Jump to content

DVD's and Films You Have Watched Recently


Guest DJM

Recommended Posts

The Wicker Man (2006)One of the more pointless remakes of recent times. Let's get the obvious out of the way. This has absolutely nothing on the fantastic original, which remains one of the finest horror films of all time. This is bad, but not as bad as I was expecting. I really don't understand why it was remade, especially when they completely change the protagonist's character. The cast are rather uninspired. Nic Cage is... Nic Cage, as always, meaning you know what to expect; trademark weird drawl, random unintentionally funny moments and some hilariously hammy acting. Ellen Burstyn gives it her all, but she's no Christopher Lee, and Helen Hunt lookalike Leelee Sobieski is even blander than usual. As a standalone horror film, it's quite poor. As a remake of a classic, it's insulting. And yet I cannot bring myself to hate this film. Why? It's simple really:Nic Cage. Dressed as a bear. Punching a woman in the face. ~

Haha, yeh the remake sucked ass.We watched the original in uni 3 or 4 times, and to be honest, its not very good (apart from the soundtrack).
What are you talking about? The original is a classic.
Just because other people like it, doesn't mean I do. :thumbsup: Its boring, and unintentionally funny at times. The acting is not really great at all. The saving graces were the climax (the only real 'horror' in the film), and I also liked the whole Christian and Pagan symbolism throughout.I'm all for horror films that build up suspense and tension, but in my view, The Wicker Man doesn't manage to do that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 6.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Wicker Man (2006)One of the more pointless remakes of recent times. Let's get the obvious out of the way. This has absolutely nothing on the fantastic original, which remains one of the finest horror films of all time. This is bad, but not as bad as I was expecting. I really don't understand why it was remade, especially when they completely change the protagonist's character. The cast are rather uninspired. Nic Cage is... Nic Cage, as always, meaning you know what to expect; trademark weird drawl, random unintentionally funny moments and some hilariously hammy acting. Ellen Burstyn gives it her all, but she's no Christopher Lee, and Helen Hunt lookalike Leelee Sobieski is even blander than usual. As a standalone horror film, it's quite poor. As a remake of a classic, it's insulting. And yet I cannot bring myself to hate this film. Why? It's simple really:Nic Cage. Dressed as a bear. Punching a woman in the face. ~

Haha, yeh the remake sucked ass.We watched the original in uni 3 or 4 times, and to be honest, its not very good (apart from the soundtrack).
What are you talking about? The original is a classic.
Just because other people like it, doesn't mean I do. :thumbsup: Its boring, and unintentionally funny at times. The acting is not really great at all. The saving graces were the climax (the only real 'horror' in the film), and I also liked the whole Christian and Pagan symbolism throughout.I'm all for horror films that build up suspense and tension, but in my view, The Wicker Man doesn't manage to do that.
Both Edward Woodward and Christopher Lee are breathtakingly good in the film - and the supporting cast are spot on as well!I didn't find any of it humorous - I suppose you might find the pagan rituals amusing out of ignorance, but it would be like laughing at a Hindu because they 'have a splodge of silly blue paint on their head'.The tension builds to an unbearable levels, leaving the climax a huge responsibilty, but it pulls it off by completely shocking and capitivating the audience - as the christian morals don't win you over. I still find that final scene tough to watch without feeling stirred.Its probably the best, and most intelligent, horror film of all time (but that does not necessarily mean the scariest!).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got to see a preview of Notes on a Scandal a week or two ago and I highly recommend it.

 

On the surface, it's a drama about teachers, but I guarantee that you could watch 100 horror movies this year and you would see nothing scarier than Judi Dench in Notes... She and Cate Blanchet are excellent in their roles and Bill Nighy nearly steals it with an awesome rant. Excellent film. Prepare to be unsettled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Pianst

 

The true story of Wladyslaw Szpilman (Adrian Brody) who, in the 1930s, was known as the most accomplished piano player in all of Poland, if not Europe. At the outbreak of the Second World War, however, Szpilman becomes subject to the anti-Jewish laws imposed by the conquering Germans. By the start of the 1940s, Szpilman has seen his world go from piano concert halls to the Jewish Ghetto of Warsaw and then must suffer the tragedy of his family deported to a death camp, while Szpilman is conscripted into a forced German Labor Compound. At last deciding to escape, Szpilman goes into hiding as a Jewish refugee where he is witness to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in 1943 and the Warsaw City Revolt in August/October 1944.

 

This film won a lot of Oscars and awards in 2003/2002 when it was released, however, despite being a heartwarming film, it is very majorly flawed. I'm surprised it is acclaimed as it was at the time - in retrospect, I suspect that its completely uncomprised view of the holocaust is probably what did it. There is some violent imagery which really sticks in your mind - such as an eldery disabled jew being thrown from a high window or the brutal shooting of a weeping woman.

 

However, despite this the film has some major flaws. Brody is so hammy in the first act of the film, and his character does not really start developing till the second hour when he is seperated from his family - but to be fair his performance in the second half of the film is brillant. Yet in the last 10 minutes of the film, when the Nazis are over-turned he turns from small withered bearded fucked in the heard guy back to his old self, with no hints of scars from what he has seen.

 

In fact if I was to recomend this film to anyone I would tell them to skip the first hour, which present characters with no backdrop or building (i.e. Szpilman family) and presents some cringeworthy moments - like when Szpilman won't stop playing the piano despite the building being bombed to shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

I don't normally feel shaken up while watching a film, but after I saw "Hostel" I nearly had the boke.What a horrible, horrible film.Scary thing is, I betcha places, like the torture chambers in this film, actually are out there.:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy

 

Arthur Dent is a British everyman. When he finally meets his perfect woman he balks at her request to go some place and she is then stolen away from him by a man claiming to have his own spaceship arrives at the party. Arthur next finds that his home is to be demolished for a bypass. He thinks it is only his house, but later realizes, with the help of Ford Prefect, that his galactic home, Earth, is going to be destroyed as well. Ford and Arthur then catch a ride on a spaceship and are Arthur finds himself on the adventure of a lifetime. He also finds the woman stolen away from him and the man who pilfered her. If Earth can be restored will Arthur want to ease back into his boring life?

 

This film is terrible. Thats all that needs to be said to be honest, but I will go on. Dent is played by Tim out of the Office, oops I mean Martin Freeman, but you wouldn't know the difference - he plays the exact same character. He's hardly likeable, and for the hero of the flick is decidely poor (the film has already failed as soon as the audience realise they don't care what happens to him).

 

From the start of the film your bounded between different planets and spaceships at breakneck speed, giving the impression that they have tried to squeeze every last ounce of the book (which I thought was average) into 1 hr 44 mins.

 

However, the real gripe I had with the film was the over-contrieved comedy. They tried so hard to make the comedy appear random and quirky that looks like the sort of jokes a middle aged science teacher would write.

 

This film is to be avoided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

I've heard Smoking Aces is very much style over substance, is this not the case then?

I wouldn't have said that myself but I can see why someone would think that. It is very stylish - again, this is coming from someone who doesn't usually pay attention to that sort of thing. There isn't THAT much of a storyline and because of all the intermingling characters it takes a while to get where it's going but because it's quite fast-paced it didn't drag at all. But as I said, I still found myself being able to connect with the characters and anticipating what was going to happen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rocky Balboa

 

Being a massive Rocky fan I hoped this wouldn't shit all over the old series but the film was amazing. A great trip down memory lane. The fight is irrelevant on the grand scale of things, it mostly centres around Rocky's life. I was riveted throughout and when the training montage hit I felt like running up the stairs in the cinema. Tremendous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...