Guest viewing is limited

Titans Talk - Home for all things Tennessee Titans

Status
Not open for further replies.
KamikaZ said:
There have been early reviews left out of RT that have said that the film is actually not bad, and more akin to the Robert E. Howard short stories. As nostalgic I am for the Arnold original, it was laughably different from Howard's stories (Milius just really, really missed the mark there). Momoa has enough charisma and likeability to make this Conan closer to the original character - tough, brutal, but also with a pretty good humor streak.

My real concern is Nispel, who made the horrendous Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, and the rather droll Friday The 13th (fairly mediocre series in its own right). I tend to be pretty nervous about music video directors getting feature pictures, and he's no different.
Click to expand...

Sidenote.....the best Conan stories those written by Robert Jordan.

They are a blast. Great fantasy novels that will have saying Crom!!! outloud long after you've finished reading them. For me the Robert E Howard stories are a bit cold and flat.
 
The A-Team.

I won't even bother rating this movie. The entire movie was just the writers/director trying to one-up themselves in each act and it got to the point of pure silliness. Even if you try to turn your brain off and just enjoy big bangs and explosions, there's only so much you can suspend reality.

I'm all for a good, over the top action movie, but not this way.
 
Just finished The Tale of Zatoichi, the first movie in the very, very lengthy Zatoichi series. I'd seen it before, of course, but it was a good long while ago. The film is actually much stronger than I remember it being. Not necessarily among the best in the series by any means, but it's still a good'un.
I think I might actually try to watch the series all in order now.
 
KamikaZ said:
My real concern is Nispel, who made the horrendous Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, and the rather droll Friday The 13th (fairly mediocre series in its own right). I tend to be pretty nervous about music video directors getting feature pictures, and he's no different.
Click to expand...

The only thing they did right about the TCM remake was the trailer (which was one of the coolest trailers I've ever seen).

Have you seen TCM: The Beginning? Other than it being a little pointless (it was more of a remake of a remake), it was actually pretty good and a HUGE improvement over the 03 version. Would have liked it a lot more if the 03 one was never made and The Beginning would have just been the remake.
 
Hobo With a Shotgun.

I watched it based on Cruds' and KamikaZ's reviews. Glad I gave it a chance. It's exactly what it sounds like. If you like a movie so over the top and gory that it's funny, you'll love it.
 
Fright Night - The 1985 original Fright Night is widely considered a somewhat forgotten, but well-regarded horror film that tread the line between good-natured satire and a generic, old-fashioned monster movie. As a horror fan, it's not one of my favorites by any means, but it did come smack dab in the middle of the best decade of the horror genre, and thus carries many qualities of what made that period the best. It was well-performed with some fantastic character actors, had a deliberate and fairly intelligent script, but perhaps most of all, was able to poke fun at past genre cliches without any hint of a mean spirit. Tom Holland obviously loved the '50s horror films and Vincent Price T.V. and radio shows he lampoons with care, which made the experience fun for horror fans.

Since I did not harbor much nostalgia for the original, I thought I could watch the remake with a fairly open mind. I am pleased to say that, while I have a few fairly serious complaints, this was some of the most fun I have had at the movies all year. And while there are definite similarities between both films, there is enough original flare and ideas to actually warrant a reworking.

The basic premise is kept fairly intact - a Senior in high-school, Charley (played by the always game Anton Yelchin) grows suspicious of his new next door neighbor, Jerry (Colin Farrel), believing him to be an undead vampire. However, with the exception of the names and roles certain characters, there is where the core similarities rest. Craig Gillespie, a fairly new director who made 2007's underrated Lars and The Real Girl, unfolds a fairly bleak vision among the barren suburbs of Las Vegas - literally, this is shot with some very, very dark shots, and many of the scenes carry a sort of terrifying gloom hanging everywhere, which is effective.

The performances themselves really carry Fright Night, because the dialogue itself could have been heavily botched by lesser actors. The characters themselves are well-written, and their decisions don't often come off as illogical, even if the viewer has to suspend some disbelief. Yelchin is extremely confident in his performance as a fairly un-confident young man, and has good chemistry with his girlfriend (Imogen Poots) and mother (Toni Collette). Christopher Mintz-Plasse (Superbad and Role Models) is perfectly cast as "Evil" Ed, who is a fairly likeable if purposefully obnoxious sidekick. Mintz-Plasse never is given some great moments, but never comes close to the totally bizarre kookiness of Stephen Geoffrey. But the real treats here are Farrel as Jerry and David Tennant (Harry Potter films, Dr. Who) as Peter Vincent. I'm convinced that Farrell is capable of fantastic performances, and he proves it again here. Without revealing too much (it should be devoured, digested, and enjoyed without too many spoilers), he makes some fairly fascinating choices with his portrayal - this is a hypersexual, Id-driven hellspawn, not some dandy who twinkles in the sunlight. Meanwhile, Peter Vincent was by far the most difficult role to replace, as Roddy McDowall was brilliant as the Vincent Price hack. But Tennant's turn is absolutely brilliant - while he first appears as some sort of ridiculous Russell Brand-Kriss Angel combination, Tennant almost immediately drops the act and is consistently hilarious and likeable. The characters here are more grounded in reality, as opposed to the more silly caricatures of the original, but it works in context of what's going on.

There are a few problems. While I liked the choice to make the vampires more monster than humanoid in their true form, it isn't nearly effective as the F/X of the original. There is a few distracting amounts of CGI at times, but other times it's presence is diminished. I should mention that the pace of this film is lightening fast, especially in Act 2, but without diminishing solid laughs, character developments, or scares. This often works to the film's advantage, but occasionally I miss the more deliberate pace of the 1985 version. Also, I preferred the more ominous ending of the original, as this has a much simpler conclusion.

But all that aside, the film is simply a damn fun time. It's refreshing to see a remake that isn't just a homage-fest (there is a few fun nods here though, as well as a goofy appearance by Chris Sheridan), and this remake certainly has enough genuinely fun ideas to warrant it's own existence. It's pretty far from perfect, but I highly recommend it to anyone looking for a exhilarating and smart monster movie.

4/5
 
I finally got around to seeing Captain America last night after a guy from work bombarded me the last three weeks with claims that it was the best Marvel movie to date. It wasn't, but I enjoyed myself anyways.
 
KamikaZ said:
Fright Night - The 1985 original Fright Night is widely considered a somewhat forgotten, but well-regarded horror film that tread the line between good-natured satire and a generic, old-fashioned monster movie. As a horror fan, it's not one of my favorites by any means, but it did come smack dab in the middle of the best decade of the horror genre, and thus carries many qualities of what made that period the best. It was well-performed with some fantastic character actors, had a deliberate and fairly intelligent script, but perhaps most of all, was able to poke fun at past genre cliches without any hint of a mean spirit. Tom Holland obviously loved the '50s horror films and Vincent Price T.V. and radio shows he lampoons with care, which made the experience fun for horror fans.

Since I did not harbor much nostalgia for the original, I thought I could watch the remake with a fairly open mind. I am pleased to say that, while I have a few fairly serious complaints, this was some of the most fun I have had at the movies all year. And while there are definite similarities between both films, there is enough original flare and ideas to actually warrant a reworking.

The basic premise is kept fairly intact - a Senior in high-school, Charley (played by the always game Anton Yelchin) grows suspicious of his new next door neighbor, Jerry (Colin Farrel), believing him to be an undead vampire. However, with the exception of the names and roles certain characters, there is where the core similarities rest. Craig Gillespie, a fairly new director who made 2007's underrated Lars and The Real Girl, unfolds a fairly bleak vision among the barren suburbs of Las Vegas - literally, this is shot with some very, very dark shots, and many of the scenes carry a sort of terrifying gloom hanging everywhere, which is effective.

The performances themselves really carry Fright Night, because the dialogue itself could have been heavily botched by lesser actors. The characters themselves are well-written, and their decisions don't often come off as illogical, even if the viewer has to suspend some disbelief. Yelchin is extremely confident in his performance as a fairly un-confident young man, and has good chemistry with his girlfriend (Imogen Poots) and mother (Toni Collette). Christopher Mintz-Plasse (Superbad and Role Models) is perfectly cast as "Evil" Ed, who is a fairly likeable if purposefully obnoxious sidekick. Mintz-Plasse never is given some great moments, but never comes close to the totally bizarre kookiness of Stephen Geoffrey. But the real treats here are Farrel as Jerry and David Tennant (Harry Potter films, Dr. Who) as Peter Vincent. I'm convinced that Farrell is capable of fantastic performances, and he proves it again here. Without revealing too much (it should be devoured, digested, and enjoyed without too many spoilers), he makes some fairly fascinating choices with his portrayal - this is a hypersexual, Id-driven hellspawn, not some dandy who twinkles in the sunlight. Meanwhile, Peter Vincent was by far the most difficult role to replace, as Roddy McDowall was brilliant as the Vincent Price hack. But Tennant's turn is absolutely brilliant - while he first appears as some sort of ridiculous Russell Brand-Kriss Angel combination, Tennant almost immediately drops the act and is consistently hilarious and likeable. The characters here are more grounded in reality, as opposed to the more silly caricatures of the original, but it works in context of what's going on.

There are a few problems. While I liked the choice to make the vampires more monster than humanoid in their true form, it isn't nearly effective as the F/X of the original. There is a few distracting amounts of CGI at times, but other times it's presence is diminished. I should mention that the pace of this film is lightening fast, especially in Act 2, but without diminishing solid laughs, character developments, or scares. This often works to the film's advantage, but occasionally I miss the more deliberate pace of the 1985 version. Also, I preferred the more ominous ending of the original, as this has a much simpler conclusion.

But all that aside, the film is simply a damn fun time. It's refreshing to see a remake that isn't just a homage-fest (there is a few fun nods here though, as well as a goofy appearance by Chris Sheridan), and this remake certainly has enough genuinely fun ideas to warrant it's own existence. It's pretty far from perfect, but I highly recommend it to anyone looking for a exhilarating and smart monster movie.

4/5
Click to expand...

I saw that this Peter Vincent seems like more of a Criss Angel type on his Fright Night show, which betrays the classic horror host culture and there can never be another Evil Ed.. I got the thumbs up on the from Ghoulish Gary at Rue Morgue as well so it looks like Ill bee seeing it this week..
 
Creeping-Cruds said:
I saw that this Peter Vincent seems like more of a Criss Angel type on his Fright Night show, which betrays the classic horror host culture and there can never be another Evil Ed.. I got the thumbs up on the from Ghoulish Gary at Rue Morgue as well so it looks like Ill bee seeing it this week..
Click to expand...


Like I said, I thought a lot of the changes were not only intelligent, but completely necessary. I completely believed that there could be some Criss Angel-looking deuchebag in Vegas doing a couple shows a week on how to kill vampires. The two Peter Vincents are fairly different characters - the original was just an old man who wasn't really sure what worked, while the remade Vincent actually does have a far-reaching interest into the lore, he's just sort of a coward and a drunk. The latter is more of a cliche, but it's performed nicely.

The good thing here is that, intelligently, the makers didn't want another Stephen Geoffreys, whose performance was so f'ing strange that it can never be replicated. They sort of like Mintz do his nasally geeky thing, but he has some nice moments (he's fairly underused though).
 
Creeping-Cruds said:
I saw that this Peter Vincent seems like more of a Criss Angel type on his Fright Night show, which betrays the classic horror host culture and there can never be another Evil Ed.. I got the thumbs up on the from Ghoulish Gary at Rue Morgue as well so it looks like Ill bee seeing it this week..
Click to expand...


Like I said, I thought a lot of the changes were not only intelligent, but completely necessary. I completely believed that there could be some Criss Angel-looking douche in Vegas doing a couple shows a week on how to kill vampires. The two Peter Vincents are fairly different characters - the original was just an old man who was basically a total fraud, while the remade Vincent actually does have a far-reaching interest into the vampire lore, he's just sort of a coward and a drunk. The latter is more of a cliche, but it's performed nicely enough to forgive it.

The good thing here is that, intelligently, the makers didn't want another Stephen Geoffreys, whose performance was so f'ing strange that it can never be replicated. They sort of just let Mintz do his nasally geeky thing, but he has some great moments (no "You're so cool, Brewster" moments though).

The performances aren't the problem. It's really the CGI that hurt. Had they done some old school F/X, I would have loved the s*** out of this movie. But alas, a tad too much CGI blood and moments of hokey monster design rear its head. Still worth it though.
 
Criss Angel looks like a Santanic person type with his name and looks. Sorry if I offend any of his fans. But really someone I would not want to hang out with. For sure!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top