Skip to main content

Watched Babadook recently.  Very good, low budget, Australian horror. 

 

An harassed widow mother looking after her eccentric, troubled young son is terrorised by a demonic presence.

 

Well-written characters that you care about.  No sex, jocks and hot cheerleaders being killed in various elaborate manners, gore, "surprise" endings or 'found footage' but genuinely suspenseful. 

Carnelian
Last edited by Carnelian
Originally Posted by Carnelian:

Watched Babadook recently.  Very good, low budget, Australian horror. 

You beat me to it: I was reminded earlier today that "The Babadook" was out on DVD and I meant to recommend it. Once again, I saw "The Babadook" at the cinema, and it's one of my favourite films of 2014. It's a very clever film made by someone who really understands horror (and therefore, as you say, doesn't need to resort to cheap tricks), and it's genuinely creepy as a result.

Eugene's Lair
Originally Posted by Eugene's Lair:
Originally Posted by Carnelian:

Watched Babadook recently.  Very good, low budget, Australian horror. 

You beat me to it: I was reminded earlier today that "The Babadook" was out on DVD and I meant to recommend it. Once again, I saw "The Babadook" at the cinema, and it's one of my favourite films of 2014. It's a very clever film made by someone who really understands horror (and therefore, as you say, doesn't need to resort to cheap tricks), and it's genuinely creepy as a result.

One of the few films where (well, me at least) you really care for the two leading characters, which is what cranks up the horror - even though the horror, by horror genre standards, is very mild.  It's the screenplay, claustrophobic atmosphere, dialogue and acting that makes it a good horror.  Me as a viewer, really wanted the characters to, well, 'live happily ever after'. 

 

It has a certain similarity with "We must talk about Kevin" - a totally different type of film but heavy on characterisation, where a mother's battling with the world on the side of her son - although in this case, not in a misguided manner.

Carnelian
Last edited by Carnelian

Saint, I was quite underwhelmed by Gravity but that was mainly because of the huge amounts of hype surrounding it.  It is about the most accurate portrayal of current spaceflight to come out of Hollywood.  There's quite a bit of artistic licence as the objects would be travelling so fast that you wouldn't see them coming before they hit you.  George Clooney is co-credited but must have only been in the film 20 minutes.

Carnelian
Originally Posted by Enthusiastic Contrafibularities:

 

I'm surprised no one has committed a review of Paddington to these pages. After watching the BAFTA's I'm expecting something approaching Citizen Kane in the levels of praise it generates.

 

Well, although I go to the cinema a lot, I don't tend to have the time or inclination to write much about the films I see, but I saw Paddington for the second time yesterday and it really is a lovely film. It's responsible for one of my happiest cinema-related moments of recent years, where I saw a small group of young children troop out of the theatre, all clutching their teddy bears.

 

I think a lot of people were initially put off by the trailer which played-up the slapstick, but while there's plenty of knockabout fun, there's also a lot of jokes and references for adults too: lots of film references, and it manages to tackle some fairly serious issues such as child emigration, identity, family and home, and parents being over-protective of children without ever coming across as "preachy".

Eugene's Lair

Re "Gravity": I've said this before, but I regarded it as an "event" movie like "Avatar", which really needs to be seen on the big screen for the best effect (I delayed seeing it when it first came out so I could see it for the first time on an IMAX, and it was well worth the wait).

 

It does work on the small screen, but it's a rather different movie. I can't think of another movie where I've seen so many cinema goers ducking and crying-out "oof!" in sympathy as the movie's characters were thrown around the screen!

Eugene's Lair

 

I started to watch the film Gambit the other night. The 2012 version with Colin Firth and Cameron Diaz. I fell asleep, but before I did I don't think there was any need to remake the 1966 version, which on a Sunday afternoon I enjoyed. Shirley MacLaine is much better than Diaz. I must however finish the 2012 version as it could have got so much better!

Enthusiastic Contrafibularities
Originally Posted by Eugene's Lair:

Re "Gravity": I've said this before, but I regarded it as an "event" movie like "Avatar", which really needs to be seen on the big screen for the best effect (I delayed seeing it when it first came out so I could see it for the first time on an IMAX, and it was well worth the wait).

 

It does work on the small screen, but it's a rather different movie. I can't think of another movie where I've seen so many cinema goers ducking and crying-out "oof!" in sympathy as the movie's characters were thrown around the screen!

Watched Resident Evil Afterlife 3D in the cinema

It was breath-taking

Watched it in 2D on telly - disappointed by comparison

Saint
Originally Posted by Saint:
Originally Posted by Eugene's Lair:

Re "Gravity": I've said this before, but I regarded it as an "event" movie like "Avatar", which really needs to be seen on the big screen for the best effect (I delayed seeing it when it first came out so I could see it for the first time on an IMAX, and it was well worth the wait).

 

It does work on the small screen, but it's a rather different movie. I can't think of another movie where I've seen so many cinema goers ducking and crying-out "oof!" in sympathy as the movie's characters were thrown around the screen!

Watched Resident Evil Afterlife 3D in the cinema

It was breath-taking

Watched it in 2D on telly - disappointed by comparison

Often the case.
I've seen a number of people on IMDb come up with the line that "a good film should work on any medium", but in my experience this is often just used as an excuse for someone marking a big-budget movie 1/10 after watching a low-quality pirate copy on their laptop,

 

"Avatar" was made in IMAX: that's how it was intended to be seen. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy it on a smaller screen, but you're not going to get the full effect. This is why, IMO, cinema still stands as a valid form of entertainment despite all the "home movie" advances over the years: you go there, as Ray Winstone put it, "for the experience"...

Eugene's Lair
Originally Posted by Enthusiastic Contrafibularities:

 

Cosmopolis - Steaming pile of pretentious sh*te. Pattinson has one acting style, he's poor.

Yeah: saw it at the cinema, and one of my few big disappointments. Dull and pretentious, as you say.

 

Oddly, there was another, much better, film out at about the same time with a vaguely similar premise (bloke being driven around the city) called "Holy Motors". I'm sure many would consider that one pretentious too, but it at least had the advantage of being funny...

Eugene's Lair
Originally Posted by Eugene's Lair:
Originally Posted by Enthusiastic Contrafibularities:

 

Cosmopolis - Steaming pile of pretentious sh*te. Pattinson has one acting style, he's poor.

Yeah: saw it at the cinema, and one of my few big disappointments. Dull and pretentious, as you say.

 

Oddly, there was another, much better, film out at about the same time with a vaguely similar premise (bloke being driven around the city) called "Holy Motors". I'm sure many would consider that one pretentious too, but it at least had the advantage of being funny...

 

I picked up Holy Motors on blu-ray for about ÂĢ1.99 in HMV. I noticed it was on Artificial Eye so thought what the heck, for that money worth a punt!

 

Sounds like I paid over the odds 

 

But seriously, not watched it yet (quite low on my viewing calendar). If it's funny that sounds like a bonus.

 

Enthusiastic Contrafibularities
Originally Posted by ~Sweet Dreamer~:
Hello film buffs

I like light hearted comedies, so decided to watch We're the Millers recently.
Holy mackerel! What a pile of poop the worst tripe I've seen in a very long time.
The storyline was poor, the funny bits weren't funny and the characters started off with potential but that soon evaporated into nonsense.

 

That's 95% of most comedies today.

 

I watched Whiplash the other day. Bloody brill it was.

Rawky-Roo
Originally Posted by Rawky-Roo:

Also watched Oculus. It was built up to be a genuine terrifying horror movie that puts all the rest to shame.

 

T'was a loada balls. It did have some interesting direction, but aside from that it was a non-scary snooze fest.

I liked it.  Thought it was well put together plot with good characterisation. 

Carnelian
Originally Posted by Enthusiastic Contrafibularities:

 

Cosmopolis - Steaming pile of pretentious sh*te. Pattinson has one acting style, he's poor.

I wrote a rather pretentious dismissal of it a week or two ago and deleted it because it sounded a bit wanky.  So here's my new go.

 

It is a load of pretentious boring shite.  As with Cronenberg's latest effort, which further confirms him as self indulgent, navel gazing spent force. 

 

Arrogance on the part of Cronenberg and Pattinson that this dull preachy tripe could sustain interest.  I'd rather sit through a well-presented polemic against the banks and capitalism than watch a self indulgent Hollywood director peddle his self 'anti establishment' statement with the aid of a vacuous big name product shifter like Pattinson.

 

Pattinson couldn't really have saved such a dire film premise and screenplay even if he were the best actor in the world, which, of course, he isn't.

 

 

Carnelian
Originally Posted by Carnelian:
Originally Posted by Rawky-Roo:

Also watched Oculus. It was built up to be a genuine terrifying horror movie that puts all the rest to shame.

 

T'was a loada balls. It did have some interesting direction, but aside from that it was a non-scary snooze fest.

I liked it.  Thought it was well put together plot with good characterisation. 

Hmm, I was disappointed by it. It's not often I get creeped out by movies, was hoping this one would've done it, but no. I'm too hardcore, I guess

 

The Babadook was a little better. Fantastic acting, but again not as scary as I would've liked.

Rawky-Roo

The two faces of January - finally watched it 

 

Another movie based on a best seller from Patricia Highsmith - one other being my all time favourite "The talented Mr Ripley"

 

Sadly The two faces of January pales in comparison

Oh it's beautifully shot and well acted throughout but it's all too hurried.

None of the characters are likable and I ended up not really caring about the outcome.

I'll guess the books fleshed out much about the characters and was possibly lost in the movies' translation.

In the Talented Mr Ripley we're rooting for the protagonist from the start. All the characters are delicious. The tensions mounts in a tale of cat and mouse.

 

But in 'January' its just over before it started - and I didn't care who got bumped off

Saint

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×