What Movie Did You Just Watch? ...Rises

[Lazario]

Evil Ed (199? / directed by: Anders Jacobsson)



Sort-of a parody, sort-of homage (posters for far better movies - Near Dark, The Howling, Return of the Living Dead, The Fly '86, Pet Sematary - litter the walls of every office and editing bay), but completely stupid blender Evil Dead / Video Dead / Popcorn (1990) thing about a squeamish guy put on assignment by a video distribution company to cut all the gore and sex from a bargain-basement Friday the 13th knockoff franchise and, after being prompted (in a very The Shining meets Hellraiser sequence) to kill everyone he meets because they're probably corrupted by [something the movie basically leaves unexplained], goes on a killing spree. Culminating in an extremely Dr. Giggles-esque climax. I actually held off on seeing this for quite some time because I was informed it was quite nasty. Was it? Well, let's put it this way: the hard stuff is reserved for the movies Ed has to watch at his editing machine and even though this movie thinks it's referencing Friday the 13th with its' fictional Loose Limbs series, it's instead trying to convince us Maniac! was a franchise. Put Bobcat Goldthwait in the Frank Zito role and that's exactly what you have: hot chicks who fall head over heels for a scummy, dirty trashman vagabond-lookin' guy who turns out to be a serial killer. Not much subtlety there - which is not a problem, if they're trying to poke further holes in Maniac's bullshit plot. Point being that, no matter how much splatter they throw at you, the set-up makes it impossible to take seriously.

Credit Evil Ed for not trying to turn him into the sleazy killer from the movies he watches. But now I question whether what we got was the better deal: instead, he turns into a demented Ash from the Evil Dead sequels- beating up innocent people thinking they're demons and vampires, all the while comically selected riffs on movie themes and children's rhymes play in the background. What any of this has to do with the movies he was forced to watch (by his jerk boss who threatened to fire him, even though he worked for another department- editing foreign art films) is anyone's guess. A few things do work. Such as the Little Shop of Horrors meets Gremlins monster in a baby's jumper/sleeper hiding out, not the least bit quietly, in his fridge. Oh WHY didn't they make the movie about him?? Ed as a character is so braindead by unintentional coincidence that the intentionally braindead character, the long-haired pizza-delivery looking guy (clearly modeled after Bill or Ted- I don't know which character Keanu Reeves played), and his bimbo-ish girfriend become infinitely more likable. A literal parade of forehead-slapping moments. It could have been worse but nobody with a choice will want to see this anyway. An easy skip. For a much better guy-loses-touch-with-reality schlockathon, watch Steve Miner's House. For a better schlock-movie-fan-goes-on-killing-spree, watch Popcorn. For a much more-entertaining-than-it-should-be foreign (Evil Ed is Swedish) schlocky "B"-movie, watch Rabid Grannies. And if you haven't seen it yet, watch The Video Dead.

[Avaitor]

Re: De Sica's A Place for Lovers, I've never seen it but I've heard it was terrible.

Yeah, it hasn't even been released on DVD. I watched it on TCM out of curiosity, and got what I deserved for doing so.

Very few directors never made a bad film. Tarkovsky, Melville, Bresson...any others?

I really can't think of a director with a meaty enough career whose work was entirely consistent. Yours are some of the closest that come to mind, however.

As for 2001, I've always been under the impression that it's long and tedious in so many parts because, well, space travel is long and tedious. It's the idea that all the exterior shots, the cultivating silence, the supposed pandering turns itself into one incredibly dynamic experience that makes the film so important. Nevermind the excellent score and the chilling HAL. It's not for everyone, or most people, honestly, but definitely worth repeat viewings for cinema fans.

[dvdjunkie]

Enemy of the State (1998) Blu-ray

Directed by Tony Scott, this action/political thriller stars Will Smith, Gene Hackman and Jon Voight. It concerns a small group of people who basically want to control our government from the inside ( a lot like what is going on today with Obama laying all the 'guilt' trips on the Supreme Court), and what it takes to bring it all to an end. A Senator is killed and then it is made to look like an accident, unfortunately there is a video camera that scans that part of the park and it recorded everything. The tape gets the attention of this group, and they pull out all the stops to get it and erase it. Some good heart-pounding action with a non-cop-out ending. One of my favorite Tony Scott films. He knows how to do an action movie right. I will give this one 4/5 stars.

A Bridge Too Far (1977) Blu-ray

Directed by Richard Attenborough, this is the telling of an event in WWII called "Operation Market Garden", which a combined force of Polish, British and American soldiers in one of the biggest gambles in wartime history.

Featuring a cast that reads like a who's who in Hollywood, this film's 3-hour run time flies by because we are so involved with the story and the characters. Just some of the actors who have lead and supporting roles include Laurence Olivier, Liv Ullman, Sean Connery, Ryan O'Neal, Gene Hackman, Dirk Bogarde, Anthony Hopkins, Elliott Gould, James Caan, Maximilian Schell, Robert Redford and Hardy Kruger, just to name a few. And all the stars in this film don't get in the way of the story. Great photography on the some of the original battlefields, and an editing job that was second to none at the time. Very good movie with a very good story. I will give this 4/5 stars.

[Dr Frankenollie]

2001 is my favourite movie and possibly, one of the best. Dave is intentionally a one dimensional character because he's not really a character at all - he is a representation of the entire human race. The film has a cold atmosphere and doesn't try to keep your attention but by marrying the music, visuals and philosophical themes it becomes one of the very few pieces of art that is transcendent.

Even if Dave is meant to symbolise all of us, I still think he should have been made likable or developed in some way; I don't care what happens to him in the slightest (fortunately, I did care enough about the mystery of the monoliths to keep watching). It wouldn't matter to me if Hal 9000 ejected him into space and he suffocated. I agree in some ways about it being transcedent, and I can't deny that even if the spaceship sequences are slow, the music keeps my attention. But on that note, I don't think some of the emotion I felt was due to any of Kubrick's handiwork, but more to do with the music by Strauss and other composers.

Anyway, I watched The Hunger Games today, and as I expected, it was good but flawed. I think that some viewers may not realise that Katniss was faking her infatuation with Peeta; moreover, even though first person narration by Jennifer Lawrence may not have worked, its substitute - clunky exposition - is at times annoying and awkward. Most of the acting is standard, mediocre stuff, but Lawrence stands out and is able to play the lead role on different levels: we see her as a mother towards Prim, a brave young woman, and a frightened little girl. Maybe it's because the script could have been better, but I thought Josh Hutcherson was a bit lacking as Peeta; Liam Hemsworth was very wooden as Gale (he was doubtlessly chosen for being the typical buff Hollywood hunk, rather than for his acting skills), and I found his conversation with Katniss incredibly cringe-worthy.

Nonetheless, I liked Stanley Tucci and Elizabeth Banks, and unsurprisingly, the production design and make-up superb - not just in the case of the people of the Capitol, but also when Peeta hides amongst rocks. The shaky cam was used well in the first scene in the arena, more-or-less making us see the action through the eyes of Katniss, but it was used too much later on and spoiled the final fight with Cato on the Cornucopia. All in all, I have mixed feelings about this blockbuster, but its underlying messages are important and the concepts ingenious.

[Lazario]

Rumpelstiltskin (1995 / directed by: Mark Jones)



Oh, Leprechaun, what haseth thou spawned? Let's just get to the bad: Rumpelstiltskin the character has no charm or personality to speak of. This is not true for Warwick Davis's killer Leprechaun from the aforementioned franchise this thing ripped off- although it's worth mentioning this is the same director on the original 1993 film. Or Julian Sands's Warlock which both of these movies owe their existence to (all 3 of which were produced by some combination of Vidmark or Republic Pictures when it was slumming which merged and became Lionsgate at the end of the 90's when they began mounting interesting projects like Shadow of the Vampire and American Psycho). And speaking of Warlock, I feared this thing was going to turn into "mythological critter spends precious dialogue musing about how much things have changed between Ye Olden Days and the hip 1990's" and the movie did not disappoint in fueling my terror. Although, turns out there's something far worse: the second opening scene's extraordinarily racist overtones. Heroic white cop gets in slo-mo shootout with the most cliched street criminal you've ever seen while black partner sits on ass in patrol car. Black criminal leaps out at white woman with white baby in public place in front of traffic IN BROAD DAYLIGHT, attacks her with gun after she assumes he's going right for her baby. Shoot-out commences: Black Guy shoots White Cop FOUR TIMES, none of which are in the neck, head, or face (leaving him the dignity of Dramatic Dying-Expression Time), runs off and White Cop fires 1 shot. Right through the head. Black Guy dead. And that's the last you'll see of another black person in the movie. Never once did the partner get the benefit of doing or saying anything of value in any scene.

This movie, in a stark reversal from Leprechaun, desperately wishes it were the 1980's again. Not only does it open "present day" with the most dated 80's rap I have ever heard in a movie (contragulations, Nightmare on Elm Street 5 - you're finally hip) but a driving scene even shamelessly shoehorns in A Flock of Seagulls' "I Ran (So Far Away)." And if only that were where it ended. The hot-button issue of scummy Morton Downey Jr-esque talk show hosts is a top-priority of this film's sightline of new trends for exposing. Not only a show and host hopelessly buried in 80's culture but one which Weird Al parodied in UHF, circa 1989, and Tales from the Crypt fashioned an episode after- dating this film by 5 years. When we first see this guy ("Max Bergman"), he's doing an episode on topless dancers in bikinis not seen since the actual Bikini Beach "Babe" direct-to-video trend was killed by Cinemax in 1992 (cause of death clearly being overexposure, haha, and the culture shift away from Jessica Hahn, Tawny Kitaen, and Traci Lords as-pinup and into Pamela Anderson, Jenny McCarthy, and Traci Lords as-actress) and... the movie's mother character with baby the movie's title baddie wants to steal and swap-souls with (taking this out of the much preferable flesh-munchery of Ghoulies and pushing it into slightly more trendy Child's Play territory) is actually watching this show while feeding her baby. So, clearly it makes sense that later said on-the-run mother's car breaks down and the "kindly" motorist who stops to in-a-sense offer her a ride happens to be a celebrity sleazy talk show host. She's (Kim Johnston Ulrich) not a bad actress nor is her character intolerable but he's (Tommy Blaze) one giant step backward for this already logic and quality challenged flick.

The only good within it is Tommyknockers' Allyce Beasley as the token best friend who enters the movie as the heroic husband croaks at the hospital and for all the charisma she lends her scenes (which is substantial considering her defining characteristic is that she takes her newly widowed best-friend to a voodoo antiques shop looking for a spell to land her a man) is given a most unceremonious exit: a pathetic neck-twist kill. Most baffling, though, is how quick the movie is to forget all about her and throw the should-be-grieving mother into comedic hijinks with the talk show host, a ridiculous high-speed car chase, more wacky auto-related hijinks with Talk Show Host riding a kids' speed racer buggie backwards over a cliff to lure the demonic munchkin to a fiery would-be grave, and a police station standoff that would go on to serve Jeepers Creepers well 6 years later. Honestly, only one thing baffles me here- how people could forget about a movie like this when they go after the excellent Bride of Chucky. I am a strict believer in knowing the full scope of good and bad when you criticize something for being popular, which people did Bride just for making money. This film being a ripoff, not producing a sequel, got off easy and anyone who actually watched it forgot about it. Well, I'm here to remind you: movies like this shine light on the range of quality that proves there exists a category of Bad-Bad Movies in relation to Good-Bad movies. Even with that in mind, Bride of Chucky and the very much related to both Leprechaun 2 don't even register as Bad. They're schlocky and in many ways silly, and were made from scraps but they are good movies. On a more related to this particular turd note, I recommend watching Warlock and John McNaughton's The Borrower instead; although unfortunately the latter is not on (even standard) DVD yet.

[slave2moonlight]

Shock Treatment: When I heard there was a sequel to Rocky Horror Picture Show, I of course was curious to see it. I finally did, and... meh. The opening was quickly turning me off, and much of it reminded me of the parts in Rocky that I didn't like. There are a couple of good songs, the performances are good, but it all really runs together and never gets me very involved. What I loved about Rocky was Tim Curry and the great songs, and the old, creepy castle routine. The Brad and Janet stuff was funny too, and here it was... not so much. Basically, I didn't see much here of what made Rocky Horror so good, and the social commentary was waaay too blatant.

[yamiiguy]

2001 is my favourite movie and possibly, one of the best. Dave is intentionally a one dimensional character because he's not really a character at all - he is a representation of the entire human race. The film has a cold atmosphere and doesn't try to keep your attention but by marrying the music, visuals and philosophical themes it becomes one of the very few pieces of art that is transcendent.

Even if Dave is meant to symbolise all of us, I still think he should have been made likable or developed in some way; I don't care what happens to him in the slightest (fortunately, I did care enough about the mystery of the monoliths to keep watching). It wouldn't matter to me if Hal 9000 ejected him into space and he suffocated. I agree in some ways about it being transcedent, and I can't deny that even if the spaceship sequences are slow, the music keeps my attention. But on that note, I don't think some of the emotion I felt was due to any of Kubrick's handiwork, but more to do with the music by Strauss and other composers.

Kubrick had a very pessimistic outlook on humanity in general, so it's not surprising that Dave isn't a likeable character. Nevertheless, the film ends on a sort of optimistic note as the transition from human to star child signifies that Kubrick believed that humanity could become something great.

The music sort-of was Kubrick's handiwork as he selected it. Originally, Alex North wrote a score (that's now available on CD) but Kubrick trashed it in favour of the classical pieces. Because of this, there are no emotional cues in the soundtrack - it exists outside of the film but somehow feels in harmony with the visuals. It is the primary means that the film communicates with the viewer, as the dialogue is spare to say the least. The music is a major element in making the film sublime and transcendent - it communicates with the subconscious, even if your active mind finds the film rather dull.

That being said, I've met much more people that dislike 2001 than like it.

[Dr Frankenollie]

Kubrick had a very pessimistic outlook on humanity in general, so it's not surprising that Dave isn't a likeable character. Nevertheless, the film ends on a sort of optimistic note as the transition from human to star child signifies that Kubrick believed that humanity could become something great.

I think we agree that the Star Child moment is brilliant; however, even if Kubrick made Dave unlikeable because of his possible misanthropy, it's hard to care about what happens to him. The thing that makes parts of 2001 tedious for me aren't that it's slow-paced, but because I struggle to care what happens to Dave and the other astronauts. Oddly enough, Hal 9000 is the only character I feel sorry for (when he 'dies').

The music sort-of was Kubrick's handiwork as he selected it. Originally, Alex North wrote a score (that's now available on CD) but Kubrick trashed it in favour of the classical pieces. Because of this, there are no emotional cues in the soundtrack - it exists outside of the film but somehow feels in harmony with the visuals. It is the primary means that the film communicates with the viewer, as the dialogue is spare to say the least. The music is a major element in making the film sublime and transcendent - it communicates with the subconscious, even if your active mind finds the film rather dull.

The music is doubtlessly responsible for much of the film's atmosphere, and the opening titles over the Earth, Moon and Sun are rather exciting and attention-grabbing because of the music; but even if Kubrick did select and edit it, he's still not responsible for the emotions it makes viewers feel. I love the Blue Danube Waltz and the other music by Strauss used in the film, but not the actual film itself.

Also, as a possibly irrelevant side note - I love your wordpress website.

[PeterPanfan]

Just finished watching Kramer vs. Kramer, the courtroom drama (a genre I've recently been enamored by) starring Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. I thought it was a really great film. The acting was definitely the highlight here; Hoffman was very easy to like and Streep played one of the most unconventional "villains" ever put on screen: an independent mother. She was able to convey, usually with just her facial expressions, feelings of comfort, hatred, love, and betrayal all at once. It was hard to side with Hoffman's character in this case, though he was clearly the more suitable parent. Just an all-around awesome film; highly recommended. Also, the unscripted final moment is brilliant.

[Lazario]

Slumber Party Massacre (1982 / directed by: Amy Holden Jones)



For generating nearly 5 minutes of flashback footage to Jim Wynorski's Sorority House Massacre sequels, it should be a bigger surprise that this double-feminist forerunner is half the film that Sorority House Massacre 2 and Hard to Die are. Where those sequels (to a rip-off 1986 franchise starter also produced by Roger Corman; by the way, this film was produced by Roger Corman) intended to be (and succeeded in being) true epics of no-budget slasher suspense-horror, this thing is at best a Halloween rip-off which has the moronic idea to actually cushion several scenes of terror with goofy music and... well, frankly, until the end- none of it works anyway. Thankfully, it's an entirely painless 75 minutes. But that also means it's entirely flavorless as well. Until the end, there isn't a single thing to write home about. Brinke Stevens - the only cast member here to emerge as a genre star - is one of the first to die a scene better done in Prom Night. Robin Stille (who went on to make a lot more out of her paddle-swinging dominatrix role in David DeCoteau's also superior Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Bowl-O-Rama) and the character playing her bratty tomboy sister get the only semi-fleshed out roles. But even then, what's there? Just a confession that one of them masturbated in the 5th grade (are we supposed to be shocked?). I did mention above that this is a double-feminist project- the screenwriter and director are both different women and both infamous feminists. So, yay for the occasional scene of girls flipping through porno mags (with accompanying closeup of hot naked man bending over to see what's in the bottom drawer of his fridge) rather than the guys. Although, this is literally the only horror film I have EVER seen that got a closeup of a woman's nude ass and held it for literally 10+ seconds. How is that helping the cause?

Anyway- it's a dumb nudie flick for about half an hour, gets slightly better when it turns into a series of fake-out scares involving a half dozen people going outside in the dark and walking around, then gets a lot better the last 10 minutes. This is also the only horror movie I've ever seen where the killer at one point runs away from an intended victim. Since you probably won't watch this (and I wouldn't recommend it anyway), I'll spoil it for you: she whips out Jason Voorhees machete, he runs away, she beheads his phallic drill, he cries, and between getting just massacred himself, he gets one slap and a shove in. Poor baby. I don't know about the rest of the movie but this ending is unquestionably feminist. She kicks his ass.

[slave2moonlight]

Just watched Detroit Rock City, a very fun flick with an awesome soundtrack. As absurd as it is how everything comes together to work out perfectly in the end (though it takes some bloodshed), as much as each guy getting to make out (or better) with a girl they encounter on their individual quests to see KISS (each full of outrageous unlikelihoods), it's totally acceptable because it's such a good time, and for me, it was really easy to be just as eager for them to succeed as they were.

[PeterPanfan]

I don't know why it took me so long, but I finally saw Titanic last night in 3D. I don't know how I've managed to escape any type of forced and/or television showing of the film, but... I did - until last night. I didn't think I would like it since it was so "mainstream" and "contrived" and maybe even "trite", but I loved it. It was an experience, and if a three and a half hour long movie can keep me so entertained I don't check my phone for the time or leave to go to the bathroom, I think it's succeeded. To the critics that say it's "melodramatic" and "overrated", it's not all about the acting, writing, direction. It's about the combination of everything involved and whether or not the film works. This film definitely works.

[dvdjunkie]

Great to read a good review of the release of Titanic 3-D, which I also saw on our World Class IMAX screen here in Wichita. I have always been a fan of the movie, when it is seen on the big screen. The way the movie wraps you up in the 'whole' story just doesn't transfer well to Home Video, in any form.

Seeing this film on the IMAX screen in 3-D is such an immersive experience and just brings you right into the story. A young (very young-looking) Leonardo DeCaprio is perfectly cast, as is Kate Winslet and Kathy Bates, who brings a bravado to the Molly Brown character.

James Cameron spent over $18 million dollars in re-vamping this film for the 3-D process and doesn't disappoint us one bit. Nothing gets in the way of the story of that ill-fated voyage, and it makes you feel like you are a witness to everything that goes on.

I highly recommend all nay-sayers to go see this movie on the big screen, and with the full digital soundtrack and get in tune with one of the best movies ever made. You don't have to see it in 3-D just don't rent the movie and watch it at home. Believe me, the experience in the movie theater is well-worth the money and the almost three and a half hours of movie brilliance you will see.

[Lazario]

Humanoids from the Deep (1980 / directed by: Barbara Peeters and Jimmy T. Murakami)



As you can see from the pic I created (and manipulated so hopefully it won't cause too much of a stir) above, this movie is about: Naked Chicks! But it's about oh-so much more! Like: Graphically Raping Naked Chicks. But still, seems to me (and the movie) that there is yet more that can be done with a plot such as this. Like, after assaulting and raping the naked chicks: forcing them to die in gory monster-childbirth for a cheap tag-on "There'll Be a Sequel!!" finale. Anyway, there are 2 directors cooking in this kitchen and I've already dug up a rumor that the woman was replaced because she didn't want this to become a rape movie. This is funny for a couple of reasons. One being that even Roger Corman (yes, he's the mastermind behind this frustrating pile) should have realized there are two completely different movies trapped in this thing and that the sleazy monster attack scenes have nothing to do with the film's other plot: a hunky Native American guy tries to sue the racist townspeople to get his land back. Which he does only when he's had enough being the target of hate crimes. The other absurd wonder of this thing is the racist plotline itself. It's not compelling. Other than the fact that it causes a slight divide within the town where maybe 3 or 4 people in a town of probably hundreds are willing to stand by the Native American guy in saying maybe it's unfair to persecute this guy for every single thing that goes wrong in the town. This serious issue is treated with no dignity, actually. It's resolved in the most ridiculous way you can imagine (putting the ring-leader of the gang of violent racists in harm's way by making him do something heroic for which he ALMOST gets killed by one of the monsters but is saved... by the Native American Guy; you can almost imagine him saying- "White Man, Now Brother?") and the character's entire struggle in the movie is used as a set-up to throw the bodies of the people who are trying to help him into the monsters' killing path.

Oh... it gets better: after setting up all this conflict, trying to up the stakes by killing the few characters we actually like and a slew of faithful, protective dogs, and even interrupting that for a series of women being groped by horny boys or taking off their clothes for literally the most ludicrous reasons I have ever witnessed in a horror film (to tease a VENTRILOQUIST'S PUPPET into popping out of a zipped bag!!!; yes, even I'm shocked the movie didn't make a "woody" joke- I guess it was implied), the movie reaches the seminal moment when the Scientist, the Heroic Fisherman (oh, he's sorta been the movie's main character / top-billed star all along actually, not the movie knows this), and the Put-Upon Native American Guy (no clue what his character's name is, he's mostly addressed as "The Indian"; naturally evident of the movie's boundless sympathy for this guy and all he's had to suffer) finally get to prove that the Monsters were the ones responsible for everything The Indian was being blamed for. It's a moment designed for a dramatic resolution to this story which the movie wants everyone to think it was taking seriously and treating with the utmost respect. Now, the racist is gonna eat major crow and we the audience are finally going to get the payoff for all the crap we've had to sit through which has just been throwing more gas on the fire rather than trying to get to the root of a significant social issue. Our "Protagonist" Crew open the body bag in front of the racist fishermen - who are gathered with the rest of the town at a giant carnival / fair celebration - and show the racists the body of the killer sea monster.

What happens next? Well, a better question is: what is really the point of this action, in the movie's eye. First: what happens is a good 12-15 monsters jump on land and start gorily dispatching the townspeople left and right. And, shockingly enough... there's actually a point to the reveal of the monster in the body bag even though it sure didn't give anyone time to clear the fucking shoreline of all the partying townsfolk. The point was that even though this scene is a mass of blood and gore (some of it played for comedic effect) with tons of people dying all over the place, some people are literally tagged by the movie as Untouchables. These characters will live and semi-heroically kill all the monsters that Our "Protagonist" Crew aren't able to with their masterplan of setting the surface of the water on fire. That's right, while a bunch of nameless, faceless (but certainly not BOOBLESS - oh yes, the movie takes a massacre scene as a perfect opportunity to have the monsters pull more women's tops off) people are being killed in ultra-nasty ways, the "Former" Racist Gang of Fishermen are going to save the day and kill the monsters. Seems to me that there's no reason to make heroes out of anyone in this movie, completely inept at basic characterization as it is, and that there's no day to save. You see bodies dropping all over the place in a scene of complete and utter mayhem (yet with no dramatic or scary overriding tone to it) and you wonder what the movie's justification for it was. Think about it: the racist fishermen are given an entire sequence to "learn their lesson." So, the rest of the town is being punished for having watched The Indian being beaten up outside the dance hall and not doing anything to help him? Or, are they being punished for not being on the edge of the dock when the Fishermen Gang saw the monster's corpse in the body bag? I have yet another bone to pick with this development: literally 3 children are shown in dangerous situations. Everyone else got killed, mutilated to the point of going into a freaking partial coma, or impregnanted with sea monster babies. The kids got off scot free. I know we're trained to expect this. But... well, don't the kids get to be characters? (Most of the time, actually, they do.)

Anyway, that's it; no more bitching. In conclusion: this movie exists for 2 stupid reasons. 1 that Roger Corman thought the blooming audience of 80's horror would go on to demand more leftover 50's monster-kidnaps-the-girl-to-impregnate-in-the-swamp trash movies. Turns out he had a lot more success with Prom Night / Silent Night, Deadly Night rip-off slasher cash-ins. And 2 because Piranha was a huge hit. But apparently Corman had zero respect for that film and viewed it as another cheap property to spawn cash-ins. Meanwhile, that film deserved to be treated with respect by the guy who made it possible because it was an honest-to-goodness masterpiece. Which itself had respect for writing, actually knew where to draw a line between when to be comedic and when to be serious, and transcended its' cheap origins to make an intelligent social commentary on the heartlessness of the media's treatment of death on television, money-grubbing corporate assholes, AND the military's psychotic guard over its' public image and anything it could consider a useful bio-terror weapon regardless of the innocent lives at steak. A full plate for a movie about rubber fish props in sped-up underwater shots nipping at THE OCCASIONAL woman's bare breast. Why this rip-off pretends to give a shit about racism is beyond me. However, it does deserve a little credit; if you would sit down to this expecting something weak because of its' silly title, you'd be in for a big surprise. In terms of gratuitousness and carnage- it delivers Big Time. The music is okay. The special effects are incredible despite the lame look of the actual sea monsters. There's tons of gore and its' top notch professional-grade work, most of the blood is dark red and convincing enough. And the cinematography and camerawork are extraordinary. A+'s all over in the visual departments. If you want pure excess and hardcore gore and T&A, this movie holds up extremely well. Of course - me?? I'll stick with Piranha since it promises and delivers substance in addition to gratuity.

[Avaitor]

Blah, Titanic. As far as I'm concerned, it's just Gone With the Wind on a boat.

[Dr Frankenollie]

Although I have looked at a lot of the work of Hitchcock, Kubrick, Scorsese, and other well-regarded directors, I'm less familiar with the likes of Godard, Tarkovsky and Fellini. Basically, where should I start with their films?

[Lazario]

Blah, Titanic. As far as I'm concerned, it's just Gone With the Wind on a boat.

More like cinematic sea-sick. (And by that, I mean vomit.)

[yamiiguy]

Godard - Breathless
Tarkovsky - Ivan's Childhood
Fellini - La Strada

That's what I'd recommend a introductions. Tarkovsky never made a film that wasn't great but Ivan's Childhood is his least challenging work. Quite a lot of his films are available for free, legally on YouTube. I'd watch them in chronological order. Godard's films in the 60s were terrific but he hasn't made anything good since then. Fellini rarely went wrong - La Strada, 8 1/2, La Dolce Vita and Nights of Cabiria are probably his best.

[dvdjunkie]

Avaitor wrote:

Blah, Titanic. As far as I'm concerned, it's just Gone With the Wind on a boat

You are the perfect person to go see this film. Apparently you wouldn't know a good movie if it bit you in the arse.

Also I have a question, is your sign-in name misspelled or did you purposely spell it that way to confuse all of us so we didn't think you liked "Avatar", which is one of the Top Five movies of all time.

Just askin'.

[yamiiguy]

I actually was dragged along to Titanic today. I thought it was actually rather good - strong acting, a great visual directorial style and a great story. The melodrama did feel too manipulative at times and the cuts to Old Rose didn't flow particularly well. Don't think much of the whole dropping the necklace into the ocean ending either. But I enjoyed it.

P.S. 'Aviator' is a word.

P.P.S Avatar is certainly not one of the top 5 films of all time. Probably not top 50 either. Probably top 250.