| Author |
Message |
|
| Nancy |
 Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:25 pm |
 |
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 4607
Location: Norman, OK
|
carrobin wrote: Another sequel that was better than the original: "The Road Warrior" (aka "Mad Max II). The third one wasn't bad, either, but "Road Warrior" is a classic, IMO.
Agreed. And at least The Road Warrior didn't have Mel Gibson dubbed in American. |
_________________
"All in all, it's just another feather in the fan."
Isaacism, 2009 |
|
| Back to top |
  
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 7:38 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
mo_flixx wrote: Worst film of 2008 so far:
Will Ferrell's SEMI-PRO
And this weekend's box office champ. Sigh. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marj |
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:20 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 10497
Location: Manhattan
|
| Worst film I saw in 2008: The Wicker Man. *shudder* |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 10:05 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
| It looked terrible. I'd recommend the original, but the DVD "complete" version is visually atrocious, worse than the saw on video from Media (this would have been back in the 80's). Guess the original print had deteriorated significantly in the interim, or something. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Nancy |
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:02 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 4607
Location: Norman, OK
|
Joe Vitus wrote: It looked terrible. I'd recommend the original, but the DVD "complete" version is visually atrocious, worse than the saw on video from Media (this would have been back in the 80's). Guess the original print had deteriorated significantly in the interim, or something.
I still recommend the original, even in a less than ideal copy (which I didn't think was that bad). The remake was a waste of celluloid. |
_________________
"All in all, it's just another feather in the fan."
Isaacism, 2009 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:50 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
I guess I was frustrated that every time it cut to the restored sections, the deterioration was so evident. I'm almost postive this wasn't the case on the old video release. At least, I don't remember it. It really drove me nuts when I rented the DVD.
But you're right. If you are going to see one of them, skip the remake and see the original.
Reading the novelization by Anthony Shaffer, based on his screenplay, might also be of interest to horror movie buffs. Schaffer felt casting Christopher Lee as Lord Summerisle was a mistake, as it tipped the balance between two competing beliefs towards a simplistic good vs. evil, and that he'd meant something more ambiguous. Not sure how Summerisle can be other than evil, considering...(and I think Shaffer may have been re-considering things after the fact), but maybe fans of the movie should pick it up. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Nancy |
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:03 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 4607
Location: Norman, OK
|
Joe Vitus wrote: I guess I was frustrated that every time it cut to the restored sections, the deterioration was so evident. I'm almost postive this wasn't the case on the old video release. At least, I don't remember it. It really drove me nuts when I rented the DVD.
Apparently the only footage available for those parts was not in the best of shape. I think it was taken from the video, which hadn't held up well. And there was still some missing that I remember from the original. But I'm just glad to have it at all. |
_________________
"All in all, it's just another feather in the fan."
Isaacism, 2009 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:00 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
| Wow, I didn't realise they had to take it from the video. I figured whenever that 100 minute print surfaced in the 80's, they made a composite negative. Guess not. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| chillywilly |
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:15 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 8251
Location: Salt Lake City
|
mo_flixx wrote: Worst film of 2008 so far:
Will Ferrell's SEMI-PRO
This film is the bottom of the barrell for Will Ferrell. Even Woody Harrelson is miscast in the "Owen Wilson"-role. Extremely boring and unfunny.
Don't bother. Not even at the dollar house. You can find something better to do with your time.
I was curious about this one, but may have to wait awhile before I add it to my NetFlix list. |
_________________
Chilly
"If you should die before me / Ask if you could bring a friend" |
|
| Back to top |
 
|
| Earl |
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:07 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 09 Jun 2004
Posts: 2621
Location: Houston
|
Well, I haven't seen any bad movies in theaters in 2008. Not yet, anyway. But I can say without a doubt that the best one I've seen in any medium in 2008 so far is In Bruges. I saw it yesterday and it completely blew me away.
As happened with Breach last year at this time, I believe an excellent movie will probably not get as wide an audience as it deserves because of the February release date. And just as Chris Cooper's superb turn in Breach was forgotten by the time Oscar nominations were being submitted, Ralph Fiennes' electrifying supporting performance (he doesn't even appear until the movie is three-fourths over, but then he crashes onto the screen and commands attention) as a London crime boss in In Bruges will likely not be remembered months from now.
A side note to Harry Potter fans: I'm beginning to wonder if any movie with more than one performer from the Harry Potter series is automatically one that I will like. In Bruges has Brendan Gleeson (Mad Eye Moody), Ralph Fiennes (Voldemort) and Clémence Poésy (Fleur Delacour).
Sweeny Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street had Bellatrix Lestrange, Snape and Wormtail.
Driving Lessons had Ron Weasley and Mrs Weasley.
Venus had Uncle Vernon and the guy who does the voice of the Sorting Hat. |
_________________
"I have a suspicion that you are all mad," said Dr. Renard, smiling sociably; "but God forbid that madness should in any way interrupt friendship." |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Nancy |
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:40 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 4607
Location: Norman, OK
|
Joe Vitus wrote: Wow, I didn't realise they had to take it from the video. I figured whenever that 100 minute print surfaced in the 80's, they made a composite negative. Guess not.
Apparently the film has a bit of a convoluted history, and it seems that part of it was lost at one point, then got mostly reconstructed. I think the DVD with the restored version has an extra about that. |
_________________
"All in all, it's just another feather in the fan."
Isaacism, 2009 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:22 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
Oh I knew about this. The original negative was destroyed. They actually just lucked onto a 100 minute print, at one point (I think in the late 70's/early 80's, but I'm not quite sure). Which, as you know, isn't even the full length of the original version. But it was the closest to that which ever surfaced. I'm just surprised that, once found, a composite negative wasn't made.
Of course, a lot of the problem comes from this having been the last production of a dying studio (British Lion, I believe), and the complications that resulted from both the studio's going out of business and the movie's initial box-office failure. Few people cared about the movie at the time, and by the time it did develop a strong reputation, the damage was done.
On the other hand, the loss of a complete print might have stirred interest and help insure the movie's continued life. There's something about a "lost" movie or unseen "director's cut" that seems to inspire in film buffs the idea that the unavailable movie just has to be a classic.
I don't think The Wicker Man is a classic. But it is an out of the ordinary and somewhat unique entry into the horror genre. Horror fans who are looking for something with a bit of style and a touch of gallows humor will likely appreciate it.
(Of course, this conversation should be going on in Couch With A View.) |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Rod |
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:43 am |
|
|
Joined: 21 Dec 2004
Posts: 2944
Location: Lithgow, Australia
|
| The original The Wicker Man is more than a bit over-rated. It seems to be mostly championed by people who want to acknowledge the fine British horror tradition but also want to hold themselves above appreciating Hammer. That said, it is one of the few films to take a direct aim at the conflict, never truly suppressed in the Anglo-Celtic tradition, between the earthiness of the native traditions and the imposition of bloodless Christianity. In many respects, its far more interesting for what it tries to say than what it actually does. |
_________________
A long time ago, but somehow in the future...It is a period of civil war and renegade paragraphs floating through space. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:23 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
Rod wrote: It seems to be mostly championed by people who want to acknowledge the fine British horror tradition but also want to hold themselves above appreciating Hammer.
Can you demonstrate that? I agree with you that Hammer is underrated, but The Wicker Man does fit in the classier tradition of Dead of Night than the (very enjoyable) cheap thrills and complete lack of atmosphere in such Hammer releases as Horror of Dracula, Dracula Has Risen From the Grave, Curse of Frankenstein, or Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde. (Even The Brides of Dracula, my favorite of their pictures, has a—wonderful—tacky, exploitation pic quality.)
Quote: That said, it is one of the few films to take a direct aim at the conflict, never truly suppressed in the Anglo-Celtic tradition, between the earthiness of the native traditions and the imposition of bloodless Christianity. In many respects, its far more interesting for what it tries to say than what it actually does.
I agree. There's also something interesting in the idea that Sergeant Howie in a sense gets to be the true Christian he aspires to be in that he dies a martyr's death. He's a stooge, but one could also claim he's a genuine hero. I like that though he's foolish and seemingly repressed, he does represent some genuine ideals (he's there to save an innocent, kidnapped girl after all). |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Syd |
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:00 am |
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 12921
Location: Norman, Oklahoma
|
| I like the original Wicker Man better than Rod, but I agree it's very overrated. The religious conflict is interesting, and there's a lot of humor in the presentation. The interesting thing about the remake is that every single change they made was a misfire. It was really quite a spectacular accomplishment in a perverse way. It turned what was a fragile story to begin with and made it totally ludicrous. And the woman playing Cage's ex-girlfriend gave a particularly awful performance. |
_________________
I had a love and my love was true but I lost my love to the yabba dabba doo, --The Flintstone Lament |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
