Rate the Last Film you Watched

[Con 5,703]

Buried (2010)

The Awesome: The genuine fear inducing thought of being buried alive. Now if you f*cked someone over real bad, yeah, you probably deserve it, but if you are just doing your job one day and some *sshole abducts you for ransom money, that has to be tough and I think that is where this film gut-punched me; the main character Paul (Ryan Reynolds) was just doing his job to feed his family back in the States and this happens to him. The film has one location and one live actor...and to make that work and be entertaining is no easy task and I think credit should go to the filmmakers even if it's our curiosity that keeps us there until the end. There is no break from the situation! No flashbacks. Nothing. We only see the inside of that wooden box, I'm going to refer to it as the "coffin"...anyways for 1.5 hours we do not go anywhere, we stay inside that coffin the entire time.

The Good: Some of the phone calls are really gut-wrenching, especially at the beginning when we learn just how hard it will be for Paul to be rescued. The cinematography was good but I also felt a bit the lighting was inconsistent at times...but can't really get on the filmmaker for that as there are limitations of filming "inside a coffin". There is no denying that the story is scary or the situation. I mean, I know most people would never want to be buried alive but I think I rather have you dismember (dismemberment my biggest IRL fear) me alive than have you abandon me alive in a wooden box in the ground. I don't know if i could handle that, I have dreams of being stranded on streets and cities im not familiar with and those dreams scare the sh*t out of me because of the sheer hopelessness of being lost that I experience in those dreams...but this would be much worse. Just one fake out sequence, so that was refreshing and reminded me of how brilliantly that element was used in the film "The Descent". 

The Bad: I have come across many reviewers that claim they "fast forwarded"...that's the point of watching, to live every second with Paul in that coffin, to feel that hopelessness. I know it's hard to make a film like this with all its intended limitations but I cannot get past the fact that just short of an hour into the film, Paul is finding new things inside the coffin...and while the items are fantastic and are deliciously logical, it's hard to think that Paul was not aware of those items beforehand! It's not like they were in another room...LMAO. I also felt that that whole revelation of the new items could have been handled better and im sure the screenwriter had several versions, I think having Paul use up some of those resources without knowing their purpose would have made for extra soul crushing fun!!!! Because imagine him being told something like..."that water wasn't for drinking, it was for cleaning the gadget so you can get out." Don't worry I didn't spoil anything, I was just using that as an example of why I feel that moment in the film could have been better. The ending was satisfying....so why am I putting this in the BAD section? well mainly because I thought it could have been more gut-wrenching and I get the whole "Mark White" thing, but it wasn't as satisfying to me or as impactful as it was intended. How would I have crafted the ending for a more gut-punching experience? 

Spoiler:

 

Instead of giving us that hallucination moment that is kind of played out and predictable, how about if we hear Agent Dan Brenner's (Robert Paterson) voice getting closer from the outside as they dig Paul out...but then reveal that Agent Dan is actually an insurgent or defector (think John Walker Lindh-type) who has set this "Ransom Scheme". Imagine the dread I would have felt when I see this American soldier only to learn he is an enemy and Paul's suffering has only just begun. 

The Ugly: I know seven different versions of the coffin were used in order to get the many angles we see of Paul inside of it...but it was jarring at times and very distracting for me as I found myself not listening to the dialogue and instead trying to figure out if the coffin had changed depth. I mean, at the start it seems like Paul has literally 5-6 inches of space to move around and then in some later scenes it seems like he has more than a foot to move around and this fluctuation really distracted me and at one point even surmised that perhaps the coffin is more shallow at one end than the other but that is not the impression or image we see as some zoom out shots clearly show that the coffin is a perfect rectangle. The idea to change the phone’s language came way too late in the film mainly because when we see it being done it seemed so easy to figure out. 

Final Verdict...3/5... I think the one thing that kept flashing in my brain was..."sh*t like this really happened in Iraq and is happening probably on every continent this very moment". Needless to say that the concept is what intrigued me...i guess I have a fear larger than dismemberment and that is being buried alive in a wooden box in the desert of Iraq. I appreciated having the kidnapper explain his side of the ordeal, yes what he was doing was f*cked up, but it was born from having his children blown up while they walked to school by a misguided American bomb. It really highlighted the absurdity of the entire conflict and how the revolving door effect will ensure NOTHING changes in that region. Buried was worth the watch and at times was very effective in filling me with dread. I guess I rather be shot dead than be left to my own mind in a trapped body...that is what I consider true horror and terror and one of the reasons I loved Ghost Stories (2018)...No, don't google Ghost Stories, just go watch it like I did...trust me. Anyways, don't expect Oscar winning performances or expect to see different characters as we only hear others, don't expect flashbacks or fully fleshed out sub-plots. It's just a guy buried alive in a box who is given a cell phone and he must use it to try and get himself out...the more you can put yourself in his position, the more you will enjoy the film as it goes on and  an ultimately appreciate what the filmmakers achieved. 

Edited May 12, 2020 by Con

[omarcomin71 3,835]

I watched Terrifier last night.  
A bit of a throwback to the 1980s slasher films. But I wouldn’t recommend this if blood and gore makes you squeamish. Holy sh*z! 
I had seen the trailer for this before and it looked kind of creepy and intriguing. Finally pulled the trigger after watching a video on YT on recommended movies on Netflix. 
@Con have you seen this? Curious of what your opinion is. 
Thumbs up as a blood and gore slasher film with a limited budget. But again not for the faint of heart. 

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by omarcomin71

[LimeGreenLegend 4,175]

Sleuth

dir. Joseph L. Mankiewicz

Sleuth is a murder-mystery film directed by Joseph L. Makiewicz and written by Anthony Shaffer, who also wrote The Wicker Man.  It stars Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine, with fantastic support from Alec Cawthorne.  Olivier plays an upper class writer of mystery novels, Andrew Wyke, who lives in a grand manor with extensive gardens, including a hedge maze.  This is the only location in the film.  Michael Caine plays a working class hairdresser, Milo Tindle, who is starting to make a bit of money of his own.  Tindle is also having an affair with Wyke's young wife.  The film opens with Tindle arriving at the house, having been invited by Wyke.  This is their first meeting.  After some tense introductions Wyke reveals that he knows about the affair, and that he is ok with it.  In fact, he wants to help.  He's having an affair of his own and wants his wife out of the picture.  The problem is, she has become used to living lavishly, and Tindle won't be able to afford that.  So he has concocted a plan where they stage a break in, Tindle can sell the jewellery on the black market, Wyke collects the insurance and everyone is happy.  

If this sounds like I've given away a lot of the plot, don't worry.  This film is a twisting maze of mind games, deception and one-upsmanship.  Olivier and Caine play against each other masterfully, Olivier perfect as the preening, posh lord of the manor, and Caine is brilliantly set against him as a young man trying to advance in society despite his working class roots.  If there's one thing you should watch this film for, and there are many, it's the acting.  Most of the film is just the two of them sparring with words (mostly) and they were both nominated for best actor at that years Oscars.  There is also a great performance from the little known Alec Cawthorne as the local detective, but his role is incredibly vital to one of the biggest plot points, so I'll leave it at that.  (If you've seen the film, you know what I mean 😉)

Another brilliant thing about this film is the set.  The house itself is gorgeous, but the best thing is the set dressing.  The house is full of games and masks and costumes, showing off what Wyke's character is all about.  There are also a whole host of creepy automaton dolls who seem to be watching everything that happens.  Big shout out to Jolly Jack Tar the sailor doll whose laugh was recorded by Olivier himself, and the doll also appears in the recent Knives Out, which was hugely inspired by thus film.  The direction shows off all of these little touches, cutting to the dolls like cutting to a reaction shot of a real person.  It really sells a creepy, oppressive feeling that ramps up with the intensity.  

The script is sharp to a dangerous point, written by Anthony Shaffer based on his own award winning play.  Every line is a gem, being delivered with huge relish by Olivier when he says stuff like "I could copulate for England at any distance" when talking about his s*xual prowess, or when he snaps at Tindle calling him a "jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place".  

This, along with The King of Comedy and Brazil, is my favourite film of all time.  If you're looking for a film that is brilliantly written, performed by two of the greatest actors of all time, that has direction that perfectly serves the story, that is full of incredible twists and turns that are breathtaking when they happen, then you should check this out.  10/10

 

 

[Con 5,703]

6 hours ago, omarcomin71 said:
@Con have you seen this? Curious of what your opinion is. 
Thumbs up as a blood and gore slasher film with a limited budget. But again not for the faint of heart. 

This has been on my To Watch List for over a year now. I began reading about it and stopped when I began to learn how brutal it is...so I’ve just been waiting to get the feels to watch it...the thing is, clowns don’t scare me and always a hard sell for me. But I’ve been meaning to watch it for the rumors of the gore. I tried watching Rocky Horror Picture Show last night cause I need to pay off a debt. lmao.

[LimeGreenLegend 4,175]

7 minutes ago, Con said:

I tried watching Rocky Horror Picture Show last night cause I need to pay off a debt. lmao.

I'm waiting with

[Con 5,703]

24 minutes ago, LimeGreenLegend said:

I'm waiting with

:D  the only version i could find last night seemed to be a remake? Definitely not the Tim Curry version. I will try again today. 

[LimeGreenLegend 4,175]

1 minute ago, Con said:

😄 the only version i could find last night seemed to be a remake? Definitely not the Tim Curry version. I will try again today. 

Yeah, it's gotta be the original or nothing.  But you can't pick nothing 😛 

[LimeGreenLegend 4,175]

Ran (Chaos)

dir. Akira Kurosawa

Ran (chaos or turmoil in Japanese) is an epic historical film from Akira Kurosawa, one of the greatest filmmakers of all time.  The story is a loose adaptation of Shakespeare's King Lear, but with sons instead of daughters.  Hidetora Ichimonji, an old warlord, decides to retire, dividing his kingdom between his three sons, Taro, Jiro and Saburo.  Saburo tells his father that it would be foolish to split up his kingdom and still expect loyalty.  For this he is banished.  Taro takes control of the main castle, but his wife, Lady Kaede, is whispering in his ear, manipulating him into casting out his father.  What follows is an incredible experience of a film.  I won't say any more on the plot, because you need to experience it for yourself.

The biggest thing that stayed with me after watching this is the colour.  The film is full of bright, vivid primary colours, yellows and reds and blues all clashing together on fields of lush green grass.  It's an absolute feast for the eyes.  That goes for the costumes too, I wanted to pause every scene just to examine the intricate details of the robes and dresses and armour you see.  The set design is as epic in scope as the rest of the film, with huge castles and crumbling ruins shot with a painters eye.  Seriously, you could pause this film at any moment and you'll have a masterpiece you could hang on your wall.

The performances are all incredible, from the biggest to the smallest role.  Tatsuya Nakadai is mesmerising as Hidetora, the old warlord.  He goes from the picture of nobility and strength to a hollow, broken shell of a mad old man as he faces the consequences of his violent past, in a way that will break your heart.  Daisuke Ryu as Saburo also goes through a brilliant transformation, starting the film as the hotheaded youngest son speaking out against his father and being cast out, and ending it in a very different place, which I won't spoil.  You will also hate Mieko Harada as Lady Kaede.  She is perfect as the manipulative wife of Taro, subtly pulling the strings at first, gaining more power for herself.  Her last scene is iconic, and very satisfying.  Another of my favourite performances is Peter as Kyoami the fool, jester for Hidetora.  Faithful, but not blind to what's happening to his master.  His loving frustration with the old man toward the end of the film is beautiful.

This is an absolute masterwork of a film from one of the greatest of all time, what more do I need to say? 10/10

 

 

[Con 5,703]

The Hunt (2020)...2/5...Violent comedy that infuses both major American political views as parodies and catalyst for the story. Some jokes really hit the mark and some fall super flat. I liked that both conservatives and liberals were poked fun at and don't know why there was uproar at its release...why is it so controversial that one group wants to hunt another particular group? ------that's like every war film, every mafia film, and every Revenge of the Nerds film. And even then the film is purposely presented in a comical sense so it's narrative isn't supposed to be taken serious like say Halloween and I felt it was really dumbed down in places to ensure that nothing is taken literal. Crystal (Betty Gilpin) was a badass character and really carried the film's more serious moments. Sadly the film brings nothing new to the genre and I felt the rewatch value is not high at all and the ending played out like a Dollar Store version of Kill Bill's iconic kitchen fight scene. Why should you watch it? Cause its raining out and you want to watch another "Rich Folk's Human Hunt Club" trope and you aren't easily triggered by your political views used as jokes.

The Human Centipede 2 (2011)...2/5...Another film I found that had no rewatch value. The only time I felt repulsed was when I focused on what it would feel like to have no choice but to let someone sh*t in my mouth. I was appreciating Martin's (Laurence Harvey) effort at the surgery...until the stapler came out...not only did he have one handy, he had one with staples long enough to staple human flesh like that?...had he disabled part of their upper vertebrae, then I would have bought into the stapler bit. Its tough to get on the stapler when a man has turds fall out of his toothless mouth in the film, but that's where im at people. I think most people were grossed out by the feces and human-centipede but for me it was the idea of the nasty, nasty, nasty infections one would get in that setting...some crazy guy cuts into you and all this dirt, blood, and sh*t gets into the cuts...that grossed me out the most, I even felt my immune system activate itself as I watched those scenes, macrophages to the rescue! The fetus scene went a little too far into slapstick side. Oh the rubber *ss department....you should have gotten an Oscar, those *ss cracks look fn real. Why should you watch it? You read what I wrote above and said..."I gotta watch that!"

Edited May 19, 2020 by Con

[LimeGreenLegend 4,175]

A Field in England

dir. Ben Wheatley

A Field in England is a psychological horror film set during the English civil war.  The story sees an alchemist's assistant (Reece Shearsmith) and a couple of soldiers flee from a battle, deciding to instead go to a pub.  Stopping for some food on the way, they all eat a load of magic mushrooms.  They then find a strange wooden totem in a field with a rope attached to it, and when they pull the rope they seemingly pull a man from out of the ground.  This is O'Neill (Michael Smiley), an alchemist himself, and maybe the devil.  He takes control of the group and forces them to help him find a treasure buried somewhere in the field.  

This is a brilliant film.  It's unsettling and kaleidoscopic and hallucinatory, with incredible use of editing and sound design making you feel like you're falling into madness along with the characters.  Although there is some gore, this is a horror film of perception and the fragility of the human mind.  There's a scene where O'Neill takes Shearsmith's character, Whitehead, into a tent and the outcome is one of the most horrifying things I've seen on film.  There's no gore, just Whitehead, a rope, and an incredible performance matched up with complimentary direction.

This belongs firmly in the genre of arthouse horror with The Lighthouse and The Killing of a Sacred Deer, so if that's not your thing you probably won't enjoy it, but to me this is one of the best subgenres of horror out there, and this is one of the best examples of this trend.

A real trip 10/10

 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2020 by LimeGreenLegend

[djw180 6,836]

Star Wars Episode 9: The Rise of Skywalker.

I'm so glad I didn't pay to watch this in the cinema. I guess this is a much a review episodes 7,8 & 9 as it is of this specific film. But the main thing I noticed was I couldn't remember all of what had happened in the previous two episodes and didn't really care. It may be visually stunning but the plot is utterly banal. It's starts so badly; why tell us about the mysterious voice Kylo Rens has heard and gone in search rather than actually put that in the film itself? This confirmed my fears about Disney taking over the franchise. Not a patch on any of the originals.

5/10

[djw180 6,836]

Disturbia,

If you've not seen it the basic plot is teenager Shia Labeouf, still struggling with the recent death of his father, hits a teacher and is sentenced to 3 months house arrest with an ankle tag to make sure he can't leave the house. His mum, Carie-Anne Moss, cancels his online gaming accounts so for entertainment he starts watching his neighbours through binoculars, especially the rather attractive girl just moved in next door and the suspicious weird middle aged man at back of their house. He becomes convinced the latter is a serial killer that has been in the news and eventually he, his best friend and the girl next door start their own surveillance and discover the truth. It's quite good in places and builds tension well at times, such as when we see things on a computer screen that the characters do not see because they are looking in the other direction. But to me it can't seem to decide if it's a teen film or a re-interpretation of of Rear Window. Also I just don't get all the neighbours leaving their curtains open so that people, if they so wish, can look in. The girl next door particularly seems to have a bedroom almost deliberately set up for peeping toms getting a great view.

 

6/10

[LimeGreenLegend 4,175]

Ta’m-e Gīlās (Taste of Cherry)

dir. Abbas Kiarostami

Taste of Cherry is a minimalist drama written and directed by Abbas Kiarostami, probably the most respected director in Iranian film history, and the winner of the Palme d'Or at the 1997 Cannes Film Festival.  It stars Homayoun Ershadi as Mr. Badii, a man suffering from depression who drives around the city of Tehran and its surrounding countryside looking for someone to help him kill himself.  He has dug a hole beside a tree and plans to take a load of sleeping pills and lie in it.  He needs someone to come check on him the next morning, helping him out of the hole if he's still alive, burying him if he's dead.  Over the course of the film, which is mostly set inside his car, he picks up three people who he tries to recruit.  A young soldier, an Afghan priest and an elderly taxidermist who works at a museum.  His conversations with these three people make up the majority of what little dialogue there is, and offers up different perspectives on life and what it means to be alive, particularly the old man, who was once suicidal himself.  

The direction really emphasises Mr. Badii's loneliness and isolation.  While in the car we only see one person in the frame at a time, even when he's talking to someone, keeping him separate from his fellow man.  There is no music on the soundtrack, apart from one song heard on a radio and a Louis Armstrong instrumental over the end credits, which again represents the void that he feels his life has become.  The setting also helps with this, with most of the film taking place in the vast open countryside where the only living thing is Badii himself, but even then he is isolated from this inside his car.  

The performance from Ershadi as Badii is fantastic.  He plays his depression with a determined subtlety that feels real.  We don't see him crying or breaking down, he is past that stage now, there's almost a calmness to him that is heartbreaking.  This is even more incredible when you learn that this isn't a professional actor, this is a guy who the director saw sat in traffic and thought he would be perfect for this role, and he is.  This is honestly one of the best film performances I've ever seen.  He has an almost haunting presence, like he's already dead.  I also love that we never find out why he wants to kill himself, like that is irrelevant at this point, and how we never find out if he actually does die at the end of the film.  Again, that's not important here, it's all about the journey.

The ending is brilliant too.  The final shots of the film are of Kiarostami and his crew actually making the film, like he's telling us that this is a story, a parable, a lesson to be learnt.  This is an incredibly life affirming and humane film, despite the plot, that really wants to expose the beauty of life without becoming preachy about it, and it is comforting, especially if you are feeling some sort of depression yourself, as I have recently.  This is a beautiful film that feels like a poem in the way it's constructed, each of his passengers being a different verse, and one that I highly recommend 9.5/10

The whole film is on YouTube if you want to watch it, which you should.

 

[LimeGreenLegend 4,175]

Antichrist

dir. Lars von Trier

Antichrist is a surreal psycho-s*xual sadomasochistic arthouse horror film from Danish filmmaker Lars von Trier (Dancer in the Dark, The House that Jack Built) starring Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg as an unnamed married couple.  The film opens with a black and white slow motion scene where they are having s*x (yes, you do get to see some nice hard c*ck, sadly it's a double and not Dafoe's legendarily massive member) while their young child, Nick, escapes from his crib.  He makes his way to an open window, and climbs up on the sill.  He falls from a height of several stories and dies.  What follows is a descent into grief, pain and guilt.  Dafoe's character (they're called He and She on iMDB, so that's what I'll call them from now on) is a psychiatrist, and feels that She isn't getting the right treatment, so He proposes they go to their cabin in the woods as She tells him that She is scared of the woods, He thinks She needs exposure therapy.  

In the woods (called Eden) She descends into a violent, manic depression, while He starts to see some strange things.  A deer with a stillborn fawn hanging out of it's bloody v*gina, a fox disembowelling itself before telling him "chaos reigns" and a hailstorm of acorns.  He also finds evidence of possible child abuse when She was at the cabin the previous year with Nick.  This culminates in one of the most horrific and uncomfortable scenes in any film ever.  She attacks him, knocking him to the ground with a block of wood.  She pulls out his p*nis and starts riding Him before dismounting and smashing His testicles with that block of wood.  While He's unconscious She jerks him off until He ej*cul*tes blood.   This isn't implied, you see it all in close up detail.  She then drills a hole in His leg and attaches a grindstone to Him.  After a few minutes we see Her lie next to him, taking His hand and placing it on Her v*gina.  She then takes a pair of scissors and cuts off Her clitoris.  Again, this is shown in close up.  The film ends with Him throttling Her to death, burning Her body, and walking off through the woods where he is surrounded by hundreds of faceless women in period costume.  

This isn't for everyone.  But I think it's fantastic.  Firstly, Dafoe and Gainsbourg are incredible.  Their performances are what make this film.  Dafoe is very still and almost smug as He tries to give therapy to Her, while Gainsbourg runs the gamut from insane violent psychopath to broken grieving mother.  It's a gorgeous looking film with beautiful shots of twisted thorny underbrush and tree limbs.  It also switches between intimate handheld shots to gorgeous landscapes of the woods.  The sound design perfectly compliments the visuals with hardly any music, the soundtrack mostly made up of surreal sounds of nature.  

Like I said, this is a very divisive film and I don't think many of you guys will like it, but if you give it a go you will find an incredibly unsettling, relentlessly grim fable with two fantastic performances and some real thought provoking imagery 9/10

 

@Con as our resident horror guru I'd love to hear your thoughts on this one 🙂 

s*x, c*ck, ej*cul*te and v*gina are all censored but not clitoris? 😄 

Edited May 28, 2020 by LimeGreenLegend

[Con 5,703]

8 hours ago, LimeGreenLegend said:

Antichrist

dir. Lars von Trier

@Con as our resident horror guru I'd love to hear your thoughts on this one 🙂 

Been meaning to watch this actually. Perhaps tonight. I have to write up my Max Manus and finish up the Rocky Horror review. Both delayed cause of IRL stuff.

[Con 5,703]

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) 

The Awesome: The size of the tasticles and ovaries to even green light something like this in 1975 by the studio is admirable. No way they didn't expect the controversy that I assume followed the premiere. The central message of accepting yourself and allowing it to feel normal through your veins is a powerful one indeed even if they needed an "extra-terrestrial transvestite" to get away with telling the story. The actors knew they were making something campy and could terribly flop at the box office but they all took their roles seriously and I think that is why despite the characters having a 1950's sci-fi vibe, they weren't caricatures and felt like real people. The spirit of the film is a Gay one...and it doesn't make excuses for itself, it doesn't care if you are straight and disapprove, it is going to stay true to it's important message of self-acceptance and is going to be playful while doing it so best to bring your sexuality secured. 

The Good:  It made me laugh. Especially the ending where even the Doctor in the wheel chair has on the fishnets on....I was cracking the f*ck up for sure. Everyone had the pantyhoses on and it just looked funny and the image of dude in a wheel chair lifting the blanket up was just funny to me. I also could not stop laughing when Rocky Horror (Peter Hinwood) was introduced because it was just funny that the monster was that blonde dude in tiny shorts looking like an Olympic swimmer...the scene reminded me of the film "Weird Science" where the two bros create that amazing woman using science. I think if you are gay or curious, there are a lot of subliminals for you. For example the red pommel horse that is brought out and Frank E. Furter (Tim Curry) vigorously rides, it looks like regular gymnast equipment but if you investigate it you would see that it's not the same shape at the ends, one end has a tell-tale shape and I'm sure that kind of thing is all over the film. The actors make this fun as they all seemed to enjoy making the film, especially Tim Curry as his character oozes with confidence and I can see how a man not secure with himself could be offended by that performance. Despite it being presented as a musical number, I thought having the rejected monster Eddie (Meatloaf) coming back from the deep freeze was a great touch and led to some quality violence. The songs didn't completely suck...and two of them seemed to be catchy, in other words, I don't remember muting any of the song moments. 

The Bad: Probably not something I would watch with children although I did read some comments in which entire families dress up and watch this together...oh to be innocent again. I'm not bi-curious (I'm not going to rent a gay adult film to make sure that i'm not gay) and I'm not homophobic (I support all Gay rights) but I had no idea how alternate-lifestyle heavy it was thematically, so some things caught me off-guard, not repulsed me but startled me and I  felt I could probably get the same "message of acceptance" through a film that doesn't simulate male on male fellatio...but more on this later as I find a double-standard in myself in that same sequence and I hate double-standards!! Ironically as an example of that double-standard, I would have not had an issue if they had explored the relationship between Columbia (Nell Campbell) and Magenta (Patricia Quinn) more. 

The Ugly: The film sets are outdated and low-budget (but all that actually works for the film) its just hard not to notice the film has aged a bit. If the slightest gay thing burns your precious eyes...avoid this...no need to bad mouth it as its intention at least as I'm concerned was to prevent self-loathing in your identity. It is not "Chicago" in style or complex story which I feel is a better musical to recommend to non-musical fans such as myself. It's a musical and a strange one with monsters and aliens and somewhat naked men and women. 

Final Verdict...2/5...I watched The Rocky Horror Picture Show because I lost a bet back in February and I just got around to paying that debt, meaning to say, I otherwise would not have watched this film in my lifetime as it never grabbed my attention but what an interesting journey it sure was...lol... First let me address what I mentioned in "The Bad" regarding that double-standard, so this is the sequence in the film where the male and female leads are put in separate bedrooms and Frank E Furter surprise visits both and first seduces Janet (Susan Sarandon) and simulates going down on her and it was hot and provocative but it was a bit tamer than when Brad (Barry Bostwick) is visited in the same fashion and the going down is done more than once and with more gusto and I did cringe not out of phobia but just it not being the norm for me. I asked myself, "Did i just feel disgusted?" --- A little. "But if it had been two women in that scene it would have turned me on?"---- Absolutely.  I had to ask myself, why the double-standard, I mean, I know its mainly cause my orientation but why do most of us straight-males seem cool with l*sbians kissing on-screen but not two men? Why is it that I can watch two women kissing all day but can only watch two men kissing for a second before I look away? I don't live by some religious moral compass. I like seeing women on women because I'm only sexually attracted by women and seeing two on screen makes me feel like I'm getting an abundance of what I love. After sorting all that out mid-scene, the rest of the alternate lifestyle moments never illicited another reaction after that unexpected self-talk. While I laughed and was mostly amused by the film, it isn't something I would rewatch for fun as it's still a musical and perhaps without the musical numbers, i might have given it a 3/5 cause i know If i had a son or daughter and suspected that they were struggling with their s*xual identity, I would share this film with him or her for its message or at least the one I got out of it, "self-acceptance" and "self-love". No denying that the more bi-s*xual you are the more fun you will have watching this film. And just because i'm giving it a 2/5 does not mean I don't understand the people that give it a 5/5...it has a special meaning to them and I wouldn't want to take that away from them.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show was in my life everyday but this was the first time watching the film...let me explain...I still live in the city of my childhood and teen years, I work not far from my childhood street and could drive past the blue house of my early-teens everyday if I wanted to...a few months ago I was feeling nostalgic and went by the old blue house and laughed at how I wish the current cinema monstrosity that is there now was there when I lived across the street and suddenly I remembered that there WAS a cinema across the street back then, it was called the Sono Cinema, except it only played foreign films and the only other permanent thing on the marquee was The Rocky Horror Picture Show 11PM & 1AM...at thirteen years old we had no idea why it looked like men were dressing like women and women dressing like men to go to that movie. When I asked remember being told that "it's a weird movie where people go in costume and throw things at the screen"....hmmmm did not sound like anything that I would be interested in so I forgot all about it until it was time to write this and it led me to a fun trip down memory lane as my time living across from that parking lot was some of the best of my life. I have tremendous memories there and here are some pics for you @LimeGreenLegend so you can be a part of what i'm saying...

 

At 13 years old we moved here...a blue multi-family home turned into apartments....across the street has not changed much....the parking lot is still there...and the SoNo Cinema building is still intact...to the left (not pictured) is the Multiplex cinema monstrosity they built years after we moved out....

If you count the 4th bin from the left and follow it straight ahead it will lead you to the light pole and to the right of it in that corner was the cinema entrance...here is a closer look at the entrance...

I took a pic through the glass doors...its a sh*t dance club currently but you can see the walls are still movie theater dark as this door was the exit and the door on the right was the ticket box entrance...i remember that like it was yesterday. 

This is looking at our old apartment from the Cinema entrance...

Here is the street side of the old cinema...You can see the marquee shape....

In this one you can clearly see the Sono Cinema In Rear sign still there.......

I looked for vintage pictures of the old SoNo Cinema but could only find this old ad from this link...

http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/22325

I'm sure there are plenty of pictures of people that attended the Rocky Horror Show at the SoNo Cinema back in the day but i'd probably have to join Facebook clubs to get access to pictures and I have no desire to do that. But if i ever come across any, I will post them here. Anyhow decades after my childhood we finally got a mainstream cinema, The SoNo Regent, on that block and this is the monstrosity I spoke of....I only wish it was around when I lived across the street, I mean, who knows....I might be a film Director by now. One can only dream. Behind it is the parking lot in the photos i shared above....

Anyhow that is my story...growing up I lived across a cinema that played The Rocky Horror Picture Show every Weekend and always thought it looked like an interesting party and now I know what they were watching and how and why it is such a cult classic. 

And now for some controversy...as the end credits rolled I could not help but to think about what I just watched and the meaning I got out of it...if you are considering an alternate lifestyle, go for it, especially if you want to be a gay male. I can imagine how tough it was to be a gay man in the 70's and 80's, those were decades in which if you attacked a gay man and beat his *ss, the cops would probably not be as helpful in catching the attacker because the victim was a gay man. Pretty sure there was even an epidemic of gay men being murdered and suicide amongst gay men during those decades, so i can imagine how important this film was for them. Now I can only guess it led to more men coming out of the closet with a new self-acceptance and confidence in alternate lifestyle but I also think that it might have been a double-edged sword since no doubt the AIDS epidemic exploded in the 80's and it could have been due to the community not practicing safe s*x and just having a good old time f*cking anything that moved just like Frank E. Furter is portrayed and that sense of freedom created an unhealthy and careless lifestyle for many that probably went on to infect others with the HIV virus. Now I could be absolutely wrong and if you are a gay man reading this, please share your thoughts, especially if you think I am wrong with my analysis.  So there you have it...my complete journey into all things Rocky Horror Picture Show. 

Edited May 31, 2020 by Con

[LimeGreenLegend 4,175]

@Con thanks for that review dude, I loved reading it.

Totally agree with you about how powerful and in your face the message of unashamed self acceptance and open love that this film promotes, and that's why it's still considered as one of the most important movies in the gay and trans communities.  I appreciate your honesty when you said that stuff like the male kissing and simulated fellatio made you look away, but I think that's just a problem with that not being a part of most films.  You just don't see many realistic gay relationships in mainstream films.  Gay characters in most films are either the comic relief or the victim, something that has been changing more recently.  It's the same thing with nudity in film.  It's nothing special to see full frontal female nudity, even with major stars like Margot Robbie and Scarlett Johannsson.  Tom Cruise ain't never getting his d*ck out on film.  That's why I always appreciate it when a major male actor gets his out on screen, fair play to them.  So, if you'd like to see Robin Williams' c*ck watch World's Greatest Dad, David Bowie's can be seen in The Man Who Fell To Earth, if you want a glimpse of Tom Hardy's p*cker check out Bronson, Robert De Niro's schl*ng makes a strong impression in 1900 (as well as Gérard Depardieu's in the same scene), and Harvey Kietel's tiddlywink can be appreciated in The Piano 😄 

I also loved you trip down memory lane, that's a gorgeous building you used to live in.

Edited May 29, 2020 by LimeGreenLegend

[Con 5,703]

10 minutes ago, LimeGreenLegend said:

@Con thanks for that review dude, I loved reading it.

Totally agree with you about how powerful and in your face the message of unashamed self acceptance and open love that this film promotes, and that's why it's still considered as one of the most important movies in the gay and trans communities.  I appreciate your honesty when you said that stuff like the male kissing and simulated fellatio made you look away, but I think that's just a problem with that not being a part of most films.  You just don't see many realistic gay relationships in mainstream films.  Gay characters in most films are either the comic relief or the victim, something that has been changing more recently.  It's the same thing with nudity in film.  It's nothing special to see full frontal female nudity, even with major stars like Margot Robbie and Scarlett Johannsson.  Tom Cruise ain't never getting his d*ck out on film.  That's why I always appreciate it when a major male actor gets his out on screen, fair play to them.  So, if you'd like to see Robin Williams' c*ck watch World's Greatest Dad, David Bowie's can be seen in The Man Who Fell To Earth, if you want a glimpse of Tom Hardy's p*cker check out Bronson, Robert De Niro's schl*ng makes a strong impression in 1900 (as well as Gérard Depardieu's in the same scene), and Harvey Kietel's tiddlywink can be appreciated in The Piano 😄 

I also loved you trip down memory lane, that's a gorgeous building you used to live in.

Keitel also releases the Kraken in “Bad Lieutenant”. The blue house is where we moved in, the brick building was across the street, where the Sono Cinema’s rear entrance was...just wanted to clarify that, I edited the post so it was less confusing. 

[LimeGreenLegend 4,175]

1 minute ago, Con said:

Keitel also releases the Kraken in “Bad Lieutenant”

He must be an exhibitionist 😄 

I've not seen that, heard it's insane though.  I'll have to check it out.  

[LimeGreenLegend 4,175]

The Peanut Butter Falcon

dir. Tyler Nilson, Michael Schwartz

The Peanut Butter Falcon is a road trip drama about a young man with Down syndrome named Zack (Zack Gottsagen) who has no family, so the state put him in an old people's home.  He's sick of his boring life there, and dreams of being a wrestler like his hero, the Salt Water Redneck (Thomas Hayden Church), so with the help of his roommate, played by the brilliant Bruce Dern, he escapes one night and goes on the run, off to the redneck's wrestling school.  On the way he meets the troubled and angry fisherman Tyler (Shia LaBeouf) who is also on the run, and the two soon form a bond and a partnership.  

This, along with Honey Boy, again shows the acting chops of Shia LaBeouf.  He's fantastic in this, slowly opening up to Zack and warming to him before forming a brotherly relationship with him, filling the hole left by his dead brother, played in flashback by John Bernthal.  Zack Gottsagan is his equal in every scene, and really carries the entire movie.  You can feel his yearning for adventure at the start of the film, and his unflinching optimism and lust for life is infectious.  Dakota Johnson is solid as the social worker sent out to find Zack after he goes missing, and wrestling fans will mark out over seeing Mick Foley and, in a pretty substantial role as an absolute *sshole, Jake "The Snake" Roberts.

The direction is nothing special here, but it does its job well.  The cinematography is great however, the whole film having a sun bleached washed out feel that perfectly encapsulates the deep south setting.  This is a feel good film that doesn't rely on sentimentality or cheap tricks to elicit your emotions, and you will feel better about life after watching it 8/10

 

=================================================

Murder on the Orient Express

dir. Kenneth Branagh

Murder on the Orient Express is the latest adaptation of the classic Agatha Christie murder mystery directed by Kenneth Branagh, who also stars as the legendary sleuth Hercule Poirot.  The story sees Poirot taking the Orient Express as he needs to return to London as soon as possible.  His journey, which he expected to spend drinking and reading his Dickens, is interrupted by the murder of one of the passengers and he must make use of every one of his "little grey cells" to solve the case.  This isn't made easy however, as everyone is a suspect and everyone is acting suspiciously.  

This is a slick looking film, almost too so.  Branagh seems to have used a really wide lens to shoot most of this film, so the gorgeous sweeping landscape shots of the train hurtling across mountain ranges are expansive and even the interior shots of the train have a feeling of openness and space to them, which makes it feel more luxurious.  The set and costume design are on point the whole way through.  I've never seen the inside of the actual Orient Express, but this is exactly what I imagined it to look like.  The performances from the huge ensemble cast are all at least solid, but some do feel underdeveloped due to having to cut out a lot of the book to fit into 2 hours.  This is especially true of Willem Dafoe, Michelle Pfeiffer and Daisy Ridley.  The actors given time to develop their character really make the most of it though.  Johnny Depp is great as the slimy art dealer, with an exasperated Derek Jacobi as his ever present valet.  Judi Dench is coldly regal and dismissive as the Russian princess.  The real star is Branagh who relishes every moment he spent behind that fantastic moustache.  He has a playful whimsy to him at times, but can easily switch it up to sharp, incisive logic when he needs to.  

Ni spoilers here, but I'm not sure whether I like the conclusion or not.  I have never read the novel, nor seen any other adaptation of this story so I went into this cold, and when everything was revealed I had the reaction of "hmmm that seems far fetched."  I won't say any more, but if anyone else has seen this I'd like to know your thoughts. 

That aside, this was an enjoyable romp that was pretty to look at and full of great performances from a star studded cast  8/10

 

==============================================================

On The Waterfront

dir. Elia Kazan

 

On The Waterfront is a classic crime drama directed by Elia Kazan and starring Marlon Brando in one of his early roles, cementing his place as one of the greatest actors of all time.  He plays Terry Malloy, an ex-boxer and dockworker, whose brother is the right hand man to the mob connected union boss, Johnny Friendly (Lee J. Cobb).  The film starts with Terry tricking a fellow dockworker into an ambush where he is killed to stop him testifying against the union.  Terry thought he was just gonna get beaten up, so is conflicted by this.  This is worsened when the dead man's sister Edie (Eva Marie Saint) starts to fall for him, not knowing his part in her brother's death.  This leads to a conflict between Terry and Friendly, culminating in an epic showdown at the dock where Terry becomes an almost Christ like figure.

This is an incredible movie on all fronts, the direction is great, the music is great, the script is fantastic, but what you watch this movie for is Brando.  He practically burns off of the screen with his presence.  If you've only seen the classic later Brando films, The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, even Superman, then do yourself a favour and check this out.  Everyone else in this film is great, especially Cobb as the sleazy union boss, but Brando is clearly several levels above everyone else here.  The way he holds himself, and the way he moves across the frame is different to what the other actors are doing, it's more natural.  He also uses his face as a tool more than everyone else, accentuating his dialogue with a shake of his head or a shrug of his shoulders.  The classic scene is the "I could'a been a contender" scene, where he admonishes his brother for telling him to take a fall in a boxing match early in his career.  I mean, just watch this.

This is a fantastic film that still holds up in all respects, with an standout, show stealing performance from arguably the greatest actor of all time 9/10

 

================================================================

Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief

dir. Alex Gibney

Going Clear is a documentary feature from Alex Gibney covering the history and controversy surrounding the "religion" of Scientology.  This film doesn't come at it from a place of neutrality, they start out presenting this thing as a weird and dangerous cult, and they have compelling evidence to back that up.  This is structured in a standard documentary format with several talking head interviews with mostly former members of the church intercut with archive footage.  I don't think any original material of the actual church or their meetings was shot for this, not that they would've given permission anyway.

This whole thing is insane.  If you believe what these people are saying, and I do, then you will be amazed throughout this film.  I don't really know what else to say, these people are mental.  David Miscavige is a creepy man who probably killed his wife and I can't believe he's a real actual person.  It's just all so mad.  A pretty standard documentary about an absolutely unbelievable modern cult 8/10

 

 

[LimeGreenLegend 4,175]

Portrait de la Jeune Fille en Feu (Portrait of a Lady on Fire)

dir. Céline Sciamma

Portrait of a Lady on Fire is a French period romantic drama written and directed by Céline Sciamma and starring Noémie Merlant and Adèle Haenel.  The story sees an artist, Marianne (Merlant) hired by the mother of a woman in order to paint her portrait.  The daughter, Héloïse (Haenel) is to be married to an Italian nobleman, but before that can happen he needs to see a portrait of her.  The only problem is that she doesn't want to get married, refusing to sit for the previous painter her mother had hired.  This is why her mother has told her that she has hired Marianne as her companion to keep her company after the recent suicide of her sister.  Marianne is to accompany Héloïse on her walks near the cliffs of the isolated island on which they live, observing her face, her features, and painting her in secret. 

What follows is an intense slow burn of a romance that is more raw and real than any romance that I've ever seen in a film.  What starts as quick stolen glances in order to observe an earlobe, or the fold of her hands turns into a caressing gaze as Sciamma's camera lingers on her subjects like the touch of a lover.  This film is full of long takes, giving us time to examine the characters like portraits in a gallery, the same with the gorgeous landscapes of turbulent waves and treacherous rocky cliffsides.  The colours in this film are vibrant and full of life.  The screen is dominated by bold bright reds greens and blues in the costumes, making the characters stand out against the pastels of the house in which most of the film takes place.  

The best thing about this film are the two lead performances from Merlant and Haenel.  I could not take my eyes off of the screen, especially when they are on screen together, in the same way they couldn't take their eyes off of each other.  This is a film about a real love that could never be and it is absolutely heartbreaking in the most real of ways.  The last few minutes of the film, which is just one shot, left me breathless and is one of the best last shots in any film that I've ever seen.  This is the best thing France has produced since @Fido_le_muet 😉 10/10

 

[djw180 6,836]

The Warrior.

Starring the late Irfan Khan, who's recent death was, I assume, the reason this was on Film 4 (co producers) last week, as the title character. It's set in medieval India. It's in Hindi but most of the time you don't really need the subtitles as there isn't a massive amount of dialogue and when there is you can usually tell what is going on from the context. Looking on IMDB the warrior is named but I never caught that, and it didn't seem to matter, so I'll just stick to calling him Warrior.

He isn't really much of a warrior, more of a hired sword to kill whoever the local lord wants killed. We learn he is doing the job his father did and that he fully expects his son to do one day. Towards the beginning the local peasants are paying their taxes to the lord. One of them only has a few coins to hand over, explaining the harvest was bad this year. The lord couldn't care less, waves a hand, two guards pin the old man down and our Warrior cuts his head off. The lord wants to make a bigger example so sends the Warrior leading half a dozen others to burn, r*pe and kill their way through the man's village. Whilst the others clearly enjoy this, the Warrior starts to see things differently and catching site of an emblem on a the necklace of a girl he nearly kills has a vision of himself back in his home village in the mountains. He puts down his sword, goes home and tells his son they are leaving.

The other warriors are now looking for their former leader, ordered to bring back his head or lose their own. They find someone who looks vaguely the same and take his head back. They also capture our Warrior's son when he foolishly goes back to the family home to retrieve his Grandfather's dagger. The next day the son confirms to the lord that the head is that of his father, falsely obviously, but is still killed. Our Warrior witnesses this but is prevented from doing anything by the large crowds and helped to escape by the town's blacksmith.

The rest of the film is a kind of road movie. The Warrior returning to his home in the mountains, joined on the way by Riaz, a young man run away from a hated job smashing rocks, an old blind woman going to a holy lake and finally some sort of travelling merchant who gives them a lift in his cart. They all get to where they are going in the end. The other warriors have guessed where their old leader is heading though and get there first, doing to his village what they clearly have done to so many others before. But their new leader wants to end this one-on-one, so confronts the Warrior, handing him his old sword. The Warrior has no desire to fight and it is Riaz, hiding under a building who seizes it and cuts into the man's legs. Our Warrior then takes up a weapon one final time, I assume, to put his former comrade out of his misery.

You might expect a film like this to have stunning scenery, especially in the mountain scenes. But mostly it's quite dirty and drab, I think reflecting what life was like then. Even the lord who presumably has the best things money can buy seems to live quite a dull and boring life. It's good, simple story, well made.

8/10

Edited May 31, 2020 by djw180

[LimeGreenLegend 4,175]

Sátántangó (Satan's Tango) 

dir. Béla Tarr/1994/7h19m

I've never braced myself to watch a film before, but considering that this is over seven hours long, and I wanted to watch it in one go, I did for this.  Turns out I didn't need to have bothered, I was so engrossed by what I was seeing that it didn't feel a minute longer than four hours 😄 

Sátántangó is a Hungarian art-house drama directed by Béla Tarr and based on a novel of the same name.  It tells the story of a small farming commune at the end of communist rule.  The commune has been a failure, all of the buildings are crumbling and in disrepair, the fields are nothing more than mud pits and everyone looks sick and tired.  A few members of the community decide to steal the farm's money, which is collectively everyone's money, and run off.  However, they abandon their plan when they learn that a former member of the community, Irimiás (Mihály Víg, also the film's composer), thought to be dead for two years, has been seen on the road back to the farm.  This news seems to bring life to the village, but it's not clear whether it's a happy anticipation or some sort of fear.  When Irimiás arrives at the farm, about five hours in, he is angry at the state of things and convinces them to give him all of their money and travel to a new community he has been setting up.  This new community is just an old, abandoned building in which they spend a nightmare fuelled night.  The very next day Irimiás tells them that their plans have been put on hold and he sends them all off to different parts of the country.  The film ends with the town "doctor" returning to the commune after spending some time in hospital, only to find it empty.  He hears a tolling bell and goes to the source of the noise only to find a madman shouting "the Turks are coming" over and over again while ringing a bell in a ruined church.  Returning home, he boards up the windows of his house, submerging himself in pitch black darkness.

This is a pretty basic story that could be told in two hours, but I think that would str*p it of everything that makes it a f*cking masterpiece.  We see the same event from different perspectives a few different times during the film.  This, combined with the length of the shots give the impression that these people are living in limbo, a never ending slog through the rain living the same life day after day.  The film is divided into twelve chapters, reflecting the structure of the tango, six steps forward six steps back.  The film steps back and forth through time with a non linear structure that adds to the groundhog day feeling.  I feel like I've lived in this community.  I've seen it in intimate detail.  I know all of the people and I know their secrets.  I know about the affairs, and the secret police spy.  I was witness to a little girl poisoning her cat in an incredibly uncomfortable episode in which she forcefully pushes its head into a bowl of spiked milk, feeling for the first time what it means to have power.  I saw her remorse and guilt and I saw her kill herself.  I know I sound like a pretentious w*nker but this is the most affecting cinematic experience I've ever had.  

The direction is, like everything in this film, slow and contemplative.  The film only contains around 150 shots, with some lasting more than ten minutes.  The camera is either eerily still with a carefully composed frame, simply letting characters move around and through it without any need to follow them, or else it creeps along with a determined, steady energy mirroring the stoic villagers trudging along muddy tracks.  The black and white cinematography is gorgeous, the decay and filth on everything has been lit like it was a work of art.  The acting is fantastic all round.  Everyone perfectly treads the line between realism and a surreal kind of realism.  Mihály Víg is particularly great as Irimiás.  Looking like a sinister George Harrison he plays the part like a smooth talking cult leader.  He always stays a mystery.  The first five hours of the film are mostly spent talking about him and anticipating his arrival like he already has them under his spell, like he has some kind of magic to him.  The music is perfect for this film, very accordion heavy, at times it sounds like carnival music that has become depressed and turned into a funereal dirge.  

This is a real one of a kind experience that needs to be seen to be believed 10/10

 

 

[Con 5,703]

 

Tomb Raider (2018)...2/5...Had potential but instead becomes a mash-up of Lara learning about her athleticism and survival skills along the way and some skills like her archery are hinted at from a young age. I laughed at the ending cause although its bad *ss with the guns, i laughed cause she went through all that surviving and then at the end decides, "Hmmmm maybe guns are a good idea to take or have when I travel to foreign strange lands in search of lost treasure." The actress did a great job playing Lara, i just think the build up of her character was botched a bit. I did like the "plague" twist but overall I felt like..."They had this amazing actress that could carry the franchise but you have to dedicate more time to build up her character. The woman inherited BILLIONS of dollars....and she decides to go alone to find her dad on a super remote island off the coast of Japan? That would be like, Barron Trump going into Colombia by himself, hiring a guide and taking nothing but a backpack with notepads. Just doesnt make sense. I would have made Lara take someone with her, have them be killed (making this the reason Lara becomes that solitary adventurer in future installments) and then have her go through the adventure alone. I just thought they missed a huge opportunity to reinvigorate the franchise and kind of rushed through what could have been an amazing origin story. Why should you watch it? Because you enjoy all things Lara Croft and want to see an almost awesome adventure. 

Terrifier (2018)...2/5...No doubt if i was 11 years-old again I would have loved this for the over the top gore. Sadly at this age and having watched too many real dismemberment videos the movie gore losses impact unless it is done well and here they are....until they hold the camera on the gore just a bit too long. When the viewer has enough time for the brain to say, "oh look it looks like rubber there." it means you held the effect in front of the lens too long and this is what happens here. The first film with unexpected ultra-gore I watched as a kid was "The Toxic Avenger (1984)"...over the top gore but done expertly as the gore is on screen for just the perfect amount of time before the brain starts telling you it ain't real cause you cant have the real stuff in movies. That being said, I appreciate films like this being made as some 11 year-old will stumble across it and fall in love with special effects. The standout of course was Art the Clown...acted masterfully and appreciated his wrath I had mixed feelings once the handgun comes out. The reason I just cannot recommend this past the gore is the horrible setting and location...do not show the audience a NYC style street and city at the peak of its nightlife only to then have the clown show up and everyone else just disappear...I mean, I was so angry that the cops learn about the murders at the pizza place but then there is no cop presence in the area and our protagonist NEVER leaves the immediate area!!! What the f*ck filmmaker??!! You tell us the cops are looking for the suspect in a clown makeup and white and black costume and NO ONE SEES the clown despite many chase scenes happening on the street??!!!!!! Not one single person looked out the window and noticed the strange clown chasing women...lmao. I hate that. Imagine me attacking you on the streets of NYC at 2am and NOT A SINGLE PERSON hearing you scream for help while you RUN DOWN THE STREET?!! I call bullsh*t....now perhaps people would not want to get involved but at minimum there should have been a cop sighting considering they were looking for the suspect in a clown outfit. So as a shock film, some moments work but in general I was distracted by bad story-telling elements that should not be there for such a simple plot. Why should you watch it? You want to see the ridiculous scene where a hacksaw is used to cut a naked woman down the middle, an*s first, its shocking—but if  you know anatomy,  then using a simple hacksaw to cut through all that flesh and bone and perhaps Art the Clown did have a surgical hacksaw, but it looked like he was just carrying regular rusty tools the entire film. 

Antichrist (2009)...4/5...The cinematography was hauntingly beautiful and while I appreciated the er*ticism ( i watched the full p*netration Edition) and nudity but I don't know that I cared for what was going on cause of the slow burn most of the time but if you like metaphors and coming up with your own conclusions then you will enjoy it as much as i ultimately did.. I did enjoy how it can have different meaning to people with its imagery and story. At one point I even said, "Oh He is the antichrist and she was a single mom and perhaps she was masturbating when the accident happened and she imagines "He" (Willem DaFoe) the entire time and we are watching is the story of a lonely n*mpho. But the film also works as a tale of a couple that go into the woods to mourn and have to confront the thing responsible for the accident, their passion, I mean, imagine that in real life, how does a couple approach that activity the same ever again? And when they do, will one have to stop because of the memories? The how do I say it, The roast beef cutting scene was pretty good except we do see when the real thing is replaced with the prop, I mean of course no actress was really going to mutilate her g*nitals in real life, but just start out with the prop but use the real actresses arms, either way it was a cool shock moment and quite tame compared to what is shown in Terrifier (2018) yes, that Terrifier i just reviewed above. My favorite scene was when we find out that the accident could have been prevented but a choice was made....now that was a GUT PUNCH!!! I didn't expect that and honestly made me sit up and pay attention the rest of the way as honestly  it was starting to get mundane with the whole therapy pyschobabble stuff. And what was with drilling that wheel into his leg? I laughed the entire sequence. I liked the symbolism of the mutilations at the end and how they relate to the central horror element and just the discussions I could have with just that part of the film alone elevated my score. Why should you watch it? You dont fear Von Trier's visual style and you found a copy of the director's cut and want to see some unrated shocking moments including a vicious t*sticle smashing the likes you haven't seen before, in other words I hope it caught just the Frank cause if it smashed the beans, he done for life.

Rec (2007)...3/5...Spanish cinema film about a reporter following firefighters overnight that get quarantined in a building under mysterious conditions. Its found footage film and I do like that genre, especially when its done well and Rec excels in the found footage aspect as it never gets shaky or pulls those cheap camera tricks where you almost see stuff. Manuela Velasco does a tremendous job as the main protagonist and reporter that will get the shot no matter what the consequences and she really drives the story and makes it fun even when the horror arrives. I think I would have liked it more had we tied that last room with one of the "good guys"...like how about if it was the camera guy!!! He set everything up cause he knew they would be dispatching the firefighters to that building. I dont know, I guess I wanted to learn more about the person collecting all those missing girl newspaper clippings. I also appreciated them waiting until the very end to go into Nightvision mode...as most of these films overuse that infrared filter in place of actual scares. I didnt find it clear what exactly was causing the negative energy.....was it Satanic or was it a virus or was it a Satanic Virus!!!! We will never know, or we might since there is a Part 2 and Part 3 and even an American remake. Why should you watch it? Cause its a well shot and acted found footage film out of Spain and you live in a building that absolutely creeps you out at every corner.

Edited June 9, 2020 by Con

[Abizaga 51]

Laberynth 9/10 its a wierd movie but there is so much charm in seeing the puppets and the practical effects in action. And the sound track was superb!