Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Polls: 1930s (Results), 1972 (Jun 21st), 1954 awards (Jun 22nd), 2010s (Jun 28th)
Challenges: 1950s, Eastern Europe, Banned Films
Film of the Week: Scandal Sheet, July nominations (Jun 28th)

Last Movie Seen

Post Reply
User avatar
outdoorcats
Posts: 748
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Contact:

Re: Last Movie Seen

#1641

Post by outdoorcats » July 31st, 2018, 3:19 am

That's honestly a much better summation of the film's views than my hasty byline. Actually for a series about factory workers the best part for me (as an educator perhaps) was the section detailing the efforts of the grandmother and her lover to open an unlicensed kindergarten for the children she saw playing in the busy street. I don't think it's too dramatic an exaggeration to call the grandmother one of the most indelible characters in film history. She may as well have been my grandmother by the time it was over.
re: Criterion, whenever you see the Janus Films logo at the beginning of a circulating print a Criterion release is inevitable. I like the cover art for this one.

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1372
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#1642

Post by matthewscott8 » July 31st, 2018, 10:59 am

Yup, occasionally you can hit a landmine, and a film bearing the Janus logo from before the 2 companies went joint venture appears. Agree Grandma is great and "Der Gregor" hehe.

User avatar
RedHawk10
Posts: 442
Joined: Feb 06, 2017
Contact:

#1643

Post by RedHawk10 » August 1st, 2018, 5:31 pm

Port of Shadows (1938) - 8/10

God bless Marcel Carne. Although this isn't close to as soul shattering and masterful as Children of Paradise (which barely any films are) it was pretty great overall and had some surprisingly dark moments for something made in 1938.

User avatar
RedHawk10
Posts: 442
Joined: Feb 06, 2017
Contact:

#1644

Post by RedHawk10 » August 12th, 2018, 5:55 am

The 1931 Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde film is actually pretty fucking great. I don't know why I was so indifferent to this when I first saw it.

I'd struggle to come up with a horror movie I think is better from the 30's.

User avatar
outdoorcats
Posts: 748
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Contact:

#1645

Post by outdoorcats » August 12th, 2018, 6:00 pm

That shot of Miriam Hopkins' leg though. :o

It's a great film...it's competing with some great '30s horror films however, such the brilliantly surreal and creepy White Zombie, the awesome B-movie adventure thrills of The Most Dangerous Game, the atmosphere of The Black Cat, the unique vision of Vampyr or the masterfully haunting Island of Lost Souls which is one of my all-time favorites.

User avatar
RedHawk10
Posts: 442
Joined: Feb 06, 2017
Contact:

#1646

Post by RedHawk10 » August 12th, 2018, 6:23 pm

outdoorcats wrote:
August 12th, 2018, 6:00 pm
That shot of Miriam Hopkins' leg though. :o

It's a great film...it's competing with some great '30s horror films however, such the brilliantly surreal and creepy White Zombie, the awesome B-movie adventure thrills of The Most Dangerous Game, the atmosphere of The Black Cat, the unique vision of Vampyr or the masterfully haunting Island of Lost Souls which is one of my all-time favorites.
White Zombie and The Black Cat are damn good (and in the former's case underappreciated!), and while I'm not too crazy about Most Dangerous Game I think it's solid enough. Vampyr is the one that might be better than Jekyll and Hyde, Dreyer is kind of unstoppable.

Haven't seen Island of Lost Souls, I'll have to make that a priority.

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 3472
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#1647

Post by OldAle1 » August 12th, 2018, 7:05 pm

Don't forget Freaks when talking your 30s horror stuff. If I had to pick a favorite it'd be Vampyr for sure with Bride of Frankenstein second, though I like all of the films you guys have mentioned (can't really remember the '31 Dr. Jekyll actually, or perhaps I'm running it together in my head with other versions).

Of course all the Universal films are worth seeing and well-known enough that I don't need to mention any of them besides the one I just did, but I will give a shout-out to Devil-Doll as another contender.

User avatar
RedHawk10
Posts: 442
Joined: Feb 06, 2017
Contact:

#1648

Post by RedHawk10 » August 13th, 2018, 3:56 pm

Freaks, good call! Haven't seen Devil Doll, but will definitely check it out.

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 3472
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#1649

Post by OldAle1 » August 15th, 2018, 5:54 pm

I went to Tom Cruise Still Isn't Too Old To Hang From A Helicopter If The Money's Right yesterday and...eh, it was just about the same as every other film in this damn interminable series. I guess I was in the mood for something big and stupid because I need my action movie fix again or something? Anyway, the very long motorcycle/car/foot chase sequences in the early and middle parts of the film are pretty good, it's nice to see Ving Rhames get a bit more of a role this time, and the chopper scenes at the end were among the silliest ever. Why couldn't they have just had Ethan Hunt be proficient as a helicopter pilot? That just added one extra bit of stupid to a movie that didn't need it.

Eh.

User avatar
hurluberlu
Donator
Posts: 1225
Joined: Jan 04, 2017
Contact:

#1650

Post by hurluberlu » August 16th, 2018, 8:10 pm

OldAle1 wrote:
August 15th, 2018, 5:54 pm
I went to Tom Cruise Still Isn't Too Old To Hang From A Helicopter If The Money's Right yesterday and...eh, it was just about the same as every other film in this damn interminable series. I guess I was in the mood for something big and stupid because I need my action movie fix again or something? Anyway, the very long motorcycle/car/foot chase sequences in the early and middle parts of the film are pretty good, it's nice to see Ving Rhames get a bit more of a role this time, and the chopper scenes at the end were among the silliest ever. Why couldn't they have just had Ethan Hunt be proficient as a helicopter pilot? That just added one extra bit of stupid to a movie that didn't need it.

Eh.
[light spoilers]

I was not too impressed either. On the positive side, car chase and fights were nicely choregraphed and cast was really good. But the plot was terrible. You see the usual identity usurpation twists coming from miles away. And if I enjoyed the scenes in Paris familiar places at first, the whole Ethan Hunt self-questionning on killing a cop or not and some related action looked misplaced in a city which is still healing its wounds from terrorist attacks involving cops that were executed at point-blank range.
#JeSuisCharlie Liberté, Liberté chérie !

Image
ImageImageImageImage

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 3472
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#1651

Post by OldAle1 » August 17th, 2018, 5:33 pm

Good points hurlu; I think the faux-seriousness of the film - and of the series in general, particularly the last couple - is one of my big problems with it, and for that matter with a lot of today's big-budget American action films. And the idea of saving your friend but potentially killing millions idea - I dunno, I think that's been handled much better elsewhere, here it just seems like a patina of self-importance. Also -
SpoilerShow
how about how Alec Baldwin gets offed and then never mentioned again? He's their boss and he was in two movies fer chrissakes, and he just dies at the hands of the bad guys and they just say oh well them's the breaks more or less.
Must...resist...paying...to see...anything else...like this crap.

User avatar
RedHawk10
Posts: 442
Joined: Feb 06, 2017
Contact:

#1652

Post by RedHawk10 » August 24th, 2018, 7:22 pm

The Great Silence (1968, Corbucci)

After being disappointed by High Noon (good ending, but the rest of it is killed by Gary Cooper being stiffness personified) this beloved western knocked me out. Not only one of the greatest western movies I've seen but one of the greatest movies I've seen in general.

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 3472
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#1653

Post by OldAle1 » August 29th, 2018, 5:16 pm

Image

Not 70mm alas (2 hour drive each way for that, and is it worth it?) but still pretty great to see it again. This is a film I've never consciously watched on video/at home; I think I may have seen it on TV (commercial tv at that!) back in the 70s or 80s before I was really cinematically aware, but since getting serious about film it's been one of a handful of works that I've so far refused to watch anywhere but in the cinema. And I think it's now the first film I've seen in 4 formats thus - 16/35/70/digital. Yes, 16 - the last time I saw it was in a small cinema in Burlington VT, in the early 2000s, might've been in 2001 actually, and that's what they could get. The best viewing I ever had was actually a 35mm print, but it was the National Film Registry's copy that went on tour and it was flawless; the one time I remember seeing it in 70, on the IMAX at Navy Pier in Chicago, the print was more than a little scuffed. This was maybe a better presentation than that, but it looked a little soft to me, particularly in the Dawn of Man sequence, and while the colors were bright and vibrant it almost looked over-saturated at times. Thankfully most of the small visual issues were in the early sequences, the Jupiter mission and beyond were swell, and the sound was excellent as well. My screening, surprisingly enough, had a few other patrons, all middle-aged single white dudes like myself, all sitting at least half a dozen seats apart from each other, all quiet. Creepy I suppose in a way but it reminded me of many screenings in Chicago at Facets or the Film Center or DOC, back in my cinephilic heyday of the 90s.

User avatar
Old Aussie
Posts: 18
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

#1654

Post by Old Aussie » September 3rd, 2018, 4:19 am

Image
Image

Just saw it at the cinema and it's even better on the big screen.

User avatar
fori
Posts: 1003
Joined: Aug 24, 2014
Contact:

#1655

Post by fori » September 5th, 2018, 12:03 pm

Just watched the strange aesthetic & tonal perfection of Huang Jianxin’s second film... for a 5th Generation film from the 80s, it was greatly removed from the style handed down to the 5th generation by Wu Tian-Ming. Instead, the reference point that fits best would be PlayTime by Tati.

User avatar
Ivan0716
Posts: 985
Joined: Feb 05, 2012
Contact:

#1656

Post by Ivan0716 » September 9th, 2018, 11:53 am

Bellissima (Luchino Visconti, 1951)

Yep, I'm sold. Have only seen 3 film from her, but I don't have the slightest doubt that Anna Magnani is THE best actress who has ever lived.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 29183
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#1657

Post by mightysparks » September 11th, 2018, 6:39 am

I wanted to watch some cool recent sci-fi stuff, but the only films that came up on IMDb were all the superhero ones. So I asked my housemate which was the best out of the latest lot and he said Infinity War. If that's the best one, the others must be pretty horrible. I'm a bit behind on the 'universe' so I didn't even realise until I read the trivia and found who a few of the characters were. I couldn't believe how old RDJ and Mark Ruffalo looked, and from then on it all seemed too ridiculous. I liked the first Avengers film, but I don't remember it much now, but jesus this was just dumb. About 500 main characters who all basically look and speak the same, smashing video game characters in-between making quips at each other.

I think these films have definitely far worn out their welcome for me, so I'm going to try and avoid them all from now on.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7065
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#1658

Post by Gershwin » September 11th, 2018, 6:51 am

I mostly agree. Agent Carter is cool, though.
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM

User avatar
funkybusiness
Donator
Posts: 10423
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Contact:

#1659

Post by funkybusiness » September 11th, 2018, 7:14 am

Yeah I enjoyed Agent Carter as well. and Infinity War was insufferable.

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 28376
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#1660

Post by joachimt » September 11th, 2018, 3:24 pm

Haven't seen Invinity War yet, but yesterday I watched Thor: Ragnarok and I really liked that one. The action was balanced, so not exhausting at all. The dry humor was fun and there were a few funny side characters as well. It didn't take itself too seriously as well, even felt like it was making fun of the franchise now and then.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
RedHawk10
Posts: 442
Joined: Feb 06, 2017
Contact:

#1661

Post by RedHawk10 » September 11th, 2018, 6:11 pm

Ragnarok is easily one of the better MCU movies IMO, but it's still pretty lacking.

Last one I saw was The Lusty Men, which I have mixed feelings about. Ray's definitely an interesting director, I'm looking forward to seeing Bigger than Life.

User avatar
flaiky
Posts: 1320
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: London UK
Contact:

#1662

Post by flaiky » September 11th, 2018, 6:29 pm

Yeah, Thor: Ragnarok is surprisingly good. I never thought I'd be interested in it, but I caught the start on TV by accident and was surprised by how light, quirky and creative it was. Ended up watching the whole thing.

It does descend into the usual action superhero stuff that simply isn't fun for me, but overall I'd say it's one of the best examples of the genre.
Let the ashes fly
ICM | Letterboxd | All-time stats

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 29183
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#1663

Post by mightysparks » September 13th, 2018, 9:28 am

Hereditary seemed like the latest big horror movie that kept popping up when I was looking for stuff, but it looked like it was going to be some crappy ghost story thing. The first hour was pretty great, I cried about 3 times and there was some nice tension and trauma-y stuff. Then it started becoming a crappy ghost story thing and then it turned into something else again that I don't even know. Gabriel Byrne and the son were just weird and poorly cast. The script and acting got really hammy in the second half and it became really frustrating, as it started out as a really dread-filled and emotional horror-drama about grief and turned to poo. I'd still recommend it for the first hour and some cool atmosphere but expect an anti-climax.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
kathulu
Posts: 42
Joined: Sep 08, 2018
Location: London
Contact:

#1664

Post by kathulu » September 13th, 2018, 11:05 am

I've been turning my nose up at all superhero movies in the last 10 years, but for some reason lately I'm suddenly really into MCU and keep watching all the movies I missed over the years. It's blatantly silly and stupid and the destruction porn just gets to me (every time they destroy a building or a city, I go on Twitter, I just can't hack it). But the characters are pretty wonderful, and the long red threads and just general humor is actually not bad at all. Yesterday I saw "Age of Ultron", which was kinda too destructy but had some really good moments. Before that, I saw "Iron Man 3" and rewatched "Guardians of the Galaxy". I actually started this whole thing with "Infinity War" and thought, hmm, I kinda wanna catch up on everything now. Next in line is "Civil War".

I'm pretty sure I'm into this because life lately has been intense and this is a really good way to just entertain yourself in a light hearted, yet kind of touching way. But the action and destruction bores me to death. I just want the drama & comedy hahah
Image

Cinematic history journey: https://twitter.com/Katlovesmovies1

User avatar
Ivan0716
Posts: 985
Joined: Feb 05, 2012
Contact:

#1665

Post by Ivan0716 » September 13th, 2018, 5:00 pm

Still trying to gather my thoughts on this one, but going to a late showing of Paweł Pawlikowski's Cold War an empty stomach and 3 hours of sleep the night before was probably not the best idea. If the film was 30 minutes longer I think I would have passed out.

I don’t think I need to say much about the cinematography and music, both are damn near perfect as expected, but just about everything else was unexpected. From what I had read about the film beforehand I was expecting a really well made melodrama(in hindsight I'm not sure why I expected a melodrama from Pawlikowski :rolleyes: ). Instead it was probably the most disconnecting “love story” I’ve ever seen, but kind of in a good way; there's no pressure to sympathise with the two main characters or their relationship, and I don't think we're supposed to, given the title of the film. There are no character background(except one unconfirmed incident involving a parent) or development, just glimpses of their personalities through short exchanges.

Pawlikowski made it his mission to withhold as much information from the audience as possible, by setting the story over a span of 20 years divided into somewhere between 6 and 10 segments(sorry I wasn't counting) across its 85 minutes runtime, it actually felt as though he had filmed a 4-hour epic and stripped it down to the absolute minimum. The segments are roughly the same in length, usually made up of a musical number and one or two scenes to brief us on the current situation, most of them end rather abruptly - usually with the two characters parting but it's almost never shown - and the film wastes no time throwing us into a different time and place without much explanation or context. I think Pawlikowski expects us to fill in the gaps ourselves by drawing from our own relationship experiences and knowledge of history, and I liked that. At first I was yearning for more exposition, but by the halfway point I was really buying into it and thinking about it now I think this film is a perfect case of less is more, it’s unsentimental and emotionally detached to the nth degree, but it somehow resulted in one of the most personal and genuine romances that I can remember. I can't wait to see it again, I think I'll like it even more knowing what to expect.

User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 962
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

#1666

Post by cinewest » September 14th, 2018, 3:52 am

Ivan0716 wrote:
September 13th, 2018, 5:00 pm
Still trying to gather my thoughts on this one, but going to a late showing of Paweł Pawlikowski's Cold War an empty stomach and 3 hours of sleep the night before was probably not the best idea. If the film was 30 minutes longer I think I would have passed out.

I don’t think I need to say much about the cinematography and music, both are damn near perfect as expected, but just about everything else was unexpected. From what I had read about the film beforehand I was expecting a really well made melodrama(in hindsight I'm not sure why I expected a melodrama from Pawlikowski :rolleyes: ). Instead it was probably the most disconnecting “love story” I’ve ever seen, but kind of in a good way; there's no pressure to sympathise with the two main characters or their relationship, and I don't think we're supposed to, given the title of the film. There are no character background(except one unconfirmed incident involving a parent) or development, just glimpses of their personalities through short exchanges.

Pawlikowski made it his mission to withhold as much information from the audience as possible, by setting the story over a span of 20 years divided into somewhere between 6 and 10 segments(sorry I wasn't counting) across its 85 minutes runtime, it actually felt as though he had filmed a 4-hour epic and stripped it down to the absolute minimum. The segments are roughly the same in length, usually made up of a musical number and one or two scenes to brief us on the current situation, most of them end rather abruptly - usually with the two characters parting but it's almost never shown - and the film wastes no time throwing us into a different time and place without much explanation or context. I think Pawlikowski expects us to fill in the gaps ourselves by drawing from our own relationship experiences and knowledge of history, and I liked that. At first I was yearning for more exposition, but by the halfway point I was really buying into it and thinking about it now I think this film is a perfect case of less is more, it’s unsentimental and emotionally detached to the nth degree, but it somehow resulted in one of the most personal and genuine romances that I can remember. I can't wait to see it again, I think I'll like it even more knowing what to expect.
Intriguing write up, thanks. This is high up on my list of films to see from 2018

User avatar
kathulu
Posts: 42
Joined: Sep 08, 2018
Location: London
Contact:

#1667

Post by kathulu » September 17th, 2018, 11:35 pm

I just saw "American Animals" and I thought it was really clever, although perhaps forgettable in the long run.
SpoilerShow
I just loved the little movie references everywhere and the constant back and forth between reality and fiction, consciousness/subconsciousness, real people/actors. Very cleverly done.
The story a little underwhelming/uncomfortable, which I understand was the very point. Anyone else seen it?
Image

Cinematic history journey: https://twitter.com/Katlovesmovies1

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 3472
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#1668

Post by OldAle1 » September 21st, 2018, 6:10 pm

(if you're wondering why I bothered, keep in mind that I have to drive 1 hour+ to see anything that's not a major release, and I don't always feel like doing that, but I do always want to see something in the cinema)

Despite plenty of warnings, I went to see The Predator yesterday, and it pretty much sucked as hard as most people have said it would. I suppose I had a few hopes based on liking some of Shane Black's earlier work, and sometimes I'm drawn to big budget flops with mixed/negative reviews because there are actually plenty of example in recent years that I liked - Speed Racer, Valerian, Cloud Atlas, John Carter to name a few.

But those all had *something* interesting, visually or narrative or otherwise, to recommend them - none of them is generic and formulaic crud, which this ends up being though it does have moments here and there which made me wonder what it could have been like had Black had real control of it. The ending in particular looks studio-imposed to me - GOTTA HAVE NONSTOP ACTION FOR THE LAST HALF HOUR WHO CARES IF IT MAKES SENSE - and it's so bad it's actually funny. But there are too many different things going on here, too many characters and bits of plot that don't go anywhere - like the one-off comment about global warming - and it just adds up to a big pile of junk.

Time for Hollywood to get off the infinite sequel bandwagon, and in particular the infinite sequels/remakes of 80s hits - let's remember those 80s flicks everybody loves were mostly relatively inexpensive films and few of them were box office monsters - why should the 6th film in a series where none of the previous films were smashes be a giant hit, particularly if you can't bother to have a compelling story or at least vaguely interesting characters? I guess the occasional exception like Mad Max Fury Road means that Hollywood thinks they have an excuse to just keep recycling things that were never in blockbuster territory in the first place, trying to make gold Cadillacs out of GTOs.

But they won't learn, I expect we'll have new sequels/reboots of Commando, Raw Deal, Swamp Thing, They Live and anything else that some idiot thinks will better if only given a 9-figure budget and 200% more action.

User avatar
maxwelldeux
Donator
Posts: 5620
Joined: Jun 07, 2016
Location: Seattle-ish, WA, USA
Contact:

#1669

Post by maxwelldeux » September 22nd, 2018, 10:09 pm

OldAle1 wrote:
September 21st, 2018, 6:10 pm
Time for Hollywood to get off the infinite sequel bandwagon, and in particular the infinite sequels/remakes of 80s hits - let's remember those 80s flicks everybody loves were mostly relatively inexpensive films and few of them were box office monsters - why should the 6th film in a series where none of the previous films were smashes be a giant hit, particularly if you can't bother to have a compelling story or at least vaguely interesting characters? I guess the occasional exception like Mad Max Fury Road means that Hollywood thinks they have an excuse to just keep recycling things that were never in blockbuster territory in the first place, trying to make gold Cadillacs out of GTOs.
I've been thinking about this since you wrote it yesterday, and it pretty well captures why I don't go to the movies - there's just nothing interesting enough to draw me to the theater. Like you, I'm far enough away from non-blockbuster theaters that I'd spend more time in the car than I would in the theater. And there's just not much of anything that's coming out that would draw me to the theater - "sit at home and wait for it to stream" almost always outweighs "put on pants, go out in public, and pay money".

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 29183
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#1670

Post by mightysparks » September 23rd, 2018, 1:32 am

It annoys me that the bad modern remakes and reboots and sequels become the poster child for that series or film for all the new kids watching it. Eg, in class the other week the lecturer asked who had seen The Stepford Wives. One girl said omg I love that movie and the teacher asked ‘the original?’ And the reply ‘the one with Nicole Kidman’. Similarly a few people in the class had seen remake Carrie and none had seen the original. Sad, sad times.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
funkybusiness
Donator
Posts: 10423
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Contact:

#1671

Post by funkybusiness » September 23rd, 2018, 1:37 am

I forgot they did the 2013 edition of Carrie and I thought you meant the 2002 TV special :lol:

User avatar
RedHawk10
Posts: 442
Joined: Feb 06, 2017
Contact:

#1672

Post by RedHawk10 » September 23rd, 2018, 4:08 am

mightysparks wrote:
September 23rd, 2018, 1:32 am
It annoys me that the bad modern remakes and reboots and sequels become the poster child for that series or film for all the new kids watching it. Eg, in class the other week the lecturer asked who had seen The Stepford Wives. One girl said omg I love that movie and the teacher asked ‘the original?’ And the reply ‘the one with Nicole Kidman’. Similarly a few people in the class had seen remake Carrie and none had seen the original. Sad, sad times.
Eh, I don't know about the "sad times we live in" assessment, seems like that's been said...always. I'm sure if you asked a class in '91 who had seen The Blob they wouldn't think of the original '58 film. Or if you asked a class in '82 who had seen Invasion of the Body Snatchers, they'd almost definitely think of the '78 film. And so on and so on. For younger crowds who like to see a movie once in a while but have little to no interest in them the way all of us do, of course that's what they're going to be thinking of. They're the target audience of most of these "updates" anyway.

Don't get me wrong, plenty of remakes are lame as hell and I understand wishing people knew the original instead. But it's really nothing new, and this isn't coming from some grizzled older viewer either, I'm assuming I'm one of the younger guys on here.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 29183
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#1673

Post by mightysparks » September 23rd, 2018, 5:27 am

Yea but those remakes are better/as good as the original to most people. They didn’t even know they were remakes. It’s a film studies unit c’mon!
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
RedHawk10
Posts: 442
Joined: Feb 06, 2017
Contact:

#1674

Post by RedHawk10 » September 23rd, 2018, 6:07 am

mightysparks wrote:
September 23rd, 2018, 5:27 am
It’s a film studies unit c’mon!
I only took one film class during my first semester of college, and most of the people in there had no idea what the hell they were talking about, lol.

User avatar
maxwelldeux
Donator
Posts: 5620
Joined: Jun 07, 2016
Location: Seattle-ish, WA, USA
Contact:

#1675

Post by maxwelldeux » September 23rd, 2018, 6:12 am

RedHawk10 wrote:
September 23rd, 2018, 6:07 am
mightysparks wrote:
September 23rd, 2018, 5:27 am
It’s a film studies unit c’mon!
I only took one film class during my first semester of college, and most of the people in there had no idea what the hell they were talking about, lol.
I only took one film class during college and I had exactly zero clue what I was talking about. I would LOVE to retake that class now....

User avatar
Ivan0716
Posts: 985
Joined: Feb 05, 2012
Contact:

#1676

Post by Ivan0716 » September 23rd, 2018, 6:33 am

Reminds me of a while back when I saw The Thing on Amazon Prime and got really excited about rewatching it, it took me a good 10 minutes of thinking to myself "Wow I didn't remember the special effects being this good" and "Holy shit this girl from the 80s is a dead ringer for Mary Elizabeth Winstead" before realising I was watching the 2011 remake...in my defence I had no idea it had even been remade.

User avatar
rnilsson19
Posts: 566
Joined: Dec 01, 2016
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#1677

Post by rnilsson19 » September 25th, 2018, 10:41 pm



A neat little picturesque travelogue. Sadly not on IMDB.

User avatar
funkybusiness
Donator
Posts: 10423
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Contact:

#1678

Post by funkybusiness » September 29th, 2018, 12:18 am

I wrote this all in one go, and I don't feel like editing it down so you just get one long meandering post.

Image
Well, there's some VHS hiss but honestly the credit sequence is pretty decent, some post-Carpenter horror droney music, and the Godard font for the credit text, and then
Image
hey this exterior is effective and kind of okay, so far I don't see how this is supposed to be all that ba--

Image
Image
...Oh. Okay. I get it.

One of the funniest films I've seen in a long time. Too bad the Comedy challenge is the no-fun zone and says comedy must be the intention of the filmmakers. Which I'm not entirely certain that comedy wasn't the goal of Ron Switzer and family (like half the people in the film are also credited Switzer). There's a near endless supply, okay 82 minutes worth of comedy gold here. Between the inept, middle-school theater quality acting, the terrible make-up, the director's various fetish close-ups, the three 15 second sound clips they had for music clearance, the abysmal voice-over work (which sometimes means no voice-over, just people mouthing their lines with no synched sound whatsoever) or the general bizarre and extremely funny pacing and editing style, there's something for everyone in this direct(ly recorded to camcorder) to video Canadian science "horror" magnum opus.

There are a number of elements in the film to suggest that it's not totally serious, that they are just having a good time and they know it's complete shit.
Image
Like this goober behind the desk, who keeps hamming it up as the detective (...is he supposed to be an actual detective? A PI? Just the first guy they reached who has a big '40s style hat?) talks on the telephone... Our protagonists, I don't remember if they're named or not, it really doesn't matter, they need to call a detective to report a murder (is that how it works in Canada?) and apparently his work number is the phone at the video rental store.

Or the infamous aerobics scene where two women, encouraged off-screen by a man who keeps telling them "yeah that looks good" but probably isn't supposed to be heard, as we never see him, jazzercize and lift weights while the science experiment gone wrong drags his foot down a hall. FOR TEN. AND A HALF. MINUTES. It's a wonderful subversion of expectations because every time a shot is established, we're expecting something to occur, the next shot should be X, because we instinctively know how filmmaking should work, but no, nonono, instead the shot goes on too long, someone just stares out into space for 10 seconds, or a footage loop is looped for the sixth time, or the music, which is typically incessant, suddenly stops, for absolutely no reason! And then starts right back up again a few seconds later! And there are a number of fantastically pervy shots, I mean the whole aerobics scene is meant to be a typical overly sexualized scene of the era, but there are moments where you wonder if either A. the director is intentionally satirizing the tropes of said typical scene, or B. if he's completely unconscious of any of it and is doing it all because he thinks it's actually good. Like there's a shot from behind the women as they're doing some toe touches and the camera sloooowly zooms in on one of their butts, like, is it a joke? Or is he simply curious as to whether he can see her cooch through her leotard, and hey I've got a zoom lens on this camcorder, let's check out the quality on this bad boy! It's really nice that the "fiend" waits until they're done with their exercise routine before he kills them. Or at least I think he does because while it's happening all we see are a sequence of shots of doors and halls, zoomed in, zoomed out, in, out, in, out, in, out, OH MY GOD IT'S A FREUDIAN THING. HE'S RAPE-MURDERING THEM.

This is probably the film that Tarantino saw in that Hollywood video store he worked in that activated his foot fetish. Near constant shots of peoples' feet. Dragging them down a hallway. Chillin' by the pool. Dangling while being squeeze death. Dangling while being squeezed to death again.

Image
Contender for best individual shot that makes no sense is the above. Co-worker of Dr. Frank, possibly, is sitting in a very oddly lit room when the "fiend" shows up and then she tries to seduce him? Lady, he is a day old science baby, that has got to be illegal. So, of course, being so abruptly acquainted with the perverse sexual desires of this lady he doesn't know who is sexually assaulting him, he does one of his agonized face-grabs and then chokes her out. I think one of his fake green pepper-slice ears might have come out of his bandages as well.

The pool scene is probably my favorite overall scene. Absolutely bizarre. Immediately after the... fourth squeezing death? I think? It hard cuts to a panning shot of a pool. A bunch of people in the pool, around the pool, getting into the pool, getting out of the pool. And then... cut. to a panning shot up a woman's legs, to her sitting on a beach chair, reading Time magazine. Then cut away to more random pool activities, getting into the pool &c. Then, oh no! Draggy foot guy again! In some random hall! ...Is he approaching the pool? I dunno, I've only seen his feet, there's no other establishing shots and no general sense of shot continuity to build up a narrative idea in my mind. But back to the pool! Oh here's a well-bosomed lady with a fashionable haircut lounging on the ground. Let's perv on her for a few seconds. She seems lost. Like she doesn't know what to do. Like she's never been at a pool before. What's she looking at? Is she looking at the Time magazine lady? Maybe, I dunno, this movie has no sense of matching eye lines, so who knows what anyone is looking at or if there's any sense between cuts. But oh yeah that Time magazine lady, she was good lookin'! Close-up of her face, wearing sunglasses, inside, at night, while reading, hold that shot for several seconds annnd....Oh! she realizes she can't see the magazine with the sunglasses on so she puts them on top of her head! And then she stares at the magazine....again...for a few more seconds...and then finally realizes what she's looking at!
Image

There's a couple of porn pictures taped into the magazine! And she somehow didn't notice for like twenty seconds.
Anyway, eventually the "fiend" as he's known finds his way to the pool. and one guy yells at him "hey this is a private party!"... really? I had no idea and I've been watching this pool scene for like five minutes now. Anyway, "fiend" hulks around for awhile, back and forth, and then slowly...descends...into the pool...even though he can't hardly walk down a hall but he can get around just fine in water. And then slowly approaches fashionable haircut lady...who begins to moan for her mommy. Mommeeee Mommeee Mommiemommiemomiemommiemmome. Okay, yeah sure she's scared of weirdo guy and -- cut to girl outside of pool who is obviously younger than fashionable-haircut-woman who apparently is her mother? "I can't swim! I can't swim!" Sorry, love, you're fucked, because I can't be bothered to jump in even though this dude is now trying to drown you by repeatedly dunking your head under water. Not just like holding your head there, but like, up for air, and down again, and up for air and, I guess that's what you get for an overnight science baby.

Image
Second contender for best individual shot is this one. Where this lady, who has not appeared at all in the film up to this point, and there's only like ten minutes left in the film, is sitting at a desk, writing something. And then the voice-over kicks in, like we are hearing her internal monologue, reciting a list of countries where she "suggests nerve gas tests be conducted". And then she gets this creepy, self-satisfied smile every time she remembers a country and writes it down. France is of course at the top of the list. Canada. United States. Mexico. Germany. the list goes on. with lengthy pauses between names. for three minutes.
Why?
Why any of that?
Why anything in this entire film? But in the future, I believe that film studies courses will drop Freudian interpretations, feminist angles, Marxist bents, Lacanian readings, all that bullshit, and we will embrace Switzer-vision as our preferred method of film discourse.

Oh and the moment you finally realize this is all supposed to be happening in one day, IN ONE BUILDING, is superb. *12 frame shot of the building exterior at night to remind what time of day it is*

And I haven't mentioned the horrible wheezing sound of the "fiend" which never stops, the stupid smug detective who is really shit at his job who also apparently has the slowest moving bullets in the history of gun-dom, redhead lady lead who reads all of her lines extremely sarcastically like she was forced to be in the movie and she fucking hates it and all of her dumb friends who are making it, the dorm room(?) where the protagonists meet up, filled with horror movie posters (I think, perhaps, Ron Switzer has never actually seen a horror film, but owned some posters and thought he was qualified to make one himself), the impregnation scene at the beginning, followed by several minutes of HEAVY BREATHING, and the weird punk spoken-word lady with the revolving camera shot and the singular light shot that goes on for ages with none of the spoken-word segment actually recorded, so it's just silent, except for the looped music clearance bits. Mouthed words, mouthed words! "What is this, some kind of joke?" I don't know, punk lady with a Bob and Doug McKenzie accent. But I enjoyed the hell out of it. Thanks, Art.

PS I'm really disappointed we never got Revenge of the "Fiend".

User avatar
XxXApathy420XxX
Donator
Posts: 18582
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#1679

Post by XxXApathy420XxX » September 29th, 2018, 12:38 am

Glad to see that someone enjoyed it

User avatar
funkybusiness
Donator
Posts: 10423
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Contact:

#1680

Post by funkybusiness » September 29th, 2018, 12:45 am

In most "so bad it's good" films, there's the problem of them becoming annoying, or just boring between the enjoyable bits, but Science Crazed is so continuously inept while not just maintaining its ineptitude but constantly one-upping itself along with its idiosyncratic blend of relative competent technical skill and completely incompetent execution of cliches that I find it hard not to recommend this, it's thoroughly enjoyable, knowing that it's going to be bad unless you really, really hate "wasting your time on trash" or something.

If anyone is going to participate in the Horror challenge, you absolutely need to watch this film.

Post Reply