Reminds me of the bad early 80s horror flick The Boogeyman, where the soul of a killer is trapped in a mirror. The mirror gets broken, and the killer is released into the shards, and when it's being thrown out, a piece sticks to someone's shoe (yawn) and they inadvertently bring the Killer home. The film apes scenes from Amityville horror and other 70s horror, but the whole thing turns out to be mind numbing and ridiculous. Stay clear of that one! ;)

The constant "rum" jokes annoyed me.

Saw 3

Just as the last two Halloweens, this year comes with a new Saw.... for better or worse. I went in watching this after enjoying the first two. Both worked at what they wanted to do and the sequel even managed to be a fresh shade on the first. There are two keys tropes evident in these films, gruesome scenes and a twist. And un-suprisingly the people behind Saw 3 are accutely aware of this leading to a film probably made based on these ideas.

As such the gore and torture scenes are some of the most painful and wince inducing scenes in the series (and it's hard to think of a film that matches it). I'd say i'm quite de-sensitised in films but during the power tool brain surgery i'll admit my toes were curled like a bitch. It's a shame that this was the only aspect they put any thought into and the rest of the film does suffer from this. The characters are a waste of space tumbling along to reach the final twist. The A-B plot point approach with characterisation leaves the film limp leaving only death scenes to meaningless characters holding up what's left. And the deaths do become slightly absurd (drowning in minced pig) and the rush to reach the twist just cuts stupid holes in the plot making lots irrelevant. Considering the obvious build up to the twist it meanders loosing much impact plus it's actually pretty poor, so much so i'd inadvertantly guessed it.

The thing with Saw is it's a clear cut franchise so you'll know going into it whether you're going to like what it offers or not. As a film i did enjoy it despite most of said enjoyment being derived from feeling slightly sickened. This installment doesn't have the ingenuity of the first or the successful franchise affirment in the sequel but a rushed mix upping only the gore. The franchise is capped well though, shame we can expect two more which are in my opinion only going to get worse.

Not 2 more :eek:

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Hot Fuzz

I've wanted to write something on this for a while so lots of you Americans see it when it finally gets released over there, but had trouble starting the review. To cut it short i thoroughly recommend it, no it's not quite as good as Shaun of the Dead in my opinion but Wright and Pegg have definitely confirmed themselves as talents in Brit cinema.

The film in whole works perfectly, admitedly there's a lull in moving into the third act and some cutting could be employed but the characters give the piece such a strong drive to keep you entertained. A lot of the film is more smirk inducing than full out laughter (though there are more than enough moments that had my rolling) and some of this was just from playing spot the Brit actor, which also gave the film a great start; the Martin Freeman> Steve Coogan > Bill Nighy threesome. Despite the multitude of talent, it's Nick Frost who really shines with his lovable and funny slow-witted Constable, and he's also the one i considered to have improved the most since Shaun. Some of Wrights directorial quirks, the quick cutting worked in the context of Shaun but appeared jarring here. And more than enough jokes were throw backs to Shaun. Though these minor gripes hardly retract.

Despite being a take on the cop genre, the parody aspect is down played considerably in favour of a more character and diverse piece. Heck, some parts made me think i was watching a slasher film thanks to the gruesome deaths in tone of Shaun. The parody aspect works well, though the quaint English country side setting made it a quintessentially British cop parody, though this works well as a juxtaposition to the more Hollywood cop aspects most notably the final shoot out that is actually, considering the budget, amazing, there's a lot of ingenuity involved. One of the elements that i'm not decided on was the way they explicitly made the references to say Point Break by playing the excerpt of the folliwing the later homage. The scene works great as character building but on the flipside it seemed like a lazy set up to a gag made only for films fans.

This is just a slap dash review, since saw it a while a go and am planning to see it again, when i might come back with more to say but it's still gonna be

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Thank for the reviews, Pyro. I added some more movies on my must-see list.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

INLAND EMPIRE (2006, David Lynch)

Now, i start this write up with the question is it even a film in the back of my head; any illusions of narrative quickly dissolve after about 50 minutes of the seemingly epic 3 hours and the much of the film reminded by of Stan Brackhage's Avant Garde work. To make it worse, the main character is actually characterS, all played by Laura Dern, giving no indication to when we're witnessing a different character or even if they actually are different or just characters she playing. See, the basic plot is Laura Dern's character gets a part in a movie, foretold by a freaky Polish woman, and her entanglement with co-star Justin Theroux off the set mirrors the plot of 'cursed' film they're starring in- thus even before the narrative is lost, there's a degree of confusion.

The turning point is when we release that the mysterious intruder on Dern's and Theroux's rehearsal, unable to be found, was actually Dern appearing later in the film. Whether a doppleganger, the same character, a fracture of one character is unknown, instead from here we're lead through repetitions of events, different time frames and seemingly completely unrelated (irrelevant?) events, including Dern as a hooker in America, a Polish housewife; then there's the sitcom with humanoid bunnies and a cursed girl who's been raped? A lot of the film is speculative, if that, the coherency is to the extent that placing a reading on it may be near impossible. Where Mulholland Drive had decypherable markers, and compared to INLAND EMPIRE, coherency, we're left with Dern possibly walking into movies as the actress or as the character in the film.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-imag.../inland460.jpg

Dern handles the multiude of roles well, and the supporting cast admittedly don't have a lot to do or near the depth of roles Dern has to perform but they all do well, especially Harry Dean Stanton. I'm not sure whether to place credit in Dern, she does have a hard task and performs well but all her incarnations are distanced, perhaps it's from the digital video shooting, awkward close-ups or because there's rarely any point for empathy. Watching INLAND EMPIRE a Lynch fan can pick out many similarities from Twin Peaks like the red curtains or some alternate dimension and themes of dopplegangers from Lost Highway. There's some brilliant surreal moments, eerily captured on digital which, if you were to begin to doze off, definitely would wake you back up. It's on very few instances i will actually notice the soundtrack employed in a film and in INLAND EMPIRE is rather note-worthy in creating the surreal experience and helps create a LOT of the atmosphere the digital shooting often ends up removing. It's also very important when we have little idea of what's actually happening and what we're meant to be feeling.

With that being said, the film is a test of endurance with very little to no climax or closure. A lot of the scenes are quite bare and with not really anything but unsympathetic characters to follow it could be boring. Personally i was glued to it, perhaps Mulholland Drive had me expecting to have to look for answer to understand the film. Though Lynch, i feel has taken a different approach here, not choosing to challenge how one understand the film but how one understands film as a form. Hence the everchanging perception we have, including the prostitute dying a propchecised death from a screwdriver, continuely marked out in the film, surrounded by homeless who re-assure "you're just dying" then continue to rant unmoved about nothing, concludes with a camera pulling away and it being a movie but then Dern walking into a cinema with what she sees on screen. It's an interesting film, full of complexity someone familiar with film will enjoy otherwise it's hard to see anything particualrly of merit other than the film as artifact. Whether Lynch was trying for something similar to Warhol's Empire is very possible, certainly through the length; and seeming false endings, leaving the viewer learning to not wait for the end but live the experience. Or something. It's hard to say when a film has prostitutes start dancing to do 'Do the Locomotion'.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Awesome. Once I actually get a chance to see this... I will post some comments of my own...

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

I've never really understood any of his movies. A friend of mine described them perfectly, "they're just like incoherent dreams that he decided to put on screen". From everything I've read about this film, Mulholland drive makes all the sense in the world compared to it....so I'm a little apprehensive about watching it, despite the 5 star rating you gave it.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

It's a completely opposite concept to Mulholland Dr but that said the delivery is very similar. I certainly would not suggest jumping in on the film, i'm extremely grateful i had a lecture on Avant Garde before seeing the film since it gave a great insight and having also a great respect for Lynch making films that aren't spelled out. If you can enjoy Lost Highway and Eraserhead, which INLAND EMPIRE is most similar to then watch it!

And imo, Mulholland Dr is only as incoherent as one is lazy to think about it. There's any amount of answers to it, therein lays its beauty.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Seeing Lost Highway, Blue Velvet and Mulholland Dr. I got a basic idea of what was gonig on...but I've heard nothing good about this one. Only negative...yours is the exception.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Where've you read? Most i've read over here have been good

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

another example of the differing opinions when it comes to Lynch...I'd say the best place for a combination of both stances would be rotten tomatoes

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Thanks for the great review Pyro, I will see this when it gets here :yup:

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

I didn't like Inland Empire; I thought it was the worst film Lynch had ever made. It was far too self-indulgent.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

It was his most unique and he certainly had a lot of creative control due to the independence of the production. A self indulgent film, for me is King Kong where Jackson just seemed to want to fellate himself. INLAND EMPIRE was a clear progression from Lynch's other work where he's pooled all he's incorporated before. The only bit i didn't like was where she was talking to the man with glasses. I think Lynch had an interesting concept piece and i didn't feel it was pretentious enough to be self indulgent except for the fact Lynch made the film he wanted.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Hostel 2 (Eli Roth, 2007)

Hostel is a film that's got a strong split of lovers and haters; genre fans seem to hate it for it's false promises of gore and violence and the reason i despised it was for all the lovers of this waste of celluloid. A film that is essentially a one note concept, it promised 'torture porn' yet exploitational shocks were not delivered. Hostel 2 takes this concept of torture porn and the same storyline of backpackers in Eastern Europe swayed to staying in a small village only to be sold off to the highest bidder to be brutally killed. The only new thing the sequel offers is a perspective from the torturers and female victims and a lot more rubbish from start to finish.

The main idea of showing the torturers is unfortunately where it really fell apart for me. Although the actors playing the torturers have both been in good roles (The Weasel in Lost Room and the other a villian from the 24: Season 1) but both have however been in Desperate Housewives removing any opportunity to get into the film or their roles leaving them distanced and verging on comical. That's not to mention they're both very unevenly written characters; i can imagine Roth thinking he's hit the motherload having them swap roles of timid and sadistic but the writing doesn't support this and it just seems out of the blue and random. Equally as focussed on are the prospective victims, who are even less interesting than the predecessor's who just wanted to get laid and stoned, something i can actually relate to. Having women this time round is probably something else Roth thinks was a masterstroke but it just confuses the films mood with lost sexual tension and misplaced motivation.

Anywho, anyone expecting well rounded characters here is looking in the wrong place, we're here for the promised torture porn! Although apparently Roth got to caught up on his over complicated plot to remember this. Characters run around and get taken places for no reasons other than little narrative winks making straight forward kidnappings into over complicated affairs just so we know so and so is bad and he's the head of this Torture Business that we're meant to be given an insight to. The insight that extends to going to a house and seeing people in security rooms. Thats it. Oh, and the conclusion of the first film's Paxton's fate, beginning with a fake dream alluding to the power of the people behind all this which despite being see through would have been better than having this main character killed... OFF SCREEN. It's absurd that Roth could miss the mark so much on this film, we see only one of three main characters killed on screen, one's dangled upside down and slashed with a scythe (off screen) letting a woman below bathe in blood till her neck is slit, though there's more focus on the fetish than the death, which itself is poorly developed, only a whisper in a film that should be shouting about these kind of twisted sadistic fetishes. The pay off scene in the climax, something i will leave unspoiled, is quite gruesome, not that visual mind but still tries to adhere to the premise, shame Grindhouse beat Roth to it.

The whole concept of Hostel is people being tortured and Hostel 2 fails remarkably at capitalising on this principle, the film pushes no buttons what so ever, it can't ellicit any form of emotional response except boredom. I can just imagine Roth smirking at his film admiring how he characterised the two torturers who don't create any sense of fear or intrigue. Admittedly the films put together acceptably, it's watchable but then surely that means it's missed the point. The sad thing is how many people will praise this like they did the first for making them sick to their stomach or unable to watch, something i can't for the life of me understand. Even if people praise it for that, there's still so many plain stupid aspects like the local kids from the Hostel who didn't work then nor do they now. The endings unwise implentation of humour goes to undermine all the dark horror it attempted to achieve. There's nothing in this film to recommend, it's not got the slight originality of the first of the actually intriguing concept and plots of the Saw or Saw 2. Don't waste your time with it.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Ok, Thanks for the review :)

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Halloween 2007 (Rob Zombie)


Starting this review, i'm going to avoid a plot synopsis because if you don't know it already, you havn't seen the original and by golly if you're gonna watch this you should see the original. That out the way can mention the most notable change in this adaptation, that of the characterisation of Micheal Myers; where the original has his first killings and subsequent escape years later, Zombie fills in these gaps with some lengthy characterisation of Myers and his therapist Loomis (Malcolm McDowal replacing Pleasance). McDowal does a good job but adds nothing to the character, luckily Myers slow development does. To start with the film has a shaky start, the dialogue is contrived and obvious as are the characters but once Micheal becomes the focus in the Asylum it's picks up speed. Unfortunately the speed only brings us to the derivative stalk and slash finish. For a film that spends half it's run time making it's own path in through the franchise it's a shame Zombie turns the second half into a direct copy of Carpenter's original, from identical scenes and dialogue- it's cheap and tacky.

That problem aside, Zombie probably was the best person for the job, despite his auteur tendency to put his wife in the movie who's kinda sucks. The dark shots and outbursts of brutal violence, while not graphic as some, do make the film worthwhile. However with Zombie's reliance on this to carry the film also comes the lack of any anticipation of the violence letting the film revel in these outbursts without actually creating any opportunity to engage the viewer, a nice 70s throwback, complimented by a whole host of B-Movie stars. In comparison to the original, there is more blood and more violence which i'd say holds up high against today's standards, Zombie wisely leaves certain scenes untouched and wisely keeps the highly effective original soundtrack. This Micheal is also a lot more ferocious, instead of a slow skulking menace he dispatches victims in, dare i say it, a better fashion than the original. However, unsuprisingly the Laurie character is terrible, given only half the movie to develop empathy with by appearing only as the secondary character to Micheal and having the same dialogue as the original, the victims may as well have been nobodies.

Overall film is worth a watch and is a decent horror, there's a lot of nice brutal violence and avoidance of tacky 'jump' scenes but unfortunately Zombie tries too hard to offend with certain scenes, like the un-necessary rape scene and badly writen Step Dad, only counter balanced by the 70s style hard killings. The additional half was a nice addition but sells the rest the short, that save for Zombie's penchant for cruelty, would be classed as awful with shameful theft and a bland cliche. The ending in the workprint however, i did like, Zombie clearly has a love for the character of Micheal and wraps the film up rather well with a different twist to other installments. I did enjoy what Zombie did but can't help comparing it to the original, which wouldn't be a problem were the copying not so obvious.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Even though I kinda so- so disagree with that review (in a way), some parts won't even be in the theatrical version.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Seeing Halloween tomorrow night, will read your review after then.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Thanks :) I might wait for this to come out on DVD not a big horror film fan :)

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

That part of brutal rape scenes wont be seen in final theatrical cut. And besides the review given is from a workprint. There are many things taken out and a couple added.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

And you saw theatrical Jrs? Either way, can't see the problems being resolved in it.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Uh, No...but those are the differences for those who want to know (like Nebbit) . Besides, your opinon on the film doesn't affect mine. ;)

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Well, you just seemed to know about all the difference so i assumed you'd seen both.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

I understand. :yup:

According to what has been mentioned 6-7 scenes have been removed and an alternate scene has been shot. I am checkin this out to see the differences.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Nice review, I'd say I agree with pretty much everything you said.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

I suggest to wait for a different opinion if you read someone's review of Zombie's Halloween. Wait till someone gives a full, enticed, well thought out and well done review on the final film. The theatrical version is like much, much different to the workprint that was seen. And the ending......perfectly done. You'll have to see it for yourselves.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Look Jrs, our opinions may very but there's absolutely no need to disregard my opinion and criticise my review like that. I've acknowledged that it was the workprint thus my opinion on that is still valid, even if the theatrical cut changes it around a bit, the story is still the same and i'm sure a lot of the flaws and successes will be the same; epsecially considering TUS saw the theatrical cut and agreed with my feelings towards the film. Have YOU seen both Jrs? If you're so amazing and your opinion is perfect why the **** don't you write something instead of being a damned free promoter for the film. Particularly since it's not actually released here for a few more weeks as well. I never get offended by people on the internet of pissed off by them but you've succeeded, which i'm sure was part of your intention. I know i've had a few niggles at you but it's always been harmless and tongue in cheek, and too my memory never a directly insulting you.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

I don't how you could observed that from what I wrote.


Yes I have seen both. I have NEVER said I was perfect in anyways. Noone is. And a promoter? :nope:


I'm never bothered. Besides I know when the right time comes to get mideviel on someone's ass. :rotfl:

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

I thought it was a good review :furious:

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

JRS, I almost-always respect your thoughts and suggestions and even if I agree and understand what you meant I must say you were a bit/lot........ loutish in this instance. It is okay to disagree and to even lambaste someone who deserves it, but this is a thread of one's own volition, and well, you were rude. I do not say that to make you mad or angry or to even judge, but hey I thought I would try to help out.

Oh BTW.....Nice review, and I do not agree, but I do respect it.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

I'm sorry for wording that in a bad way. I am not saying your review Pyro is not worthy of respect ......... but I was mentioning that, if anyone wrote up a review on the theatrical version to make sure they read that too.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Have you seen it then? What were your thoughts about it, better or worse?

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Found a site listing the differences between the Halloween 2007 workprint and theatrical cut. Which aren't drastic, just the odd scene and a different ending. http://horror-movie-a-day.blogspot.c...cret-post.html

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

This is the only thing I do not agree with, a plot synopsis, which you kinda do anyway, is a staple of a good review. Just my opinion, other than that solid.:):)

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Oh, i thought you were talking about the movie. Hmm, well, it was because it's a remake and was trying to emphasise seeing the original first so didn't want to take up first paragraph/few sentences with something people seeing the film should already know.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Alien vs Predator: Requiem


Let's not make any bones about it, Alien vs Predator was a pretty poor film, the human characters took too much precedence on the narrative to the extent of one forming some awkward quasi romance with the Predator. Is that really what a film about two battling screen legends should have. No. In this sequel however a clear attempt has been made to rectify this, there are obviously some human protagonists to follow but are wisely kept seperate from the Predator fighting the aliens, bar a few inherent cross overs. And perhaps the strongest point with these human characters is, ironically, how little the filmmakers care for them, gladly using the knowledge that the audience won't like them either or even want them in the film at all, which allows many smile inducing dispatches of them.

As much fun as is had with Requiem it's still very flawed, the target audience is painfully apparent with too many deaths being cut away from seconds too soon in a bid for that 15 certificate. Here's hoping the uncut DVD will include the gruesome deaths missing. Opposed to the first with multiple Predators against the aliens, Requiem offers just one so his fight becomes far more interesting, and while empathy is probably a stretch, he's certainly who the audience are rooting for. Aside from the editing, the other major problem is how the creatures are handled, often it's far too reminiscent of their previous incarnations to the point where their scenes could've effectively been copy and pasted. The predator is handled best, though unsurprisingly having only one to focus on but the directors seem at a loss as to how to show the aliens past copying others, from the swimming to the uncurling from ceilings, their framing and direction is unoriginal and evokes little tension. And they never seem to sure when to show them and when not to giving little scale or insight to their genuine threat. It's probably best not too mention the massacring of Giger's brilliant alien design apparent in the Alien/Predator hybrid, which seems like they literally mashed the two images together without consideration.

Past the gripes the film does work well, moving from the weak points of the original most notably in the character handling. From the opening with the little boy, the hope of his death is satisfied paving way for more characters to be remorselessly killed, which provides most the fun. Every cliched character from the hero to the love interest are fair game, to an extent. Sometimes the shock value seems a little forced, like impregnating the women in the pregnancy ward and audience patience is tested when it's revealed they must have a helicopter to escape (opposed to their tank) which happens to be at the hospital. But much of this is rewarded, from the hero's bad decisions leading to what we knows coming instead of convenient rescue and cliched characters getting what's not expected. Most importantly however the battles between the two species are well handled and enjoyable, although maybe not as fluent or exciting as the initial promise. There's some pretty cool moments when the collide and the predator is mostly badass providing fun kills but the film sometimes verges on tedious like the predators injuries being forgotten or his constant inability to hit a target and long range.

Overall Alien vs Predator: Requiem strives to break certain conventions of horror films and works to an extent but all this is still hampered when the unoriginal characters do survive. Nonetheless it is enjoyable and doesn't disappoint and i'd almost say it's possibly as good as the worst each franchise has to offer. It's certainly an improvement on the first so gets my recommendation if you're even remotely interested in them but would further recommend waiting for an uncut version and definitely an alternative ending.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

All the Boys Love Mandy Lane

http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02...ne_450x250.jpg


Mandy Lane is a little flick that's been kicking around for sometime, trailers came out sometime last year only for the release to be withheld, and to be released now. Although this marketing wasn't a tactic, ironically, it's certainly worked as a plus; the initial sparks of interest from a well put together trailer were later stirred by it's re-emergence, perhaps the main draw to seeing yet another slasher. Post-Scream and amidst slews of over stylised MTV 70s horror remakes and gorno, slashers are easily dismissed these days as derivative trash and Many Lane treads familiar ground, the attractive teen virgin, lusted by peers, placed in an isolated location where her friends her slowly dispatched around her but it works, well.

Lane is nothing special in genre terms yet succeeds in it's competence which gives it strong ground to raise above recent horror. The most notable instance is revealing the killer early on, removing the overdone whodunnit element and red herrings, allows the characters more room to develop depth and interest. But of course, in a slasher no real emotion is invested in characters, most are portrayed as unlikeable and their deaths inevitable but it's balanced out by a more realistic depiction of the youth characters and activities, from drug use as character traits opposed to a cause to be followed by effect (i.e. death as drugs are bad) or over stereotyped characters. Another plus strike is a removal of exposition, yet this leads to some faltering where the killer lacks the development to make them truly frightening, an instance where the particular characters jump to killer was due some more explanation then what's given. While Mandy Lane doesn't hold any pretenses to being a typical horror slasher, arguably using this to avoid cliche, no suspension of disbelief can make the killer seem scary or threatening. While this would work well enough in a thriller, the time it spends happily in the horror genre compromise this.

For a lot of the film it seems unsure what it wants to be, from some decent scenes of gore only then to have off screen deaths, leaving a tinge of disappointment. The more momentum it gathers as it moves away from introducing us characters to killing them is frustratingly where it's weakest point is. As soon as the killer starts relying on a gun and becoming a flesh and blood person, instead of a seemingly supernatural force is when a slasher is in trouble and for me, arguably switches genre to thriller. There's not much to separate the genres and with a bit more intelligence, it could have worked; as one character dies from an off-screen shot it starts to ratchet tension up, the fear of the killer out of the camera shot thus out of control of the formal restrictions of the screen and what audiences control. For me it was the only moment i was actually engaged, sadly the moment isn't capitalised on as the killer comes into shot to chase the other victim, loosing any sense of fear, which sadly may appear that the prior inspired moment was more accidental than purposeful.

There are certainly enough reasons to recommend the film, it's cinematography captures a great gritty 70s aesthetic and the direction is surprisingly assured for the most part, if lacking in tension be grateful for the absence of overused 'jump' scenes. I wouldn't hesitate speculating it's release delay is due to recent High School massacres as it's eerily evocative of these more than any other teen horror, which (considering the ending that i won't spoil) is even more disturbing with the emergence of a recent suicide cult in the UK; it's surprising more haven't cited the film as playing in bad taste. Regardless of it's release context, it does stand above recent horror, if solely for it's simplicity and not relying on a gimmick; the ending wisely avoids one of the awkward and absurd twists excellent horror films like Dead End and Switchblade Romance were let down by. That's not to say the end twist is good, however, it did seem forced and after expecting a stupid twist i was almost disappointed there wasn't one.

Overall, there's some nice kills, some smart direction, better than average characters and is kept simple and while this stops it descending into trash it also stops it being anything truly special.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

I'm so jealous of you. I've been waiting damn near a year for this freaking movie!

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Did i mention HA and errm HA in my review! Anyway, thought you would, that was half my motivation for writing more than a reply in a thread. Least UK gets perks now and then instead of always being behind with releases.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

The most biting issue regarding this film is it is Indiana Jones and with this comes expectations. Indy 4 is a give and take film. In any other context, Harrison Ford would not pass as an action hero any more, at least to the extent he is portrayed here. This is the only 'give' aspect its predecessors offer, the chance to see a much loved screen icon around again. However, the 'take' is far more substantial, and like many reviews the negatives are easier to list but unlike many reviews that remain firmly subjective, cutting slack plainly because it is Indy, i will attempt to be more objective. I have recently watched the originals so don't think my memories will be merely reminiscing either

If the film wasn't set in the established world if Indy and with a different hero, it probably would have been a fine movie but the dichotomy of context or content undermines the film at almost every step. The opening shot is CGI, now i know it's nearly unavoidable nowadays for a Hollywood film not to use it but here it seems to be done for the sake of it, or for sheer spectacle. The two main examples are the nuclear explosions and the finale. The latter i'll save spoiling, as for the former at a basic level you can argue it sets the era but considering the installation testing it had been wiped out, i'm not sure how they even went ahead with it. Apart from the odd extravagant setting, where does this happen in the originals? It seemed like a Roland Emmerich set piece. Next, what i loved about the originals was their ability to immerse the viewer into the location, blue-screens are completely alienating.

I'm surprised there aren't more critics of the action. Most comments are on the plausibility, bar the one silliness in Temple of Doom (and i figured the three waterfalls were an allusion to this), in most of the originals action pieces, it could be believed that someone could do that. And in most of them someone does do them, the tightly choreographed action and stunt scenes were far more enthralling in the originals then "let's do it all in CGI". Thus Indy 4 lacks the skilled directing craft to create enthralling moments were there is actual tension and realism about the character and the beating they're taking. I do not want to see a computer animated Shia Lebouf rope swing through the jungle with an army of CGI monkeys. Not only is that not Indiana Jones, it's the polar opposite. A lot of it belonged in a cartoon.

Possibly the biggest gripe i've noticed is the alien plotline. For clarity, i've no problem with aliens or skepticism about them appearing in films. Their inclusion goes back to earlier, give and take. We are given a Crystal Skull which is explicitly flaunted visually through out the story, removing any enigma about the artifacts plus it is a bit ridiculous, i couldn't get AvP out my head where she uses the alien skull as a shield. Anyway, we're given the narrative marker of the skull and then it takes us completely out the diegetic world created around Indiana Jones. There's not one hint towards extra-terrestrial life in any of the films. Making a firmly established genre of traditional adventure into a science-fiction yarn is pretty cheeky. But like i said earlier, it would have been fine in any other film but with Indy it doesn't belong. I know most people counteract this criticism with The Ark being supernatural thus also a strain on believability but 'The Ark' was kept as an enigma through the film and in the climax when it was opened it, there had to be something decent as the pay-off. But furthermore, Indy's eyes are closed so it doesn't necessarily have to happened like that. The odd ghost and religious artifacts are what we are told is natural in Indy's world. I wouldn't have minded exploring the mythos they took, but if they'd left it ambiguous and more on suggestion, it would have been far more successful and less like Close Encounters.

Maybe this is the standard starting point for reviews but it seemed so irrelevant i didn't think it worth addressing the story first. The whole script is heavy handed, from explaining Brody and Connery to recycling plot devices from the Last Crusade and then failing to expand them. The clues and actual 'adventure' where far too easy, more over they were excuses for set pieces. Take finding the the clue under the waterfall, there's no indication how they get all the way up there or the final clue in the temple Ox couldn't get being a pretty dull answer. I never once felt any sense of discovery, as a viewer or on Indy's behalf. I would rather call the characters under-written opposed to un-developed. Winstone, for example, i thought was fine but the way characters reacted around him wasn't natural nor was his fate. Blanchett's villain was tame and failed to make a worth adversary for Indy when she should have been either ruthless or a reflection of a different Indy. It was by the time Mutt and Indy had the chase around the city i'd settled with the older Indy being action orientated, however couldn't help noticing how slack his trousers were, looked like proper Grandad style.

The film was thoroughly flawed but that's from a subjective viewpoint of what Indy was and what Spielberg and Lucas have done now. Except for the lovingly created 50s and the admittedly brilliant Mutt (i've liked Shia since Even Stevens) i fail to see this as a continuation of the series. Personally, it seemed like Lucas using CGI wherever possible and Spielberg getting bogged down in his penchant for extra-terrestrial. It's not an inherently 'bad' film but it is flawed in a lot of respects and considering what it could, and should have been- a classic stunt orientating adventure, it fails to deliver.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Thanks for your review Pyro :yup: interesting :)

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Re - Undead.

Nice review,

I agree completely that the film didn't live up to expectations, and thought it was pretty terrible really. Shame because like you say, it did try and do something a little different with the sci-fi angle. But the lead guy was just annoyingly unfunny.:)

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Heh, you must be the first person i've come across to see that one, nice not be a lone. Thanks for taking time to read btw :)

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

So this was on TV in the lead up to Halloween over here in the UK on Channel 4 side channel, e4. If you've heard of any of them.

The premise is simple, and pretty ingenious- there's a zombie outbreak and this show takes the focus of the housemates in the years Big Brother. Sound good? I thought it was a pretty cool idea, though as Dead Set pans out that's not so much of the focus. Instead it's mainly about Jamie Winstone (daughter of Ray) who works behind the scenes and eventually joins the contestants as they struggle to get along with the tasks at hand and her boyfriend trying to get back to her from outside.

If you watch Big Brother, then i feel sorry for you. If you're one of the hopefully many who despise it then this is a welcome treat. More so if you like zombies. The characters form a typical lineup of standard overblown contestants you see on the show every year, and surprisingly they work. Exception has to be Kevin Eldon who's been on too many other shows to be buy into but if you don't him then more for you. To be honest, by now i wouldn't blame you for thinking this sounds like a single concept gimmick show. Luckily several points let it rise above this trap. For one, as mentioned Dead Set doesn't rely on this gimmick to carry the show and when you see host Davina and last years winner chomping away like normal zombies, it would sound a bit cheesy. So thank **** they had the balls to, surprisingly, make this a brutal, gory and stylish affair; it's very reminiscent of the 28 ___ Later films- maybe at times too reminiscent but for the sake of actually being horrific i can let that go. It shifts the focus around from the three strands of characters- housemates, workers on the show and 2 people on the outside. Although the latter seems like a diversion, it does keep some fresh momentum to what may struggle to last 5 episodes. However, saying that, when the finale does come it seems to be in too much of hurry to finish, preventing any real time for emotional responses or spatial awareness for what's happening.


Despite the high concept, it still treads familiar zombie-film ground, the attempt to get supplies from outside or factions forming between survivors. Either way, it still manages to carry itself off in a strong style. There are a couple of uneasy ideas- the production manager, for one, is too much of an obviously scripted character but is fun to watch. Overall, there are surprisingly high production values present which let this stand up to most zombie films around. The concept works and fortunately isn't laboured or patronising like the social commentary Romero attempted recently in Diary of the Dead. If any of the elements interest you, i really recommend this quite highly and think you'll be surprised with the results. It's not perfect but is a competent and enjoyable twist on the genre and rises through the TV formats limitations.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

That show flew completely under my radar. It's now intriguing me and making me think about completing my screenplay about a zombie outbreak in a milking parlour, the title of which is so obvious and corny that even I won't insult your collective intelligence... ;)

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Insult my intelligence if you want. Or temporary ignorance. Make sure it ain't too familiar to Zombie Strippers, don't want Jenna Jameson suing ;)

Dead Set ain't anything new but I do think it excels considering its production context. Won't be surprised if someone gets critical and err, criticises it but it's enjoyable enough reason to have some restored faith in British TV and our talent.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Dairy of the Dead? :blush:

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

I don't have set top box so unfortunately I missed this one. I really like Charlie Brooker's stuff (Nathan Barley was great), and when I saw he was scripting a zombie satire it sounded like a cool combination. I was put off by the Big Brother angle and publicity shots of Davina in zombie makeup though. The fact that you likened it to 28 Days Later (which I hated) also arouses my suspicions that this might not be for me. Still, the proof of the pudding...as they say. Nice review.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

I completely missed Dead Set due to me being stupid I was ment to see it but dont know what happened!?! It does look like it was a great show.

*Hides behind the couch* I do watch Big Brother I dont mind it, and the whole concept for this looks awesome.

Nice review dude!

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Brooker said on the radio it was coming to channel 4 in the New Year sometime. That said, i don't know what it was you didn't like about 28 Days Later so hesitant to recommend it, it's got a very similar aesthetic but is more generic, the concept aside. There's always the DVD, that's where i saw it, though the are the inherently annoying problems of having to watch the recaps.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

If I dont catch it on tv over the New Year I will more than likly pick a copy up after Christmas.

That does annoy me, watching re-caps when you buy a DVD before every episode. There is no need for it on DVD'S as I have never just watched one episode in a series, when I have it on DVD.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

That should be ok as the aesthetic of 28 Days Later isn't the problem. My biggest beef is the silly third act in which the soldiers decide to 'breed the women' and an undernourished looking Cillian Murphy suddenly goes all Rambo. Not only that but just because it was written by Alex The Beach Garland, and directed by Danny Trainspotting Boyle, we're not allowed to call it a zombie flick (which it definitely is); instead we're supposed to treat it as art house horror or something (which it definitely isn't). Plus the opening hospital scene is a direct steal from John Wyndham's Day of the Triffids, and the supposedly original concept of highly mobile zombies is lifted from Umberto Lenzi's Nightmare City and Cronenberg's Shivers. The scene involving the Rage infected kid in the petrol station is ripped from Romero's Dawn of the Dead (a sequence originally censored by the BBFC) Essentially it's nowhere near as clever or original as Garland, Boyle or certain critics would have us believe. I actually think Fresnadillo's sequel is far superior...rant ends.

*loud exhale*

So yeah if it's just the aesthetic then I might like Dead Set:blush:

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Heh, i think i prefer the sequel as well. As long your issues are with the narrative and pretence of Days, Dead Set *should* be ok with you. Obviously it does "borrow" a fair amount but then again, how original can zombies be? I was quite happy they kept the Big Brother message as a more of an undertone so hopefully that won't bother you. I think just as a Brit it's worth watching for being quite a daring venture against anything else on TV.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Yeah that's a fair point I'll definitely be giving it a go at some point.

Re the stealing vs. borrowing from older films, I'd be a hypocrite if I condemned a film outright for doing this; you only need look at my Trash thread to see that. It is as you said the rubbish narrative and arty pretence that winds me up with 28 Days Later.

I actually went to a special preview screening of the film at the corner house in Manchester. Afterwards Alex Garland, Cillian Murphy, Danny Boyle and Naomi Harris came onto the stage for a Q&A session in which Garland and Boyle stressed how it wasn't just a zombie flick but something new and fresh. The whole vibe from them was a bit highbrow, but most of the audience were clearly Romero fans out for some zombie kicks (I know I was). I was dying to have a pop about the silly third act; how it was just a commercially well timed but derivative horror film, but I chickened out and it would have been rude anyway.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Heads up for anyone interested, Dead Set starts this Tuesday on Channel 4, i believe. Funnily enough i'm watching it on DVD again as we speak. I did criticise the Andy Nyman producer character but now i've seen more of Charlie Brooker's (the writers) excellent TV show Screenwipe (think more intellectual/adult version of TV Burp) the character seems more and more like an embodiment of Brooker's personality.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Funny, that's exactly what I did like about 28 Days Later! I thought the human horror of the survivors' behaviour more interesting and scary than than just running and blowing up zombies. Murphy coming over all 'Rambo' is undeniably silly, but hey, this is a film where we are believing in zombies in the first place so what the heck :)

I think there's a difference between films which are simply derivative and ones which use aspects of other films to good effect to create something complete of their own. There's no denying that neither 28 Days or Boyle's Sunshine are entirely original, but I think they're original enough.

As for it being pretentious...there is an arty quality to the way it is shot so I'm not sure it's claims are entirely unjustified. I don't know what claims were being made for the film that meant it didn't live up to your expectations - perhaps it was because I was expecting very little from it that I liked it so much. Tied in to that, I didn't watch Dead Set precisely because of all the hype around it (constantly trailed all over C4 ande E4), but on Pyro's recommendation, perhaps I will give it a try.

Martyrs (Pascal Laugier, 2008)

http://www.cinemaisdope.com/news/fil...tyrs2008_5.jpg

Recently, France have been throwing out some pretty strong horror entries; most will be familiar with Switchblade Romance/Haute Tension, then there was Frontier(s) in 2007. Both films follow a very similar sylistic approach, extreme graphic violence. And it's worked, in fact the directors of each entry have gone to Hollywood and made The Hills Have Eyes and Hitman respectively. So it would seem Martyrs is continuing this trend in French genre, with Laugier set to direct the Hellraiser remake. But how does this compare to it's brethren? The answer is not very well.

The films starts out with a young girl escaping, for a quickhand description imagine Hostel. We're introduced to the two protoganists and their sisterly bond. It turns out the girl who was tortured is being tormented by something, which was actually quite jumpy at times and bit freaky. The narrative develops into revenge which works pretty well as films go, with some nice in your face shock violence. Yet, just as there's a relatively interesting dynamic established they disperse this notion and head straight into a Hostel story. It's a confusing turn, that splits the film right in two and is the start of the problems. Introducing a clandestine organistion into a tightly character bound film undermines a lot of the work gone into the film. From here it only gets worse.

The other girl is put in the focus from here on as some ludicrous plot intervention is introduced to give some sembelence of meaning to what happens. Basically, the plot of Hostel is regurgitated with some crap to justify it past just being torture. The main problem is the character is just so pathetic, despite being held against her will there's no fight in her! She just does nothing and lets it happen. There's one attempt at escape and one scene of "emotional" outburst of anger. It starts to get frustrating we're watching her go through this and they not actually bothered scipting any emotional development or making her a character to care about since SHE DOESN'T REACT TO ANYTHING. It's just not believable and watching this bloke smack her around just gets tedious. And i thought it was pretty insulting that they tried to tie in her lack of reaction as part of the character and thus their overall goal.

The film basically mushes A Tale of Two Sisters and Hostel together without ever giving enough commitment to either, leaving a very unsatisfying film. There's not much to recommend, the first half is pretty good even if it's isn't treading new ground. The second half is it's 'shock' half and there's one bit that's got an effect from Hellraiser written all over it. Sadly it's tries too hard to 'shock' without giving any character to care about and some hokey transcendal/existential excuse for what's happening. I'd heard strong reviews saying how hard it is too much at the end. They're right but it's hard for the wrong reasons.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

May give this one a miss :yup:

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

I caught Dead Set this week Pyro, really enjoyed it. Thanks for the write up. The Producer was just hysterical.

I enjoyed Dead Set. The most troubling thing about it was the fact that I still found Davina quite attractive as a zombie. :eek: :goof: :sick:

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Good to see it travelling across the water. What's Big Brother like over there?

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

They don't have Davina, so it's ****. :yup:

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Oh, does Davina do the show in real life too? Over here I think it usually comes in a distant third to Survivor and The Amazing Race as all three are on the same channel. I've never watched it myself.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Yes, Davina is, and has been, the host of BB since it started in 2000. There were also some past BB contestants in Dead Set too, but I think they were confined to a couple of cameo appearances in the green room, before the zombie action kicked in.

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Yeah forgot a lot of that meta-realism would be lost on ya PW. Wonder if it would have effected your viewing. You watching this year HK?

Re: Pyro's Piss poor review
 

Nope. I watched the first three, then I watched about the last 6 weeks of 2003. Watched most of 2004 and then about an hour altogether since then. I will stop by on an eviction night sometimes though, just to see Davina. ;)