. In this version he's good looking, far too lightweight, not physically imposing and spends most of the time using the patented Anthony Hopkins "If you don't blink you look scary" approach. It works some of the time but other times it just looks like he's forgotten his lines.
SADIE: In Craven's film she is a deranged madwoman full of uncontrolled explosive violence. Krug is the only person who can keep her in line. Just. She loves to degrade and humiliate her victims as much as, if not more so, than her man does.
However, in the remake she's basically just a lethargic crack whore who gets a bit angry once or twice.
WEASEL: Now just called Frank, he's got none of the false charm and latent violence of the original character, he basically looks like a creep you wouldn't let into your house in the first place.
JUNIOR: Now renamed Justin, he's the only "bad guy" in the film who bears any resemblance to his original counterpart. Yet they still manage to f**k that up with a typically modern outcome for his character.
The two girls are pretty much like in the original, although Mari is given a super swimming talent as an obvious plot contrivance.
As sympathetic as you are to the parents' situation, they turn into cold blooded homicidal killers far too easily to have any actual resonance. Yes, they would want to hurt the people who raped and nearly killed their daughter. Of course they would. But there's a fine line between a sudden and spontaneous violent lashing out and cold-blooded, calculated and merciless revenge.
As for the film itself, even though it borders on "torture porn" during a couple of scenes, it's still nowhere near as shocking as the original was 37 years ago. Not even close. The mental and physical torture the girls endure in the original ("Piss. Your. Pants") takes much longer and is far worse than in this version. Sure, the rape scene is pretty damn brutal but there was far more to the original than just rape. They also completely bottle out of the best, and still most talked about, death scene featured in Craven's version.
And as for the ending? I honestly don't know what they were thinking. For a film that tried to be so dark in tone, the climax is utterly (and I would assume completely unintentionally) hilarious. Simply the worst ending to a film I've seen in quite some time.
5/10
Re: movies
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:23 pm
.
Re: movies
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:51 pm
Watched "FEED" last night.
Enjoyed the film. but... not one to watch after eating.
Its described om the cover as a cross between "super size me" and "Silence of the lambs"
Enjoyed the film. but... not one to watch after eating.
Its described om the cover as a cross between "super size me" and "Silence of the lambs"
Re: movies
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:18 pm
I watched Rec which is a Spanish horror movie: those who have never seen it. Quite an interesting concept, however unoriginal and I didnt really object to watching it with the English subtitles (ive found that everyone speaks to quickly to read in films with subtitling), but it was very well subbed.
Anyway the bulk of the film. Its described as "28 days later" meets "Blair Witch" and I think it was genuinely scarier than both...put together, though not to quote Ronseal too much, but it was exactly what it says on the tin: 28 days later filmed on an amateur camera, but in Spanish.
Its about a girl and a camera man who are doing a video documentary on the fire department and what they get up to, which like it is in the UK, is completely fuck all when they're not freeing people from burning houses, and rescuing cats from fucking trees. Anyway, ill try and keep the fucks to a minimum, they get called to some building (I thought it was a hotel then a residential building, but it was one of those settings that you cant really identify). The dullest start to any of the films ive watched recently, but boring becomes quite funny (from my point of view). A really fucked up old lady attacking a police officer gets some slight unintentional laughter...but reminiscent of 28 days later, a virus gets spread around the residential building by being bitten by one of the infected, and they turn into really menacing aggressive buggers.
Summary. A few shocks here and there, awe in violence, alot of atmosphere rich in films like the Blair Witch, but essentially it boils down to exactly what the slogun on the DVD cover suggests... 28 days later filmed on an amateur camera.
6/10.
Anyway the bulk of the film. Its described as "28 days later" meets "Blair Witch" and I think it was genuinely scarier than both...put together, though not to quote Ronseal too much, but it was exactly what it says on the tin: 28 days later filmed on an amateur camera, but in Spanish.
Its about a girl and a camera man who are doing a video documentary on the fire department and what they get up to, which like it is in the UK, is completely fuck all when they're not freeing people from burning houses, and rescuing cats from fucking trees. Anyway, ill try and keep the fucks to a minimum, they get called to some building (I thought it was a hotel then a residential building, but it was one of those settings that you cant really identify). The dullest start to any of the films ive watched recently, but boring becomes quite funny (from my point of view). A really fucked up old lady attacking a police officer gets some slight unintentional laughter...but reminiscent of 28 days later, a virus gets spread around the residential building by being bitten by one of the infected, and they turn into really menacing aggressive buggers.
Summary. A few shocks here and there, awe in violence, alot of atmosphere rich in films like the Blair Witch, but essentially it boils down to exactly what the slogun on the DVD cover suggests... 28 days later filmed on an amateur camera.
6/10.
Re: movies
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:00 pm
logandog1 wrote:Watched "FEED" last night.
Enjoyed the film. but... not one to watch after eating.
Its described om the cover as a cross between "super size me" and "Silence of the lambs"
Oh yeah, is that the one about "feeders" and the front cover has a guy with tattoos boning an immobile, grotesquely obese woman? Part of me wants to watch it purely because it looks sicker than Cannibal Holocaust.
Re: movies
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:08 pm
Luscaslayer wrote:logandog1 wrote:Watched "FEED" last night.
Enjoyed the film. but... not one to watch after eating.
Its described om the cover as a cross between "super size me" and "Silence of the lambs"
Oh yeah, is that the one about "feeders" and the front cover has a guy with tattoos boning an immobile, grotesquely obese woman? Part of me wants to watch it purely because it looks sicker than Cannibal Holocaust.
Watch it. After the first 5 mins you may never eat fried food again.