What have you watched recently: Electric Boogaloo

adamski8

Technocentral wrote: »

"Good Vibrations", was really looking forward to this but was disappointed, it has some good parts but by and large is very average, I think the main problem is its weak directing which was shared between two people, its just isn't that cohesive and you don't really get the sense of Belfast at the time or how important Hooley and Punk were, I also thought the main actor was poor, 2/5.

Yeah saw it tonight and your pretty bang on. Did everyone also come across as a jerk to you too? Situations seemed very simplistic and quite a bit of overacting. The passion didnt come across very well either and i didnt 'get' anything out of it other than the guy is a bit of a hippie!

Went to see All Things to All Men the other night and it ranks as one of the worst things that I have ever seen in the cinema. It feels like a three part BBC drama edited down to feature length and at times feels more like a series of deleted scenes from various films edited together in the hopes of making a coherent film. The script is a mess and repeatedly throws in twists for no reason other than to add a hint of mystery to proceedings. The talented cast are given nothing to do and entire conversations are inaudible given how the cast simply mumbles their lines in a bid to appear "right hard". Even the actions scenes are ineptly handled with little visual flair. The only positive about the film is that yet again London looks gorgeous but much like The Sweeney and Welcome to the Punch, All Things to All Men is a poorly made film better suited to the bargain bin than the cinema screen.

Tindie

The Last Exorcism Part II (2013)

I did not like the first one at all, I thought one of most boring movies I Have seen, Did not once get scared or creeped out at all, I thought it was The Worst Exorcism movie but then we suffered for even worse with Devil Inside 2 years later!

Least this Last Exorcism 1 had some scarce scenes at least and tense moment in (Which Didn't work for me as saw them coming) and there in that movie unlike Devil inside and this sequel to the first movie

Nell is trying to put her life back together and she has blocked out all things that happens to her in the first movie but soon they what her back again.

This was really bland from start to end, there was not one moment that actually felt anything scary was going to happen any where in the movie,

The only good think I can say about this movie is that, last 10 minutes of the movie was so-what watch able and something was finally hap ping in the movie and again it wasn't that scary at all and most of that scene see the trailer .

I didn't mind the movie ended but story didn't really end!

Yet another movie that show 95% of movie in trailer, Just watch the trailer skip this movie

One other good think I can say about this movie is that the acting was really good from the cast but shame about the rest of the bland movie.

3 out of 10

MiloYossarian

Hannibal Rising

Addicted to the new tv show so I needed another fix. It's not as horrific as I thought it was going to be. While it was on I thought, "this is okay." But afterwards I'm not so sure. It's the lead actor's performance that turns one of the greatest villains of all time in to some gurning, 'pyscho face making' weirdo. Everytime he does something. The arguement is there that this is young Lector who has not learned to put on his mask yet, but still.
On top of that the story raises some questions for me. Like, the police knew he killed all those people, and then years later he gets a job from the FBI to help Will Graham.
And what does he do at the end. Are we supposed to think that the police think he is dead or does he just go right back to doctor school.
I might read the book because it's probably explained in there. Hannibal the film was weak, but the book was amazing.

Technocentral

adamski8 wrote: »

Yeah saw it tonight and your pretty bang on. Did everyone also come across as a jerk to you too? Situations seemed very simplistic and quite a bit of overacting. The passion didnt come across very well either and i didnt 'get' anything out of it other than the guy is a bit of a hippie!

Didn't think everyone came across as jerks as such but the really guy its based on is very passionate about music and supporting bands and apart from the last scene this didn't come across, also his sidekick (bloke with the duffle and classes) was one of the most one dimensional characters I ever seen on screen, he was barely more than a cardboard cutout, again I think this is down to poor directing.

Tindie

Sorry, wrong thread

Just after watching Thomas Vintenberg's the Hunt and it's a stunning piece of cinema and Vintenberg's best film in a decade and a half. Vintenberg is one of the directors who made his name working in the Dogma movement of the 90s and like many of his contemporaries he's spent the past decade looking to recapture the edge of his early work.

It remains one of cinemas most interesting paradox that Vintenberg alongside many of his Dogma cohorts have such mainstream sensibilities. Albeit it, they tackle far darker material than say Ron Howard or Spielberg but it's interesting to see just how well they have adapted to working outside the constraints of the Dogma doctrine.

The Hunt is a dark and cynical look at how accusations of child abuse can tear a community apart. Mads Mikkelsen plays Lucas a nursery school teacher who is close to all his students and especially to Klara, the young daughter of his best friend whose home life is not exactly idyllic. During class one day Klara kisses Lucas and when Lucas explains to her that kissing is only for mommy and daddy, he sets in motion a series of events that will rip his life apart. Klara, deeply hurt by Lucas's rejection tells another teacher that Lucas was inappropriate with her. As the accusations are investigated the adults create hysteria by putting words in Klara's mouth. Even when an embarrassed Klara attempts to tell the truth the adults refuse to believe her and try to convince her that she was a victim of abuse.

From the very start it's clear to us that Lucas is innocent and it's fascinating to watch as he tries to plead his case. The film is thematically similar to Vintenberg's The Celebration, it explores just how easily accusations can tear family and friendships apart. By making it clear from the off that Lucas is innocent we are able to examine just how powerful a rumour can be and how quickly civilized people can turn into a mob. What is most interesting about Vintenberg's approach is that he never demonizes any of those involved and instead tries to elicit sympathy by showing how torn many of the characters are by a need to believe Lucas but also loyalty to the children and the parental instinct to protect them.

There are a few slip ups along the way, a few scenes feel flat and the penultimate scene abandons the realism that Vintenberg has crafted upon until then. It has all the trademarks of a Hollywood happy ending, even if it does bring the films thematic elements to the fore.

The Hunt is not an easy film to watch, it deals with one of societies most taboo subjects and is one of the most affecting films released in a long time. It may not be the most pleasant of experience but it is a challenging adult drama that deals with serious issues in a manner that never feels exploitative in the manner of film such as Taken, where child abuse is treated as something to entertain.

Tony EH

A great film, just watched it too recently. The director managed to get a really subtle and kind of creepy performance out of the kid playing Klara. The deadpan Scandinavian touch aids the picture immensely too. Makes it all the more realistic and quite terrible in its depiction of an innocent man accused.

ButtersSuki

Watched The American last night for the first time. I know it got very mixed reviews but I'm glad I went ahead and bought it. It's directed by Anton Cobijn (who most of you will know from Depeche Mode and U2 Music Videos) and you can see his trademark visual style at work throughout. It's so like a music video in places I was half-expecting Dave Gahan to make a cameo appearance at some stage....:rolleyes:

Starring George Clooney as a mentally tortured and extremely paranoid assassin/gun-maker, and a very pretty (and oft. naked) Violante Placido as a hooker who falls for him, it's full of nods and winks to other movies (Sergio Leone/Once upon a Time in The West and The Day of the Jackal amongst others) and is very slow and sparing in its dialogue, it oozes style. Whilst it is a little self-indulgent and pretentious in places, a Tarantino assassin movie this is not. I really liked it.
7.5/10

Mickeroo

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Watched The American last night for the first time. I know it got very mixed reviews but I'm glad I went ahead and bought it. It's directed by Anton Cobijn (who most of you will know from Depeche Mode and U2 Music Videos) and you can see his trademark visual style at work throughout. It's so like a music video in places I was half-expecting Dave Gahan to make a cameo appearance at some stage....:rolleyes:

Starring George Clooney as a mentally tortured and extremely paranoid assassin/gun-maker, and a very pretty (and oft. naked) Violante Placido as a hooker who falls for him, it's full of nods and winks to other movies (Sergio Leone/Once upon a Time in The West and The Day of the Jackal amongst others) and is very slow and sparing in its dialogue, it oozes style. Whilst it is a little self-indulgent and pretentious in places, a Tarantino assassin movie this is not. I really liked it.
7.5/10

It's on rte this wednesday night.

ButtersSuki

Mickeroo wrote: »

It's on rte this wednesday night.

Jaysus that's twice this has happened to me recently! Thankfully in both instances (Winter's Bone & The American) I'd watch them again but I'm just wondering if RTE and BBC are watching my amazon wishlist...... :pac:

Would be worried about watching The American with ads - I'd imagine a lot of people will give up given the pace!

Mike Litoris

Nuts in May

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074988/reference

Hilarious. I copied this from imdb, it sums it up better than my lazy arse could.

Keith is a deeply anal-retentive man on a
camping holiday with his dim, lisping girlfriend, Candace Marie. When a rough
biker couple arrives at the campsite next door, his ordered little world is
destroyed and his sanity nearly goes with it.

The character of Keith is
absolutely brilliant: I've never seen such a deeply flawed, contradictory, human
character so well written and well portrayed on screen. Roger Sloman is utterly
convincing and very funny.

Technocentral

Deleted User wrote: »

Just after watching Thomas Vintenberg's the Hunt.

Michael Bay is directing the inevitable US re make.

DazMarz

The Matrix (1999)

Hard to believe that this masterpiece is 14 years old already. It did not seem that long ago. And it still looks as breathtaking and seamless as it did back then.

This film has the perfect blend of an excellent, original story, memorable characters and spectacular special effects. The stunts and action sequences are particularly memorable, but (thanks to the proliferation of "What If I Told You..." memes that are coming along recently) the characters (particularly Agent Smith, Morpheus and Neo) are equally memorable.

The basic set up of machines enslaving all of humanity is nothing terribly new. But the idea that in order to keep the slaves in line, a virtual reality wool is pulled over their eyes to keep them in a dream-like state where the reality they know is not real is very original. And sublimely done.

There is a lot of philosophy and nods to works as disparate as Alice In Wonderland and old kung-fu movies, but the message works well. It does not go overboard on the whole philosophy and fate stuff.

The storyline whips along at a cracking pace and interspersed are the action sequences, which are spectacular visual set-pieces. The opening chase along the rooftops (at this point the viewer has no idea what is in store; it appears to be a generic police/FBI chasing down a criminal) sets the stage for what will come later (the Kung-Fu dojo, the jump sequence, the walls, the lobby, the subway station... all brilliantly done and executed).

My personal favourite character of the film is, of course, Agent Smith. The leader of the sinister, black-suited, terrifying Agents who patrol the Matrix and make life "difficult" for our heroes. He is the snarling, sneering, mechanical and menacing sentient program designed to seek and destroy. And he does this with aplomb and has some of the film's best lines. Along with his cohorts, Brown and Jones, they are truly terrifying. Every time you see one of them appear on-screen to tackle our heroes, you are genuinely fearful.

A modern sci-fi, cyberpunk, action classic.

Corkfeen

Technocentral wrote: »

Michael Bay is directing the inevitable US re make.

I momentarily thought he actually was and was briefly terrified. This actually relates to the film I watched a couple of nights back.

Funny Games: I watched the original version. There is something strangely funny about the film(in a warped sense). Haneke is fairly overt in his intent of criticising of how certain genres are becoming more and more exploitative and grotesque in nature. He literally used the character and plot to deliver his criticisms. He also constantly undermined conventions of the horror genre and regularly broke the 4th wall. It was fascinating to watch.

Psychedelic

Beyond the Black Rainbow (2010)

A real WTF film if there ever was one. Bizarre, trippy, dark, nightmarish, psychological sci-fi horror.

I don't know what the hell this was about to be honest. Not enough information is revealed and there is not much actual story, so you just have to go with it. I just accepted at an early stage this is one of those films you just sit back and watch for the experience.

The basic setup is that a young woman is being held against her will in some remote experimental facility. There is not much dialogue, and it is very slowly paced for most of the film.

The best things are the cinematography and the atmosphere, created by some lovely visual shots and lighting, and a creepy soundtrack which is a mixture of drone sounds and 80's synths.

If you like your movies weird, and this is really fcuking whacked out, I'd highly recommend at least checking out the trailer and scanning some reviews to see if you'll think it's worth watching.

matTNT

Technocentral wrote: »

Michael Bay is directing the inevitable US re make.

*Sigh*

e_e

Don't you all know that project was canned a few months back? Bay is actually tackling Haneke's Amour.

Corkfeen

e_e wrote: »

Don't you all know that project was canned a few months back? Bay is actually tackling Haneke's Amour.

It'll sort of be like Cocoon except with hyper stylised special effects and lens flare. By the end of the film you'll be more mixed up about what the film was about and wondering why Shia LaBeouf and a supermodel appeared as an 85 year old couple.......

e_e

Don't forget the hideous orange & blue color palette! :P

johnny_ultimate

King of the Travelers - sometimes in the dog eat dog world of film reviewing one must dive into the darkest depths of cinematic excrement. Such an experience can be enlightening, a firm reminder of what differentiates the sludge from the greatness. Sometimes, and I'm talking about King of the Travelers here, it merely feels like your time has been wasted.

Following up from perhaps the worst Irish film ever made (Between the Canals), director Mark O'Connor shows himself no more capable with this laughably bad pile of excrement. The title illustrates the level of subtlety at play here - this is by no means an intelligent, sensible examination of a misunderstood subculture. It doesn't have a script - it just has pages of hilariously clunky exposition, an endless stream of clichés and the lamest melodrama ever. O'Connor has this rather fascinating ability to make his lean 70 minute running times feel bulked up beyond all reason - there's probably as much interesting plot here as your average Vine video. Like Between the Canals, a pointless and overlong credit sequence is invoked to pretend that this is actually a feature film and not a short film that has been edited improperly.

I should save some of this vitriol for my official critical analysis. Suffice to say, avoid this rubbish at all costs. Mark O'Connor has directed an impressively dreadful freshman and sophomore feature. I can only imagine Stalker completes the hat-trick and reinforces his position as Ireland's worst director. No small feat!

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

King of the Travelers - sometimes in the dog eat world of film reviewing one must dive into the darkest depths of cinematic excrement. Such an experience can be enlightening, a firm reminder of what differentiates the sludge from the greatness. Sometimes, and I'm talking about King of the Travelers here, it merely feels like your time has been wasted.

Following up from perhaps the worst Irish film ever made (Between the Canals), director Mark O'Connor shows himself no more capable with this laughably bad pile of excrement. The title illustrates the level of subtlety at play here - this is by no means an intelligent, sensible examination of a misunderstood subculture. It doesn't have a script - it just has pages of hilariously clunky exposition, an endless stream of clichés and the lamest melodrama ever. O'Connor has this rather fascinating ability to make his lean 70 minute running times feel bulked up beyond all reason - there's probably as much interesting plot here as your average Vine video. Like Between the Canals, a pointless and overlong credit sequence is invoked to pretend that this is actually a feature film and not a short film that has been edited improperly.

I should save some of this vitriol for my official critical analysis. Suffice to say, avoid this rubbish at all costs. Mark O'Connor has directed an impressively dreadful freshman and sophomore feature. I can only imagine Stalker completes the hat-trick and reinforces his position as Ireland's worst director. No small feat!

I have a review copy of it here and there's not a chance I'm sticking it in anytime soon given how poor Between the Canals. Hard to believe that last year saw the two worst Irish films ever made released not far apart and that the directors repeatedly defended one another claiming that each others work was amongst the all time greats and would be fondly looked upon as classics in years to come.

johnny_ultimate

Deleted User wrote: »

I have a review copy of it here and there's not a chance I'm sticking it in anytime soon given how poor Between the Canals. Hard to believe that last year saw the two worst Irish films ever made released not far apart and that the directors repeatedly defended one another claiming that each others work was amongst the all time greats and would be fondly looked upon as classics in years to come.

I remember hearing that Liveline episode where O'Connor came on to defend McMahon, saying how he had been inspired by Charlie Casanova to make Stalker. How I chuckled!

I can only imagine how dreadful it is. At least Terry McMahon, appalling though CC is, has a bit of rebellious spirit in him. Mark O'Connor's films have the artistic ambition of a lackluster episode of Hollyoaks.

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I remember hearing that Liveline episode where O'Connor came on to defend McMahon, saying how he had been inspired by Charlie Casanova to make Stalker. How I chuckled!

I can only imagine how dreadful it is. At least Terry McMahon, appalling though CC is, has a bit of rebellious spirit in him. Mark O'Connor's films have the artistic ambition of a lackluster episode of Hollyoaks.

My biggest problem with both O'Connor and McMahon, bar the fact that neither can write or direct worth a damn, is that they are the two most egotistical people I have ever met. McMahon is a bully who takes any criticism of his work as a personal attack and believes that all the critics have some personal agenda against him. O'Connor isn't much better and the manner in which they come out to defend one another is sickening.

It is true that Charlie Casanova is an inspiring film as anyone who sat through m ore than a minute of it must have thought to themselves, "christ give me 10 euro and I could do better than this". Hopefully anyone inspired by CC to make a film will do better than O'Connor's abysmal efforts.

I had the misfortune of reading some of McMahon's follow up film and to put it mildly I'd sooner wash my eyes in bleach that read the whole thing.

johnny_ultimate

I've only encountered McMahon, but he is certainly the most libellous individual I've ever met. I do try to divorce the creator from the creation to some degree, but there's an awful lot of McMahon in Charlie Casanova. It's actually almost a work of uncomfortable self-loathing at times.

King of the Travellers is worth watching just to see how it is possible to write 'characters' that feel more like barely functional dialogue than actual credible individuals. Been a while since I've managed to witness something that fascinatingly appalling.

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I've only encountered McMahon, but he is certainly the most libellous individual I've ever met. I do try to divorce the creator from the creation to some degree, but there's an awful lot of McMahon in Charlie Casanova. It's actually almost a work of uncomfortable self-loathing at times.

King of the Travellers is worth watching just to see how it is possible to write 'characters' that feel more like barely functional dialogue than actual credible individuals. Been a while since I've managed to witness something that fascinatingly appalling.

I live by the rule that one should judge the art, not the artist but when it comes to McMahon it's almost impossible to separate him from his most infamous creation. I genuinely believe that he sees himself as Charlie and in his own mind he believes that he is the voice of his generation. Having such ego is not necessarily a bad thing when it comes to art, just look at James Cameron but sadly McMahon doesn't have a lick of talent to go along with his own belief in himself.

A lot of people have applauded McMahon for making his film and I tip my hat to anyone who makes their film and gets it out there but when you compare Charlie Casanova to other low budget films such as Shifty, Ill Manors, Kill List, Another Earth, Primer, Bronson, Monsters, etc it's clear that McMahon hasn't got a thousandth of the talent that any of those film makers posses and the more he tries to proclaim himself some cinematic genius the more laughable he and his film look.

e_e

I like how they disabled comments and ratings on the trailer for King of the Travelers.

3.2 on IMDB also, yeah I won't be rushing out to see it. Think I'll see Pilgrim Hill instead, actually.

Kingdom of Heaven directors cut.

So much better than that swill that was tossed at us in the cinema, but why oh why was Orlando Bloom cast? He just ballsed it up.

I loved the recreation of France and Jerusalem the attention to detail was great. The added scenes really added a lot more to the characters and made the ending make more sense.

If you want to see this film then go the whole hog and watch the directors cut, its worth it.

Duggy747

HeadHunters

Put this off for far too long and really enjoyed it. I might have laughed a bit too hard at the scene where

he bursts out of the shed in the tractor with the dead dog impaled at the front.

:pac:

McGrath5

Duggy747 wrote: »

HeadHunters

I might have laughed a bit too hard at the scene where

he bursts out of the shed in the tractor with the dead dog impaled at the front.

:pac:

I too found that part quite amusing.