Movie Tab II

Bunraku (2010)
Directed by: Guy Moshe
Written by: Boaz Davidson and Guy Moshe

A Drifter (Josh Hartnett) walks into a bar, the Bartender (Woody Harrelson) sais to the guy….. yeah I’m not sure where that’s going. This is such a bizarre movie which takes place kind of like a post WW3 in which guns have been outlawed so now the sword has replaced the guns. The Drifter meets up with a mysterious Traveler with the help of the Bartender convincing them that they need to work together in order to achieve their goal of defeating the very elusive Wood Cutter (Ron Pearlman). Alexander (Demi Moore) is the Wood Cutters woman who really is just in a couple scenes but hardly enough to matter to the storyline at all, just thought I'd throw Demi's name out there.



This film reminded me of Sin City just based on the artistic way it was made, there are some amazing action scenes but believing that Josh Hartnett is some kind of Martial Arts expert is kind of a stretch. But the fight scenes are imaginative and original to say the least. I really liked this movie just because of the artistic and bizarre nature of the whole thing.

For the Story.

For the creative and artistic way it was filmed.

__________________

I seem to have lost most of my interest in trying to explain (to myself included) my ideas of what makes movies good or bad for the time being, but I would still like to keep a record of what I've been watching, so here are some recent (as well as a few older) watches with more-or-less-arbitrary ratings based on my levels of engagement.


The Red Squirrel (Julio Medem, 1993)
Moneyball (Bennett Miller, 2011) -
Drive (Nicolas Winding Refn, 2011) -

True Stories (David Byrne, 1986) -
Song at Midnight (Weibang Ma-Xu, 1937)
Killer Elite (Gary McKendry, 2011) -

Infernal Affairs (Andrew Lau, Alan Mak, 2002) +
Dracula (Francis Ford Coppola, 1992) +
The Two Towers (Peter Jackson, 2002) +

The Shocker (Wes Craven, 1989)
Can't Hardly Wait (Harry Elfont, Deborah Kaplan, 1998)
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (Guy Ritchie, 1998) +

Bad Timing (Nicolas Roeg, 1980) +
Dumplings (Fruit Chan, 2004)
The Ides of March (George Clooney, 2011) +

Enter the Void (Gaspar Noé, 2010) -
Take Shelter (Jeff Nichols, 2011)
Return of the Living Dead Part II (Ken Wiederhorn, 1988)

Ghostbusters (Ivan Reitman, 1984)
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (Frank Oz, 1988)
Broken Arrow (John Woo, 1996)
Lost Boys (Joel Schumacher, 1987)

Fright Night (Tom Holland, 1985) -
Wheels on Meals (Sammo Hung, 1984)
Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock, 1960) +
Have Sword Will Travel (Cheh Chang, 1969)

Last time I explained my ratings, but there were no pictures. This time: pictures, but no explanation.



The Driver (1978, Hill):




Sounder (1972, Ritt):




Being There (1979, Ashby): +




Comanche Station (1960, Boetticher): +




Black Christmas (1974, Clark): +




Deep Red (1975, Argento): +




Pi (1998, Aronofsky): +




All That Jazz (1979, Fosse): +




The Long Goodbye (1973, Altman): +




Bananas (1971, Allen): +




Sleeper (1973, Allen):




Mona Lisa (1986, Jordan): +




The Fog (1980, Carpenter): +




Memories of Murder (2003, Joon-Ho): +

Just a word of explanation on this very high rating here. I think this is a highly atmospheric, slow-burning thriller that boasts off incredible character development, moments of black comedy and excellent cinematography. It doesn't have a complicated story or HUGE thrills, but it's really good in building and sustaining tension in a remarkably straight-forward manner.




Contact (1997, Zemeckis):




The Lost Boys (1987, Schumacher): +

Just some horror stuff I don't feel like writing up right now...




Tucker & Dale Vs. Evil (Eli Craig, 2010) +



La Meute/ The Pack (Franck Richard, 2010)



Ssssss aka Ssssnake (Bernard L. Kowalski, 1973) Dirk Benedict turned into a snake rating



Mutants (David Morlet, 2008) -



Baba Yaga aka Kiss Me Kill Me (Corrado Farina, 1973)

UF'S self indulgant fan-boy rating

__________________
100 Favourites From The Future: REWIRED

Noriko’s Dinner Table (2005)
Directed by: Shion Sono
Written by: Shion Sono

This film is a sequel (I know the picture above sais Prequel but everything I have been able to find sais it is the sequel) to Suicide Club which is a film that I really like. I have no idea that there was a sequel but am happy that I found it. The director is also the same who just released Cold Fish (2010) which is another great film. I was expecting a lot from this film and I did get a lot, about 2 hours and 50 minutes worth.
Noriko (Kazue Fukiishi) is a shy and very unhappy girl, she hates the town she lives in which she describes as in the middle of nowhere and dreams about living in Tokyo. Using the computer lab in her school she finds a website dedicated to girls ages 16 to 17, she becomes a little obsessed with talking to one girl Kumiko (Tsugumi) with the handle Ueno Station 54 who lives in Tokyo. Noriko comes up with the handle Mitsuko and keeps it throughout the movie never revealing her real name to her friends. Her new name helps her to change and become the girl she’s always dreamed of becoming. One night she runs away to Tokyo to meet up with Kumiko, this is when it starts to get really confusing and hard to follow because they should have put 2 hours 50 minutes of this movie into a 90+ minute movie. This is also when I realized that this was a sequel to Suicide Club because flashbacks from Suicide club and mentions in the newspapers start to pop up frequently in the movie, also for anyone who has watched Suicide Club the website is the same website where the two girls meet in the beginning of this film.



When Noriko get’s to Tokyo is when all the confusing stuff happens, she and her friend start working as rental families for lonely people who want a family for the day. Noriko’s father tracks her to Tokyo but by the time he finds her she has been brainwashed into thinking that she was her handle Mitsuko and was unable to recognize her father. The rest of the story is just confusing, there are so many alternate reality stories that happen in the movie that it just get’s annoying, you will watch 30 minutes of the movie only to find out that it is a dream or a fantasy or something like that. This movie is long, confusing, annoying, and boring, most of the dialogue in this is their inner monologue which just get’s again annoying and confusing. This was a huge letdown so I suggest not even watching this and sorry if you already have.

Suicide Club
Noriko's Family Table

The Trial (1962) -Orson Welles (3/5)

Now I know why some people say that cinema is inferior to the book. Let me begin by saying that this film is actually based on the novel by one of the greatest writers, Franz Kafka. Directed by Welles, it is puzzling to see a director of such high calibre faltering in his craft. Kafka must be rolling in his grave if he sees this film. You know why? The actor who played K. , the lead character wanted by the law, Anthony Perkins did a poor job at expressing his emotions clearly. The dialogue is way too fast, and it seems as if Perkins was rambling rather than speaking. I remember that K. in the novel was much more confident and self-independent, as opposed to the rather timid looking Perkins.

On the bright side, the cinematography is brilliant. It has a very surrealistic feel to it. And the camerawork is pretty good. Overall, this film did not meet my expectations, but its still enjoyable.

Uncle Buck

Solid fun.

__________________
"George, this is a little too much for me. Escaped convicts, fugitive sex... I've got a cockfight to focus on."

Charlie Varrick (1973) - Seigel
A pretty good heist film from the 70's starring Walter Mathau and Joe Don Baker with lots of little twists and turns. This was Seigel's next film after directing "Dirty Harry". A nice offhand glance at the criminal underworld and the people who live and work there. If you listen carefully, that great driving riff from "Heat" is definitely in the music score. I rewatched this because early this summer, "Drive" borrowed one of the plot points from this film about the surprise windfall from a heist. It works a lot better here.



Sade (2000) - Jacquot
The costuming is absolutely exquisite here. The film seems to have a color motif of greys and silky blues. The actor, Daniel Auteuil brings a curiosity and nobility I doubt the actual historical character ever possessed. The director Jacquot places obvious parallels from Sade's story to larger ones; whether it be the cruelty of life and death; society versus the individual, or the essential question: just who is running the asylum? The film is complicated in that a character's true motivations are always suspect. And best of all, this is a fictionalized account, so we spared the usual excesses of a Marquis de Sade film.



Darwin's Nightmare (2004) - Sauper
Liked the beginning, the travelogue scenes like someone was visiting the area and stumbled across this fishing center on the banks of Lake Victoria. This is not a nature documentary about an alien species introduced into Africa's largest tropical lake. The Nile perch is clearly a symbol of a larger problem.
The film is kind of unfinished. The film hints that the planes are flying in arms and ammunition to war zones to keep the conflicts brewing and return to Europe laden with other cash crops, not just fish. But the director never explores the theory that the same pattern is repeated all over the continent.
Also, this is one of those times where journalistic neutrally clearly doesn't really work. The lack of education is absolutely heart breaking, condemning these people to a vicious circle of cradle to grave suffering. And all the western advisers are have vested western interests; so the collapse of the fishing industry in Lake Victoria would be meaningless to them, but catastrophic for the country.

I just love this little film. It's not possible to rate this documentary in terms of great footage or in depth research or anything like that. It's just a simple little film without any really flash or tricks so my rating is purely for how enjoyable I found the subject matter. And I enjoyed it immensely.

The story of two guys vying for the top score on an old arcade game really doesn't sound like it should be all that exciting, but it just ends up as a cracking story. It turns into an epic battle between good and evil; full of conspiracies, twists and turns.

Just a fantastically entertaining film. I think I remember I made it my number 4 film of 2007.

+

A stunningly affecting film. Beautiful and enchanting, while at the same time haunting and etheral. With two really impressive central performances from Kate Winslet and Melanie Lynskey it takes a difficult and troubling subject and tells it wonderfully.

While we never get to the stage of sympathising with the girls the film successfully relates and helps us understand why it happened. By contrasting their real lives with the fantasy world that they have created, we understand why the fantasy world begins to bleed through into reality for the girls, and why they go to such lengths to try and realise it.

Peter Jackson does an excellent job. The scene where the murder is actually depicted is truly powerful and disturbing; brought about through the music, the silence of the characters and the long pause which seems to last for an age before it finally happens. And the fantasy sequences work tremendously. Back in 1994 the effects may have been the pinnacle of the current technology but now look a little dated. But I actually think that helps the film. It gives them more of a homemade vibe which fits with the idea of it being creations of the girls, just as the clay figures are.




A fantastic little film. Just a real joy. Unlike most of the other Ealing comedies I've seen which feel quaint, old fashioned and twee with few laughs, this actually still feels nice and fresh and very funny. Alec Guinness and Stanley Holloway make for a great double act

There are lots of great moments but my favourite would have to be when Guinness and Holloway descend the stairs on the Eiffel Tower. It's wonderfully filmed, and they just descend into a fit of giggles through a mixture of dizziness and also just the sheer giddiness of the whole thing. These two men are just about the last people you would expect to be criminal masterminds, and as such they seem to get a massive kick out of it – finally a bit of excitement in their lives.




I just absolutely loved this film. I just found it to be a really cool, quirky little film. Funny but also a little sad and touching at points. The two young actors, Craig Roberts and Yasmin Paige, are both very impressive and make a loveable oddball couple. And then there is Paddy Considine who is just wonderful in his bizarre role.

Ayoade was referenced many times as being the 'new Wes Anderson' or the 'British Wes Anderson.' While it's an easy and perhaps lazy comparison it is also very justified. For me rhe film felt very reminiscent of Anderson's work, Rushmore in particular.




Another cracking thriller from the Master of Suspense, Alfred Hitchcock. With twists and turns galore, moments of high tension but with traces of humour throughout it's just a really fun ride from start to finish. In the central roles James Stewart and Doris Day both give engaging performances, whilst having a lovely chemistry and relationship with each other.

One of Hitchcock's trademarks was staging rousing and spectacular set pieces at the finale of his films, and this is another that continues that tradition; this time a fantastic 12 minute sequence at the Albert Hall. For those 12 minutes not a single word of dialogue is spoken. Instead we get the London Symphony Orchestra playing, we get the assassin preparing his shot and we get Doris Day torturing herself over what she should do all expertly pieced together.




I found this to be an immensely engaging film, even if I'm not entirely sure why. It's very low key and not a lot happens but there is just something about it that really got under my skin. The two main actors are very charming and realistic and while the aliens are not on screen for much time they are very well realised.




An oddball but very charming little documentary. It tells the story of the world's most prolific director that you've never heard of, Danirl Burmeister. He travels from village to village in Argentina, making films using the locals which is then given it's premier at a gathering of the community. And all he asks for is room and board, no additional money.

The reason the film worked so well for me is Daniel Burmeister himself. I never had a grandfather but he acts like I think one would do, thanks to how they are presented in numerous American films and sitcoms. He is a kindly and eccentric old man who seems to know how to do everything. He is an extremely likeable person.

The documentary details the making of one film in a small, rural village. As such it actually feels a lot like a behind the scenes 'making of' DVD extra but is so much more entertaining than you would imagine from that. The real result of the film, as one of the villagers says, is that it brings the community together, getting people talking who wouldn't normally




Enjoyable but ultimately disappointing. I was wanting to love this. I wanted an absolute classic. But it just didn't happen. It had some good performances from Kyle Chandler and the kids, and some entertaining and realistic dialogue between the kids but just lacked the magic I was hoping for.

There were too many stretches where the film just seemed to drag for me. I wanted more action, more excitement, more charm...just more! It's a good film but nowhere close to the fantastic spectacle I was hoping for and even expecting. Perhaps my expectations were just too high.

+

A fun and exceptionally creative film from the mind of Michael Gondry. There really are some moments that have to be seen to be believed. With very little plot to speak of it is definitely an example of style over substance film-making. The relationship between Gael Garcia Bernal and the adorable Charlotte Gainsbourg's characters is very sweet, but too often the film just seems to be trying to hard; straying into pretentious territory.

A nice film but certainly no Eternal Sunshine...




A solid, very strongly acted film although I'm a little miffed as to how it got an Oscar nomination for best film. It's a well written study of family, with some fantastic performances from pretty much the whole cast. While Annette Bening seemed to get most of the acting nominations I was actually most engaged by the performance of Julianne Moore.

I do plan on revisiting the film sometime and may actually enjoy it more. The reason is that I was expecting more quirky, indie style moments and was a little surprised it was more of a family drama.





Surprisingly fun little comedy. I really wasn't expecting much but I really enjoyed it. Maybe it's just the mood I was in at the time because it certainly isn't regarded highly very generally. While it doesn't offer anything new I just found it to be a funny film. Jane Fonda steals the film any time she's on screen and as a fan of Alias it's always fun for me to see Michael Vartan.




A completely mindless blockbuster, but as mindless blockbusters go it's harmless and actually rather enjoyable at times. And at least it doesn't seem to have any pretensions about being taken seriously. When you have your heroes escape in a flying tank you realise the makers of the film have no desire about making the film especially believable. Although the plot is so much more convoluted and confusing that it needs to be.

All of the cast pretty much join in and just go along with the fun. As required of him Bradley Cooper oozes charm and charisma, but it's Sharlto Copley that is the real star here. His performance as the unhinged Murdoch is wonderful fun and provides a number of laughs. The other star performer is Patrick Wilson as the horrible, sleazy . He really is someone that you just want to punch right in the face! Always a sign of a good villain.




This film has an absolutely cracking story as it's premise but at no point did I really feel it lived up to its promise. It's strength and indeed its weakness was that it's a 'nice film.' It's a nice pleasant watch; that very cosy, twee feel common in British films, but I don't think I see myself having a desire to ever revisit it. I know it's considered a classic and I may upset some people on here but it just didn't do it for me really




Last year there were two sperm donor romantic comedies, this film and The Switch with Jason Bateman and Jennifer Aniston. I highly enjoyed The Switch but this is a real clunker. Not a single laugh was to be found, not a trace of chemistry between the two leads was evident and not one line of remotely memorable or inventive dialogue was written. Just awful!

__________________

I'm about to watch Following, Christopher Nolan's first film.

No, it's better than Eternal Sunshine.

Loved Heavenly Creatures, King of Kong, and especially Monsters. I don't quite know what it is about that movie either, but it's one of my recent favorites.

So it doesn't have enough magic because it doesn't have enough action and excitement?

Super 8 had plenty of magic. Abrams managed to weave together plot lines about the frail relationship between Joe and his father, the brooding romance between Joe & Alice, the mystery of the monster, the beef between Joe's and Alice's father, the boys' friendship and attempts to make a short film, and the grim military conspiracy of that colonel. Cramming that much into a 2 hour film can be a bit much, but it isn't imo.

By focusing on the kids and their dads, Abrams ensured that his viewers become emotionally involved. ALL of those scenes involving the kids are a delight to watch. They're well-acted, funny, sincere and packing just enough emotion.

Abrams also efficiently keeps the tension surrounding the monster intact by not letting us see the thing. You know something is out there, but what is it? And what is it trying to achieve by its actions? I also thought Abrams showcased a beautiful style. The camera is rarely ever still, but the motions are always purposeful.

I just think it's strange that you don't think the film was 'magical' enough because it lacked action... I thought it was magical precisely because it wasn't going all Michael Bay on me. Abrams' Super 8 is definitely an hommage to Spielberg (Jaws, E.T., Close Encounters,... the elements are all there), but Abrams has expertly created a personal, emotionally satisfying mystery film with excellent character development, quite a few funny moments, some terrific swings in mood, well-crafted thrills, a fabulous atmosphere and brilliant acting.

I don't know what more you can expect...

As far as I'm aware I didn't link the lack of action as the reason it wasn't magical. I meant them as purely seperate points. For me the film lacked action/excitement and lacked the magic I expected.

And trust me, I certainly don't find the films of Michael Bay magical!!! I love the kind of films that Abrams seemed to be paying homage to - ET, Close Encounters, Goonies, Gremlins etc. Films that were exciting and funny, but which also had a lot of heart, wit and intelligence about them. For me a magical film is one that when you leave the cinema you leave with a sense of wonder and a warm, cosy feeling

As I said maybe I just went in with my expectations too high. Perhaps when I see it again on DVD/TV without the weight of that expectation I will be able to enjoy it a lot more and get what you clearly got out of the film

Teeth (2007)
Directed by: Mitchell Lichtenstein
Written by: Mitchell Lichtenstein

Dawn (Jess Weixler) lives in a small town, right behind her house are huge smoke stacks I am guessing from some kind of power plant, I am not sure exactly how that ties in with the rest of the film. Dawn is very outspoken about her beliefs in abstinence that is probably a good thing since she suffers from Vagina Dentata (teeth in her vagina). She discovers that she has this after being sexually assaulted by her boyfriend who forces himself on her only to lose his most precious part. After this happens for the first time her character starts to change both sexually and her becoming a more dark minded person. Soon she starts to learn that she can use her GIFT to her advantage by getting revenge on people who have wronged her in the past or threatening her in the present.



This movie was classified as a Feminist Horror film, I guess I can kind of see that. For me it seemed like they were just really trying to get there point across about pre-marital sex and puberty or coming of age for a teenage girl. I found the film to be more of a comedy than anything else but there was also a pretty descent about of blood and gore.

This is one brutal horror movie you should snatch up quick

Enter without permission, you might lose your member-ship.

In Bruges



This is one of those movies I meant to see and somehow fell off my radar. I went in with almost no other expectations other than I would like Brendan Gleeson because I almost always do. What I wasn't expecting was the movie to be as downright funny as it was and I certainly wasn't expecting Colin Farrell to outshine Gleeson. Farrell was by turns outrageously hilarious then sad and vulnerable. My impression of him before this was that he was one of those capable actors but dull as dishwater. I had no idea that he could be this charismatic.

Everyone else in the cast is on point as well. Loved Ralph Fiennes as Harry!

Red Dragon



This is a re-watch. Normally I don't bother to tab those but I've had a complete change of heart about this one. In that I used to think it was a decent movie and now I don't. It just seems like the atmosphere created in Silence of the Lambs is trying to be duplicated here and fails. It's just not that creepy.

Edward Norton is also either miscast or just not very good here. I think he's a very good actor most of the time, but I didn't believe anything he was trying to sell me for one second.

Paranormal Activity 3



I think Paranormal Activity has run its course. They can't (or rather they shouldn't) keep finding ways to integrate the demon to this family. The tricks are also getting a little stale; no matter how freaking scary they were the first time around.

Having said that the third installment is better than the second. It's also scarier than most anything current that I've seen. But nothing will come close to first PA as far as found footage horror movies go. (At this point I think I've seen most of them.)

We Need to Talk About Kevin


Pretty intense at moments, some great performances from the child actors and a very impressive one from Swinton. Not sure how much of a surprise the ending was meant to be but it's wasn't hard to guess something along the lines had happened. The editing seemed a bit unnecessarily obtuse and only to serve an ambiguous narrative. The sound editing/mixing (not sure on the difference) stood out particularly, though. Not sure Reilly was cast well, as said in another thread, his prior comedy work made him stick out a bit in a film that thrived on tone. The blood on her hands motif became a bit obvious after a while and the rhythm became repetitive enough to the point you could predict where subsequent scenes would flash back to. Definitely a few lapses in logic and undeveloped character motivation that could have been expanded to make it a bit more compelling and less contrived. Still, good film driven by good central performance.

__________________

The Captains (Shatner, 2011)



An odd film. Shatner can't help but make everything about him in some way, but that is actually OK here. Shatner's Captain Kirk IS iconic. This is a pretty personal exploration of the Star Trek captain characters throughout the years, with intimate chats between Bill and each of the other actors that have sat in the chair.

The odd thing is that, at first, Shatner sort of admits to having this odd rivalry with his screen persona. He dislikes being thought of as Captain Kirk, and feels the role has dominated his personal life no matter what he does. He felt that, from very early on, he would get derisive comments and attitudes about his work on Star Trek, and that the constant comments, such as "Beam me Up, Scotty", were a plague upon his existence.

As he chats with each captain, and some chats are better than others, he slowly comes around and recognizes, very genuinely I might add, that he HAS done good work, and that Kirk is something to be proud of, not ashamed. Patrick Stewart, who also had misgivings about "slumming" when he first got involved, has also come to respect and recognize his work as Picard as the defining role of his entire career, and he is just fine with that. In fact, Kirk had never seen any Star Trek:TNG before he did the film. I guess it makes sense, when considering the guy wanted to distance himself from the franchise.

The cool thing was listening to Shatner's comments on Stewart's turn as the captain. I got the idea that Shatner was blown away by the level of skill and seriousness Stewart reached when playing the part.

"I mean, Pat...this is really, really good stuff. I was stunned at how good! I mean, I always put the drama on, sometimes way over the top - too much confidence, too much gravitas. Why didn't I ever try to play Kirk as diffident? I think it could have worked. Your work inspired me to rethink my character and re-examine him. I like him more, now."

Great, great stuff. The Stewart/Shatner segments were all great, as were the Bacula/Shatner segments. Avery Brooks... is completely out of his mind, stoned, and lost in his music. He couldn't really do a good interview because he was constantly noodling on his piano and making up little songs to sing at Shatner instead of talking to him. It was fairly entertaining, but ultimately, a waste of everyone's time, including Shatner's. Kate Mulgrew... I don't know why, but I will just always like her. I know she is a self-righteous shrew, and I understand her ego is tremendous. She even says that, in so many words, during the interview. These are two actors with ridiculous ego issues, and they are quite frank about it. Still, I like Voyager and a big reason for that is Mulgrew's Janeway. Finally, Hemsworth is cool and slick, and clearly dedicated to his craft - a theater veteran since childhood, he is a consummate professional, and a fine choice for the next generation of Trek.

Overall, an entertaining watch, if a bit odd in places. If you like ol' Bill Shatner, check this one out!

__________________

Faces in the Crowd (2011)
Directed by: Julien Magnat
Written by: Julien Magnat and Kelly Smith

Anna (Milla Jovovich) is the only survivor of the serial killer Tearjerk Jack, hitting her head during the attack gives her a diagnosis of Face Blindness where she cannot identify anyone by their faces meaning that she cannot identify her attacker. I did a little searching and Face Blindness is a real medical condition that just makes this movie all that more terrifying, trying to imagine this happening to yourself is such a scary thought. The cops become fed up with Anna since she can’t recognize the killer and because she makes a few mistakes, and calls them when she thinks the killer is after her, the one time it was her father that she couldn’t recognize. There is one person who continues to try and work with Anna, a Detective Kerrest (Julian McMahon and David Ingram) who has some kind of special connection to Anna that they really don’t explain and I can’t really go into this without giving away too much. Anna becomes very detached from life with all that she is going through, her boyfriend can’t stand the idea that she can’t tell him apart from any other man, even looking in the mirror she cannot see her own reflection she sees somebody else looking back at her. Anna starts seeing Dr. Langenkamp (Marianne Faithfull) who is deaf and starts to teach her how to recognize people by their body language and other distinctive things about the person she wants to remember. After going through some Hypnosis exercises the killers face begins to clear and Anna starts to remember.



The ending without giving to much away was for me at least just really boring and not nearly the way I was hoping it would end, just kind of a Blah feeling when the credits started rolling. The way this was filmed was cool, the number of actors they had playing one person was interesting because they changed actors each time she looked away from the person or just blinked her eyes. All in all it’s a good movie and if you like the Psychological Thriller genre then you should watch this.

Logan’s Run (1976)
Directed by: Michael Anderson
Written by: David Zelag Goodman and William F. Nolan

With the remake of Logan’s Run still a ways away I thought it wouldn’t hurt to watch this classic again since it has probably been about 17 years since the one and only time I watched this film till now. Logan 5, the movie's central character, is a sandman and is played by Michael York. He is given orders by the central computer to track down a group of runners who have not been "renewed" and might have set up sanctuary outside of the City of Domes. To do this, the computer advances Logan's life clock (all the citizens of the city have life clocks that tell their ages) to make him appear as if he's 30. Now Logan is forced to run, hence the title.



While the billowing, disco-ish haircuts and outfits might scream "'70s!" to those who watch Logan's Run, the truth is that there is a lot to like about the movie. For starters, the premise is an intriguing one, and handled well. Giving Logan a succeed-or-die mission gives much of the movie an urgent, claustrophobic feel. York and Jenny Agutter (who plays Jessica, Logan's accomplice in his escape) appear on the surface to be the perfect bland "pretty people" for the shallow society depicted in the movie, but in the course of the movie, reveal their characters' depth.



"Logan's Run" is a time capsule of what large budget sci-fi movies were before "Star Wars", but it succeeds, mainly from having a creative plot that draws the viewer's interest and transcends the trappings of the dated 70's designs. By no means the best sci-fi movie of the seventies, but one that’s quite enjoyable nonetheless. In the remake I really hope they keep the hair and clothing style that was in this film, I know it was made in the 70’s and reflects the hairstyles and other aspects of that time but without that then I really believe the movie will be to different and not a remake but a remodeling and after watching this again I just really hope they keep that feeling in the new one.

And why would the 70s be bad? Such a great decade for film... why is there a lot "to like about the movie" in spite of the 70s?