1) Hell yes. I'd love to see a follow-up to Dredd!
2) Really? Bummer. That seems like a really bad way to go about it. Sure, there's going to be some people who are just negative, but if you're highlighting basic flaws - or pointing out ways to improve what you have, that shouldn't be a case for marginalisation or dismissal. These concepts desperately need to be stress tested.
Strange, too, because when you watch the extra features on various Pixar movies they have these story meetings and constantly go over and rework things in the script and try out new ideas when things aren't working ... must be different on different films, so not every project is run as open to change, perhaps?
There's too much business in the movie business these days, as I said elsewhere on the forum. People running studios who have business degrees but no creative intelligence at all - which, considering you're in a business that is founded on creativity, you would have thought that would be a requirement. Cobbling together movies based on numbers on a spreadsheet is merely a cynical exercise - they miss the whole thing of what is often called in Hollywood itself as "movie magic". The creative people always get an understanding of the business side of it - it's a requirement, and you just pick it up anyway - but it feels to me as if the money men have sod all idea about the creative process and just view films as products. Yes, they can be commercial, and sold, and make a hell of a lot of money - but uninteresting, bland, cynical cash-grabs are sniffed out and tend to flop (although not often enough ... we're getting a fifth Transformers movie ... but then again, I guess their key audience is tweenage boys).
According to my mate (he lives on the east coast now), you have to be seen as being "on board" and part of "on board" is playing the "go team" card and all that shite, otherwise your cards were marked. He was/is an animator and in general the biz treats them terribly nowadays. He started out at Aardman in England, where he said that anything goes. But in the States, once the magic had worn off, he noticed it was a very different way of working over there. Maybe it's just his experience. Who knows.
Yep, money men just see graphs and unfortunately owners and execs are lulled by them. The cult of sales and marketing in American (and many European) businesses has trumped everything. As I said, somebody thought remakes of 'Ghostbusters' and 'Ben-Hur' were good ideas and would make money, when the dogs in the street knew they were shit ideas from the get go. Unfortunately, the people with their hands on the tiller probably don't even watch films on a regular basis. People who do would tell you that you start out on very shaky ground trying to kick off something like that. But, because their former incarnations were successful, some believe that another go around will be too and go that route instead of making new films from the millions of new scripts that flood studios daily. It's said to think that we could have got at least three original films out of the budgets wasted on the above two films alone.
Originally Posted by MinionZombie
3) You're damn right. "Escape From New York" makes enough sense that you don't get distracted by the concept at all. Plus the fantastic performances, the strong visuals, the brilliant score, and Carpenter at the height of his talent. Crime was particularly prevalent in Manhattan in the 1980s (the murder rate peaked in 1990), hell, the city almost went bankrupt in the 1970s - so the concept of a lawless society, and New York City being converted into a prison, doesn't seem all that far-fetched.
The Purge, on the other hand, comes at a time when crime is generally lower than it ever was. The movie probably would have made more sense in the 1980s than now. Again, there are things that the movie is trying to say, but it can't figure out what to say nor how to say it properaly. There is a terrifying schism at work in American politics in the last couple of decades, more prevalent than ever, but the rich/poor aspect of The Purge lacks any subtlety or finesse or even reality. It's got about as much understanding of all the angles as a half-assed placard in a protest.
And, yep, that son in the movie would bring anyone around to the idea of the Purge. What a gargantuan arse! Nothing short of irritating. A very clumsily written character.
It's funny. Carpenter could have made something of 'The Purge' when he was still directing good films.
Out of the four films, 'The Conjuring' spin off, 'Annabelle', was easily the worst, Although I had a good time with the four films over all. The two conjuring films being the best of the day. 'Insidious' loses its way, badly, in the last act, but the set up was decent enough. I don't think I'll be bothering with the next two films in the series. 'Annabelle' was a real letdown. It's stuffed full of satanic drivel that deadens the whole thing and the central couple (the woman especially) are two of the most unlikable people I've seen in a film, for some reason. There is one absolutely brilliant scene in it though...
The lead female character is a new mum and is tormented by her crazy looking doll in her apartment. In the scene, the doll is lying on the ground and then suddenly sits up. Then stands. Then levitates into the air. The camera focused in on the dolls face and subtly, from out of the shadows behind the doll, the demon (or the devil) who's been manipulating the doll all along appears briefly. It's terribly well done.
'The Conjuring' 1 and 2 are pretty great examples of their sub genre and they work, in no small way, due to the fact that they are super serious. There's not a moment of levity in the entire two films, so you buy into the nonsense completely. As someone who doesn't believe in ghosts or demons, even I was getting goosebumps watching. So fair balls to Mr. Wan, cos doing that to me, these days, ain't easy. I think that the "paranormal investigators", the Warrens, at the centre of the films were two hoaxers, but the film presents them as honest and truthful for its own purposes. So, we buy it. But the triumph of the films are its scares and Wan delivers the good in spades. The scares range from the merest of hints to the obligatory jump shocks. But they're well executed.
I'm runnin' this monkey farm now Frankenstein.....
'The Conjuring' 1 and 2 are pretty great examples of their sub genre and they work, in no small way, due to the fact that they are super serious. There's not a moment of levity in the entire two films, so you buy into the nonsense completely. As someone who doesn't believe in ghosts or demons, even I was getting goosebumps watching. So fair balls to Mr. Wan, cos doing that to me, these days, ain't easy. I think that the "paranormal investigators", the Warrens, at the centre of the films were two hoaxers, but the film presents them as honest and truthful for its own purposes. So, we buy it. But the triumph of the films are its scares and Wan delivers the good in spades. The scares range from the merest of hints to the obligatory jump shocks. But they're well executed.
That's what "ruined" Insidious for me. It was very, very good up until those two comic relief ghostbuster guys showed up halfway through.
Yeh. They had me questioning the direction of the film at that point. But, the point of no return is when the father goes into the void, or whatever it was called, to get the kid back.
It was gone for me then, despite some effective moments. Plus the secondary ghost was more scary the main one, who looks more like a bad Darth Maul ripoff.
It's an ok film though. Enjoyable enough.
I'm runnin' this monkey farm now Frankenstein.....
Yeh. They had me questioning the direction of the film at that point. But, the point of no return is when the father goes into the void, or whatever it was called, to get the kid back.
It was gone for me then, despite some effective moments. Plus the secondary ghost was more scary the main one, who looks more like a bad Darth Maul ripoff.
It's an ok film though. Enjoyable enough.
I enjoyed Insidious, but I can see why that 'going into the void' segment could be problematic for some. The main thing, perhaps, is that you're finally having to visualise - and create an atmosphere - for something that probably works best of all purely in the viewer's imagination. You paint your own feeling of what that place could be like based on what the characters say about it, the looks on their faces when they recounter their knowledge/experiences etc.
I've not seen The Conjuring 2 yet (that's the one based on the Enfield Poltergeist case, right?) - but I did think The Conjuring was very well done.
I've no interest in seeing Annabelle, though, as I've only heard bad things about it - I won't waste my time on it.
...
As for 'business execs not watching movies' - you're probably right. I really do wonder how well versed in cinema they actually are - and they're probably not which, considering they're in the movie biz, would be like someone running a clothes business and having no idea about fashion. You need to know the history of cinema in particular - to see where mis-steps were made, but to also appreciate what should be left well alone, or how best to approach rejuvenating a dormant franchise. "Mad Max: Fury Road" is a prime example of how to do it properly, and though I've not seen it yet, I've only heard good things about "Creed".
I enjoyed Insidious, but I can see why that 'going into the void' segment could be problematic for some. The main thing, perhaps, is that you're finally having to visualise - and create an atmosphere - for something that probably works best of all purely in the viewer's imagination. You paint your own feeling of what that place could be like based on what the characters say about it, the looks on their faces when they recounter their knowledge/experiences etc.
There are some effective parts to the "Further" (my mistake, it's not called to void). But, it comes off as more silly than scary, which is always the danger one flirts with, with horror films anyway. It does leave a chilling idea in the back of ones mind though that if that's what we have to look forward to when we die, then that's pretty fucked. If that's what Wan was trying to go for, then that needed a much more despairing approach than what he put on film.
Originally Posted by MinionZombie
I've not seen The Conjuring 2 yet (that's the one based on the Enfield Poltergeist case, right?) - but I did think The Conjuring was very well done.
Yep, it's a heavily fictionalised account of the Enfield case. It's funny looking at the Nationwide program on it. So obviously fake. Apparently the Warrens were in London for a day or two only.
'The Conjuring 2' is good, but I wouldn't be expecting it not to lapse in the more outrageous side of this type of film. It's a decent example of its type. but, it's still obvious a type, if you know what I mean. If you liked the first one, then chances are you'll get something out of the second one.
...
Originally Posted by MinionZombie
As for 'business execs not watching movies' - you're probably right. I really do wonder how well versed in cinema they actually are - and they're probably not which, considering they're in the movie biz, would be like someone running a clothes business and having no idea about fashion. You need to know the history of cinema in particular - to see where mis-steps were made, but to also appreciate what should be left well alone, or how best to approach rejuvenating a dormant franchise. "Mad Max: Fury Road" is a prime example of how to do it properly, and though I've not seen it yet, I've only heard good things about "Creed".
Haven't seen 'Creed' and probably won't. The Rocky films, for me, begin and end with the first two. I simply have no desire to further the series, although I have seen III and IV and consider them to be appalling. They'll never be watched again, but I'll be looking at I and II sometime in the future. Unfortunately, like Rambo, they took a decent character and changed him to suit a franchise that's laced with the most lam brain stupidity that I can't even enjoy them on an "80's" level, if you know what I mean. Now, I know 'Creed' and 2006's 'Rocky Balboa' are different animals to that 80's dross, but I still just cannot be bothered. Also, sports films (or "sports" films) just don't float my boat. The only one I truly enjoyed from recent memory would be 'The Damned United', which is a great film.
On 'Mad Max: Fury Road', that remake/reboot/la di da probably worked, to a large degree, because the director was Miller, who was responsible for the original films any way. If someone else was in charge, that could have been belly up in the first 30 minutes. The worse thing about rebooting that series is that I think Miller said he won't be doing any more. If not, what was the feckin point? But, this seems to have been contradicted in later interviews, so who the hell knows. It would be nice if they could continue as a new series of films. They probably need to get off the road though. There's got to be a huge number of stories to tell in that universe surely and another Mad Max on the road film may wear thin with me.
-------------------------------------------------
Continuing my James Wan buzz:
'Dead Silence'
3/10
Pretty meh over all, despite some spooky dummies and a nice idea for a story. Needed to be a little more subtle IMHO. To many sound and musical cues to inform the viewer to "be scared now". If the dummy moved, you got a musical cue, which kind of ruined the "did he move" vibe. Frankly, I wouldn't have have any cues and just have the dummy in a slightly different position, almost like a continuity error. People don't need the hands held in such a way and with the cues you'd be questioning whether there was any movement or not. For instance, there's a scene where the dummy if lying on a bed looking toward the ceiling as a woman is looking through her wardrobe for clothes. She moves in front of the camera, obscuring the bed and the dummy and when she moves out of shot, you can see that the dummy's head has moved slightly to face her direction. This is accompanied by a sound that wrecks the scene, when no musical cue would have been far more effective, especially to a cinema audience who cannot rewind and confirm their suspicions.
It really just average, but gets a low score though, because of truly stupid ending.
I'm runnin' this monkey farm now Frankenstein.....
I'd read that Miller is 100% going to make further Mad Max sequels, he just wants to do something smaller in between.
I have Conjuring 2 lined up to be viewed and very much looking forward to it. I watched the first film last October as a part of my sort of month-long Halloween marathon and I was VERY surprised how well done it was. Generally I think modern horror films are garbage for the MTV tweens, but Wan really managed to make something great. The first film will most definitely be in the line up again for this Halloween season and I'm hoping the sequel can earn it's spot in the line up as well. Probably going to give it my first spin tonight...
Not a bad film, but I can't help but feel let down with The Conjuring 2. I was entertained but never once scared or shocked like the first film. It didn't have the same "feel" and felt more like recent more generic horror films.
Not a bad film, but I can't help but feel let down with The Conjuring 2. I was entertained but never once scared or shocked like the first film. It didn't have the same "feel" and felt more like recent more generic horror films.
It certainly doesn't have the shine that the first film has, but flaws notwithstanding, it's enjoyable fair. As horror fans we can pick it apart better than others I spose and like Mark Kermode says, we aren't really the target audience.
Over the last half week, I've watched pretty much everything that Wan has directed (and some that he just produced) and the Conjuring films are easily his best efforts (apart from 'Saw'). I wouldn't mind seeing more Conjuring films.
and on that note:
'Insidious: Chapter 2'
5/10
Not much of an improvement over the first film really. Enjoyable, but sort of Big Mac(ish). I kind of felt it was a pointless exercise and I was left wanting better.
'The Rezort'
4/10
A nice idea about a resort that has been set up, after a zombie outbreak has been defeated, whereby paying punters can go and shoot the undead for giggles. Everything goes to shit though and the zombies get their "revenge". But, the budget of this cheapie lets it down and there are two of the most annoying characters ever put on screen in it. Plus, there are some serious inconsistencies with the zombie's abilities. One minute they're slow, next minute they're legging it around like sprinters, depending on what the scene requires. Could have been very good with a little bit of discipline. But all its sins drag that score down.
Last edited by shootemindehead; 01-Sep-2016 at 08:22 AM.
Reason: .
I'm runnin' this monkey farm now Frankenstein.....
On 'Mad Max: Fury Road', that remake/reboot/la di da probably worked, to a large degree, because the director was Miller, who was responsible for the original films any way. If someone else was in charge, that could have been belly up in the first 30 minutes. The worse thing about rebooting that series is that I think Miller said he won't be doing any more. If not, what was the feckin point?
The previous film enraged most hardcore TMNT fans and at best was received with an "it's okay". Even with its glaring problems, the kids enjoyed it and so did I. It was dumb, but it was fun.
Now the sequel....they cranked the dumb up to 11. Yet somehow, it works remarkably well. Rather than attempting to ground the story in some sort of reality, Shadows fully embraces the history and absurdity of the characters, particularly the cartoon from the 80's. Having grown up with said cartoon, I felt like this was a wise decision and as a result, Shadows is extremely fun. Dumb as all hell, but fun. It's quite literally the cartoon in live-action form. Including classic characters such as Bebop, Rocksteady, Krang, and Casey Jones. Even the music over the closing credits is the theme song from the cartoon. I was grinning from ear-to-ear throughout and the kids loved it as well. I can't think of another cartoon-turned-film that translated things so literally. Laughably bad in cinematic terms, but soooo much fun in over-the-top cartoon terms.
Entertaining cheapie, until it takes a left turn half way up the road and never quite gets back on track. The central story is based on a novel, so it's not really the screenplay's fault.
'Sexy Beast'
9/10
The best British gangster film since 'The Long Good Friday'. It's only real flaw is why the "past it" crooks want Ray Winstone's character to join the team so much. He doesn't really seem to add anything that essential. But, in the light of such great performances by Winstone, a creepy Ian McShane and an especially terrifying Ben Kingsley, such trivial criticisms get pushed aside.
'Layer Cake'
8/10
Another very good Brit gangster film, with a great turn by pre-Bond Daniel Craig and great support by Colm Meaney.
'Tootsie'
6/10
Famous 80's flick that's more 80's than the 80's (although it looks like it could be a story from the 50's). The oddest thing is that I'd never seen it before. It's very dated now, though, more so than a lot of 80's films. Hoffman is very good and was rightly lauded for the role (who is actually a pretty unlikable guy) and there's a quiet, subdued, Bill Murray uttering all the best sarcastic lines. There's also a great Terri Garr, once again playing "the bridesmaid and never the bride" role, but who's the most charming character in the whole film. The type of person you'd just like things to work out for, but you know they won't. It has some decent high points, but on the whole it remains an interesting curio more than anything else.
I'm runnin' this monkey farm now Frankenstein.....
Wow, I just saw Tootsie like a couple weeks ago for the first time ever, how funny. Yeah, everything shootem said is spot on. Couldn't agree more or think of anything to add.
As for movies I've seen lately, Suicide Squad and Kubo. SS gets a solid 6/10 for me. All the criticisms people have already heard I'm sure stand out, but overall I didn't hate it and would watch again. Kubo however is amazing. If y'all liked Coraline and Paranorman, I'd say definitely don't miss it. There are some scary moments, but I think it's a fantastic film for the whole family, as cliche as that is. The credits were amazing too, definitely watch them all. Great cover song over them by Regina Spektor, who I've been a fan of for years now.
Wow, I just saw Tootsie like a couple weeks ago for the first time ever, how funny. Yeah, everything shootem said is spot on. Couldn't agree more or think of anything to add.
As for movies I've seen lately, Suicide Squad and Kubo. SS gets a solid 6/10 for me. All the criticisms people have already heard I'm sure stand out, but overall I didn't hate it and would watch again. Kubo however is amazing. If y'all liked Coraline and Paranorman, I'd say definitely don't miss it. There are some scary moments, but I think it's a fantastic film for the whole family, as cliche as that is. The credits were amazing too, definitely watch them all. Great cover song over them by Regina Spektor, who I've been a fan of for years now.
I was lucky enough to go to a BAFTA preview of Kubo last week, along with a Q&A session with team (director, cinematographer, composer, animator) afterwards.
As regards the film, it was beautiful! And the lengths they went to for their art was insane! The idea of actually building a 16ft tall model (skeleton) to stop frame animate? Wow! However, I would say I think the script/story was a tad "lost" at times... Especially towards the end.
Travis Knight (director) was a very engaging and entertaining chap BTW, and gave a great post film Q&A! I had wondered how his company had managed to get going in such a cut throat industry, and then I found out who is dad is... Which possibly helps explain it
ps: We saw it in 3D which actually worked very well. Wonder if it shot in 3D or was a post conversion?
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. [click for more] -Carl Sagan
Sweet! Who's his dad? I'd really have to watch it again, but yeah, the ending could have been better... Other than that I absolutely adored it, even if I only saw it at a drive-in. Not the very best audio or visual as you might imagine. But a BAFTA? Awesome!
Sweet! Who's his dad? I'd really have to watch it again, but yeah, the ending could have been better... Other than that I absolutely adored it, even if I only saw it at a drive-in. Not the very best audio or visual as you might imagine. But a BAFTA? Awesome!
He's son of Mr Niki basically. ie: It's founder I believe... So I suspect if Travis needed some financing to get the studio up, I suspect he had a good backer
A friend of mine is on the BAFTA reviewers board so I get to see things from time to time... Tomorrow is Ron Howards new Beatles flick, complete with Ron Howard
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. [click for more] -Carl Sagan
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. [click for more]
Posting Permissions
Originally Posted by MinionZombie
What a gargantuan arse! Nothing short of irritating. A very clumsily written character.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks