The Zone

by **Bloo** on Tue Aug 16, 2011 6:32 pm

minstrel wrote:Last night I saw Hitchcock's "Dial M For Murder" for the first time all the way through. I'd seen the last act many times on TV - I always seemed to come in at the last act, and I thought it seemed like a really clever murder show, but I'd never seen the setup before last night.

It's a really cool film! Finally I know the whole plot, and I understand the payoff so much better. John Williams as Inspector Hubbard is absolutely wonderful, full of British reserve and ego and intelligence and a kind of wicked humor underlying it all. Anthony Dawson (who was the doomed Professor Dent in Dr. No) plays another doomed guy here, and if there's ever a remake, Steve Buscemi would be the perfect casting for his part. Ray Milland is clever and ultra-suave as the slime of the piece, and, of course, Grace Kelly is beautiful as the doomed and yet saved victim.

The Columbo TV movies owe a ton to this film. They all follow this formula, but as much as I'm a fan of Peter Falk, I think John Williams outdoes him here.

I'm going to rewatch this quite a bit, I think. Highly recommended!

There was a remake called A Perfect Murder with Micheal Douglas, Gwyneth Paltrow, Viggo Mortenson, and David Suchet.

by **Spandau Belly** on Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:48 am

STREETWALKIN'

I saw this film on Harry's DVD column and then saw it the same day at my local video store and figured it was fate, so I rented it. For the first five minutes of this film I felt like the scummiest person on Earth. This Melissa Leo chick who is the lead actress looks like she's twelve; she and her brother have just run away to New York from an abusive home. Leo's acting in this scene is just so heartwrenching. You really sense the fear in her and as this pimp guy quickly vultures in on her she really communicates how scared and naive she is and how quickly hopelessness is sinking in. The acting and the tone of the opening scene were getting me close to crying, but then the film jumps forward to her already being an established streetwalking prostitute who is comfortable with her career. Which was a mistake in my opinion. She wears makeup that makes her look like Tori Amos, but she doesn't baffle her johns with confusing lyrics. From then on it's just a cheesy whoresploitation movie.

The film is mostly a pale version of VICE SQUAD. A crazy sadistic pimp wants revenge on her and is tearing the town apart looking for her and it's just basically a thriller chase movie about whether the good guy (a good pimp) can get to her and protect her before the evil pimp finds her and kills her. STREETWALKIN' isn't as sleazy and the violence is toned down a lot. The evil sadistic pimp is once again portrayed by a handsome white dude, sadly he doesn't sing the theme song like in VICE SQUAD. The theme song in STREETWALKIN' is a better song, which kinda makes it worse because Wings Hauser howling out 'Neon Slime' was pure entertainment. But still, I'll give credit to STREETWALKIN' for its nice theme song and look forward to hearing it recycled in DJANGO UNCHAINED when Django is strutting through the cotton fields talking about 70s tv shows or whatever.

Overall, I don't really recommend this film in a big way. It's got good music and acting plus the benefit of the novelty of seeing Julie Newmar as a sassy aging whore. But it's sorta lost inbetween a real movie and an exploitation movie and doesn't completely work as either.

by **SilentScream** on Sun Aug 21, 2011 11:07 am

West Side Story. What a fucking ace musical. Great dancing, good story, great songs, dramatic and moving and just wonderfully entertaining all the way through.

Breaking The Waves. Now Lars is a mentalist, we all know that. But when he gets his shit together it works so damn well. This tough, uncompromising movie shows him at a peak for me and Emily Watson's performance is one of the best by ANY actress I've seen for ages and ages.

by **Spandau Belly** on Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:48 pm

BREAKING THE WAVES and DANCER IN THE DARK were stellar, they were brutal, but compasionate for their heroines, after that Von Trier got more into making movies that were sadistic experiments than movies.

by **minstrel** on Mon Aug 22, 2011 12:50 am

Cinderella Man is on TV. I've seen it many times before, but Paul Giamatti's performance as Joe Gould still impresses me. It's Oscar worthy. Bruce McGill's quasi-Irish accent comes and goes, though, and, while I usually like Bruce McGill, it undermines his performance in this film.

by **so sorry** on Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:03 pm

SilentScream wrote:West Side Story. What a fucking ace musical. Great dancing, good story, great songs, dramatic and moving and just wonderfully entertaining all the way through.

Best musical ever. And one of my top ten films overall probably.

by **GerryMcD** on Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:32 am

Tales From The Golden Age

The film received Un Certain Regard at Cannes, which is a big deal if you're not familiar. Really incredible stuff. It's a comedy that captures life during the Ceausescu regime in Romania. I have to say - with no prior knowledge of the country before watching, I was really impressed and intrigued. It was a tough time, but even in tough times people always seem to find room for humor. Check it out and you'll see what I mean. Great film!

by **Hermanator X** on Fri Aug 26, 2011 9:43 am

Just finished the Rome box set, which I thought was incredible. Titus is the man, and loved that he kept his geordie accent.

So now its time another catch up show. Breaking bad, season 1 episode 1.
I guess any fans of the show may be jealous of my voyage of fresh viewing.
I know very little about the show, but was in awe of the first ep.

by **so sorry** on Fri Aug 26, 2011 11:21 am

Hermanator X wrote:Just finished the Rome box set, which I thought was incredible. Titus is the man, and loved that he kept his geordie accent.
.

Awesome show. I bough the two seasons a few years ago at Best Buy (half off) just from word of mouth here in the Zone. I've got to watch them again soon.

by **Hermanator X** on Sat Aug 27, 2011 2:21 pm

so sorry wrote:
Hermanator X wrote:Just finished the Rome box set, which I thought was incredible. Titus is the man, and loved that he kept his geordie accent.
.

Awesome show. I bough the two seasons a few years ago at Best Buy (half off) just from word of mouth here in the Zone. I've got to watch them again soon.

Yeah, I thought it was superb, and picked it up for a similar reason on Blu. Looking forward to watching it again down the line. Maybe with the extra feature set that gives you the historical factoids, for a bit of an education. We found ourselves pausing and googling the meanings of one or two things. :lol:

by **DennisMM** on Sat Aug 27, 2011 7:06 pm

Zodiac was well-written, well-acted and not too manneredly directed by Fincher. As I read Robert Graysmith's book years ago, I was pleased to see the development of him as a semi-fictional character. Fine work from Gyllenhall, Ruffalo, Edwards and Downey. Wish the disc had extras.

by **minstrel** on Sat Aug 27, 2011 7:50 pm

Roomie had The Godfather on all afternoon, and I semi-tuned-in sometimes. Now he's watching all the extras on the disk.

I used to hate The Godfather because I thought it was dull, but over the years, each time I catch a scene or two in passing, it seems to get more interesting to me. One of these days I'm going to have to sit down and actually watch it all the way through. Did you know that it has Al Pacino in it, before he started doing that cement-mixer thing with his voice? :wink:

by **John-Locke** on Sat Aug 27, 2011 9:16 pm

I just watched Stranger Than Fiction and thought it was rather brilliant, although it's probably a bit too charming and self satisfying.

by **Peven** on Sat Aug 27, 2011 10:16 pm

John-Locke wrote:I just watched Stranger Than Fiction and thought it was rather brilliant, although it's probably a bit too charming and self satisfying.

I think it is an under-appreciated little gem myself

by **Spandau Belly** on Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:48 am

LICENSE TO DRIVE

I pretty rarely watch comedy movies, especially not by my own choice, but for some reason I felt like a comedy yesterday so I rented LICENSE TO DRIVE and watched it for the first time since I was a kid. The movie is actually pretty good in my opinion. They do a good job of making us identify with the main character (Corey Haim) and making him likeable. They do the smart thing of not making him some sociopathic douche like Ferris Bueller, instead he's a good nervous kid who wants to do the right thing but slowly gets in over his head. So there's better comic tension to most of the scenes because this kid really doesn't want to get caught sneaking out and doesn't want to damage his grandfather's car in any way.

I also like how they keep the film fairly inocent and without raunch. Haim is sneaking out with his grandpa's car and no license to take his dreamgirl (a funny performance from a young cute Heather Graham) on a date. And it always seems like he has real romantic feelings for her. It's not just some movie about teenage horndogs trying to get in girls' pants, in fact, they avoid most of that stuff, and I think the film is better for it. Like I said, it makes the character more likeable.

So I'd say this is a good movie. There are plenty of funny scenes of misadventures during the wild night out and the prologue of Haim going for his license test and the epilogue with Haim's family are both full of good laughs. I think the drunk driver guy steals the show, but Graham is also pretty funny. The film has a good sense of setup and payoff and holds its comedic tension.

Good job, Coreys.

by **TheBaxter** on Mon Aug 29, 2011 9:48 am

this past weekend i watched Knowing with Nicolas Cage. this was a really stupid film. it kinda reminded me of the Happening, except not as unintentionally hilarious.

it's kind of impossible to talk about the film without spoilers though, so instead of making a post that looks like swiss cheese with blacked-out sections i'll just spoiler text the whole thing. the bottom line for those who don't want to be spoiled is, the movie is a) derivative, b) logically dumb, and c) veers from being a film about one thing, to being about something totally different at the end. which isn't always a bad thing, but when it's done in a way that makes the early parts of the film completely useless and worthless, then it is a bad thing.

it's bad enough the film borrows heavily from an earlier film, but worse that it borrows so heavily from an earlier film by the exact same director. it's like alex proyas took his sinister figures with mysterious motives following the main character around and who turn out to be aliens in the end straight from dark city and plopped them in the middle of this movie. dark city was a pretty good film (not a masterpiece like some of proyas' worshippers, i.e. roger ebert, believe, but a good film). this movie isn't good by any stretch though, and reusing those figures from dark city is just lazy, derivative film making.

the logically dumb part comes when you learn these guys are aliens, and their purpose is to find some kids to take off the planet and reseed the human species on another planet, and how if that was their plan all along, it makes no sense that they would have been doing things the way they have been doing them. if that's all they want, why not just take some kids, fly away, and be done with it? why the whole game with following the kids around, showing them apocalyptic visions, making them write down long strings of numbers on pieces of paper that predict future disasters? how do any of those things in any way make the whole "take the kids and transplant them on another planet" easier or better? if anything they make it harder, since it then causes their parents to try to run away from them, hide from them, etc. also, since these aliens can apparently predict the future (and how they can do that, of course, is never explained.... do they time travel too? or are they psychic? or have they mastered science so completely they can predict random plane crashes and subway accidents, down to the exact location and number of deaths in each disaster, merely through statistical analysis? i can buy that they could predict the massive solar flare that is going to destroy the earth ahead of time, even nic cage was able to do that eventually, but the other things?), since they can do that, the aliens apparently knew the end of the world was coming over 50 years ago.... why not just take the kids then? why wait 50 years or however much later from whenever they first learned the earth was going to die? why do they wait to the day before the end of the world to move all these kids off the planet? what if one of these alien psychics/time travelers/statisticians made a mistake some where and the end of the world came a day early, and all those kids got killed along with everyone else? the aliens just throw up their hands, say oh well, and move on to another planet that's about to end?

and this all gets me back to the last problem, which is that this movie goes from being an apocalyptic thriller with conspiracy overtones to a sci-fi alien film. which would have been fine, if the sudden change didn't totally undermine everything that led up to it. as i said before, what purpose was there in having these kids predict these disasters? there was nothing anyone could do to prevent them, or the final destruction of the planet. and there was no need to convince the kids or nic cage or any of the characters that the end was coming, since it wasn't like the aliens couldn't just take the kids if they wanted to. there's a brief bit of dialogue about the kids having a choice of going or staying, and maybe you could say everything that led up to the end was about convincing the kids they had to leave with the aliens and convincing the parents they had to let the kids go... but really, how exactly is a bunch of dark shadowy figures following you around, showing you scary visions, and leaving black rocks behind, supposed to be a convincing argument that the world is going to end and the kids need to leave with said creepy aliens? the whole thing with the disaster predictions just seems stupid and pointless by the end.

by **caruso_stalker217** on Tue Aug 30, 2011 8:12 pm

Ah, THE SEARCHERS. Always an infuriating experience.

by **so sorry** on Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:41 pm

Watched The Fighter over the weekend. Pretty good flick, but nothing spectacular. I don't think Mark Walhberg has much of a range as an actor, but the character he plays in this movie is right up his alley, so it fit well for him. Bale is Bale, which is to say he really gets into his character. Hopefully he stayed away from the real crack while turning himself into a movie crack head. I did go and watch the HBO documentary that The Fighter is loosely based on. Dickie was only one three crackheads the documentary followed. For some reason I was expecting him to be the main focus and he wasn't.

And as a side note: I don't claim to have a wealth of knowledge about boxing movies, but from what I do remember about all the ones I've seen, including The Fighter, is that none really capture what a real boxing match looks and feels like. And the obvious answer is because the actors aren't really punching each other, and all their moves are scripted etc. But it just bugs me when I'm watching Marky Mark's big fight scene, and he takes out his opponent with a head-body combo, but damned if it didn't look incredible fake. I almost felt like the millisecond before the punching I could hear the director yell "action", THEN Mickey makes the 2 punches, then I hear "cut" in my head. I dunno, maybe its just me.

So I give the fighter 7/10, and one whole point of that score is for giving me a long lusty shot of Amy Adams in see thru bra and panties. Of course I also deducted one whole point for having to listen to that fucking Boston accent for an hour and a half.

by **minstrel** on Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:23 pm

So sorry, have you seen Cinderella Man? I thought the boxing in that looked pretty realistic. Mind you, it was attempting to replicate 1930s boxing, not today's boxing, so there's a difference there.

Website · by **Bayouwolf** on Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:26 pm

Saw "The Joneses" on Showtime yesterday...

All in all not a bad flick. The ending twist was a little more "up its own ass" than I expected it to be, but not bad work from Demi or Duchovny. I really expected it to be a whole lot worse than it was. Maybe that's why I enjoyed it so much. Plus, Amber Heard gets completely nude and, well, enough said...

by **so sorry** on Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:26 pm

minstrel wrote:So sorry, have you seen Cinderella Man? I thought the boxing in that looked pretty realistic. Mind you, it was attempting to replicate 1930s boxing, not today's boxing, so there's a difference there.

No I have not. Not a boxing fan so it never interested me when it came out. Not a big Crowe fan either...

Maybe Jackman's Real Steel will finally do boxing some justice!

by **Hermanator X** on Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:28 pm

Watched city of god for the first time in years. Forgot just how amazing it is.
If you have it in your collection but haven't seen for 5+ years, stick it on.

by **minstrel** on Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:31 pm

so sorry wrote:
minstrel wrote:So sorry, have you seen Cinderella Man? I thought the boxing in that looked pretty realistic. Mind you, it was attempting to replicate 1930s boxing, not today's boxing, so there's a difference there.

No I have not. Not a boxing fan so it never interested me when it came out. Not a big Crowe fan either...

Maybe Jackman's Real Steel will finally do boxing some justice!

Don't watch it for Crowe. Watch it for Paul Giamatti, who gives a fantastic performance as Crowe's manager. It really turned me into a Giamatti fan.

by **Spandau Belly** on Sun Sep 04, 2011 11:00 am

PINK FLOYD: THE WALL

I consider myself a big fan of Pink Floyd, but I guess I'm not that big a fan since I am only now getting around to seeing their film THE WALL. This film tells the story of a boy who's father died in WW2 and so he becomes obsessed with Nazism, which leads him to be very distrustful and hostile towards authority figures, he grows up to be an emotionally and physically isolated rock star who stages his concerts to resemble Third Reich rallies and dresses as Hitler and commands that his fans perform Krystalnachting in the streets of Los Angeles. It is possible that the rock star guy doesn't actually do this Hitler stuff and that the Krystalnacht part is just a dream (I wasn't sure). Anyway, he hates himself for becoming a monster and has a breakdown during which all the figures of his life put him on trial and take his moment of weakness to kick him. He is also weary of vaginas.

The film is mostly non-stop music videos with no real scenes of dialogue etc, which might have kept it a bit more engaging. Even though the story is always moving forward, it nonetheless becomes somewhat numbing to see an entire story told as music videos. I don't really think it is even possible to do a film that is 90+ minutes of music videos and have all of it be engaging.

It is directed by Alan Parker, but if you had told me it was Terry Gilliam, I would've believed you. The whole thing looks a lot like BRAZIL. All the extreme camera angles and lighting scemes were probably even more dynamic in their day, but I would say the film still holds up. The visuals are nice and some sequences have real power to them and of course, I really like the music. I'm glad I finally saw this and consider it a good film.

by **SilentScream** on Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:56 pm

Four Lions on Channel Four (UK) last night.

Great satire cum farce from the ubiquitous Chris Morris. A four man home-made terrorist jihadist group decide to commit to The Cause. Except chaos and havoc ensues. A script worthy of a street gutter Preston Sturges and comic performances as sharp as anything I've seen in yonks. Hilarious and bold, definitely one to see. This is the type of bold, innovative flick that UK cinema should be making instead of all those shit costume dramas and colour by numbers gaaaangster thrillerzzzzzz.

by **Hermanator X** on Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:21 pm

Watching tv I seem to have stumbled upon an unknown little gem.
Part way into a movie called isolation, set on a rural farm in ireland.
Something to do with bovine genetic manipulation.
Ie alien with cows. Some superb ideas and gore so far.
.......to be continued.

by **minstrel** on Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:02 pm

A movie called Swordfish is on right now. John Travolta plays the villain. Or maybe not ... But can somebody explain to me why Hollywood decided that John Travolta makes a good heavy? He's such a ham. No cool at all. He could learn a lot by watching Robert Shaw, Alan Rickman, Anthony Hopkins, Belloq from Raiders of the Lost Ark, hell, even Darth Vader.

Overplaying does not a memorable villain make. Overplaying makes for silly villains. John Travolta needs to go after the Zac Efron parts. (Oh yeah - he's too old.)

by **Bloo** on Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:14 pm

didn't Travolta get really good reviews for the two Woo movies he played villains in? Could that be the cause?

by **minstrel** on Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:37 pm

Bloo wrote:didn't Travolta get really good reviews for the two Woo movies he played villains in? Could that be the cause?

One of those was Face/Off, right? When your co-star (Nicholas Cage) is hamming it up just as much as you are, if not more, you can get away with hamminess. I guess. I hated that movie - the premise is too absurd to believe; I just couldn't go along with it. Much ado about shit.

My problem with Travolta is that he tries to play a cold bastard, but he's not cold. I never get the sense that he's utterly merciless. He puts too much emotion into the scenes that should be cold. Sean Connery chilled me in Dr. No, when he said to that guy "That's a Smith and Wesson, and you've had your six." Then he killed him. THAT was cold as ice. And Connery was supposed to be playing the hero! What I want is a soft-spoken, bland, easy mercilessness. That sense that the man is entirely sane, but he still doesn't give a shit about you and he's going to kill you and go back to eating his BLT sandwich and playing cards. Jonathan Pryce did a great job of that in the HBO film "Barbarians At The Gate".

Travolta can come off as crazy evil, but not as sane evil. He just doesn't get it.

by **Peven** on Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:49 pm

minstrel wrote:
Bloo wrote:didn't Travolta get really good reviews for the two Woo movies he played villains in? Could that be the cause?

Travolta can come off as crazy evil, but not as sane evil. He just doesn't get it.

Clarence Whorley- "You're crazy"

Colonel Travolta- "Yeah, ain't it cool!"

"Broken Arrow" :wink:

by **Peven** on Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:44 am

finally caught "The Expendables" on streaming Netflix last night.....or more accurately maybe I should say I saw it steaming on Netflix...like the pile of shit it is. it's like a movie made by a 12 yr old, the acting sucks balls, Lundgren can't even act as well as a bunch of kindergartners in a school play , the action scenes are edited for shit with cuts to the next shot every .5 seconds. in fact there are more shots, action and non action, that are held for less than a second or two in this movie than I can recall in any movie I have seen in a looong time, did the editor have the world's worse case of ADHD or what? I could go on, but what would be the point, Stallone needs to be put out to pasture and kept away from a movie set. period.

by **Spandau Belly** on Tue Sep 06, 2011 5:09 pm

minstrel wrote:
Bloo wrote:didn't Travolta get really good reviews for the two Woo movies he played villains in? Could that be the cause?

My problem with Travolta is that he tries to play a cold bastard, but he's not cold. I never get the sense that he's utterly merciless. He puts too much emotion into the scenes that should be cold. Travolta can come off as crazy evil, but not as sane evil. He just doesn't get it.

I think there is a place for crazy hammy bad guys and I find Travolta pretty amusing in these types of roles. In fact, he might be a good pick as Ming in the FLASH GORDON reboot. And yes, I don't think there was any way to do a movie like FACE/OFF without being hammy. The premise and the story were just built for popcorn and not nuance. I'm trying to picture Krystof Kieslowski's version of FACE/OFF and it's just not happening.

As for SWORDFISH, I don't remember it too well. I think Travolta was some sort of terrorist who's job was raise the bar on terrorism so high that nobody would have the balls or the resources to stage a terrorist attack on USA. A pretty pre-9-11 concept for a movie if you ask me. I forget how it all played out, but I think it was one of those hacker action movies that considered typing to be an action sequence and so very little entertaining stuff ever really happened. Some sort of explosion at the begining and then a chase at the end with a whole lot of typing in between.

by **TheBaxter** on Tue Sep 06, 2011 5:24 pm

the only memorable thing about swordfish was halle berry's boobs

by **Bloo** on Tue Sep 06, 2011 5:48 pm

Peven wrote:finally caught "The Expendables" on streaming Netflix last night.....or more accurately maybe I should say I saw it steaming on Netflix...like the pile of shit it is. it's like a movie made by a 12 yr old, the acting sucks balls, Lundgren can't even act as well as a bunch of kindergartners in a school play , the action scenes are edited for shit with cuts to the next shot every .5 seconds. in fact there are more shots, action and non action, that are held for less than a second or two in this movie than I can recall in any movie I have seen in a looong time, did the editor have the world's worse case of ADHD or what? I could go on, but what would be the point, Stallone needs to be put out to pasture and kept away from a movie set. period.

fuck...you...

by **Peven** on Tue Sep 06, 2011 5:53 pm

Bloo wrote:
Peven wrote:finally caught "The Expendables" on streaming Netflix last night.....or more accurately maybe I should say I saw it steaming on Netflix...like the pile of shit it is. it's like a movie made by a 12 yr old, the acting sucks balls, Lundgren can't even act as well as a bunch of kindergartners in a school play , the action scenes are edited for shit with cuts to the next shot every .5 seconds. in fact there are more shots, action and non action, that are held for less than a second or two in this movie than I can recall in any movie I have seen in a looong time, did the editor have the world's worse case of ADHD or what? I could go on, but what would be the point, Stallone needs to be put out to pasture and kept away from a movie set. period.

fuck...you...

Bloo, you're still my boy :wink:

by **caruso_stalker217** on Tue Sep 06, 2011 6:27 pm

Spandau Belly wrote:
minstrel wrote:
Bloo wrote:didn't Travolta get really good reviews for the two Woo movies he played villains in? Could that be the cause?

My problem with Travolta is that he tries to play a cold bastard, but he's not cold. I never get the sense that he's utterly merciless. He puts too much emotion into the scenes that should be cold. Travolta can come off as crazy evil, but not as sane evil. He just doesn't get it.

I think there is a place for crazy hammy bad guys and I find Travolta pretty amusing in these types of roles. In fact, he might be a good pick as Ming in the FLASH GORDON reboot. And yes, I don't think there was any way to do a movie like FACE/OFF without being hammy. The premise and the story were just built for popcorn and not nuance. I'm trying to picture Krystof Kieslowski's version of FACE/OFF and it's just not happening.

As for SWORDFISH, I don't remember it too well. I think Travolta was some sort of terrorist who's job was raise the bar on terrorism so high that nobody would have the balls or the resources to stage a terrorist attack on USA. A pretty pre-9-11 concept for a movie if you ask me. I forget how it all played out, but I think it was one of those hacker action movies that considered typing to be an action sequence and so very little entertaining stuff ever really happened. Some sort of explosion at the begining and then a chase at the end with a whole lot of typing in between.

At least they were able to put a little spin on it by having a scene where Hugh Jackman is getting a blowjob while hacking and he makes getting-a-blow-job faces.

by **Bloo** on Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:35 pm

Peven wrote:
Bloo wrote:
Peven wrote:finally caught "The Expendables" on streaming Netflix last night.....or more accurately maybe I should say I saw it steaming on Netflix...like the pile of shit it is. it's like a movie made by a 12 yr old, the acting sucks balls, Lundgren can't even act as well as a bunch of kindergartners in a school play , the action scenes are edited for shit with cuts to the next shot every .5 seconds. in fact there are more shots, action and non action, that are held for less than a second or two in this movie than I can recall in any movie I have seen in a looong time, did the editor have the world's worse case of ADHD or what? I could go on, but what would be the point, Stallone needs to be put out to pasture and kept away from a movie set. period.

fuck...you...

Bloo, you're still my boy

glad to hear that. All the reasons you cited why you hated the Expendables were all the reasons why I loved it (except for the editing I agree that could have been a whole lot tighter)

by **Peven** on Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:16 pm

dude, all the cheesy lame-joke lines followed by Stallone giving someone a sideways smirk, or a shrug, holy shit it was bad, and with all the loving glances and smiles Statham and Stallone were giving each other I thought they were going to end up in the sack together by the end of the movie :-P

they sure as hell weren't interested in throwing in a little female nudity to go along with all the R-rated graphic male-on-male action/violence :lol:

you know, I read Arnie is going to have a bigger role in this movie, maybe he can actually be in the same room as Stallone this time when they are in the same scene together :lol:

by **caruso_stalker217** on Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:32 pm

Maybe Simon West will manage to get some nudity into the sequel. He's the guy who managed the superhuman feat of getting a Jason Statham sex scene into a movie, with tits, and he actually seems willing.

Contrast this with the Transporter flicks where women have to force him to have sex with them, or the CRANK where he only bangs his girlfriend so he won't die.

by **Bloo** on Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:37 pm

I have high expectations for The Expendables 2 and Simon west. I thought his remake of The Mechanic was really strong and the aformentioned nudity and Statham sex scene (did he even have a sex scene in Transporter 2?)

by **minstrel** on Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:45 pm

Why do all you big tough guys want to see a Statham sex scene? Is he that hot?

by **Bloo** on Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:55 pm

minstrel wrote:Why do all you big tough guys want to see a Statham sex scene? Is he that hot?

yes

by **caruso_stalker217** on Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:29 pm

See above.

by **caruso_stalker217** on Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:19 pm

Bloo wrote:did he even have a sex scene in Transporter 2?

He didn't. He harbored an infatuation with the kid's mom, but he never closed the deal. If there was a first move, though, I'm sure she made it.

by **Hermanator X** on Wed Sep 07, 2011 3:22 am

caruso_stalker217 wrote:At least they were able to put a little spin on it by having a scene where Hugh Jackman is getting a blowjob while hacking and he makes getting-a-blow-job faces.

I just call that Zoning.

by **Spandau Belly** on Wed Sep 07, 2011 7:39 am

The dialogue in TRANSPORTER 2 was actually reworked by the director to make Mr. Transporter a closet case. The director was having a laugh and apparently when Statham found out, he didn't appreciate it too much. They continually have Statham turning down the woman's advances saying things like "I can't do this because of what I am." or "I have another side to me that you don't know about and that makes this impossible." They also have his relationship with that old French cop guy become pretty close.

by **TheBaxter** on Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:59 am

PSYCHO (1998 remake)

if you thought the trend of pointless remakes was a recent hollywood trend, this movie proves it began well before the last decade. this is the first movie i remember where the very idea of remaking the film created an uproar, before anyone had even seen it. even worse was the fact that gus van sant stated beforehand that it would be a shot-for-shot remake with the original script, making it seem even more pointless and stupid. of course, van sant couldn't help himself, so the remake has slight but noticable changes, from added sound effects (vince vaughn slapping the salami in his office during the voyeurism scene), different camera angles (including a gratuitous and not-very-flattering shot of anne heche's bare ass as she tumbles dead out of the shower), and changes to the dialogue, both through removing lines (there's no more mention of transvestites in the final speech) and adding new ones (including the hilarious out-of-place line by julianne moore, when, just before going out to look for her missing and presumed dead sister, she suddenly turns back and says "i need to get my walkman".... because everyone knows you can't go looking for a missing, presumed-dead sister without playing some tunes along the way.... also hilarious because it simultaneously updates the film from the original, and dates it for modern audiences who are like "what's a walkman?.... and what are those silly-looking yellow headphone-thingies dangling from her shoulders in the next scene?").

as a film, it's more interesting as a film exercise than an actual movie-viewing experience. mainly it's interesting how you can take the same exact script, the same exact scenes and shots, and end up with such a vastly inferior movie. because the movie was made with different actors in a different time period, it's hard to say what exactly accounts for that difference. some of the lines sound anachronistic when heard spoken in a 1990s context, and of course the performances make a huge difference. anne heche is no janet leigh, but surprisingly isn't too bad, she does convey some humanity in the role. julianne moore is kinda ridiculous as a butch lesbian, but this movie is a good reminder of just how crazy hot she was back in the 90s. and vince vaughn... oh my. it's a thankless task, taking on such an iconic performance of an iconic role, but he really misses the mark. he goes too far with some of the giggles and the skipping around and stuff, and though he's a bit better in the scenes where he needs to be menacing, he turns on the anger and menace a bit too much and too early, especially in the scene when he and marion are talking in his parlor. i'm a fan of the original movie, but not a blind fan. i could accept a well-done psycho remake, though i don't see a need for one. but i have issues with the original movie too, especially the big speech at the end and the reactions of the characters to finding out marion is dead. but despite its occasional flaws, the original is a classic and still works today. this remake was a complete failure, unless the purpose was to show that even with a great script and story, you can still make a terrible film.

by **Spandau Belly** on Wed Sep 07, 2011 11:04 am

Back when I used to read Vern, he wrote a pretty good piece on PSYCHO '98. He constantly defended its existence because he felt the whole shot-for-shot-same-script thing qualified it as at least being interesting as an experiment and not just a cash in on a classic, and I agreed with him. It is an interesting experiment and worth doing just to see how it would turn out.

The remake does do a good job of showing how writing, directing, and acting styles have changed over the years. I think a lot of us judge movies based on when they were made. When I watch old movies, I sorta put on my retro-goggles and become tolerant of things that would annoy me in a film made today. I am much more forgiving of predictability and pacing problems in older films, as well I am mostly willing to accept old special effects at face value.

If I remember correctly Van Sant wasn't always clear in his vision, or at least he didn't communicate it well to the others involved in making the film. I think I remember hearing that he hadn't even considered how he wanted the costumes to look until confronted with the decision and then waffled over whether to go for modern looks or classic looks or modern clothes with a retro vibe. And I think in the movie you end up with all three.

I think he also didn't know what he wanted from the actors; whether to play their roles in a modern nuanced way or in a way that would be a throwback to the old fashioned acting style or straightup impressions of the original cast. And I think you definately got the first two in there.

I would be interested to see the reaction to this film from somebody who had never seen the original.

by **TheBaxter** on Wed Sep 07, 2011 11:25 am

the film is definitely, umm, confused, about how modern vs. how retro it wants to be. some of the performances are more contemporary, and some, like william h. macy or dexter's dad playing the cop, are straight out of the 60s. clothing styles too, even dialogue, they update some lines, but others are left in the old 60s jargon. definitely makes for a bit of a schizo experience for a movie about a schizo guy.

by **SilentScream** on Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:42 pm

Have to say I don't understand the point of remaking a movie shot for shot, especially when it's a classic like Psycho. Fair enough, if you're bringing something new to the table, another angle, another take on the theme but otherwise, what's the point?
It's like covering a classic song in exactly the same way. You're never going to top the original. A total waste of time really.