No.256
I just finished watching Babylon 5. I'd say it's my second favorite sci-fi show after TNG. The best part is how well-planned it seems, there are subplots that are started the first season that get finished all the way in the later seasons. The character development is well done, no changes to a character seem unjustified, and no one stagnates. I think that by the end no one in the show is in the same position as when the show started, everyone both advances in their carreers and grows as a person, dealing with personal problems and all that. I think it's done well especially considering how most of these shows just keep everyone in the same position for the entire show, even TNG does this, everyone stays in the same rank and occupation for the most part. I guess the producers just leave it to the nerds who write the books and comics to finish it all up. The last four episodes are all pretty much the sendoff for all the characters so that everyone's story is completed and we know exactly where everyone ends up, which is a great contrast to shows where everyone just sort of leaves, or where it's never explained what they're going to do after the show ends. The makeup and costumes are also really well done, I think that the only part of the visuals that didn't age well is some of the CGI shots of spaceships and buildings.
I still haven't watched the two movies that are after the show so I guess I'll post about them when I do. I'm definitely looking forward to them. Also I guess there's a spinoff show called "Crusade" but I'm a little less excited for that since I don't think any of the original cast is in it and it only got one season so the complex and patiently thought out story that I enjoyed from Babylon 5 won't be there, or at least it gets cut off early. I guess it got cancelled by the executives who wanted more action and sex shoved in before the show even aired, which is just sad.
No.257
I've heard the name a few times but I will have to find time to check it out OP, it sounds good from your glowing review. Sounds like there was some real effort put into the show, which sadly can't be said for the majority of modern film and tv.
No.258
Rewatched 28 Days Later and it was still a pleasure to watch. The beginning, up until the picnic, is genuinely comfy and brilliantly directed. Didn't notice on my first watch but the soundtrack really adds to the film
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8TbbWCcDbg - one of my favourite tracks of the soundtrack and one of the best scenes in the film
No.259
Unfortunately, I haven't made time to watch movies in a while and I already talked about the last two movies I saw here
>>251. Besides that, I watched "King of Comedy" some months ago, which I found quite interesting. To be honest, it didn't make me laugh but I found most of the jokes very clever. The movie is obviously a critique of celebrity worship and desire for fame, but I think it's also a dark twist on those stories in which the protagonist does everything that is possible to fulfill their dream.
>>256 Thank you for such a great review, OP. I've heard about Babylon 5 before, but I've never had the opportunity to watch it. From what you say, the show really took advantage of its episodic format. I'm not used to watch series, but I'll try to give this one a chance.
>>258 I remember that movie was pretty popular back in the day when it was made, but unfortunately, I never saw it. By the way, that song is pretty cool.
No.266
>>259 If you ever get the chance, I'd recommend giving 28 Days Later a watch.
>By the way, that song is pretty cool I know I'm repeating myself but the experimental music in the soundtrack is one of the best parts of the film; I can't quite describe how but it adds to the atmosphere of the film. It would be a very different film without it.
No.267
I recently saw Ingmar Bergman's 'Persona' (1966) and Orson Welles' 'The Trial' (1962).
I found Persona enjoyable; it had some aesthetically striking scenes, specially when it came to faces and backgrounds. Now, the theories of Jung I know only superficially, so a lot of Bergman's intent probably went over my head, but I think that the 'reading' kid from beginning and end was meant to symbolize the viewer, who, as a kid does from the characters of a book, is learning new roles and behaviors to mask his own. Maybe the Hedgehog's Dilemma was also present in the deteriorating relationship between the two mains. In any case, I also liked how the movie broke the 'meta' to constantly remind the viewer that nothing happening was real, all the while having dream sequences and 'repeated' scenes to, perhaps, strengthen the characters' confusion by symbolizing it through said 'meta-breaking'.
'The Trial' I also found very enjoyable. It managed to capture, in my unknowing eyes, the dread of such an comically irrational justice system. Perhaps, as one of the many interpretations of the initial tale, the guy should've used force to overcome the guardians and thus have access to the law? I mean in the spirit of Ihering's "better to be a dog than a man, and see one's rights trampled before him" in the 'Struggle for Law'; or perhaps in the spirit of St. Augustine's "an unjust law is not considered to be law". I don't really know, in any case. I've read it was intended by both Kafka and Welles to be a dark comedy, and it may very well be in subsequent readings/watches, but in the first one I found it to be extremely dreadful and worrying.
No.271
>>267 This is really embarrassing... I remember watching Persona a few years ago and I remember finding it very interesting and visually stunning, but after reading your review, I realize I barely remember the movie at all. To be honest, this worries me a lot, because this isn't the first time this has happened to me. Maybe I don't give these films the attention they deserve. Anyway, I guess this whole thing is an excellent excuse to watch it again. And thank you for your review of this movie; you brought some interesting points and observations.
As for The Trial, I've been waiting to see that film for a while. Funnily enough, I read the book a few years ago and, just like you, I couldn't see the comedy in it because I found the whole situation terribly distressing.
No.494
I watched "A Man For All Seasons", about Sir Thomas More's execution due to his refusal to accept Henry VIII's takeover of the church in England.
I have really been enjoying older materials lately.
No.640
>>639Never went beyond the first one since it didn't seem that much interesting franchise, the first one was just ok and the rest didn't seem to have too much appreciation. Sequels in long franchises are a complicated matter, sometimes they just get despised because they have a number in the title but they can be good in their own; like Hallowen III has always been a hated movie with less of a 5 rating in IMDB, mostly because it didn't have Michael Myers on it, but if you watch it it's a solid well done horror.
No.644
>>640>the rest didn't seem to have too much appreciationAmityville 3D is trash, I recommend avoiding it unless you really enjoy bad movies. I have yet to see the direct to video ones but I doubt they're any good. The remake of the original wasn't bad.
>Hallowen IIII've always liked Halloween 3, I don't understand the hate it gets. Halloween 4 is alright, in part because it has a great opening, but the series just went downhill from there. H20 and resurrection are bland.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nwMfSdlj7Y No.661
>>659Are there any of his films in particular that you would recommend, preferably ones in colour? The only films of his I seen are Rope, Psycho, The Birds and North by Northwest. I really liked Rope.
No.662
>>661Rear Window and Frenzy then.
No.664
>>659It's been awhile since I watched his movies, but I remember enjoying Psycho, The Rope and The Trouble with Harry a lot. Also, Alfred Hitchcock Presents was a pretty good TV show, from what I recall. One of these days I should watch all his movies again.
>That's why most critics couldn't have him in high consideration but curiously the french (the most pedantic people in the world) were their number 1 admirersI read once that Roland Truffaut considered Hitchcock the greatest director working at the time, unlike most American critics from that time, who see them as just a light entertainer.
No.669
>>665I never continued the series after the first one because what you said about the second film but serial killers are just my thing (really, I can't stop consuming media related to them) and I also see George C. Scott was on it so I think I will watch it soon.
>>666I think liking this kind of movies has more to do with being into horror or not, so I will put them in my list too. Thanks for the recommendation, Satan.
No.670
>>669>watch it soonI'm sure you'll like it, I'll probably be re-watching it several times myself. Some might say George C. Scott's performance in the film was over the top but I thought he was perfect.
No.671
>>670I just watched it. It's a somehow weird sequel.
I usually don't like sequels that change things from the original and this one does it, but ignoring that, it was interesting interesting; it's slow, ominous, atmospheric, the acting is weird but good and the cast is a lot better you could expect from a third part in a horror franchise. Some scenes like the dream could have been really silly but somehow they work perfectly. It has an italian touch.
No.676
>>671>change things from the originalWell it changed from a sort of documentary horror to a crime procedural horror. But it was based on a book by William Peter Blatty so I would consider it canon.
>Some scenes like the dreamThe whole movie felt like a dream.
No.677
>>676What I meant is it changes how we thought the original Exorcist ended. Of course it's cannon since Blatty wrote it, but I never cared if something is cannon or not, never saw the point. I just don't usually like when a sequel tells you what happened previously it didn't really happen as you thought, it feels kinda like an asspull or it devaluates what you felt while watching the original. But it wasn't a big deal with this movie, I liked it anyway.
No.680
>>677I felt that way about the second film because I thought the demon was competently removed from Regan, and the explanation for why it was still in her wasn't really fleshed out.
The third one didn't bug me like that. I accepted the Gemini Killer's explanation of events.
No.726
>>725I thought Dennis Hopper's character was a little too hammy. Leatherface and Chop Top were great though, the radio station scene was superb.
No.727
>>726Now I'm remembering scenes I have completely forgotten. It wasn't some sort of chainsaw rape ? Also I just remembered some tender leatherface scene with a girl.
No.729
>>727Leatherface rubbed the chainsaw blade near her stank area in the radio station scene. He wanted to keep her as a toy and so he kept tryng to hide her.
No.747
I will spend some time without internet and I'm downloading some horror movies to be entertained. I have watched like hundreds in last years but there's always something I have missed, what are your favourites, anon?
No.749
>>747I'm a fan of George Romero and John Carpenter horror films. Day of the Dead and Prince of Darkness are great to watch if you haven't seen them yet. Sinister was one of the best horror of the 2010s imo. It's similar to The Ring but far scarier.
No.751
>>749I will try Sinister, never heard of it. Romero and Carpenter have been between my favourites too, and Prince of Darkness is an unfairly underrated movie, it had some brilliant imagery but not having a particular good cast probably played against it.
No.752
>>751Since you like Romero you might also want to watch Martin. I found the full film in fairly good quality on youtube a little while ago. It's more of a horror and coming of age film mixed into one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXNahvkiC48 No.754
>>752I watched it some years ago, really weird movie that mixes lots of things but it somehow works.
No.812
>>761Tranny leatherface isn't too out there considering Ed Gein. I wondered if they went that direction in parody of Buffalo Bill and Psycho, almost obligatorily since he hadn't crossdressed before.
No.819
>>812>he hadn't crossdressed beforeIn the original Leatherface wore makeup during the dinner table scene, and I guess in Next Generation they thought, hey it's the 90s, why not make him go full tranny. So progressive!
I think the idea initially was Leatherface was play-acting being the mother of the family by dressing up and serving food.
No.904
The Last House on the Left (2009): I'm surprised they showed a fairly realistic portrayal of what an abduction looks like, the filmmakers really went there.
No.927
Watched this today and made me think about a couple of things.
First, how most the american critics (and part of the public) had and still have a problem with history movies, and to be precise, the ones that aren't about US history. Some of the best, most accurate and aesthetically perfect historical movies I've ever watched were trashed by the american critic and ignored by the public (see Nicholas and Alexandra as another example, even Oliver Stone's Alexander for a modern one). There has to be a reason but the complaints are usually similar, "boring", "no passion or individual drama", "movies shouldn't be a history class", etc.
And second, what a tragedy is to have lost this kind of cinema. To hear how old movies "have aged", praising how modern cinema "can do anything" is outrageous. From a pure visually standard you can't do a movie that gets remotely closer to this anymore. CG has killed the skill and the taste to put the grandiose in screen. The worse of it is the public gets educated into the cheapest ways of the spectacular and can't eat anything else.
No.931
>>927I have never seen that but it looks impressive.
I think people these days are very stressed and modern production techniques are designed to appeal to highly-stressed people with ruined attention spans. To be able to watch longer, slower-paced films you need to be able to relax physically and mentally and I think lots of people can't do that, they are stuck in a stressed state that requires those drama-inducing techniques to keep them interested.
No.934
>>931It's not even a long movie though (unlike Nicholas and Alexandra), barely two hours with lots of things happening. I think it's an aesthetic problem. I'm sure if some old great battle from the past could be recorded and shown to the people of today they would say it looks "cheap" or "aged badly" because it wouldn't be the CG shitfest they are used to. Our aesthetic sense is getting fucked.
Those were incredible efforts , just only to mobilize thousands (more than 15000), it's like recluting a real army since you need them equiped and disciplined like one (and they were a real army in this case, mostly soviet soldiers including cavalry).
But still, the budgets were a fraction of any big production of today. They are spending more money than ever in shit that can't resist any comparation with movies from 50 years ago. It's really sad.
No.939
>>931>modern production techniques are designed to appeal to highly-stressed people with ruined attention spansThat and a dumbed down plot and dialogue so the film can appeal to Chinese audiences.
No.944
I watched a couple of documentaries a few weeks ago.
>Liniers, The Simple Lines of ThingsA documentary about an Argentinian artist called Liniers who is best known for his comic strip "Macanudo". I must confess I wasn't particularly excited about watching this movie --I like some of Liniers' work, but I find most of his comics a little lame--, but I ended up liking it. I enjoyed seeing the creative process behind Macanudo and how different Liniers' approach to comic strips is from other artists. Also, it was pretty interesting to see how much the director struggle to convince Liniers to allow her to make the movie.
>The Mindscape of Alan MooreThis movie is pretty much a very long interview with Alan Moore, the writer of Watchmen, V For Vendetta, From Hell and many other titles. Unlike other interviews where Moore is depicted as a grumpy and eccentric old man who hates everything, this documentary allow him to tell his story and go deeper into his personal philosophy. It was certainly interesting to hear him talk about how he came up with some of his best-know stories, but my favorite part was when he began to talk about his thought on magic, science and philosophy. I would have liked to see some other comic writers and even some other people heavily into occultism share their thoughts on Moore's works and views, but the documentary is pretty good as it is.
>>927I agree with you and the rest of the mages here, there's something very special about those classic period films. Not only are they more faithful to the historical event they are portraying, but they are also the fruit of the work of hundreds of really talented artisans and actors. The amount of coordinated effort required to film such complex scenes is just amazing.
No.948
Watched Béla Tarrr's Turin Horse. It's one of those movies where nothing happens, and it's a bit on the pretentious side of new wave, but I really liked it.
It's a movie about the crushing monotony of life, an abused workhorse's refusal to live, the despoilment of earth, and the Apocalypse. A poor farmer and daughter pair living in the middle of nowhere are stuck in a perpetual windstorm, their workhorse (suggested to be the horse Nietzsche saw being whipped when he had his mental break) refuses drink and food, and their farmstead is visited by a few mysterious and ominous characters typical to eastern European playwriting. But mainly the film is about conveying through a sort of visual poetry the grinding and disappointing aspects of daily life. They dress, they undress, fetch water and light lamps, tend the fire, eat potatoes, and stare out the window. Almost no dialog is present, just a single haunting theme on repeat and the howling of the wind.
No.955
>>948Interesting, it almost sounds like a movie that's meant to induce depression in the audience. It's like the plot of the film is life is shit, it has no meaning and then you die.
No.978
>>976I liked Unfriended a little more than the first one, in part because of the great ending. I found both films gave me such an eerie feeling, maybe because I spend so much time on the internet.
No.1003
I watched a few recent horror movies.
>Curse of Chucky
It has its flaws but I enjoyed it. It was nice to see Chucky return to his horror roots and I like how the movie uses the 'uncanny valley' to inspire fear. However, I think the story gets dumber and dumber as it progresses. At first, the movie fools you into thinking it's a reboot, but then it connects with the rest of the series. Unfortunately, it does this very awkwardly, especially when Tiffany enters the picture. Also, I didn't like what they did with Charles Lee Ray's backstory.
>The Conjuring
I didn't expect anything out of this movie but I found it very interesting and entertaining. It's very well done and has some nice scenes. I think it went a little over the top at times, but it's just my opinion.
>Annabelle
This one was kind of bad, to be honest. The story is very simple and predictable, and the main characters are just plain boring. On the other hand, I really enjoyed the elevator scene and the part where the black demon sits at the bottom of the staircase. And here's a little fun fact: this movie was directed by the same director of Mortal Kombat: Annihilation.
No.1019
>>1003Annabelle was pretty bad, and can you believe it made $257 million. People are so desperate for horror films that even garbage makes a lot of money. The fact that the doll never got up by itself and moved around pissed me off so much.
If you liked The Conjuring you'd probably like Insidious.
No.1042
>>1041I don't know, but I'm having some pressure to watch something at the end of the month, there's anything you particularly recommend?
Years ago I watched like one horror movie every two days for a long time, so at some point it was difficult to find good stuff to watch.
I always liked Vampires, even if it was never particularly appreciated in Carpenter's filmography, also the John Steakley novel was quite good too.
No.1044
>>1042>recommend>I watched like one horror movie every two days for a long timeThis could be a problem, you see it's hard for me to recommend the good stuff when you've already binge watched everything. Some of the old Vincent Price horror films are enjoyable, not so much scary but fun to watch none the less. I'd recommend The Masque of the Red Death, Witchfinder General and Diary of a Madman.
I watched We Are Still Here a little while ago, it was pretty good.
No.1088
This was nice, while most things didn't make too much sense to me, you can see George C. Scott as the most vicious assassin and some amazing fire apocalypse at the end. It's the kind of movie you could easily miss because it doesn't have too much apreciation or good reviews. I watched it because some neros77 video;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwh2WcHI0LI He has the skill to show 80's movies as a lot more cooler than they really were, but some of them have been really good discoveries.
Next weekend we should watch some classic horror movies.
No.1091
The new Borat isn't nearly as good as the first one but it's got some enjoyable parts. The Rudy Giuliani interview is fucking wild. Been a while since I saw it, but the first one seemed to be a satirization of the republican party as well as an "expose" (there's probably a more accurate term) of what they'd put up with (like talking openly about killing fags and such) and making comedy from that. The new one goes for more of a "Borat learns feminism" angle as well as moving away from the mockumentary format to a more narrative-driven format which I think is a lot less interesting regardless of the viewer's politics. I think that the Borat character is a lot more funny when he stays simple and the people he harasses are the punch line. Doesn't help that there are a lot fewer real people in it than the original, although the times that they do interact with real people they get a lot of mileage out of it, the parts where he's at republican rallies are the most like the original. The worst aspect is the girl who adds nothing to the film besides feminist points, which is a shame because she's a major part of the plot. I think it's funnier when the women of Kazakhstan aren't seen and all we know of them is what Borat says so he can get people shocked by making up the most ridiculous stuff. Whatever, the fat guy whose name I forget was a much better foil to Borat as far as I'm concerned but I guess he had to sit this one out.
Also I don't really have a problem with it being anti-Trump, obviously the first one joked about the president a lot. But here it seems really fucking gay the way they go about it, especially in the intro. Rather than focusing on American conservatives it focuses a lot on the actual people in charge, which I find less funny personally. I think that the main reason it went the way that it did is obvious, it's meant to encourage Democrats to vote, and to be fair I don't think there's anything wrong with that in and of itself. This election is a big deal to a lot of people and the real question is whether or not the Democrats can excite their people to actually vote, the Republican voter base seems a lot more stable for better or for worse. The movie is essentially a feature length Trump bashing ad, and I think it does that job well. I think that while the first one was something that would be funny to someone from most parts of the political spectrum this new one is something that at the very least isn't something that Trump guys would like.
Also the part where they show the girl (who's supposed to be 15 in the movie) learning to masturbate, is fucking weird. Not that I think that girls shouldn't be learning about sex yet by that age or that I think it's evidence on its own that Sasha Baren Cohen is a pedo or even that I think you can't or shouldn't show that in a movie, it's just fucking weird I think that's where I realized all the feminism stuff wasn't leading to a joke but was rather the intended goal.
I find it funny how Borat is still so recognizable even a decade and a half later that between movies he's become some sort of makeup/disguise expert just so he won't be immediately recognized.
No.1144
>>1143>the rating system is gayIn other news, water is wet.
No.1493
I've been on a traditional fantasy binge recently, seeing (mostly rewatching) the oldies of Jason and the Argonauts (1963), the Sinbad films (1958, 1973 & 1977), Conan the Barbarian (1982) and Destroyer (1984), The Dark Crystal (1982), Excalibur (1981), Dragonslayer (1981), Krull (1983), Masters of the Universe (1987), Ladyhawke (1985), Fire and Ice (1983), Wizards (1977), the LoTR animations (The Hobbit, 1977; RoTK, 1980; Bakshi's, 1978), Legend (1985), Dragonheart (1996), Scorpion King (1992), Eragon (2006), Beowulf (2007) and, of course, the LoTR trilogy, perhaps the cinematic epitome of fantasy, especially FoTR. I'd recommend all those movies to anyone who enjoys some good ol' high fantasy and sword and sorcery; Legend may be an outlier in that regard (reminds me of Pan's Labyrinth for some reason), as well as Jason's and Sinbad's due to their dated production (and being more of sword and sandal). I remain intent in watching more fantasy films, although I fear that the best of the genre is already seen, those being the more acclaimed and reputed ones after all. Who knows, maybe another gem awaits among forgotten 40s-50s-60s films, and I'd certainly appreciate any other recommendations.
I take the opportunity to discharge my mind. Amidst the stillness of my current life, so many fantasy has me thinking that Don Quixote wasn't that mad after all. At this moment I would very much like to don armour and raise sword and learn spell and pursue an impossible quest, not because I'd believe it, certainly, but because I'd believe in it. In the blink of an eye, a sincere proclamation of CREDO QUIA ABSURDUM could turn the irrational into the real, and, in the world thus remade, I would be the only sane man left to reveal: BEHOLD, I MAKE ALL THINGS NEW. Alas, a terrible spell of inertia has me, hiding cowardice, masquerading as prudence...
No.1496
>>1493I can remember a couple of fantasy movies maybe you haven't watched. The two are often considered part of the barbarian fad of the 80's, though they really weren't.
First one is The Beastmaster, I have a thing for it's director Don Coscarelli because even with low budgets and genre movies he had a really personal style I personally love. It came at the same time than Conan so it wasn't riding the fad but there's a lot of similarities and it was unfairly considered a cheap Conan copy.
And the second is Conquest by Lucio Fulci. It's not a particularly great movie but it's so weird it's interesting to watch and it has the sense of atmosphere of the good Fulci works, also adds some greek/ancient world into the mix.
No.1497
>>1495I hadn't seen it, so thanks for the recommendation. I found it to be wholly pleasant, especially in its visuals, inspiring a certain mysticism. It seems a full-length version is in the making, but doesn't seem very promising in my opinion.
>>1496I hadn't seen either of them, although I had read about The Beastmaster somewhere. After seeing it I understand why some would consider it similar to Conan, but I agree with you in that it'd be unfair to consign it as a copy, much less a cheap one, for it has its own merits and its own glow, so to say, particularly because the hero -and his animal companions- give off a vastly different charm than Schwarzenegger's Conan. Very enjoyable, all in all, even if I thought it somewhat weakens towards the end.
Ten minutes into Conquest, on the other hand, and it is already grittier and more visceral than most fantasy movies, which, given it is Fulci's, is quite understandable. The presentation (and questionable effects, even for the time) just scream cheap Italian flick, as does the music, but its atmosphere and good pacing kept me gripped fairly easily. Good characters too. Thanks for the recommendations.
No.1499
>>1496>The BeastmasterI use to watch the TV series many years ago. I remember really enjoying it.
No.2076
I watched a couple of movies a few days ago. Since sometimes I forget what movies I’ve seen, I thought it would be a good idea to write my thoughts on them.
>Judith of Bethulia (1914)
In 1914, after filming more than 400 short movies, D. W. Griffith released his first feature film: Judith of Bethulia. The movie is about Judith, a widow who is forced to seduces and then kill Assyrian general Holofernes in order to save her city. From what I read, it’s based on the play of the same name by Thomas Bailey Aldrich.
The story touches on patriotism and the tension between our personal desires and our obligations. A good example of these issues is the scene in which Judith, moments before cutting off Holofernes' head, is tempted to spare her new lover's life. Right at that moment, her mind is invaded by visions of her compatriots dying of thirst and hunger, which makes her change her mind and kill Holofernes (I think this part of the movie is also a good example of cross-cutting, but I’m not sure). Just for that, I find Judith very interesting as a character. She is a heroine forced to play with her own temptations without falling fully into them.
Anyway, while I enjoyed the story, what really surprised me about this film was its ambitious technical aspects. You can see that a lot of effort and love was put into each set (Bethulia’s main street looks really impressive, especially when it’s full of extras) and costume. Likewise, the battle scenes are amazing for the time period. There’s something about them that really conveys the violence and chaos of war. The scene where an Assyrian warrior falls from a ladder and then he’s rescued by one of his fellow soldiers deserves special mention here.
Finally, each shot is so meticulously composed and detailed that it almost feel like being in front of a series of living paintings, but I think that was something quite common back then, when movies were still heavily influenced by theater. However, this film also has few shots with unusual compositions and camera angles. A good example of this are the scenes that takes place inside Holofernes' tent, when Judith is trying to seduce him.
In short, “Judith of Bethulia” is very interesting silent film. I can understand why it isn't mentioned very often when people talks about Griffith (his other films are more iconic), but that doesn’t mean that this one doesn’t deserve some merit. It doesn’t surprise me that it was one of the most expensive movies ever made at that time (it had a budget of $40,000). By the way, after watching the movie, I watched a documentary called “D.W. Griffith: The Father of Film”. I recommend it to anyone who's into cinema history.
No.2077
>>2076>Leprechaun 3 (1995)When I started to watch these movies, I thought they would be something similar to the “A Nightmare on Elm Street” movies. Unfortunately, I didn’t enjoy the first two movies. In a way, they had good ideas but the people behind them didn’t have enough money and talent to make them work. Luckily, I found the third movie very enjoyable. Without a doubt, it was a step in the right direction.
Of course, I can’t deny that “Leprechaun 3” suffers from the same problems as its predecessor: most of the characters are too cartoonish for their own good and the movie isn’t scary at all, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad movie. In fact, I’d even say that it’s very entertaining and has some creative and fun scenes. For instances, all the death sequences are memorable and have a monkey's paw effect that gives them an added irony.
Speaking of the technical aspect of the movie, I’m a little surprised that this “Leprechaun 3” had a lower budget than his predecessors, because it looks a lot better than them. Its director, Brian Trenchard-Smith, really knew how to make the most of the money they had. The set are well made, the costumes are visually appealing and most of the special effects are good. My only criticism is that
the second leprechaun’s make-up looks terrible in some scenes.As for the actors, almost all of them did a decent job with what they were given to work with, but I think Warwick Davis (The Leprechaun) and Lee Armstrong (Tammy) deserve special mention. Davis gives his role all he has and make all the Leprechaun’s one-liners work. In short, he’s a very charismatic actor. Lee Armstrong is a good actress too. She’s also lucky enough to have a few dramatic scenes where she gets to explore different emotions. That said, it’s a little uncomfortable to see her act as a bimbo when she’s under the spell of one of the wishes.
On the other hand, there’s an actor who stands out for a completely different reason: John Gatins, who plays Scott, the hero of the story. The script needed a naive young man with a good heart, but his performance is so cartoonish and bizarre. Also, there’s something about his eyes that makes him look like a serial killer.
In conclusion, “Leprechaun 3” is the first movie in the franchise I’ve actually enjoyed. It’s not a perfect movie, but it’s fun and has some clever ideas, and that’s all I ask from a fantasy/horror movie.
By the way, I apologize if I made any grammar or spelling mistakes. I still struggle a little with English.
No.2083
>Mad God
A surreal stop motion (with some live action inserts) horror film with no dialog. Mysterious figure descends into the underworld with a map and a briefcase of explosives.
In my opinion the movie's good points are that it's visually stunning in many areas. There still is no substitute for real world analog effects and settings rendered in miniature. Most of the stop motion is quite well done too. Some of the live action inserts are so well blended with the stop motion I don't even notice the transition. Some of the film is just beautiful, and the rest is ugly but in such a way that one cant help but admire it's aesthetic qualities anyway. Most western films, even animated ones, rarely place such priority on beautiful visuals. So it is quite good to see something where each frame is pleasing to behold.
My complaints: It doesn't feel entirely cohesive. The film was made and remade piecemeal over a long period of 30 year, because of this it seems to me that there's a certain looseness and slight shift between the parts that were made earlier and the ones that are made later. A more minor gripe is that is some of the live action insert sequences feel jarring and that in scenes that have CGI/composite parts it isn't always well blended into the otherwise immaculate and richly detailed setwork. My biggest peeve though would be that where story and symbolism are concerned it often feels scattershot and lacking in refinement. I like the concepts, symbolism, and feelings, I think they have real potential, but the execution felt lacking. Some scenes and their visuals seem too out of place (one scene has a UFO). Other scenes seem to on the nose (some of the early scenes have a distinct scatological bent, but come off as so eager to impart disgust it actually detracts from the otherwise slow build of horror).
Overall I enjoyed Mad God. It is another film in a small but influential tradition of surreal horror stop-motion. If you have interest in such things I suggest you check it out. It's a shame that this isn't the first film of a newcomer, so that one could look to the future and hope for more films going forward each evolving in sophistication.
No.2087
>>2083Though it can be too artsy for my taste for my taste, this interests me a lot. Makes me feel a lot better about the future of humanity to see the old art forms are not completely abandoned and not all has to be an sterile CG desert;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-TJm7HkzkQI found weird that while being a big name in special effects the director only made one long feature film before, and that film being Starship Troopers 2.
No.2091
>>2083>>2087Thank you for reminding me of that movie. I've been interested in it since I read about the project a couple of years ago. I'll try to find a way to watch it as soon as possible.
I also agree with your opinion on the current state of the art in visual effects. There's something really appealing and even "magical" about practical effects and a well-thought out stage design. It's a shame that most directors directors are not interested in giving these techniques a chance.
On the other hand, it's impressive what you can do with CGI these days. For instance, that animated short your linked to was made with Blender, but it really nails that stop motion feel.
No.2093
>>2091For what it's worth I downloaded it from here
https://mixdrop.co/f/xo7jomr6aqpppn , though the quality wasn't great (720x400), there might be better quality releases somewhere.
>On the other hand, it's impressive what you can do with CGI these daysIt certainly can be, sadly it usually isn't used to it's full potential. My pet theory is that it's a problem of CGI giving too much freedom. The limitations of a medium can be the catalyst for growth. So many historical styles are a product of the give and take interplay between the artist, his tools, and his medium. With digital mediums like CGI there's no collaboration with the world, just a boundless possibility that all but the most visionary can get hopelessly lost in. So all too often it's just shoved into things half-baked by people who have no idea how it works as a medium.
No.2095
>>2091Damn, I feel dumb to have posted a work that was actually CG to criticize CG, I didn't know it was (still great though). I should say my problem with CG is more about it's prevalent use and how other forms of animation and art in general have been abandoned. This awful idea that CG makes everything else obsolete, and the often aesthetic lazy use of it.
I also love puppetry and it was very nice so see a little return of it with Dark Crystal, also Thunderbolt Fantasy is one of the best things ever.
No.2096
>>2093Thank you so much for that download link. I'm not as good at finding stuff online as I used to be, so if I don't find a better version somewhere, I'll use your link.
>My pet theory is that it's a problem of CGI giving too much freedom. The limitations of a medium can be the catalyst for growthI can see what you mean. Back in the day when CGI was still new in film making, most directors used it very sparingly. It was just another special effect technique that had to be used with care. However, now it seems to be the answer to everything, at least according to Hollywood. In fact, it's not unusual to see one or more entirely computer generated scenes in a modern live-action movie.
>>2095>Damn, I feel dumb to have posted a work that was actually CG to criticize CG, I didn't know it was (still great though)Don't worry. The first time I watched it, I thought it was an actual stop motion short too. It's really well done.
Now that you mentioned it, I think I hate the overuse of CGI in animation more than in live-action. It's true that there are a few recent animated movies with great art direction and character design, but most CGI movies look very samey, which is a real shame, because you can do anything with animation.
By the way, I see many people talking about Thunderbolt Fantasy online. I should definitely watch it.
No.2279
>>2278Never heard of it for some reason, makes me think a little of Farscape, which I should watch one of these days. There were many space sci-fi shows in those years, and some were very innovative or just plan weird.
Yesterday, like OP some years ago, I finished Babylon 5. Actually it was a show I already watched as a teen long time ago, and I loved deeply. Surprisingly it was even better than I remembered, so I could feel nostalgic and amazed by the quality at the same time.
No.2302
I watched Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio with my family a couple of days ago. Honestly, the only reason I wanted to see this movie was for its artistic side, and in that regard, I was not disappointed. The film is visually beautiful and has a very appealing handcrafted feel to it. As for the story, I couldn't help but feel that it was overloaded with disparate situations and subplots. It's true that all of those scenes made sense within the story and were properly intertwined, but I still felt the film was too fast paced for its own good. In addition to this, I was not convinced by what they did with the character of Pinocchio. I appreciated that they introduced him as a sort of abomination (in fact, his relationship with Geppetto starts out very much like the one Dr. Frankenstein has with his creation) and I enjoyed his transformation throughout the film, but the character is just annoying.
I was going to say that I didn't like any of the songs from the movie, but I watched it dubbed. Now I'm listening to some of those songs in their original language and I must admit that they are enjoyable.
The only part of the film that I really didn't like was the one where Mussolini appears. I don't really care about this historical figure, but I didn't get the joke about his stature and the song Pinocchio sang in front of him was terribly stupid. Granted, the one line of dialogue that Mussolini has in the film made me laugh. Lastly, I guess I liked the final message of the movie (don't look for perfection or live in the past, just try to find a way to make things work with what you have). It's a good movie, although I don't think my family liked it.
No.2304
Do you know of any movies that would help me cope with cancer (not my own)?
No.2305
>>2304It's A Wonderful Life. It's an excellent, uplifting movie. Also Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
No.2323
>>2303>Jennifer LawrenceI won't watch anything with this narcissistic cumslut jewish fuckdoll. Sorry.
No.2332
>>2323Fair enough.
By the words you chose I guess she don't do as good in IRL as she does in movies. I don't really know much about her except the movies she starred in.
No.2343
>>2342>I thought it was aimed to teenagers>I like dystopian moviesIt seems like we have something in common. I suggest you to watch them, you might not regret it.
No.2347
>>2345It's been a while since I watched that movie, but from what I remember, it was... just fine. The overall tone of the film was strange. At times it was a little hard to take it seriously.
Anyway, the dialogues were pretty good. Tarantino knows how to write dialogue and usually works with good actors.
I'd like to talk about the last movie I watched, but it's been a while since I took the time to sit down and watch something. The last movie I saw was The Adventures of Prince Achmed, and that was a couple of months ago.
No.2370
I've seen a lot of people talking about a series called Helluva Boss on various parts of the internet, so I decided to give it a try. The cartoon is about a group of mercenaries living in hell. You only have to watch one episode to realize that the people behind the series are big fans of Invader Zim. Not only do several of the characters resemble the aliens from that series, but also one of them is played by the voice actor who played Zim.
Anyway, I found the series to be somewhat mediocre. Visually it's much better than other adult animated series, but many characters have too much detail. They almost look like OCs created by some DeviantArt or Tumblr user. I found most of the jokes unfunny and the characters get annoying rather quickly. I have only seen the first season, but I understand that many people are not enjoying the second season because it is too focused on the characters' romantic relationships and other drama. I will possibly watch the rest of the episodes, but I don't recommend it.
>>2363I lost track of those movies after the third installment. I remember the first one was pretty good. The second and third were less interesting, but still fun.
No.2388
>>2370Watch Murder Drones next lol
No.2389
>>2388Not him, but I just watched that.
I don't have good taste, but I liked it. More than a few of the plot points are very normie highschooler experience focused, so I'd think plenty here might hate it though. The animation was pretty darn good for amateur stuff. Same with the voicework. The pacing was refreshingly brisk, with little to no wasted air time. The jokes are rapid-fire so even when they fall flat it's not too bad. Some of the characters, like N, were super "moe", not something I'd usually use to describe western cartoon characters. All in all something I'd consider very watchable.
No.2476
A few weeks ago I watched the first two Carnosaur movies for the first time. They're nothing earth-shattering, but I can't deny that they're both quite entertaining.
The first one is probably the most interesting. The plot has several interesting ideas and the director put some effort into shooting some visually entertaining scenes, such as the one that takes place in a dark chicken coop, where you can barely see the feathers of the chickens against the black background. I would have liked the villain's maternal side to have been developed more, and the film loses quite a bit of pace once the protagonist starts interrogating the villain. Either way, it's a fun movie.
The sequel is pretty good too. It's much less original, in fact, it's practically a ripoff of Aliens, but it's full of action and fun characters. The only thing I didn't like about it is the final battle against the tyrannosaurus rex. The main character has no reason to kill the tyrannosaurus and the whole scene lasts more than 15 minutes.
>>2388>>2389I gave this series a chance. I thought the first episode was terrible, mainly because it tried too hard to be funny. However, I found the plot interesting, so I decided to watch the rest of the episodes and I don't regret it. The plot gets more and more interesting with each episode and the fight scenes are great. I found the characters annoying at times, but I think that's because I'm a bitter old man.
