Last movie watched...

[Professor Bear]

Robocop, and like Star Trek 6, my opinion is somewhat different from what I expected it to be based upon my own shonky memory.  It's still a great flick, but man has it dated badly, especially the facial recognition bit that looks less like a late 80s sci-fi concept and more like an early 1970s one.  Robo's crazily dangerous USB jack and Detroit looking like a Hill Street Blues episode date things further, and if I'm honest, if this wasn't put together quite so well it'd be just another schlocky low-budget B-movie, because the script is dumber and more illogical than I recall, the acting really panto-ish (though by now we can assume this is how Verhoevan likes it), and the SFX are really glaring, especially the less-impressive-than-I-recall ED209 stop motion model work and[spoiler] Dick Jones' baffling Mr Fantastic stretchy-arms when he falls to his death.[/spoiler]

It's still really entertaining, though, even with the mish-mash of homages like the cops turning on Robo being the bit where the villagers come after Frankenstein's monster, but Weller playing it as superhero camp complete with "corporate America is Robocop Kryptonite" gurning when he encounters Directive 4, and the unmasking sequence is pure Frankenstein, too.  I especially enjoyed spotting all the actors who went on to other (no)things, like The Dad From That 70s Show, That Lawyer From Harry's Law, and Ray Wise From Stuff Starring Ray Wise.  It's always great to see Ronnie Cox as a villain, too, though granted I'm maybe in the minority there.

[von Boom]

I still enjoy Robocop and I agree that Ronnie Cox always made a great villain. He was also great in Total Recall as Cohaagen.

JvB

[SmallBlueThing]

Frankenstein (1931 james whale/ karloff)

I wont go on about this much- everyone likely to watch knows it's nowhere near as good as the sequel, and serves merely to properly kick off the whole universal cycle.

So, with that said, i'll acknowledge that it's a bit dull at times, but equally at others it's astonishing. "rubbish and brilliant at the same time" as my youngest put it.

Two things of note: the three cut silent zoom that whale chooses to introduce the monster after he backs into the lab is still creepy 81 years on, and showcases jack pierce's landmark makeup (arguably the single most important piece of special effects work in cinema history) at its very best. And secondly, the climax, with the monster trapped in the attic of a burning windmill and screaming in terror like a child and then trapped under a fallen beam, is shocking and horrible and powerful and nasty and lingers long after the dvd is back in the box. 

There is much wrong with Frankenstein- but as it's the best part of a (cont)

[SmallBlueThing]

(cont) century old, is an acknowledged and celebrated classic and was carving out an entirely new genre with every frame, i think we'll let it off. Concentrate on Karloff's performance as the monster and you'll see why, when humanity lies in ruins and the embers of civilisation smoulder many centuries from now, one of the recognisable icons still around will be an image of his face. He really is superb- his lumber, his snarl, his expressive and pleading hand gestures and even the way he lets one arm dangle limply from the elbow while the other is firm as he walks down the steps on his way out of the castle, suggesting the monster's piecemeal nature- it's all brilliant.

Tomorrow, we temporarily leap forward a few years and leave Universal behind, as we journey to the himalayers to introduce the boys to Hammer's Abominable Snowman.

SBT

[Roger Godpleton]

Sounds like you could use a trip to Branson, Missouri Prof.

[JOE SOAP]

My favourite make-up FX is the one in Rouben Mamoulian's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde 1932:


http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/222834/Dr-Jekyll-and-Mr-Hyde-Movie-Clip-Transformation.html


How they made his facial features change -in one shot- without prosthetics or cutting is still amazingly clever and showcases how great black & white film is for doing FX.


[spoiler]The secret of the transformation scenes was not revealed for decades (Mamoulian himself revealed it in a volume of interviews with Hollywood directors published under the title The Celluloid Muse). Make-up was applied in contrasting colors. A series of colored filters that matched the make-up was then gradually passed across the lens during the shot, changing the contrast, which enabled the make-up to be gradually exposed or made invisible. The change in color was not visible on the black-and-white film.[/spoiler]

[mogzilla]

finally got round to watching captain america enjoyable enuff and better than thor!

[SmallBlueThing]

That jekyll and hyde transformation had me stumped for years, and is indeed one of the cleverest bits of filmmaking i could name. It's curious how effects can fool the eye- or not- for specific lengths of time. I remember the rubber arnie heads in both the terminator and total recall being utterly realistic when i saw them first, and- especially in total recall- fooling the audience to such a degree that when it splits into sections, the crowd gasped in unison and went wild, so 'seamless' was the effect. Watching it recently on telly i was struck that it's a bad waxwork of arnie, with a squint that never, at any point, looks in any way 'real'.
Is there a plottable curve as to the impressiveness of a given effect, i wonder? How come pierce's frankenstein is effective 80 years later and yet avatar looks crap within the year? How come max shreck's graf orlok makeup upset my kids so much when they saw it as part of universal's 'Boo' short, that they were shaking with fright- ninety years after it was (cont)

[SmallBlueThing]

(cont) applied to his face, and yet neither of them bat an eyelid about seeing 'the best bits from the elm street and friday the 13ths'?

I wonder what process the brain goes through that accepts the effects in star wars as 'perfect' in 1978 yet in 2012 as far less so, even with a bit of cgi tinkering?

SBT

[JOE SOAP]

I think it's partially to do with black & white film's inherent break with what we experience/expect in our everyday technicolour reality which, as the years go by, becomes more and more like looking at a different planet, plus its simplicity in hiding the 'seams'.

I think the same holds for the change in colour film stocks through the 70's/80's/90's and eventually on to the less forgiving modern digital. Looking at older footage is like a different reality impression compared to the crisp modern look we're now used, older footage seems to have/develop its own physics/rules as time passes and can therefore look not 'fake' somehow.

[JOE SOAP]

How we are used to seeing things/textures on-screen ties in to the recent uptake of shooting and projecting at 48fps- twice the frame-rate of normal 24/25fps.


10 minutes of the Hobbit was screened today at CinemaCon and this reaction is very interesting and not what most expect but it makes perfect sense technically:


http://badassdigest.com/2012/04/24/cinemacon-2012-the-hobbit-underwhelms-at-48-frames-per-secon/

[Roger Godpleton]

Just seen Godfather 2 for the first time and I can report with authority that there are better movies that have been made. This didn't even have a scene where maggots or whatever eat someone from the inside out and we see their eyeballs dissolving and stuff, fer chrissakes.

People say that it's a tragedy that John Cazale died young. But you don't hear anyone giving the due respect afforded to Peter Blanch, the visionary behind Killfeast IV: Night of the Sharp Knives. He was a victim of his own ambition and genius in an unfortunate accident involving the giant drill-scythe he built with his own two hands because Paramount were too afraid to fund this movie just because it might show every single movie out there up for what they really were.

It's fitting that there is a character called Hyman in Godfather 2, because people who like it are pussies. Your're just pussies who are scared to see a woman being experimented on so that they can make her into a woman that has a lathe for a hand.

[HOO-HAA]

THE WOLFMAN (remake) with Benico Del Toro and Hannibal ( )

For me, this started off really well: the mist in the woods, the howl, our first kill leading to the titles - it had old-school written all over it. But while performances by unlikely thespian, Del Toro, and Hopkins were pretty good, Emily Blunt's female lead fell flat. The script seemed patchy - meandering for a while in the middle, trying to pad things out. Not to mention the oh-so-lazy CGI.

I was watching the Director's Cut so perhaps the theatre cut would have held my interest better.

[Evil Pants]

My review of Morgan Spurlock's new Comic-Con documentary can be found here : http://fourcoloursandthetruth.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/movie-review-comic-con-episode-iv-a-fans-hope/

Or here:

Comic-Con. Two small words, but to those of us who love comics, movies, or video games, they mean so much. It's a 150,000 person nerdgasm that happens every year in San Diego, California. There are literally dozens of other cons that happen all over the world, but when you say Comic-Con, you mean San Diego. It's the largest event in geek culture.

And this, the latest in Morgan Spurlock's endless stream of "documentaries" that don't actually document anything, is about that event. Or at least that's what I thought it was about. Unfortunately, it's not about the San Diego Comic-Con at all. In fact,  there is almost no mention of the history, or current status, or anything really, about the con at all, other than that it's a) really big and b) people really like it.

What this film is really about, is a dream.

You know the dream. Everyone has it, really. It's not specific to comics or movies though. It could be sports. Or chess. Or Nigerian barrel juggling. It's the dream to be more than what you are, and to succeed at your secret desires. And while those dreams may be admirable, they're probably more appropriate for a film about an inner-city basketball program, or a spelling bee featuring kids with last names I can't pronounce. In this context, they just come across as a longbox full of maudlin sentimentality.

Spurlock divides his movie into 6 or 7 major segments, each focussing on a different personal story. And so we are introduced to the young lovers who met at the previous con, the struggling artists wanting nothing more than to work for Marvel one day, and the costume designer wanting to become the next Jim Henson. They are all admirable endevaours, and each are entertaining in their own way. Watching people follow their dreams is always a recipe for success, and Spurlock shows a steady eye for good storytelling here, something that has often been missing in his other films.

But any documentary that starts with such a bold assumption (that is, that the event we're documenting is inherently a good thing), isn't really a documentary at all. And this definitely isn't. What it is, is a 2 hour commercial for a trade show. A trade show where you can have the chance to meet a lot of people that feel the same way that you do about Klingon mating rituals,  sonic screwdrivers, and bikinis worn by Carrie Fisher in 1983.... but a trade show nonetheless. While almost every story covered here is entertaining and worth watching, they are stories that could have been transported into almost any interest: Stamp collecting, sports, 1dancing with failed celebrities, etc. We are told a lot about the people going to the con, and why they're going there. What we aren't told, is almost anything to do with the con itself.

It's mentioned in passing that the con is bigger than it used to be, and that comics are barely even covered there anymore. But what isn't covered is why. No one reads comics anymore, even though geek culture is bigger than every before. Sci-fi literature sales are dwindling, yet action movies that pretend to be sci-fi are massive. To me, that's the real story here, but Spurlock chooses to gloss over that and instead showcase a fabricated public marriage proposal that wouldn't have been out of place on Hockey Night In Canada.  It's entertaining, but it tells us nothing about what the movie says it's actually about: Comic-Con.

Comic-Con is important because it showcases everything that is good, and that is bad, about today's geek culture. What used to be a burgeoning subculture of underground comics, films, and novels, has been bought and paid for by multi-national corporations. And as a result, everyone who likes movies is now part of the club. Let me tell you something folks. Liking The Matrix doesn't make you a geek. Reading Shaolin Cowboy, the comic created by the guy who did production design on The Matrix makes you a geek. But in this new, homogenized world of geek acceptance, everyone is granted access.  Liking shows that everyone else watches, and reading books that everyone else reads, isn't geeky. It's mainstream. And if it's mainstream, then it's not special anymore. And if it's not special, then why does this movie go out of it's way to pretend that they are?

These are important questions to ask as geek culture changes and grows, and the answering of those questions would make an interesting movie. Unfortunately, Morgan Spurlock didn't choose to make that movie. What he chose to make was perfectly serviceable TV quality puff piece about nice people that like to own things.  That they happen to like to own some of the same things that I do, doesn't make it any better.

Rating: C+

[brendan1]

Just seen Godfather 2 for the first time and I can report with authority that there are better movies that have been made. This didn't even have a scene where maggots or whatever eat someone from the inside out and we see their eyeballs dissolving and stuff, fer chrissakes.

People say that it's a tragedy that John Cazale died young. But you don't hear anyone giving the due respect afforded to Peter Blanch, the visionary behind Killfeast IV: Night of the Sharp Knives. He was a victim of his own ambition and genius in an unfortunate accident involving the giant drill-scythe he built with his own two hands because Paramount were too afraid to fund this movie just because it might show every single movie out there up for what they really were.

It's fitting that there is a character called Hyman in Godfather 2, because people who like it are pussies. Your're just pussies who are scared to see a woman being experimented on so that they can make her into a woman that has a lathe for a hand.

Hahahahahahahaha