Watched Toxic Avenger last night due to BastardHead's recommendation. I blame everything on him. That movie was incredibly low budget, but that contributed to it's distinctive silly, campy look. The acting is the worst thing ever, and everything is over the top but somehow it works. Somehow it's entertaining, and I don't even know why. This movie made me question what kind of person I am. I mean, there's teenagers that run people over for fun, exploding heads, ripping off arms effortlessly, a blind girl who falls in love with a giant deformed monster within like 5 minutes etc.. It SHOULDN'T work, but it does. It's like the creators were idiot savants who knew exactly what they were doing. I love that the borderline retarded and weird kid who can barely mumble through a coherent sentence suddenly has an entirely different adult voice when he becomes the monster. I love that they almost never show the monsters face because it looks like shit. I love the gratuitous sex and violence. I haven't seen any other Troma movies, but if they're all like this I've hit a gold mine.

Oh man... you have indeed hit a goldmine... though there's a lot of shitty Troma movies that don't even come close to the greatness that is the original Toxic Avenger but there's definitely some gems in there. I'd recommend skipping Toxic Avenger 2 and 3 (actually... you should probably just watch them even though they're not nearly as good as 1) and go straight to 4.

Other Troma films well worth your time:

Class of Nuke'Em High 1 and 2
Surf Nazis Must Die
Blood Hook
Beware! Children At Play
Tromeo & Juliet
Terror Firmer
Poultrygiest

There's a bajillion more and I haven't even come close to seeing them all. Some of the titles warrant a watch alone... Maniac Nurses Find Ecstasy, Fertilize the Blaspheming Bombshell, A Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell.... pure brilliance.

All of those movies sound absolutely terrible/great.

Saw Shadow of the Vampire and didn't really enjoy it. It felt extremely rushed, like they filmed a 2 hour movie and the editors just cut the shit out of it. It didn't make me feel like this was happening in the 20's in the least. Plus Dafoe was pretty ridiculous. His uber frown and mannerisms resembling Schrecks in no way. Him and Malkovitch seemed to be purposefully overacting. Maybe this was a comedy? I mean, it wasn't billed as one, but it would make sense. Scenes sort of begin and end with no particular sense of direction. There's a scene where Dafoe is speaking to two of the crew members and he eats a bat out of mid air. They think he's just a really dedicated actor. Anyways, pretty bad movie.

I definitely agree - I can't think of the character differently - Kinski always comes to mind; one of my favourite literary adaptations.



Each to their own, of course, although... I know I go overboard with those, but they are such eloquent little creatures. Anyway, I utterly disagree with each of those points; nonetheless, eh - opinions differ.

On an entirely different note, I'd like to add to the Troma love above; everyone needs to see Tromeo and Juliet at least once in their lives.

I honestly can't see what was enjoyable about that movie. I went in with such optimism too

I've been wanting to see Rabid Grannies, this Troma lovefest has re-sparked my interest.

The Ghost Breakers: A fun little romp in a haunted castle/manor in Cuba. Mind you, it's from the 40s so before the Castro takeover. It's all very light-hearted and comedic and not much thought is given to much of anything. It all cuts too short and feels very flimsy really.

The Grapes of Wrath: Definitely not light-hearted. Not being an American, I wasn't on the up and up of what the book is about or about this part of America's history, but it is rather funny how it reflects what's going on in the South of the US these days. Comparing to the writing of today, it fees a bit dated, not having a real thread to the plot, but then again, it's mostly a thematical film and, I imagine, book. Though not having read it, I'm not sure.

American Gangster: Something more modern though set during the Vietnam war, even if State-side. Denzel and Crowe taking on each other as a drug kingpin and a straight-up cop, respectively. The focus is mostly on Denzel's kingpin so Crowe's mopings are left rather superficial, not a bad thing. The kingpin finds a secret drug source so takes pretty much everything, but tries to keep it in the down low. But unfortunately all his underlings and close people aren't as good at it as he is. The parts about the underground work very well, but whenever Crowe is at the focus, the film tends to drag on. His part isn't well enough thought through.

The Uninvited: Another horror film from the 40s, this one British. A brother and a sister move into a new house that's haunted by his romantic interest's mother and her rival. Again, it feels a bit flimsy with the comedic aspect taking the forefront more often than not. Secrets are revealed and romantic interests developed, which feels a bit tacked on, but I suppose in these old films it was an unfortunate necessity. The atmosphere is pretty thick at times though, but a certain plot twist about the mother's loyal friend feels rather tacked on, a matter of lazy writing I suppose. A very respected film supposedly, but not really as good as I hoped.

My Darling Clementine: John Ford's take on the Wyatt Earp-legend. Gorgeously shot. Just awesome in that sense. However, the rest of the movie is not as great. It's an alright take on the known story, but a lot of focus is again put on romantic interests and the conflicts caused by them, rather than the actual power struggle that was going on. I suppose I have a soft spot for Kilmer's Doc Hollywood on Tombstone so the one here feels lackluster.



That's pretty much how I feel about it. It's always surprising to me how the stand-in for Harker can actually fathom to sleep under the same roof as something so otherworldly as Orlok. How he can actually consider him a human being when he looks so... alien.

So the end of the year is almost here. And I've been out of the loop on movies for a while, having only had time to see a handful in the last few months and nothing outside of theatrical release-type stuff...any really good movies from 2012 that I haven't heard of? I'm pretty open to anything; just looking for some good films from the year now that I have time to see them. Hit me up.

The Guard is #1. Wait, shit that's 2011. Still, watch it.

Man, even though I know three people including my brother who work at the theater I'm not gonna be able to get into the premier of The Hobbit free; but if I wait a couple days I can though.

Brendan Gleeson and Don Cheadle, huh? Looks entertaining.

MILD SPOILERS POSSIBLE
This just in from The Hobbit.

I won't comment the technical aspect, not a fan of 3D, this one had good moments, but also incomprehensible blurs.

My worst fear considering this first film was that apart from all the travelling it would be somewhat meaningless, since the main antagonist is not present in any way. That fear was thankfully needless, since the writers did the smart thing by bringing Azog (only mentioned in the book) in, thus creating something for Thorin to focus his "ifuckinghateverything" mindset.

All in all, I'm pretty satisfied to the fact that they kept the storyline close to the book. One of the greatest annoyances of LotR was the dismissal of the disputes between the races, they just kind of sheepishly lumped in and rallied against a common enemy. Here I got instantly excited when they introduced the great festering wounds between dwarfs and elves, reaching generations past, and creating something real to mirror on the characters, instead of the awful "no trusting 'em pointy ears" level stuff. And I've a feeling they're going to extend this stuff, and why shouldn't they, at least now there's time for it!

I've heard lots of whining about the excessive amount of action, which I find quite odd, since LotR was, in the end, a glorious corpsefest with weak character development. I feel that Thorin is completely on a different scale when it comes to complexity of character, compared to say Aragorn who is "kinda king but not sure if want". And since I know what's going on with Thorin, I'm all the more excited.
I'm sure there will be enough material for the other two movies, since they're going to include Gandalf's sneak assault on Dul Guldur and more about the matter.

I knew that the tricky part of this movie would be to balance it so the LotR-movie audience would enjoy it, but at the same time it would capture the slightly more upbeat atmosphere of the book. In this the movie only partially succeeds. Sure there are light moments opposed to the serious hack 'n' slash & hatred combo, but the rhythm of those scenes was sometimes very off, thus creating a few awkward Disney-moments.

In the end, I pretty much got what I wanted. A children's story with a somewhat more mature approach, surrounded with a nice amount of Tolkien-lore.
I'm thinking of 3,5 or 4/5.

PS. To someone who knows his Tolkien. In the movie there's a scene of the Council (on screen were Gandalf, Saruman, Elrond & Galadriel) discussing the matter of something evil lurking in Dol Guldur, and considering the possibility of it being the resurrected Witch King of Angmar. I thought this gathering took place somewhat 1000 years earlier. Wasn't the evil presence the main reason of the Wizards' (Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast, Pallando, Alatar) arrival to Middle-Earth? Or am I completely off the tracks here?

^ I have very similar sentiments, but I do have to mention that Martin Freeman did an excellent job as Bilbo in my opinion. I mean, just the way he managed to expressed the awkwardness and uncertainess of the character.... Splendid job.

Easily seconded, for sure. The whole cast pretty much held their own but the 1st attack line Freeman - Armitage - McKellen was fabulous.

coulpe of responses to some recent posts:

*I read "Shadow of the vampire" as a comedy that gently takes the piss out of the source materiel. Not really sure how you could view it otherwise.

* re Hertzog, "Cave of dreams" is really good and well worth a look

* Re the Hobbit, the council meeting to discuss "the necromancer", who they thing may be the witch king, and then Gandalf's trip to Dol Guldir, is spot on in the cannon.

Big Easy: Excuse me while I go puke. New Orleans and cops - sounds alright. But combine that with chauvinistic 80s crap and lazy writing without much of a plot and you've got this movie about... Well, a lot of things, but really not achieving much anything at all.

Really, timewise?
Elrond speaks of "400 years of peace", I take it's The Watchful Peace, is it not?
And Gandalf visited Dol Guldur for the first time before those 400 years of peace.
It's been so long since reading the books, I'm totally confused right now.
Canonwise, Gandalf got the key to Erebor from Thrain who was dying inside Dol Guldur, and this happened almost a hundred years before the events of the Hobbit.
So is the movie's depiction of the Council meeting meant to be the last of the meetings, when they decide they must act against the threat of Dol Guldur, even if they've been aware of it for a thousand years?
Or something else, jeez

Michael Haneke's Amour is must see, but might be difficult to find even though it won best film at Cannes. Also Beasts of the Southern Wild.

Just saw Let The Right One In...what a beatiful film, great interpretations, original plot, and of course...the coldness of Sweden was the perfect scenario. I´m Reading the novel right now, its great so far.

Just survived Red Dawn. I sooooo prefer the original (which was decent at best).

Excellent film... just don't watch it dubbed haha

Nekromantik (1987) 3/5
A streetcleaner (guy who cleans up the dead bodies after accidents) has been sneaking home with body parts. Then a whole body for his girlfriend and he to enjoy together. He gets fired and his girlfriend leaves him, then he cums blood.

Head of the Family (1996) 4/5 {*}
A small-town con-man happens upon the terrible secret of the local family of wealthy deformed eccentrics. He attempts to blackmail the family only to discover the one family member who doesnt leave the home is a highly-intelligent gigantic head for whom his job of choice is medical torture. Very funny and stars Alexandra Quinn.

Blood Feast 2: All You Can Eat (2002) 3.5/5
A follow-up to 1963's Blood Feast. Basically the same idea, but this is the original owner's grandson. A similar story to Blood Diner and I imagine Delicatessen (have yet to see it) without the darkness of Untold Story. Some genuinely funny parts and a lot more nudity than the original. Don't expect seriousness at all, but the gore is good.

**FIXED: spelling error**

Rashomon - This movie gets the absolute highest ratings from me. I don't usually go for mysteries, but Akira Kurosawa was a master, and this movie is a masterpiece. I won't give away plot points or anything, but he uses mystery as a way to probe the dark depths of human nature, and how and why people lie to suit their own ends. There are some really funny parts in this movie, and some touching scenes as well. One sequence in particular was rather creepy, and it made me think of Sigh, of all things! I can't praise this movie enough. It fully deserves its 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and I suggest all of you watch it.

Rashomon is awesome; a compelling classic to say the least.

Thanks for mentioning Amour, Expedience, I'm so out of touch with film these days I wouldn't have even known Haneke had a new film out, and he's one of my favorite directors

Amour looks very good...I'll have to try and track that down; any recommendations? Beasts of the Southern Wild looks...well, a bit different from my usual intake. But I'll watch it if I get the chance to, if I find it.

Hobbit- Saw it in 48 fps...My only annoyance was the first 20 or so minutes(basically the shire). The way they moved was kinda jerky, or as some put, looked like you fast forward at 1.5x. The goblin stuff looked amazing. The "looking too real" seemed a bit exagerrated. It only seemed l ike that to me during the outdoor, daytime scenes.
If you live close to a theater, then I'd say it's worth it, but if it's quite a drive(mine was roughly 45 minutes), just stick with regular 3d. It wasnt really THAT different though.

As I remember it, there is a passage at the beginning of LOTR where Gandalf describes actually going into Dol Guldur and confirming what was there, which prompted Sauron to flee back to Mordor and rebuld Barad-Dur. According to wiki we're both somewhat correct (you more than I perhaps):

After Sauron was defeated in the War of the Last Alliance, he retreated to Amon Lanc and built a fortress, where he hid in secrecy while recovering his strength. As the evil force residing there became apparent to the outside world, it was named the Necromancer.[14] It was not known at first that Sauron had regained physical form and was nursing himself to health; it was believed that a Nazgûl dominated the tower and land.[7] But as the power grew in strength, Gandalf the Grey became suspicious and in T.A. 2063 travelled to Dol Guldur to investigate.[14][15] Sauron anticipated his coming and withdrew to the East to remain hidden in secrecy[14][15] Thus began what later became known as The Watchful Peace, which lasted until T.A. 2460, when Sauron finally returned to Dol Guldur after years of hiding.[16]
In T.A. 2845, Thráin II, King of Durin's folk, the last bearer of one of the seven Rings of Power given to the Dwarves, was captured by Sauron's forces and was kept at Dol Guldur, where he yielded his ring to Sauron under torture.[17][18] Gandalf went again to Dol Guldur in T.A. 2850 to investigate his suspicions of the power that was rising, learned that this was indeed Sauron, and found Thráin in the dungeons close to death.[17] Thráin had forgotten his own name, but gave Gandalf a map and key to the Lonely Mountain for Thráin's son, Thorin Oakenshield.[19] Again anticipating the Wise, Sauron left Dol Guldur for Mordor in T.A. 2941.[20] Ten years later, when Sauron declared himself openly in Mordor, he sent three nazgûl back to reoccupy Dol Guldur.[21] Khamûl (one of the three) commanded the fortress in Sauron's absence.[22] In March of T.A. 3018, scouts from Dol Guldur became aware that Gollum had been brought to Mirkwood and was being held prisoner by Thranduil.[23] On 20 June T.A. 3018, orcs from Dol Guldur attacked the Elves who had imprisoned Gollum; in the chaos, Gollum escaped and disappeared.





Anyway, I watched "Come and See" last night. Amazing film.

I don't think this council took place at Rivendel in the books, did it? My memory's a little rusty. I also don't remember Galadriel being present for it in the books, but she may have been.

I thought the movie was good but not as good as the Lord of the Rings movies. It just had a different vibe that I never fully warmed to, but I enjoyed it. I intentionally saw it in 2-D because fuck 3-D but I must say it seemed to be a mistake because lots of the effects were straight up crap, especially the dragon and the eagles which honestly looked like direct-to-DVD type special effects. I know it's meant to be in 3-D, but that isn't an excuse for me for terribly outdated special effects. The pacing was also a bit weird. It seemed they never traveled anywhere at all, but just sort of ended up in certain destinations. With three movies, I guess I expected for lots of the actual journey to be presented.

The acting was indeed superb though. Bilbo, Gandalf, and Thorin make for some great protagonists, especially when there simply aren't as many memorable characters as there were from the fellowship. It's good that the cast is strong enough to hold up the movie despite its weaknesses.

The Devil's Double - 4.25/5

I really enjoyed this. Set in Iraq back at the turn of the century or so, this movie follows the unwilling servitude of Latif Yahia, who is forced into becoming a "double" for Saddam Hussein's deranged son Uday. There is a ton of class and weight to the way this is put together, and the acting is spectacular. The pace flows well from one scene to the next and the film feels about half as long as it really is. This doesn't do anything exactly groundbreaking but what it does well is creating a gritty, exciting movie with a compelling main character stuck in a horrible situation. Dominic Cooper as both Latif and Uday is just amazingly done, as he plays both very well and has so many interactions with...well, himself, that the effort alone would be commendable even if he wasn't quite as good as he is here. The last act isn't as good as the first two and seems more Hollywoodized than anything, but it doesn't ever stray completely off its path either, and the great first two acts more than make up for the slight dip in quality near the end. This movie pulls no punches and remains entertaining throughout. Just a super-solid flick.

The Conversation - 4.5/5

Francis Ford Coppola's The Conversation is a dense and artistic film of the kind where you're more meant to feel it through lighting, scene arrangement and character action rather than dialogue, and it's been a while since I've really seen a movie like this. This starts off pretty slow, and at some points it gives the viewer so little to work with that it's almost frustrating, but the slow build eventually does rise into a meaningful crest with a good commentary on guilt - from the point of view of a spy who thinks something may happen to the young couple whose conversation he recorded. Gene Hackman is awesome and the rest of the cast does great, too. This is a very quiet film that takes time and patience to get into, and it's so cerebral and slow-moving that it isn't quite as enjoyable as it could be at all times, but really Coppola was a master of the slow-burn and here he presents one of the most unified and "whole" films I've seen lately, truly one that has to be seen all the way through to get anything out of it. This film demands a lot from its audience and delivers in the end with a truly arresting third act, and its weight and subject matter as well as the masterful storytelling deserve the attention of anyone interested in film. Highly recommended if you haven't seen it yet.

Red Dawn - OK, but the 1984 original was better.

Lincoln - I definitely recommend this one. Daniel Day Lewis is superb as Honest Abe.

There are some really haunting and eerie scenes in that movie, like the bog scene, the German soldiers in the fog, and, of course, the fire scene. I also think one of the earlier scenes, when the Germans first attacked the forest, was really cool. Those were some of the most realistic explosions I've ever seen.


Two weeks ago I finally saw the original Wicker Man, with Christopher Lee. Since 2009, I had been listening to Agalloch's The White EP, which features three amazing samples from that film. For some reason, I hadn't bothered to watch it until now. Anyway, it was quite good. Lee, of course, is fantastic, and the plot is very interesting. I liked how Lord Summerisle was frequently referred to by the villagers but didn't actually appear into further into the film. It really built up the anticipation and made his character more mysterious.

Ne le dis à personne (2006)
Guillaume Canet
3.5/5

Surprisingly enthralling contemporary thriller

The feature length directorial debut of successful French actor Guillaume Canet, e le dis à personne is a well done, very contemporary style French mystery/thriller. Sleek, modern, suspenseful, and at times riveting, this film drives along with intrigue and a very meaty, twisting plot. The acting and serpentine plot are the films strengths; François Cluzet gives a commanding performance as protagonist Dr. Alexandre Beck. The Doctor's wife was murdered by a serial killer 8 years prior, and it becomes apparent that the circumstances of her death are not quite as they seem, sending Beck into a gripping hunt to find the truth, which descends into numerous chases, twists, violent encounters, and a web of deception, investigation and intrigue. This is a better effort at similarly themed movies, with the plot remaining unpredictable, gripping, and filled with interesting additions, while the twists don't seem contrived at all, unlike other thrillers of this nature.

While the acting and plot are great, this film is very contemporary in style, stripped down, and not drenched in the high art thickness of older murder mysteries; cinematography is straightforward, and unspectacular, music likewise. It doesn't have visual beauty or seem to have rich, complex subtext, but is a well done, well acted modern thriller, especially given it's the debut of Guillaume Canet.

Willy Wonka. The Gene Wilder One. So fucking good.

I love how he drops the occasional turd of verbal wisdom on the parents.

"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."

I began watching this movie today titled "Once Upon a Time in Anatolia". It's moving incredibly slow but I'm watching on the pretense that it will all pay off soon. hAs anyone seen it yet? I think so far the locations and some shots are great and add to the feeling of length and the slow pace, but its just taking it's damn time. Is it worth sticking to?

Behind The Thing, this is my favorite movie of all time. Gene Wilder is a huge reason why, his take on Wonka is pretty much my idol. Anybody who prefers Depp over Wilder is wrong. Not negotiable.

Yeah, it's a strangely dream-like film, as if Jean Rollin made a war movie. Left me quite unsettled which is unusual as I have a pretty strong stomach. An amazing performance from the kid too. I read that its rumoured that they hypnotised him during the last scenes where he has lots the plot as they burn the barn.

Well, the film is pretty much split into two different parts. There's the first one that takes place at night in the countryside. I absolutely loved that even though it is slow and kind of thematical instead of actually concentrating much on the plot. The second part takes place in the city during the day. While it showcases quite well the dreariness and difficulties of small cities in Turkey, as a film, I found it quite boring. Not much of importance takes place there. So is it worth sticking with? I would definitely say yes, if you're at all interested in seeing how things are in rural Turkey. As a film, well, it's up to one's tastes. As I said, I loved the first part, but there's no big payoff if that's what you're expecting. It's all there right now. Gorgeous cinematography of the bare Turkish countryside and thematical exploration of rural Turkey and the difficulties it is facing. And how vastly different it is from the bustle of Istanbul and Ankara. I think a lot of it was made to show the far richer part of Turkey, how the countryside lives and that they're not all there is to Turkey.

An American Werewolf in London: Pretty good movie. It was interesting to see that the actual transformation (the fucking awesome and well done transformation may I add) didn't happen until more than an hour into the movie. A lot better than the ones in the turd of the sequel I saw a few years ago. The acting is better than usual for this type of movie, even if the nurse's actions require some level of suspension of disbelief. It's interesting to note that it was more comedy than horror even if it's frequently listed on best horror movies lists. Most of the killing is suggested or happens offscreen rather than full on.

^ That's such a neat film. Deserving of its place on "classic horror" or horror comedy lists. Everything about it is neat, not just the amazing special effects. Plus Griffin Dunne (from Scorcese's 'After Hours') is awesome! Best werewolf film, in my opinion. Wolfen is pretty sweet too, though