Jump to content
Devon Malcolm

DVDs and Films You Have Watched Recently 3 - The Final Insult

Recommended Posts

I’ve got Lords of Chaos to watch, hopefully get round to it tomorrow. I’m cautiously optimistic about it due to being Jonas Åkerlund project

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2019 at 2:38 PM, Devon Malcolm said:

Cold Pursuit was really good...I liked the way it kept the same offbeat humour and didn't just settle for being another Liam Neeson actioner.

+1.  Initially I was slightly disappointed that it wasn't "Taken on Ice" and then you realise all the "Taken on Ice" stuff is either super-lazy or from those who haven't seen it.  It's got far more in common with Lock, Stock... than Taken.  Enjoyed.

8 hours ago, SuperBacon said:

Isnt It Romantic?

This was terrible. A film pulling apart romcom tropes could’ve been fairly decent. Not even Rebel Wilson could save it.

I'd watch Rebel Wilson make a Pot Noodle so it's staying in my watch list.

I remember getting Delirious out at the video shop, I'm not sure it even had a cinema release here.  Not quite classic Candy like a Planes, Trains... or Uncle Buck but it's still John Candy.  What else had the typewriter  gimmick semi-recently?  The Will Ferrell/Nicole Kidman Bewitched film?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mind Isn't It Romantic?, got a few laughs from me.  It's not going to be regarded as a classic but there are far worse films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I thought it was pretty standard but watchable enough. Not as clever as it tried to be but had enough heart to carry it through.

I watched Edge of Tomorrow again. It's so good and deserves way more love than it got. Best part is the 700 shots of Blunt holding that cat stretch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell (1974)

I love Peter Cushing's Frankenstein movies, and Hammer in general, but had never seen this one before last night. I tended to buy into the received wisdom that it's part of Hammer Horror's death throes, and one of their weaker films - as they moved into the '70s, they tended to rely more on gore, tits and shock value in an attempt to compete with American studios, at the expense of atmosphere and decent writing.

I actually really enjoyed this, though. I really enjoy how Cushing portrays Frankenstein across all of his films - he's not the insane, cackling mad scientist of Universal's monster movies or every pop culture Frankenstein you've ever seen, but a dignified, urbane, society figure who happens to be fanatically driven. There are points throughout the series where he almost feels like a sympathetic character before you're reminded who he is. There's a point in this movie where he says to his assistant, "I'm not a murderer", that's delivered with such understated disappointment by Cushing that it becomes chilling - the idea that Frankenstein has a strict moral code, but within his work is just so blinded by ambition that he doesn't recognise it, makes him far scarier than the standard depiction.

The plot of this one is about a student doctor, Simon Helder, who is arrested for "sorcery" when it's discovered that he has been graverobbing and attempting to replicate Baron Frankenstein's experiments. He's committed to an asylum, where the Baron himself was sentenced but, via machinations that become clear over the course of the film, has managed to become appointed the doctor in residence. 

Helder was played for the most part as cold and emotionally distant, and the Baron at times with something approaching warmth, that I spent much of it wondering who would eventually "break" - whether Helder, exposed to the real Frankenstein, would realise the true horror of what he was meddling in, or if Frankenstein would be eclipsed by someone equally driven but with fewer moral hang-ups, and have a Frankenstein face turn. I won't say which happens.

The monster is pretty goofy - it's a David Prowse-played hairy beast man thing. I admire Hammer's insistence on never presenting any of their Frankenstein creations as the Universal style bolt-neck monster, but given that this one was just supposed to be a hodgepodge of human body parts, I don't think there was any explanation why he looked the way he did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally sat down and watched Get Out on the weekend.

Really enjoyed it! Hit all the right marks for intensity and executing a concept with equal amounts style and substance. It was restrained too, and that really surprised me considering that it's a modern horror.

Some stuff felt a bit off (why would the family willingly invite a professional photographer? Who made noise in the cubbby hole?) but not enough to bring the film down as a whole. 

Edited by Accident Prone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BomberPat said:

Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell (1974)

The monster is pretty goofy - it's a David Prowse-played hairy beast man thing. I admire Hammer's insistence on never presenting any of their Frankenstein creations as the Universal style bolt-neck monster, but given that this one was just supposed to be a hodgepodge of human body parts, I don't think there was any explanation why he looked the way he did. 

They couldn't. Universal were militant about their copyright of their version of the character by that point. I'm surprised Hammer managed to get away with the Christopher Lee look as the Monster because of a couple of the similarities.

From what I understand Hammer actually had to rewrite a couple of the earlier Frankenstein films to remove elements that were in the Universal movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched a couple of films over the weekend 

I’d bought Student Bodies as a blind buy off Amazon which came Friday so stuck it on Saturday, really cheesy fun movie that pokes fun at what was then a fledgling slasher genre (it came out 3 years after Halloween and a year after Friday the 13th)

Then last night after the Derby I watched Goodfellas on Netflix for the first time in a long time, still a top quality film with Pesci and Liotta stealing the show

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, chokeout said:

They couldn't. Universal were militant about their copyright of their version of the character by that point. I'm surprised Hammer managed to get away with the Christopher Lee look as the Monster because of a couple of the similarities.

From what I understand Hammer actually had to rewrite a couple of the earlier Frankenstein films to remove elements that were in the Universal movies.

One of the interesting things about the portrayal of the monster in movies is that, in the original book, he wasn't meant to look that grotesque and piecemeal; he was supposed to have been expertly constructed by Frankenstein from parts that would have made him a paragon of human physical beauty, but the re-animation process made him ugly by subtly subverting his features, with watery eyes and sallow features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Accident Prone said:

Finally sat down and watched Get Out on the weekend.

Really enjoyed it! Hit all the right marks for intensity and executing a concept with equal amounts style and substance. It was restrained too, and that really surprised me considering that it's a modern horror.

Some stuff felt a bit off (why would the family willingly invite a professional photographer? Who made noise in the cubbby hole?) but not enough to bring the film down as a whole. 

I finally got around to watching this at the weekend also. Loved it. The whole style and tone of it was great. (Also it's a rare treat for me to get to watch any scary movies because my wife can't hack them but that's another matter).

The reason the professional photographer was there is because

he was selected to be Stephen Root's vessel specifically

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chest Rockwell said:

I finally got around to watching this at the weekend also. Loved it. The whole style and tone of it was great. (Also it's a rare treat for me to get to watch any scary movies because my wife can't hack them but that's another matter).

The reason the professional photographer was there is because

  Hide contents

he was selected to be Stephen Root's vessel specifically

.

 

 

Oh, I must've missed that bit of info then. I knew Stephen wanted Chris during his reveal later on, but it never occurred to me that Chris was selected for him specifically considering that they still had to have an auction. 

I still think that having a photographer would be too big of risk to the operation, unless there is some cutting room floor footage of Stephen convincing the Armitage's that Chris is worth the hassle and him promising big money for the vessel to make it all worth it.

Even then, a scene of Chris's camera being tampered with (maybe his the camera flash is 'accidentally' disabled somehow by Rose or the maid?) would've been enough to cover it.
 

And the scene where Chris finds the box of photos is confusing too. He hears a noise and investigates the cubby hole, and that's where he finds the box of photos. It seemed like they were going to have someone on the inside helping Chris out, like Jeremy or Walter.

So who made the noise and, seemingly, left those photos in plain site? Is it all part of the Armitage's process to help Chris come to the grisly conclusion naturally? I felt that some explanation was needed there, but again, wasn't enough to negatively impact the movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh. That was an auction? I didn't get that at the time. I forgot about that scene afterwards and at the time I thought it was some hypnosis thing. Maybe I have it wrong. But I thought that whole scene where he has the conversation with Stephen about his photography etc sufficiently explained it for me.

I didn't think anything of the cubby hole bit at the time so it didn't bother me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

One of the interesting things about the portrayal of the monster in movies is that, in the original book, he wasn't meant to look that grotesque and piecemeal; he was supposed to have been expertly constructed by Frankenstein from parts that would have made him a paragon of human physical beauty, but the re-animation process made him ugly by subtly subverting his features, with watery eyes and sallow features.

I may not be remembering correctly - I haven't read the book in a long time - but it's never made explicit in the book that he was made from exhumed human body parts, was it? He was just a monster constructed and given life, with the actual process being left (intentionally?) vague, and the incorporation of grave robbing and him being pieced together from body parts began with the movie - in Edison's 1910 movie, the monster emerges fully formed from a vat of liquid.

I must have known that Universal didn't permit them to use the more recognisable look, but had forgotten. I like it, though, and feel that not being able to use that monster design likely lead to them making other creative choices that moved them further away from a simple rehash of the Universal movie formula, and it makes the Hammer films stronger for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

I may not be remembering correctly - I haven't read the book in a long time - but it's never made explicit in the book that he was made from exhumed human body parts, was it? He was just a monster constructed and given life, with the actual process being left (intentionally?) vague, and the incorporation of grave robbing and him being pieced together from body parts began with the movie - in Edison's 1910 movie, the monster emerges fully formed from a vat of liquid.

I must have known that Universal didn't permit them to use the more recognisable look, but had forgotten. I like it, though, and feel that not being able to use that monster design likely lead to them making other creative choices that moved them further away from a simple rehash of the Universal movie formula, and it makes the Hammer films stronger for it. 

That's absolutely true, they made it more about Frankenstein's replication of parts, his calculations, and proportioning of the creature's body.

Edited by Carbomb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said:

 

  Hide contents

Oh. That was an auction? I didn't get that at the time. I forgot about that scene afterwards and at the time I thought it was some hypnosis thing. Maybe I have it wrong. But I thought that whole scene where he has the conversation with Stephen about his photography etc sufficiently explained it for me.

 

I didn't think anything of the cubby hole bit at the time so it didn't bother me.

 

 

That auction/party scene, and the way they built around it and weave together all the themes, is probably my favorite part of the movie. Chris is what people will be bidding on, so they're asking questions about him like you would if you were examining an item for auction. Stuff like the old man asking about Chris' golf swing and the woman inquiring about his sexual ability, and Rose dragging Chris away in supposed anger before it all began. 

I was thinking about all the hidden clues yesterday, and it's astounding; Rose not having empathy for the deer, Georgina spilling the tea because Missy accidentally clinked her spoon, Walter sprinting at night due to his Olympic failures and the massive symbolism of the auction and Chris plugging his ears with cotton. 

Any movie that has me thinking back to hints and foreshadowing to that degree, that propels a film upwards regardless of any small plotholes.

Edited by Accident Prone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...