Last Seen 70s/80s Movie

[alkytrio666]

A Night at the Opera (1935)

Hysterical. One of the Marx Brothers' very best films.

[newb]

Originally Posted by Roderick Usher

Infamous

I enjoyed this one a little bit more than Capote. Toby Jones' portrayal of Truman Capote was far more believable and nuanced than Phillip Seymour Hoffman's (which is saying something.)

The supporting cast is fantastic, especially Danial Craig as Perry Smith. He plays Perry like he is portrayed in the book - a wannabe intellectual with a damaged soul. The relationship between Capote and Smith bristles with sexual energy.

Sandra Bullock is the best she has ever been as Harper Lee and the cast of NYC socialites includes Sigourney Weaver, Peter Bogdonovich, Hope Davis and the lovely Isabella Rosalini.

Having come from Garden City, Kansas, this subject matter has always been close to the heart. My parents knew the Clutter family and always thought of Capote as "that nosey little fagot" who had no business making those killers look like real people. I grew up hating the man out of familial prejudice, but have since learned to love his work of brilliance In Cold Blood and this film plays closer to the book and shows Capote's process in a way that satisfied me even more than in Capote.

9/10

What a coiwinkidink.......I just watched "Capote" last night and "Infamous" last week and i'm gonna have to agree with you 100%.

I think if this one came out first, Toby Jones would have got the Oscar nod.

[The Mothman]

Monster

generally unpleasent.

[X¤MurderDoll¤X]

Deathproof

I think that car chase with Zoe on the front of the car was one of the most thrilling scenes I've ever seen in a movie. Liked planet terror better, but I think deathproof is in the same ballpark.

[Yellow Jacket]

Bad Taste



Fun, but not as fun as I expected. A lot of gore in this film, which is a plus. Problem is that at times I just zoned out. I don't know what it was, but Bad Taste just couldn't keep my attention the whole time. Maybe it was the characters, I'm not sure. When I was zoned in, I was having a pretty good time. Like I said, there's a lot of gore in here, and it's in inventive ways. And the alien invaders looked great (once they dropped their human disguises). If you have 90 minutes to kill, check Bad Taste out. It's not great, but it s fun. I just wish Peter Jackson would do more films like this and Dead Alive.

3.5/5

[joshaube]

Originally Posted by fortunato

yeah, i feel pretty much the same way.
how did you feel about inland empire?

Inland Empire.

The runtime is what scares a lot of potential viewers. Clocking in at 180m... 12 minutes longer than Pirates of the Carribean: At World's End (which felt fucking endless)... it is quite iffy. That's not even factoring in the seperate feature-length extra on the DVD which includes further scenes and experiences from Inland Empire.

Once you sit down to watch the film, if you have a genuine interest in seeing it, the runtime feels a mere fraction of what it really is. That's partially a theme in this film. Lynch really plays around with the timeline, and the concept of time itself. So I wouldn't worry about that. The runtime actually works in it's favour (I thought.) You'll loose track of time quite easily.

Another off-putting aspect of Inland Empire would be the visuals. As you probably know, Lynch went from film to digital (and is apparently never going back.) Eek. Yes, the film looks ugly. If you've seen Lynch's portfolio of prior films, you know that what he shoots is often breathtaking (the colours pop, as the back cover of Mulholland Dr says... "Like a whore's lipgloss.) Not so much here. Characters and objects fade away into sets, and the sets themselves fade into shadows. Sometimes it's hard to even make out what's on-screen. The image is soft and undefined, and the colours are muted; often toned with blacks and blues. And yeah, it's handheld. It's ugly, to be honest. Not that it's a bad thing. Lynch knows how to work digital. Some of what he does in this film is simply not possible when using film. While it looks like the camera quality of your average low-budget movie, David Lynch's cinematography is not lost. Perhaps, it's enhanced. I don't think a shot was wasted; nothing is improperly framed. Honestly, I enjoyed it. It's such a distinct look, and it makes the film all the more eerie*.

* In my opinion, this is David Lynch's most fearful film yet. It's full of such a specific atmosphere; the entire thing is creepy. Think Lost Highway... the scene where you see the camera going through the house, or the scene with the man who tells the main character to call his house. It's that type of atmosphere.It's loaded with his typical weirdness. Watch it nearing midnight, in the pitch black, alone. Don't pause the film, don't look away. Just sit there, and let it wash over you.

Highly recommended if you a fan of Lynch.
As a reviewer on IMDb states: "Mulholland Dr. on acid."
Or more specifically, I's say... "A mixing pot of everything Lynch has done, with a touch of LSD."

[fortunato]

Originally Posted by alkytrio666

Oh hell yeah, I am. Thick as hell, eh? Bergman rocks.

very much, yes.

Originally Posted by Roderick Usher

Infamous

I enjoyed this one a little bit more than Capote. Toby Jones' portrayal of Truman Capote was far more believable and nuanced than Phillip Seymour Hoffman's (which is saying something.)

The supporting cast is fantastic, especially Danial Craig as Perry Smith. He plays Perry like he is portrayed in the book - a wannabe intellectual with a damaged soul. The relationship between Capote and Smith bristles with sexual energy.

Sandra Bullock is the best she has ever been as Harper Lee and the cast of NYC socialites includes Sigourney Weaver, Peter Bogdonovich, Hope Davis and the lovely Isabella Rosalini.

Having come from Garden City, Kansas, this subject matter has always been close to the heart. My parents knew the Clutter family and always thought of Capote as "that nosey little fagot" who had no business making those killers look like real people. I grew up hating the man out of familial prejudice, but have since learned to love his work of brilliance In Cold Blood and this film plays closer to the book and shows Capote's process in a way that satisfied me even more than in Capote.

9/10

i definitely agree here as well. infamous was just more captivating than capote, in pretty much every way.

great review of inland empire, joshaube.



i just watched the original stepford wives, which is awesome.

[Angra]

"The girl next door" 6/10


Damn, Dolly you've got some fucked up 2007 favorites. :eek:


And now about the movie.

I didn't find this story as cruel and disturbing as i feared for one main reason. I didn't believe it.

There was just so many things in this movie that wasn't explained, Like:

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

What was the moms problem towards the girl/girls? What was all her hatred rooted in?
Howcome she had such a twisted view on everything?
What was her childrens problem towards the girl?
Why did they happily go along with their mothers torture?
Why didn't the cop do shit the first time he droped by? He just left right away.
Why did the neighbourhood kids all enjoy watching the girl get tortured? Without a single kid telling.

END OF SPOILERS END OF SPOILERS END OF SPOILERS END OF SPOILERS


Well, that was just some of the questions i could think of.

All in all an unpleasant view, but not convincing enough for the viewer to forget that it's JUST a movie...

[nightmare_of _death]

Pan's Labyrinth

[The Mothman]

Originally Posted by joshaube

Inland Empire.

. Think Lost Highway... the scene where you see the camera going through the house, or the scene with the man who tells the main character to call his house. It's that type of atmosphere.It's loaded with his typical weirdness.

I'd say those scenes in Lost Highway were 10 X more terrifying than anything i saw in Inland Empire.
im just not too huge a fan of the film. it really couldnt keep my attention.