How violent are we talking here, Emp? Spill the deets like somebody hopefully spilled brains out of their head from a shotgun blast.

Sicario was quite good. It's one of the most tension filled movies I've seen in a long time. It just builds and builds until you beg it to release or explode or something, then it builds some more. It's got some absolutely fantastic landscape shots and a bitchin' soundtrack that alternates between ''the longer and more intense the note is, the more dread'' and ''mournful chanting''. Denis Villeneuve is such a varied director when it comes to overall style. That said, some scenes are a lot better than others and I couldn't really get into Emily Blunt's character, though they use her in an interesting way. We only know as much as she does at all times. She's very much an obvious audience stand in. All in all, an interesting movie that has some things to say about extreme violence becoming commonplace in some places, even if you will see the twist coming from miles away.

Not like, bloody and gory or anything. It's mafia movie violence. Like exactly what you think of in terms of that. But the kills are well done and very harsh to watch, especially because the main character we're following is the one doing them. It's a well done, dark flick.

Mikey, I dunno, what did you find good about it? I'm curious, you didn't really say!

On the weird stuff the grandma says, I think it was just implying

I tell you what, Emp, when I think of mafia movie violence, I think of Joe Pesci getting worked over with a baseball bat and having chunks of skull taken out of his head at the end of Casino. HOME RUN MUTHAFUCKA, WHACK WHACK.

Also, maybe not necessarily violent, but I always appreciated the style of Killing Them Softly.

Two more Mad Max movies lined up. This can only be good news.
http://www.topgear.com/car-news/movies/ ... d-director

^Hopefully Tom Hardy works more on his accent this time. If he can't sound Australian he might as well stick with sounding English all the time instead of half the time

In other random news, Taika Waititi is apparently lined up to direct Thor: Ragnarok.

Finally watched Avengers 2; I liked it enough but there was definitely some flaws. I don't feel like analysing the movie cause it's been done to death. What I'm interested in is where the franchises are going. You've already got CA3 with The Vision, you've got Thor 3 but I have no freaking clue what that's got going on and now you've got either Avengers 3 or Guardians of the Galaxy 2 cossover. I'm not sure the two franchises can coexist well together; Thor and Groot tag team? I dunno, seems like it's just going down but maybe I'll be surprised.

The Avengers movie is just dumb fun for people who likes action packed movies, same goes for both Thor movies. The moment you start to taking them seriously, they turn in crap (both Thor movies, Iron Man 2-3, second Avengers for naming some).

Going to see Fermat's room.

I guess I just liked the suspense this time around. You could tell there was something going on with the oldies, and the mystery kept me glued. I thought the kids were good actors, even though I understand the frustrations around the boy, but they kept the movie flowing.

The Visit isn't going to win any awards, and it's not the best movie I've ever seen, but it was entertaining enough, especially for a Shyamalan film. I can totally get the swarm of shitty reviews for it, though.

Wat. Eagles Vs. Shark is nice Wes Anderson worship and I've heard Boy is pretty good, but the only other professional thing on his filmography is the fucking US Inbetweeners...

Not that it matters or anything because Marvel, but, meh.

He's currently cutting his teeth adapting an NZ novel into a movie, due out next year: Hunt For The Wilderpeople

Also, you obviously missed this one.

Well, with such a well-known cast as 1/2 of Flight of the Concords and the director himself, that's quite the surprise!

For a second I read that as 'Hunt For The Wikipedia' .

Just watched The Babadook - it was awesome. A few elements kept it out of the very top tier, not the least of which was the fucking sound guy's insistence on using that stock "dinosaur roar" FOUR TIMES, at crucial moments that are supposed to be scary. Otherwise, the film did go downhill a bit toward the end, but many (if not most) horror films do, and The Babadook doesn't totally bungle the ending or anything, so it gets a good rating from me. The tension-building in the first parts was really great, especially THAT scene, you know the one. NIGHTMARES FOREVER.

It wasn't perfect, no, but it did a lot of things right, and in this day and age horror really fucking needs some quality films to look to.

What We Do In The Shadows is brilliant. Brilliant and funny. That's my two cents.

Because most horror film third acts go downhill The Babadook is good? That makes no sense. A film is only as good as all it's parts, a story as a whole, not just a ok concept or something bare minimum. If Darth Vader turned into a fish and burped at the end of Return of the Jedi would it still be a good movie? Also after everything you said, awesome is what you would use to describe it as a whole? You don't think you're maybe over selling it?

Edit.

I watched Dear White People tonight. Fantastic movie, and really smart with addressing the complexities of race relations of college-age people.

I saw Eraserhead today.


....I seriously don't know what to think of it. It was bizarre, dark...trippy. Can't say that I hated it at all, as I was entertained but I definitely didn't love it, either.

Yeah, heard this was possibly happening. As long as George Miller stays at the helm, then yes please. I want more.

watched When A Stranger Calls today(after listening to mortician and hearing the sample) and god that was disappointing. Knew what was going to happen before it happened, and it seemed like the whole film moved too slow and took too long to get to the point. First 20 minutes was the only good part of the movie.

Need to find a good horror movie to watch tonight, might just rewatch The Babadook and see if I can form an actual opinion on it.

Rewatched Zodiac (with Downey Jr). Good movie overall, although it's not for everyone. It's slow and it's mostly only dialogue but the acting is generally nice. I liked it. The Zodiac guy (the real one) I guess was just lucky to not be caught.

Since I learned Twin Peaks will continue, I'm planning a TP marathon.

Mortician has a knack for sampling the only interesting segments of otherwise terrible movies. If you want something similar but not so predictable, try The Collector.

If When a Stranger Calls is worse than The Collector, it has to be a marvel on the level of several great artistic monuments.

Zodiac is so good. That movie is so long but it's gripping and dense as fuck. Plus it really seemed to put Jake Gyllenhaal on the map. I remember seeing that and it was just so much more than a lot of popular crime films out at the time, least of all the awful Black Dahlia movie from Brian De Palma.

Saw The Canal - really sweet, slow-burning psychological horror. I loved the atmosphere and vibe it had. Story was kind of cliche at times, but never bad. But the first half in particular was just really cool. It sucked you in. Sort of a low-rent version of The Machinist with more horror elements added in, but the potential from everyone involved was through the roof. Good start to the month.

Is that the movie where the first 20 minutes is the urban legend and the rest is the guy trying to be accepted into society again? Thus killing the mystery and shock of the murderer and making him into some socially retarded frail looking guy. Ugh, that movie was bullocks.

It's a close second to Se7en. Mostly due to the Zodiac killing scenes being recreated so accurately it's haunting.

Yeah, the kills are startlingly brutal and not at all gratuitous or played for shock value. The suspense is through the roof, and even the characters are interesting when you don't know much about them. I always liked how it didn't sugarcoat things, or make it seem like there was an answer to anything. It's just this long, bleary trudge - similar to what a real such investigation is like.

The only similar movie I can name is Once Upon a Time in Anatolia, which is actually even slower and bleaker than Zodiac - but marvelous, when you take it all in.

What the fuck are you blathering about? I didn't say it fell off a cliff at the end, I specifically said it went downhill A BIT. Not even anywhere close to your hyperbolic Darth Vader example. The movie does have flaws, sure, but I think its strengths more than make up for them.

It's really not similar at all, I just wanted to trick him into watching it. It's not even a contest, any bad horror movie that features Madeline Zima's boobs is automatically better than one that doesn't.

Nope. You clearly refereed to it as passable because "many (if not most) horror films do", that is "what the fuck you blathering about?" as you so eloquently put.

Yep, it's kind of on the opposite spectrum of things in regards to Se7en. Se7en all the kills are planned and calculated down to the most minute detail, whereas Zodiac the kills are meaningless and sporadic all under the veil of some "puzzle mastermind", which I find far more shocking to the senses (that it's based on actual murders more so). That killing near the lake I felt was overwhelming disturbing and torturous to watch, like a condensed Funny Games but without the overt mind games, just a psychotic and senseless murder.

Se7en is fucking annoying, and not just because it's widely credited with starting that "number in the name in the number" trend and also jumpstarting Andrew Kevin Walker's career; it's annoying because it prizes atmospherics over what a quality thriller should be which is: compelling characters, unpredictable plot twists and memorable dialog. All style, not nearly enough substance. It's not terrible or anything, good acting and incredible cinematography all around, but unless you're like super baked and you're tired of watching Blade Runner on repeat I can't see much of a reason to revisit it.

I haven't seen Zodiac because I don't really like Fincher but maybe I'll give it a shot. I like Jakey. Girl with Dragon Tattoo really sucked though. Like, the only thing I remember about it was my girlfriend at the time fell asleep on me at a really weird angle and my arm was sore for weeks.

Yeah it was a pretty pointless movie honestly. Regret making my girlfriend watch it, waste of an hour.



I like your reasoning.

They supposedly used real investigation data to make the movie. All main characters are really well performed and the ending is just how it should be. I remember some friends disappointed by the ending since it's not the typical movie but it's one of the best things; the movie serves itself and doesn't care for the usual cliffhangers/hooks of suspense movies, it just goes with the plot regardless of what the public might think about it.

It's not really comparable to Se7en. The only thing they have in common is the police investigation but the mood, the killer, the main characters and the whole plot are totally different. Good movie but a way different monster.

What I would say is similar to Zodiac in some sense is the Monster anime. It has a similar bleak feeling and the way the main characters are drowned into the mystery is kinda similar (not the same at all, just affinity).

The only reason Se7en got brought up, I assume, is because Fincher directed both that and Zodiac. I think Se7en is brilliant and one of my favorite films of all time. I don't get the criticism that it's all style and no substance - there are deeper movies, sure, even in the same genre, but Se7en has plenty of depth and the characters are so well written that I often forget it's actually Pitt and Freeman, two super famous actors, playing them. When I watch that movie, I just see Mills and Somerset. They're excellent characters, and the story about how to view the world, especially in the lens of these two very different detectives, is still thought provoking stuff. It's a tragic tale. It's exactly what it needed to be for that story to work, depth-wise.

Third-act-slump is extremely common among horror movies, so it makes no sense to act as if this were unique to The Babadook. Besides which, as I specifically mentioned, The Babadook wasn't nearly as bad in this regard as most horror movies. Kindly stop blathering about nonsense.


Yeah, I kind of agree, the only unpredictable plot twist of course comes at the end. There really ought to have been much more development of Kevin Spacey's character, to explain the extremity of his crimes. That's what makes Manhunter/Red Dragon and The Silence of the Lambs such good movies - we really get inside the head of the killers. With Se7en we just get some good atmosphere and a mystery that never gets solved, or even really seems like it has a solution. We just have a superhuman serial killer with a predilection for killing in conveniently dramatic ways. Why did he do all that crap? Because he's CRAZY, MAN! And oh yeah, SOCIETY!

Saw The Martian on Sunday evening, liked it a lot. Quite a feelgood movie in the end. I was doubtful about the scientific accuracy of some bits but it's apparently pretty accurate in that regard for the most part.

Giving Spacey's character a motivation and backstory in Se7en would have grounded it in a manner that would be completely at odds with the movie's surreal and supernatural overtones; he appears in the movie not as some human with a psychological excuse but more the representation of chaos and unpredictability. Reminded me of The Dark Knight's Joker in that manner, though I suppose there were many who disliked that character's portrayal for that very reason. Silence of the Lambs (haven't seen Manhunter yet) was far more grounded in reality in terms of both imagery and style, so it makes sense that the killers would seem more human and realistic.

Granted, saying "but the character *represents* X!" can be a very lazy way of writing that many movies abuse to cover a lack of character development. But I never got that feeling in Se7en, though I'd have to reflect a bit more to figure out exactly how it avoids that particular pitfall.

I actually never really thought about whether or not Spacey's character in Se7en needed any more development. Maybe it would have helped, though I'm not sure they could have really had the same movie if they did that. Mostly the focus seemed to be on the two detectives and the overall story about the state of the world as according to these characters - though, if people think that's pretentious or something, I suppose that is their prerogative. It might have been interesting to get more background on Spacey though.

As for the Hannibal Lecter films, they're just different because those ones' whole point was the relationship between Lecter and Clarice or Will Graham; that was the entire basis. Se7en was more focused on the mystery and the Lecter ones on the serial killer psychological aspect. Different sides of the coin, I think.



It can be lazy, but to be fair, it's been done in any kind of storytelling medium forever. Se7en is one of the ones to do it right, I think. It doesn't talk down to the viewer, just shows you everything through the detectives' eyes unfolding.

The problem is, the mystery is entirely generated by the serial killer - it's not some senseless or irrelevant crime that simply serves as a backdrop for the characters to do stuff, it's the central plot and theme of the movie, and the entire, only reason for serial killings to happen is because of the serial killer's background and character. The entire reason the mystery was interesting was because we kept wondering WHY this was happening, WHO could have done it, and WHAT sort of person they could be, and in the end there's no good answer for any of those questions.

To clarify, I don't hate the movie or anything, but it's definitely not as good as the (good) Thomas Harris adaptations.

I can see that. It's probably one of the few things I'd say is a flaw for the film. At the same time though, I always sort of liked the mystique and suggestion behind that character of Spacey's. That first scene when they're talking about him from outside the interrogation room was always just so chilling in a way.

Sure, there's a certain appeal to the idea of that kind of mysterious superman serial killer monster, but I think it's a shallower appeal than what we get out of Hannibal Lecter and Jame Gumb and the rest. I do like Se7en, but I get much more rewatch value out of Manhunter or The Silence of the Lambs or Profondo Rosso, which are basically in my "unlimited rewatchability" category.