films you've seen recently and would NOT recommend

craner

Beast of Burden
Did anyone else notice that both BBC 1, 24, Sky and ITN news ran reports on the new James Bond film all day yesterday, as if it was proper news. Follow the money trail behind that brilliant, and slightly sinister, feat of advertising
 

Bunj

Active member
Saw Poulet aux Prunes yesterday, the latest Marjane Satrapi graphic novel adaptation.

Far from having any charm like Persepolis the film reads like a 19 year old's vision of what a deep yet quirky film should be like. Stinks horribly of film school amateurism. Felt completely unfinished too as if the editing process was greatly rushed.

Would have probably been a lot better if they had stuck to using the images from the graphic novel instead of a live action film.
Do not waste your pennies on it.
 

gumdrops

Well-known member
i will confess that i like even the crap woody allen films so i liked the new one. its not a return to form, but surely no one thinks a new WA film could ever really be a RTF at this point so i never expected it to be. the cameos of authors/artists etc was fun, but some of the performances were maybe too big for the film. i thought owen wilson is prob one of the best actors WA could pick.

paranormal activity 3 is really shit. i loved the first one, even the 2nd one was still scary, but the new one just seemed to not even try to come up with anything new that wasnt in the last two.

saw the new miranda july film, the future. i dont mind kooky, but her kook is like smug kook, so every time i see her trying to look like shes moping, or dissatisfied, or directionless, it feels like shes still somehow looking smug, which makes it hard for me to like. there are some good moments in the new one, and the theme of wondering what youre doing with your life is kinda timely, but it gets undone somehow by the annoyingness (and the knowing tweeness). and simply, by her being in it. i think her films would be more sympathetic without her in them.
 
Last edited:

IdleRich

IdleRich
Not a huge Woody Allen fan but I enjoyed the latest one. It's obvious light-weight nonsense but it's fun. Very heavy-handed on the awfulness of the fiancee and the same in the way that so many famous characters pop up to say exactly enough to identify them in a few lines and make you feel clever - all the jokes like "That was Djuna Barnes? No wonder she took the lead" and the bit when he describes to Bunuel the plot of his film.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
paranormal activity 3 is really shit. i loved the first one, even the 2nd one was still scary, but the new one just seemed to not even try to come up with anything new that wasnt in the last two.

no way! it's not new by any means (well, there are touches of innovation come to think of it...), but it's hella scary, no?
 

gumdrops

Well-known member
rich - totally right about the heavy handedness of the 'famous' cameos in MIP.

PA3 was scary in places, thats true, but it just seemed like a lot of retreads of stuff in the last one.

on a similar note, i recently saw the exorcist for the first time (i know i know, i dont know how ive never watched it), and enjoyed it hugely (though i see various problems with it), but well, its not that scary really is it?!
 
Last edited:

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
I laughed hysterically all the way through the Exorcist///iconic film for sure, but vastly overrated, I thought. Compare to Texas Chainsaw Massacre (released the year after, perhaps), and it looks almost archaic. TCM was the future of the horror genre, for sure.
 

gumdrops

Well-known member
the main thing i thought was that linda blairs voice would maybe have been scarier if it didnt sound deep/devil/demonic-ish, a lot of what she said was pretty funny/silly more than scary, but that the film didnt really do enough to show the backstory of the girl, so when she got possessed, it was like, well okay, i didnt know much about her before then anyway. also the whole film seemed like it didnt want to be a horror! and it didnt really leave me with enough 'big' questions about possession, religion, or the supernatural either. in the 70s it prob would have (maybe seeing so many clips of it over the years has dulled its impact) and it would prob have been more shocking, but for a 'horror', it isnt quite horrific enough. did like the effects though. they did a good job with those.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Yeah, that spider walk thing is the creepiest bit. I also liked the subliminal flashes of the skull which I think were also in the directors cut only. But in general it's not exactly a horror in the normal sense is it? There are no kind of jump-out bits, it's more about a general sense of unease and the inevitable return to the room where the evil is situated.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Not sure that that affects the whole film that much though or will change your feelings about the whole film.
I think it might be the second appearance that was scarier but you've got this


and this

 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.

IdleRich

IdleRich
When Holbein painted that was the skull supposed to be hidden from the subjects or did they ask him to add it as a memento mori? I just don't see how they could miss it is why I ask although maybe modern eyes trained by many types of optical illusion see it as more obvious than it was then.
 

rubberdingyrapids

Well-known member
i cant make up my mind about hugo. i dont hate it, simply because its about the romance of cinema, but its quite a bloated film, despite the obvious love its been made with (though i dont really expect a scorcese film to be technically shoddy in the first place) and the great clips of old films, and a few moving scenes about finding a purpose in life/dashed hopes and dreams. in fact the best moments are those about cinema (which doesnt surprise me as it seems like scorcese seems most interested in film preservation these days than saying anything new, though i might be wrong on that), which made me wonder why he didnt just make a film purely about melies, because he seems a bit disinterested in the lives or characters of the kids, and a lot of the dialogue is really clunky. the most magical parts are the scenes about melies and what happens when cinema mores change and a formerly succesful directors career comes to an end but it could really do with more 'magic' cos most of it just seemed a bit empty, all huge, imposing spectacle (the 3d is good but i wouldnt miss it if it wasnt there) but nothing underneath it. hopefully it does make a few kids interested in cinema, if so, job done, but the film itself is just plodding, overlong, and without wanting to be cruel, a bit boring on the whole, if hard to dislike. personally, id vote for cinema paradiso (the directors cut) over hugo if you want to see a film about kids and hymns to cinema.
 
Last edited:

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
When Holbein painted that was the skull supposed to be hidden from the subjects or did they ask him to add it as a memento mori? I just don't see how they could miss it is why I ask although maybe modern eyes trained by many types of optical illusion see it as more obvious than it was then.

there's a huge article on the painting here http://markmeynell.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/holbein’s-the-ambassadors-unlocking-hidden-mysteries/ haven't read it all, but maybe answers the q?

Saw Wuthering Heights at the cinema yesterday, finally. Bit non-plussed - in neglecting half (?) of the book, it just became one huge grim-fest with intensely dull (because mad) characters... The DP (will leave unintentional double entendre in) deserves an Oscar though, and Kaya Scodelario is unreasonably attractive.
 
Last edited:

bandshell

Grand High Witch
I watched the Director's Cut of The Exorcist when I was about 15 and, like Baboon, laughed all the way through. The spider walk I just found ridiculous. The subliminal flickering of that face around the house, however, was genuinely chilling.

I'd definitely appreciate it a lot more now but I haven't got round to watching it again. The projectile vomiting, spider walk etc were just silly and spoilt the atmosphere a bit, imo.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
I find the Terminator another film in the 'laughed all the way through' vein. Thought the acting was uniquely awful - best thing to come out of it was the Rufige Cru's use of the sample. T2's OK though.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
i wouldn't possibly defend T2, that's an afterthought. but terminator is just badly acted... predator is a way better film in that vein for my money. most arnie films are better - total recall etc.
 
Top