What have you watched recently? 3D!

Jump_In_Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118023892#Comment_118023892

Yes, I tried watching this during the week, and fast forwarded it to the last scene, as it just got boring half way through.

The idea was good, but by the half-way mark just didn't see where the story could go.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118024001#Comment_118024001

The idea needed a bunch of rewrites and a better leading man. It was the kind of movie best suited as trashy B Movie, not a big blockbuster with uhhhh, Mark Wahlberg.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118023201#Comment_118023201

That Blank Check series will become ... interesting listening once it hits Ghost of Mars and later. Rare in their series a director shows as big a swing downwards in quality as Carpenter.

Oh and yeah I could buy the shout for Prince of Darkness as the director's best. It's a lot scrappier than his others, and the closest to a shaggy dog tale, the story kinda all over the place - but it just adds to the tension and mystery. I'd also throw out a vote for In The Mouth of Madness; a rare film that came close to grasping the unknowable concepts of cosmic horror.

pixelburp

I'm Thinking of Ending Things (2020)

There was a metaphor in here somewhere, but this film sure made me feel too stupid to find it.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118023172#Comment_118023172

Yeah, it's odd. Although I would consider him to be one of my favourite directors, I'm struggling to think of one of his films that turned a really significant profit at the BO after 'Escape From New York'. There are films of his that made back their money and some that did decent, money wise. But nothing that did the business that 'Halloween' did. The again, few films make that sort of profit margin. I'm not sure if the modern "break even" point applies for movies back then, but if it did then Carpenter is box office poison on too many occasions and some of his films were incredible flops, like 'Starman', 'Memoirs of the Invisible Man', 'Village of the Damned' and 'Escape from L.A.'. So while I can understand him saying "fuck it", I can see why studios would be loath to hand him money too.

Funny though, I had a quick scan of budgets assigned to his films and was surprised to see that 'Starman' had a budget of $24 million! WTF? 😲

As for 'The Thing', I still find it astonishing that that film failed as badly as it did. There's just no universe that I can imagine, other than the one I'm currently living in, where that film isn't a hit. Truly amazing, especially considering how well regarded it is today. I think that had a big affect on him with regards to his attitude to his own career and the unpredictability of making movies in general. Before that film came out, I don't think anyone could have told you with a straight face that it would end with the BO and critical result that it did.

It must be galling for Carpenter, in a way, to see something like the 2018 'Halloween' make relatively silly money, while most of his movies wouldn't even approach that.

silliussoddius

Regarding the idea of the Halloween franchise being an anthology, do you think that The Fog would have been a suitable entry?

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118023201#Comment_118023201

I've always loved 'Prince of Darkness'. It would at the near the top of my Carpenter list. It's such a bizarre idea that the Catholic Church would be responsible for keeping the source of all evil (or is it the devil himself?) under wraps in the basement of a chapel in L.A. And those VHS dream sequences are as creepy as fuck for some odd reason.

There's a church on Thomas Street called St. Audoen's that I call the Prince of Darkness church. 😆

johnny_ultimate

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118024274#Comment_118024274

Well given they’ve recently done John Singleton and Robert Zemeckis, they’re no strangers to… uneven filmographies 😅

budgemook

Let's leave it there at Halloween 6 Tony EH 😉

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118025538#Comment_118025538

Too late Budge. Cos I watched 'Halloween H20' and 'Halloween Resurrection' last night, and oh boy, talk about trying to climb back up a mountain and falling off half way.

Copshop 2021 - having found the Gerard Butler era of Liam Neeson movies very enjoyable over recent years, this one was just garbage. Joel Carnahan and Gerard must of been just needing to do some work during the pandemic to pay the bills. Switched it off half way through.

The Last Bus 2021 - what a gem of a film this is. An old man, literally on his last legs, embarks on a journey after the death his wife from the northern tip of scotland to the southern tip of england, using his bus pass. It is just fantastic from start to finish.

Fysh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118025606#Comment_118025606

I mean, if you didn't like those I've got some bad news about how you're going to get on with the Rob Zombie films 😉

I vaguely recall liking the first half of the first film purely for not just being a retread of Carpenter's original, but then the second half was pretty much a clone of it. The second film was a bit pish, although I do remember an interesting fanedit - The Myers Family, maybe? - which took elements of both and made a better story out of the parts than either of the original films...

Fysh

I rewatched Fury Road tonight. Whenever I watch it there's a slight twinge of fear that I might not enjoy it as much this time around, but so far every single time it has been an absolute blast from start to finish.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118025538#Comment_118025538

That's funny, I saw a similar thing last night.

Tony EH

'Halloween H20'

It's 20 years after Michael Myers embarked on his killing spree in Haddonfield, Illinois, and the original "final girl" Laurie Strode is living a new life under the assumed name of Keri Tate, a head mistress of a middle class Californian high school. Tate has effectively killed off Strode in a fake car accident and has spent the last two decades scarred by her run in with Michael in 1978 and has turned to the demon drink to self medicate against the still lingering trauma. However, her brother never went away and for some reason has chosen now to go looking for little sister again and will hack through anyone who gets in his way.

The hipster Hollywood exec titled 'Halloween H20' jettisons 17 years of Halloween sequels and takes up 20 years after 'Halloween II'. Michael, though thoroughly incinerated at the end of that movie, is back for more of what he does best although why now is never really explained nor is what he was doing between 1978 and 1998. It's not strictly needed, of course, but you simply cannot help wondering at the same time. It's funny to think of him sitting around in his stinking mask and overalls doing nothing and living on a diet of neighbourhood dogs. But, seriously, even Norman Bates had hobby. Also, how he's even alive is not elaborated on either. It's just hand waved with the line "They never found a body"...LOL, whatever. I had to do a lot to suppress my inner Annie Wilkes when that line was uttered.

His nemesis, Laurie Strode, in the meantime has got herself an education and has carved out a decent career, albeit with a diet of booze and an overbearing attitude towards her son, John (Josh Hartnett), who's father, we assume, has left the picture permanently. However, Laurie is in a relationship with the school counsellor (of course), which comes across as uneasy and unconvincing. But perhaps it's supposed to be. All of this is enough for Jamie Lee Curtis to get her teeth into as she reprises the role that made her famous and she's probably the best thing about the movie. You could actually picture Laurie Strode growing up to be a teacher and ending up as a single mother as the result of a single, disastrous, relationship. So things make relative sense on that front.

But, unfortunately, 'Halloween H20' is never more than a pretty safe 90's horror movie and it suffers from that terribly. It's by no means awful and, in fact, it has many fans who consider it the final act of a trilogy (I, II and H20). But the 90's was a truly rubbish time for horror fans and most Hollywood horrors of the period were incredibly tame affairs that were either neutered by the MPAA or by the film makers themselves who feared what the MPAA were going to do to their movie. To its credit, though, it never went down that excruciating meta route, like 'Scream' or opted to drench its story in insipid comedy. But it's all just so ordinary and lumbered with a subplot involving the incredibly uninteresting John, his girlfriend Molly (Michelle Williams) and his friends Charlie (Adam Hann-Byrd) and Sarah (Jodi Lyn O'Keefe) as they bunk off of a school trip to Yosemite to stay behind and party in the near empty Hillcrest Academy. The thing is, we just don't give a damn about these kids as they are either bland or irritating and we spend most of their scenes waiting around for Michael or Laurie to do something.

And when it does shift to either of them, 'Halloween H20' is...well...ok. But it isn't ever anything more than that. It's very average and tepid, and it won't do anything much for your excitement levels. It does, however, have a pretty good and relatively pleasing ending which really should have been the last word on this series of exceptionally varied movies.

4.5/10

*As an aside the school secretary, Norma, is played by Jamie Lee Curtis' real life mother Janet Leigh. They have a scene together where Norma is telling Laurie to have a good Halloween and in a funny nod to 'Psycho', Norma (Norman Bates, get it?) says her lines standing in front of the same type of car that her character Marion Crane drove in that film. It's probably the most entertaining moment in the entire film.

'Halloween Resurrection'

The title of, technically, Halloween 8 should give you an indication that yet again old Mikey Myers has shook off the simple problem of being dead to get out his trusty knife and start sticking it into people once more. Amazingly this 2002 movie managed to get Jamie Lee Curtis back on board, either by contract or a huge wad of cash, because she returns as Laurie Strode, this time residing in the nut house do to the events of 'Halloween H20'. After a ludicrous explanation of the finale of the last movie, which I won't spoil, things settle down into the usual hack and slash action as this time Michael Myers tears his way through the unbelievably boring yet incredibly annoying contestants of a reality show called 'Dangertainment', where they have to spend the night at the old Myers house in Haddonfield...and yes, it's as bad as it sounds. Not only that, the reality show was created by Busta Rhymes! And although he's called Freddie Harris here, you can never get his rappa name out of your head once it's in there. Assisting him to direct these nobody contestants is Nora Watson (Tyra Banks) another non-entity that cannot generate an ounce of interest.

'Halloween Resurrection' joins 4, 5 and 6 as, easily, the worst that the series has to offer and is just a painful slog to get through. The reality show angle is dead in the water, even for 2002, and by this stage it's hard to imagine that anyone even cares any more. Plus, the characters are utter dreck, even for a redundant slasher sequel.

There's really nothing here to sing the praises of and even Jamie Lee Curtis is on record as saying that the movie sucked.

I agree with her completely.

1/10

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118026188#Comment_118026188

I've seen both Rob Zombie movies. I thought the first was just ok. But the second?...oh my god. But really, the only Rob Zombie film worth watching is 'The Devil's Rejects'.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118026519#Comment_118026519

It is funny.

You know, I've never seen a film series reject so much of its past and then embrace it again later on, only to reject other parts. There's really only three paths worth taking though. I and II. Or if you want to go a little further, I, II and H20. Or, alternatively, I and 2018 (and possibly Kills, if it's any good).

Really, if I were to recommend any of these films it would be to watch I and then maybe II. But maybe it's best to just leave it at I.

adrian522

The Velvet Underground

Loved this, it's so unusual not your standard music documentary. Very well put together. I'm a big fan of I'm not There, so I was expecting greatness and it maybe fell a bit short of that but the music is fantastic and the band always seem that little out of reach. Could have done with a bit more detail on the music and the relationships and the breakups etc, I'm not sure I learned a whole lot but I'll probably watch it again.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118024682#Comment_118024682

I was listening to the aforementioned Blank Check podcast, The Thing episode specifically. They quoted the press and this film was properly reviled. Like, there seemed to be a full on hatefest against it for whatever reason. The gore remains jarring to this day so maybe it's that, combined with its unrelenting dark tone.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118027339#Comment_118027339

Oh I've no doubt that the gory effects had a definite...um...effect on reviewers at the time, especially those of an older generation. There was much hoo ha about the likes of horror movies becoming blood soaked repulsive affairs and in the wake of the likes of 'Dawn of the Dead', 'Alien', 'The Howling' and 'An American Werewolf in London' etc, the focus on such things just seemed to be primed when 'The Thing' came out in 1982. I suppose special effects had just reached the point where they had grown up, as it were, and the wires were becoming less and less easy to spot. That made some people very uneasy.

But it's still is bizarre just how hated 'The Thing' was at the time. Reviewers weren't only offended by it's special effects (still spectacular to this day), but they also rejected the story, acting and direction too (someone said that Carpenter was only able to direct traffic accidents!). I also think a lot of the old school were just offended that he dared to remake (it's not really a remake) the 1951 classic, which some people still think is superior to Carpenter's version. That I find truly laughable.

But later, on video, it went through the roof. Where the hell were all those people when it came out in the cinema? I spose there's a case to be made that movie reviewers had a far more significant impact on potential audiences at that time and their opinions could very much mould a lot of BO returns for many movies, but still.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118027645#Comment_118027645

I think in that period of time when being a journalist reviewing movies was an important job where people made a big name for themselves, a lot of these people had their persona and their schtick they had to maintain, and they were watching things through their personal paradigm. Like the food critics of those times who would be renowned as impossible to satisfy and totally ruthless. There are countless films that were destroyed by the press that turned out to be huge successes afterwards. Olive Stone talks about a few of these people in the his book, there was one British writer who just eviscerated his movies - Midnight Express, Salvador, Platoon, destroying them like a vicious dog ripping apart a teddy bear from the excerpts I read. Anyone with any real objective view on film could simply not watch all three of those films and not find something of value.

Its also quite interesting when watching these films to try and transport yourself back to the social norms of the time it was released. Deliverance, The Exorcist. Its a pity in many ways there is just about nothing left to shock in the world of film other then finding more brutal and violent ways to kill people that might give you 10 seconds of horror. The lack of violence in Halloween, yet how scary it was at first watch just shows how masterful and groundbreaking Carpenter was as a director

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118027751#Comment_118027751

Without a doubt being a published film critic in a paper or a magazine had a lot of cache and it had been that way for many years, especially in America. Pauline Kael's review and trumpeting of 'Bonnie and Clyde' actually made that film, which otherwise would have just had a middling performance. And people really did base what they were going to see entirely on their favourite reviewers opinions. Of course people still do today, but I think reviewers just aren't held up a the arbiters of taste that they once were. Also, with the internet out there the audience word of mouth is now so widespread, for better or worse, that that's often what makes or breaks a film nowadays.

It's funny, though, to read some of those old reviews of well loved movies by the famous critics of the day. Some of them are so contrary to modern contemporary opinion as to be just mind boggling.

Re: Stone, I think there's a number of critics just have the knives out for him due to political clashes. He's always had a negative response from certain quarters who consider him "anti-American".

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118027984#Comment_118027984

Stone has indeed suffered from that tag, and it has hurt his feelings a lot, you can tell from his book and his interviews. Its so ironic that he is one of the few american filmmakers that tried to tell the truth as much as he could (of course still being a dramatist), and is probably the most pariah’d successful director of recent times in America. A mix if being disliked, respected, loved, dismissed. I think it has tormented him.

Being someone who seeks the truth in America is not a good hobby.

On the critics side of things maybe the reason Roger Ebert was so respected and still is a name that gets mentioned was because you got the impression he didnt have any agenda when reviewing a film. Must find his review of Halloween!

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/halloween-1979

and there it is!

gmisk

The boy behind the door

Really excellent stripped back proper gripping little horror film, about two kids getting kidnapped.

I think the befuddled message from the new Halloween film is that we're the monsters. The title music is good though.

dubstepper

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118023201#Comment_118023201

Check out this great podcast on Carpenter. https://cosmicshambles.com/uncannyhour/episode-8 Lots about Prince of Darkness in it too.

HalloweenJack

Doctor Sleep

I'm a big fan of both books and the Shining film (as a standalone film; as an adaption, it's terrible).

I enjoyed it for the most part, though the pacing was a bit odd. At times, it felt like it was moving awfully fast but then I was surprised to see it was two and a half hours long.

I loathed Rose the Hat when I read it so I was delighted to see her being just as disturbing on screen. It felt like an understated performance from Ewan McGregor, though he did a good job.

I'm afraid the mashing up of source material took away from my overall enjoyment of it. The final act left me a bit confused as it was equal parts the Shining book, the Shining film, Doctor Sleep the book and Doctor Sleep the film.

I understand that Mike Flanagan had a big task on his hands trying to satisfy Stephen King readers who wanted a good adaption as well as the Shining film fans and moviegoing audiences who wanted a sequel/good horror flick.

It is a decent film, on its own. It's all about atmosphere as opposed to jump scares. The re-shoots of stuff from the first film was incredible as it looked almost identical and using some of the soundtrack too was a nice touch.

The problem is people know its a sequel to an iconic film and he had to tie-in to what was a disatrous adaptation of an excellent book in a way that brought the book, the film and the new book altogether. Unfortunately, I wasn't wholly satisfied.

I wonder what people who've only seen the Shining film made of Doctor Sleep as a sequel.

Dragged Across Concrete

Watchable but not all that good meandering cops-try-to-rip-off criminals for retirement fund or wedding fund caper. One aspect of it that is completely daft at times is the dialogue which has the type of characters in question using very incongruous phrases and words in contexts that they just wouldn't say. At times it's like listening to a couple of first year arts students talking absolute pretentious shyte (or reading some certain review posts on boards!). Mel Gibson and Vince Vaughan (in a typically wooden portrayal) as the cops. Too long also.

5.9 / 10

Re-watching "Hell or Highwater". Again.

johnny_ultimate

Drive My Car - I've a few big hitters left to watch this year (Petite Maman, Memoria, The French Dispatch, Power of the Dog), but as of now Ryusuke Hamaguchi's stunner of a Murakami adaptation sits right at the top of my films of the year list. I was blown away by his tremendous Happy Hour quite a few years ago now, and this feels like a further evolution of his distinctively slow, patient storytelling style. It's the kind of film with a 45-minute prologue that's absolutely essential at setting the tone and pace of the piece. Basically the story of a theatre actor / director putting on a multi-lingual adaptation of Uncle Vanya following the sudden death of his wife, the biggest storytelling gamble here is having a key early plot event go otherwise unreferenced for a good two-thirds of the film's three-hour runtime. But that event haunts every single scene, adding this unspoken complication to every interaction and relationship we see on screen. When the unspoken secrets do eventually come to the fore, there's a tremendously emotionally satisfying final act where all the slow, unhurried character and mood-building bears fruit. Like Burning a few years ago, this is the sort of Murakami adaptation where the secret-sauce is in the revelations that lie just that little bit out of reach for the characters.

There's plenty of people who think event films are the ones most worth watching in the cinema. I disagree: to me, Drive My Car is the best kind of cinema film. It has such a particular sense of pace that it deserves the viewer's complete attention for its not insignificant runtime.