Paid Members Egg Shen Posted July 30, 2006 Paid Members Share Posted July 30, 2006 I thought Wolfcreek was shit. There was no tension in the first or second half. It felt disjointed and the violence occured with little to no relevance.This man is correct.The very fact that for the film to be scary you have to be afraid of a fat old Australian man is ridiculous. The characters have nothing to them and the atcing is shit. The build-up isn't tense or mood-setting...it's dull. And the fact that the film tries to ocme off as super-realistic but then goes for all the usual horror cliches makes it even worse than it already is.what do you mean the 'violence occured with little to no relevance'? relevance to what?? its about a guy who kills random people, because he enjoys it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DJM Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 I watched Wolf Creek again earlier today. About as good/bad as I remembered it being - I liked it a little more than when I watched it at the cinema, but that is probably because I could use the Fast-Forward function on the DVD player to FFW through (most of the first half of) the movie. It still takes far too long to get going and for anything interesting to happen (the first half-hour plus of the film is like a visitors guide to Australia!), but when the film does get going it is good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukedge87 Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 what do you mean the 'violence occured with little to no relevance'? relevance to what?? its about a guy who kills random people, because he enjoys it. Relevance to any of the below would have been fine in my book:* What happens in the first half* The characters themselves* Any themes or emotions already woven into the audience's mindInstead it appear random, as if it is being made up as it goes along, and expects its self smug attitude with the ending and the play on the cliches of the horror genre to treat the film with more respect than it deserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van_Dammer Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 (edited) SpaceballsI heard this movie was supposed to be funny. Whoever told me this was talking a big pile of shit. Probably the worst spoof movie I have ever come across.I have to disagree. Spaceballs may not be as good as Mel Brooks' other films, such as Young Frankenstein, but by no means is it bad. In my opinion, it's a consistently funny spoof that's well-directed, filled with witty and generally funny lines and an abundance of slapstick. CarsIn this animated family film, Lightning McQueen, a famous race car, is en route to a huge event, but winds up in Radiator Springs, a rundown town. After accidentally damaging the main road there, he can't leave until he repairs it.I like the concept behind this movie. We've already seen animals, toys and various other things personified in similar films, but I think cars can be given personality more effectively than, say, a group of ants. For example, it doesn't get much better than a low rider voiced by Cheech Marin of Cheech & Chong fame. A cocky race car also seems like a perfect fit, unlike a hypochondriac giraffe, as seen in Madagascar.Cars begins on a high note as Lightning McQueen's fast-paced environment is the first element of the story that the audience is introduced to. Immediately, the film creates a good impression, visually. The establishing wide shots are great and feature a surprising amount of detail and the vivid colours will immediately capture the interest of any younger viewers. Some of the night shots used throughout Cars are equally as nice.The film begins to suffer during the middle, though. Despite its running time of two hours, I wouldn't say that it drags; it's just weaker at this point. There's less emphasis on the humour after McQueen has been in Radiator Springs for a while as the conventional elements of the story become more significant. It does become fairly cheesy as there's a montage of the town's history, which is set to a country song about how important it is to the cars that inhabit it. The song is honestly like something Matt Stone and Trey Parker would produce as a hammy parody.Thankfully, Cars quickly picks up again, though, and doesn't become as predictable as you'd assume, either. The humour also gradually builds towards the end, which is just as entertaining as the beginning. So, whilst Cars definitely isn't Pixar's best film and there is room for improvement, it's a solid attempt. At the very least, it'll keep you entertained and, judging from the trailers prior to it, Cars looks far superior to the sting of animated films about to be released. There's the uninspired bastard child of Antz and A Bug's Life, The Ant Bully. In another seemingly cheap attempt to cash-in on the interest of animated family films, we have Happy Feet, the story of a dancing penguin. Even the overrated Steven Spielberg is jumping on the bandwagon. Edited July 30, 2006 by Van_Dammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ez Money Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 Watched Lucky Number Slevin last night/this morn. Thought it was great how it all came together in the end, reminded me of my fave ever film, The Usual Suspects. EZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DJM Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 Watched Final Destination 3 & The Hills Have Eyes(2006) again in the last week. Both still very good films, with FD3 still great for the death-scenes and the unique "Choose Their Fate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fantastic Phillips Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 Watched the Hills have eyes, The Ringer and She's the Man last night.The hills have eyes is good if a little bit predictable, the ringer was not as funny as I expected, very disapointed and She's the man suprised me as it was better than I expected even though it was not a good film it was entertaining! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Egg Shen Posted July 31, 2006 Paid Members Share Posted July 31, 2006 what do you mean the 'violence occured with little to no relevance'? relevance to what?? its about a guy who kills random people, because he enjoys it. Instead it appear random, as if it is being made up as it goes along, and expects its self smug attitude with the ending and the play on the cliches of the horror genre to treat the film with more respect than it deserves.that's the whole point...it is random. The opening quote of the movie when it mentions how many backbackers go missing in australia every year kinda tells you how random it is...people go missing and are never heard from again, the movie just gives the directors impression of what possibly happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_the_Lion Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Watched the Hills have eyes, The Ringer and She's the Man last night.The hills have eyes is good if a little bit predictable, the ringer was not as funny as I expected, very disapointed and She's the man suprised me as it was better than I expected even though it was not a good film it was entertaining!The Hills have Eyes remake is fucking awful, not as bad as the Texas Chainsaw remake but still awful.Not a patch on the original which had the scariest looking feller in movies history (no make-up required). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Egg Shen Posted July 31, 2006 Paid Members Share Posted July 31, 2006 I disagree, i believe the re-make is better...for once the makers didnt gloss it up they kept the setting of the first but just made it better.The TCM remake is excellent too, in my opinion the interrogation scene in the van is one of the best scenes in horror, incredible tension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Miamivenis Posted July 31, 2006 Paid Members Share Posted July 31, 2006 (edited) what do you mean the 'violence occured with little to no relevance'? relevance to what?? its about a guy who kills random people, because he enjoys it. Relevance to any of the below would have been fine in my book:* What happens in the first half* The characters themselves* Any themes or emotions already woven into the audience's mindInstead it appear random, as if it is being made up as it goes along, and expects its self smug attitude with the ending and the play on the cliches of the horror genre to treat the film with more respect than it deserves.What a steaming pile of crap! Your initial statement was entirely composed of fiction and your attempts to qualify said statement are laughable. It's entirely understandable that you might not enjoy the film and subsequently post stating this but why continue to defend such a nonsensical point as highlighted by Ebb? It screams "pedantic". Edited July 31, 2006 by Miamivenis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Stevie C Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 (edited) The TransporterA good idea, badly, BADLY executed. I still don't understand why the girl was in the bag. I also don't get why one of the trucks just vanished. So many picky points that ruined this film (Like the convoy at the end going over the same bridge 20 times). Was a shame really as it could've been a good film.Ghost Dog (The way of the samurai)2nd time I've seen this, I really like Whittaker's character, he's serious and he acts the part perfectly. The 'bad guys' really ham it up though and that took away a little of my enjoyment, still again a great Idea and a good movie if a little contrived and daft in places. Edited July 31, 2006 by DJ Stevie C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_the_Lion Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Since this thread is occupied by some people with a broad knowledge of film a little help would be appreciated.I'm trying to remember the name of a film, so I can get it on DVD, and its driving me nuts.It was a Kung fu pisstake, they had a yank in the lead role, usual story of guy trained by master girl kidnapped etc, fairly sure they used footage from other films and then dubbed over with the pisstake stuff.Any help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Miamivenis Posted July 31, 2006 Paid Members Share Posted July 31, 2006 (edited) Since this thread is occupied by some people with a broad knowledge of film a little help would be appreciated.I'm trying to remember the name of a film, so I can get it on DVD, and its driving me nuts.It was a Kung fu pisstake, they had a yank in the lead role, usual story of guy trained by master girl kidnapped etc, fairly sure they used footage from other films and then dubbed over with the pisstake stuff.Any help? Kung Pow? Edited July 31, 2006 by Miamivenis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_the_Lion Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Since this thread is occupied by some people with a broad knowledge of film a little help would be appreciated.I'm trying to remember the name of a film, so I can get it on DVD, and its driving me nuts.It was a Kung fu pisstake, they had a yank in the lead role, usual story of guy trained by master girl kidnapped etc, fairly sure they used footage from other films and then dubbed over with the pisstake stuff.Any help? Kung Pow? that's the one. Thank you may friend.Kung Pow - how the fuck could I not remember a name like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts