 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finally saw Watchmen on Sunday arvo. Finally saw what everyone has been going on about as regards sex and violence. Not going to give anything away about the film (in case someone here hasn't seen it yet), but a couple of thoughts; • Sex: It was not sexier than I thought it was going to be. Nothing in the film was absent in the GN. It probably was a little less discreetly shadowed than the GN, but nothing too different. • Violence: The violence surpassed the comic greatly, and in one particular scene, I found it out of character (Laurie and Dan ambushed by the KT's). Having seen much worse in other films however, I didn't think it very over the top. • History: I really dug their approach to history - seeing not just Nixon, but Kissinger, Kennedy, Iacocca, Pat Buchanan and other figures from the recent decades of history was nicely grounding. The montage in the beginning, flashing through key points in Watchmen world history was really cool, and I think nicely set the tone for the rest of the film. • Costumes/Characters: The main characters are pretty much note-perfect with their comic counterparts, particularly Dan Dreiberg/Nite Owl II, Walter Kovacs/Rorschach and Eddie Blake/The Comedian. I preferred some of the costume updates, especially with Laurie/Silk Spectre and Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias. Go back to the GN and compare if you are in doubt, those were some baaaaad costumes. And Bubastis made it into the film. Yay! • The End: It is different in execution, though not intent, to the GN. In many ways I found the film take much more likely than the ending of the GN. For those who worry the point of the GN's ending might be lost in the film - you have nothing to worry about. As I said, the intent of the original ending is still intact. The way it is obtained is somewhat different, and is I think, a much more logical ending. All up? I enjoyed it. Was it worth the wait of approx. 20 years? Maybe not, but I enjoyed it none the less, and will likely snaffle it up on DVD when it is released. Tags: film
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V and I watched David Lynch's most recent film 'Inland Empire' last night. People love or hate DL, and usually it's because of the perceived lack of plot in his films. Inland Empire was the most challenging and certainly the darkest DL film I've ever seen. I think Eraserhead looked like Gigli by comparison. Something has occurred to me today though. While I am still struggling to tie up bits of the film in my head, I am struck by the fact that I had to work for this film, and work hard, to keep up. Rather than finding this frustrating, I find it entirely refreshing. I cannot get people who call themselves movie fans, but just want to be entertained, and not think (like some of the people I work with). I find the reverse true. If an Adam Sandler flick doesn't need you to think - it's just an impersonal exercise in mindlessness - why bother watching it? Everyone can agree what a Ben Stiller film is about. I can't find two people on the whole internet who agree what IE was about. In a nutshell, Inland Empire is a story that happens around 4 times to different people, at different times, in largely the same way. Some of it is real, some of it fiction and some a bizarre combination of the two. If you could easily comprehend Lost Highway, and managed to crack Mulholland Drive, then step up to the honours stream and try out Inland Empire. Tags: film
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hiya. I went to Sydney on the weekend, and went to the semi-famous Galley Serpentine for the first time. Probably be a lot more interesting for the ladeez than it was for me. Me and the lovely one hung out with my parents, who stayed true to form in getting me drunk every night. We also went to the Quarantine Station - this place which is supposed to be the most haunted location in Australia, which was creepy in a good way. I just saw the most recent two Hellraiser films the other night (with Dutch subtitles, which I switched off thank God). 7, being subtitled 'Deader' was actually not bad. The plot made no sense and there were a lot of the staple GTS's (Gratuitous Tit Shots), but I've seen so many GTS's in horror movies that it's really like water off a duck's back. Despite these shortcomings, it was kind of interesting. Then I saw 8, subtitled 'Hellworld'. If you ever smell the reek of a rotten bloated body on a summer day, you may well be resassured that someone in your house is hiding a copy of Hellraiser 8: Hellworld because it stinks. Another Lance Henriksen classic I guess. The thing that made me angriest about it wasn't the self-referential GTS, or the amazingly bad acting, but rather the whole computer game angle (Spoiler, but who am I kidding, I'm one of twelve people in the whole world that's seen or is going to see this stinker). So they play this online game called 'Hellworld' based on the whole Hellraiser mythology. But get this - ALL of the 'winners' are late-20's, well-groomed, mostly white guys and supermodels. Do these people even know what hard-core online gamers look like? Who finds time to wash and shave if you're playing World of Warcrack for 6 days straight? No-one should ever do games in films, it always looks astoundingly retarded. Not even that, but where are all the 12 year old game prodigies, or the fat old bald guys? 'Oh, I'm sorry, you've solved the game and won the prize to attend the Hellworld party, but unless you're a double-D cup, you can't actually attend.' Get fucked. Rant over, off to do productive stuff Tags: film, hellraiser
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_zombiemonkey
