|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Oct 22, 2009 9:00:42 GMT -5
DOLORES CLAIBORNE (1995)
Selena St. George (Jennifer Jason Leigh), a big-shot New York reporter, returns to the Maine town where she grew up to support her mother Dolores Claiborne (Kathy Bates), who is the prime suspect in the death of Vera Donovan, the wealthy elderly woman she worked for.
Over the course of working out the details of the nature of the relationship between Dolores and Vera, and what really happened, Selena's troubled childhood, as well as her parent's tumultuous and sometimes violent relationship, are revealed through flashbacks.
Might be a little too slow for some viewers, but those who prefer a little more plot and trying to figure out the who's and why's will probably appreciate it more, as the story contains several twists and turns. Also features another great performance by Bates.
7/10
THINNER (1996)
An obese lawyer kills an old gypsy woman in a car accident. When he gets off without punishment, with help from his friends, the judge and the police chief, all three are cursed by the gypsy's father. The lawyer's curse is to rapidly lose weight, which sounds great at first, but he soon realizes that he's not going to stop losing weight no matter how thin he gets, and he'll eventually die. When tracking down the gypsies and begging for forgiveness doesn't work, he decides to seek aid from a former client attached to organized crime to help him "persuade" the gypsy to lift the curse.
While this flick is a pretty faithful adaptation of the book, it has a decidedly dark humorous tone to it. Most of the characters are either a little over the top or almost caricatures. Joe Mantenga's mobster character, for instance, is just slightly less cartoonish than his Fat Tony character on "THE SIMPSONS". And Kari Wuhrer, is really over the top as a gypsy hottie. Screaming and spitting most of her lines.
The makeup effects go from so-so to really good as the lawyer loses weight. The obese makeup looks a little cartoony and sometimes not completely convincing, but at his thinnest, the character looks almost skeletal, and the makeup is more believable and scarier.
Not a great film by any means, but it goes by pretty quick at around 90 minutes and has an interesting premise. And like I said, the always hot Kari Wuhrer is in it, so that's a bonus.
6/10
|
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Oct 22, 2009 10:16:48 GMT -5
Dolores Claireborne-1995
Frankly, this one here just didn't work at all for me. This is based on several problems inherent in the film rather than anything it does. First is the fact that, at over two hours for a horror film that's more psychological than anything (one major problem I'll get to later) this thing just moves so slowly I couldn't be bothered during most of the time to pay deep attention to what's going on. Talking, talking, talking, not much else doesn't make for a fun experience on my end when there's nothing to balance it out. Second, the psychological problem is another big issue. I don't mind being forced to figure things out (it can be fun at times) but that has to be balanced by an interest in the proceedings if I'm going to have to be forced to use my mind, and it failed. The last problem, and the one that kept me from really enjoying this one, was the fact that, while horrific in tone, the flashbacks to their past relationship don't register with me at all. Horrific in nature, not in execution, and that kind of relationship doesn't instill anything in me other than boredom, which was the common thread in the film. A total waste on my end.
1/10
Stephen King's The Night Flier-1996
Now this was a whole lot better, much more my style and my kind of film. About an hour and a half, not a whole lot to figure out and what's there to do is nicely balanced by having something interesting going on, namely death and lots of blood. With a pretty imposing villain, an intriguing premise and some genuinely creepy scenes later on towards the end, it's hard not to like it. Yes, there are some (namely the naive tabloid reporter tagging along for the ride who contributes nothing other than finding a way to wrap things up at the end and could've been done without her) but it's not that bad.
7/10
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Oct 24, 2009 11:58:43 GMT -5
Dolores Claireborne-1995 ... over two hours for a horror film that's more psychological than anything... Who said it was a horror film? Something horrible is revealed in the flashbacks, but I don't think that makes it a horror film. I think it was more of a straight-up mystery-suspense. ...if I'm going to have to be forced to use my mind, and it failed. Yeah, I hate it when I'm "forced" to use my mind.  You really said that? |
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Oct 24, 2009 12:17:05 GMT -5
CHRISTINE (1983) Bullied high school geek Arnie Cunningham buys Christine, a run-down 1958 Plymouth Fury, and begins the process of restoring it. As the car returns to it's original pristine condition, Arnie's personality and even his appearance become more confident and even arrogant. Little does he, or anyone else, know that the car is somehow possessed by an evil spirit, and has no problem destroying anyone who it feels is a threat to it or Arnie. THE EXORCIST meets AMERICAN GRAFFITI.  Well-directed by John Carpenter, one of his better films. A strong cast of supporting character actors, some nice effects showing the car restoring itself whenever it is damaged, and a good performance by Keith Gordon as Arnie. 7.5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Oct 26, 2009 10:26:26 GMT -5
Dolores Claireborne-1995 ... over two hours for a horror film that's more psychological than anything... Who said it was a horror film? Something horrible is revealed in the flashbacks, but I don't think that makes it a horror film. I think it was more of a straight-up mystery-suspense. My on-screen guide said it, my DirecTV monthly guide listed it as such, the paper's weekly schedule had it as one and IMDb lists it as one of the genres this film falls into. That's more than enough to qualify in my book. ...if I'm going to have to be forced to use my mind, and it failed. Yeah, I hate it when I'm "forced" to use my mind. You really said that?[/quote] I have different standards for watching films like this. I turn it on to be entertained, let my mind go and get into the film and immersed into it's world. When I have to start putting things together like the way this one was asking me to do, I get really impatient and really irritated quite quickly because it's a relaxing experience to watch these, to calm myself down, and to exert that much brain-power over that kind of length just doesn't work for me. I can think of hundreds of other things I can do instead of watching a movie, so when I turn one on and waste an hour and a half of my life, I expect myself to be entertained and feel good about the experience, which isn't a tall task to expect of a film. Stephen King's Desperation-2007 For once, you and I finally agree on one of these, as this one was pretty much like you said. With an engaging and creepy premise injected right from the beginning, with a lot of creepy scenes that give off a great atmosphere that work well in the beginning, there's a lot of great action in the second half as the multitude of escape attempts are a lot of fun and the last half does have some good stuff to it, there's a large and rather obvious flaw in the introduction of religion to the film, which for me is an automatic and eggregious flaw that really renders anything it's in quite moot and not at all that enjoyable. So it sucks some fun out of it, but it's still not entirely unwatchable. 7/10 |
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Oct 29, 2009 7:02:44 GMT -5
Who said it was a horror film? Something horrible is revealed in the flashbacks, but I don't think that makes it a horror film. I think it was more of a straight-up mystery-suspense. My on-screen guide said it, my DirecTV monthly guide listed it as such, the paper's weekly schedule had it as one and IMDb lists it as one of the genres this film falls into. That's more than enough to qualify in my book. I don't agree with any of them, and it sounds like you don't either. It seems like they saw the Stephen King name and just slapped the "horror" label on it. I have different standards for watching films like this. I turn it on to be entertained, let my mind go and get into the film and immersed into it's world. When I have to start putting things together like the way this one was asking me to do, I get really impatient and really irritated quite quickly because it's a relaxing experience to watch these, to calm myself down, and to exert that much brain-power over that kind of length just doesn't work for me. I can think of hundreds of other things I can do instead of watching a movie, so when I turn one on and waste an hour and a half of my life, I expect myself to be entertained and feel good about the experience, which isn't a tall task to expect of a film. Aren't those your same standards for watching every movie? Frankly I think you're giving this flick way too much credit as far as what it requires of the viewer. We're not talking MEMENTO or THE USUAL SUSPECTS here. I have no problem with watching popcorn movies that don't require the viewer to use any brain-power, see my last two entries in "just watched movies", but you sound like you just want to turn off your brain, melt into the couch and let the movie wash over you. If that's the case, why not take a nap and just skip the movie completely? |
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Oct 29, 2009 8:58:20 GMT -5
THE STAND (1994)
4-part, 6 hr mini-series about a deadly virus that escapes from a research facility and wipes out most of the world's population. The survivors split into the forces of good and evil after having visions of Mother Abigail (Ruby Dee), a mystical old woman who is a servant of God, and Randall Flagg (Jamey Sheridan), a dark, mysterious man, who might be the devil himself.
The story mostly follows small groups of characters who meet on their journey to Abigail, restarting their lives, and planning how to best deal with Flagg and his minions that are coming together, appropriately enough, in Vegas.
The survivors include Gary Sinise, Molly Ringwald, Ossie Davis, Ray Walston, Rob Lowe, Miguel Ferrer, etc., and look for uncredited cameos by Stephen King veterans Ed Harris (NEEDFUL THINGS) and Kathy Bates (MISERY, DOLORES CLAIBORNE).
Really good adaptation of my favorite King book. Of course the book is better, but this is probably as good a job as could've been expected. Even at this length, a lot of stuff from the book is cut, it's a really big book, but the essence is there. Good performances by the main cast, especially Sinise and Sheridan.
8.5/10
NIGHTMARES AND DREAMSCAPES: FROM THE STORIES OF STEPHEN KING (2006) Disc 2
The next 3 episodes of the 8 episode mini-series based on Stephen King short stories.
This second disc includes: "The End of the Whole Mess", about a genius who tries to bring about world peace using a chemical that is spread through a volcano eruption. "The Road Virus Heads North" about a popular horror writer (Tom Berenger) who buys a creepy painting and realizes it's changing and apparently stalking him, and finally, "The Fifth Quarter", about an ex-con trying to go straight, but who is inadvertently drawn into a final big score involving a treasure map.
This set of episodes was a lot more satisfying than the first disc. The first and third episodes especially.
Overall score: 7/10
RIDING THE BULLET (2004)
In 1969, a young man is hitchhiking back home to visit his mother in the hospital and has some strange encounters along the way. Eventually he is picked up by a mysterious stranger (David Arquette). As the ride goes on, things get weirder and weirder.
Dull and kind of confused.
5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Oct 29, 2009 10:26:40 GMT -5
My on-screen guide said it, my DirecTV monthly guide listed it as such, the paper's weekly schedule had it as one and IMDb lists it as one of the genres this film falls into. That's more than enough to qualify in my book. I don't agree with any of them, and it sounds like you don't either. It seems like they saw the Stephen King name and just slapped the "horror" label on it. I have different standards for watching films like this. I turn it on to be entertained, let my mind go and get into the film and immersed into it's world. When I have to start putting things together like the way this one was asking me to do, I get really impatient and really irritated quite quickly because it's a relaxing experience to watch these, to calm myself down, and to exert that much brain-power over that kind of length just doesn't work for me. I can think of hundreds of other things I can do instead of watching a movie, so when I turn one on and waste an hour and a half of my life, I expect myself to be entertained and feel good about the experience, which isn't a tall task to expect of a film. Aren't those your same standards for watching every movie? Frankly I think you're giving this flick way too much credit as far as what it requires of the viewer. We're not talking MEMENTO or THE USUAL SUSPECTS here. I have no problem with watching popcorn movies that don't require the viewer to use any brain-power, see my last two entries in "just watched movies", but you sound like you just want to turn off your brain, melt into the couch and let the movie wash over you. If that's the case, why not take a nap and just skip the movie completely? I love those kinds of movies, because usually those are the ones that appeal to me the most and offer the most forms of enjoyment that I like. A little blood here and there, some action scenes to eat up some time and a plot that I can fully understand without too much difficulty. That makes me very entertained with a film, and if there's other factors that can work towards it on that end, all the better. And if I fall asleep during the film, how am I supposed to see what's going on? I have to be awake to know what's happening. The Running Man-1987 Man gets sent to prison for a framed assault on civilians the military conducted, and when he escapes and gets captured, is thrown onto a TV show where serial killers are sent after them, and if they can survive the killers, "are granted a full pardon." Total 80s cheese here, with the storyline here making the most of that as it's plainly just an excuse to string together action scenes with each of the killers, and each one is just utterly entertaining and engrossing. From the hockey rink showdown to the rocket-throwing killer and the final encounter at the end, this one provides a ton of great action scenes that are a lot of fun. Arnold's typical sense of sarcastic humor is on full-display here and gets off some good quips here, and some of the other criminals get some good lines off as well. Great action, some cheese, lots of things blowing up and a sense of humor without taking itself seriously, I say that's a good time at the movies. 9/10 |
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Oct 30, 2009 9:49:54 GMT -5
And if I fall asleep during the film, how am I supposed to see what's going on? I have to be awake to know what's happening. You missed my point, but never mind. A 9/10?  Oh my. I saw this when it was first in theaters, so I was about 21. Big Stephen King and Schwarzenegger fan back then so I was looking forward to the movie. As soon as I saw the previews though, I thought, "Uh oh. This doesn't look at all like the book." I was right. The book was really good, but I thought the movie was an abortion. It's Stephen King's "The Running Man" in name alone. Terrible. |
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Oct 30, 2009 10:18:44 GMT -5
What was the original idea then behind the book? For some reason, that comment got me interested about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Oct 31, 2009 12:33:07 GMT -5
In the movie, there is a show called "Running Man" and people do try to kill him, but those are about the only similarities. You can read the entire plot of the book here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Running_Man |
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Oct 31, 2009 13:45:25 GMT -5
NIGHTMARES AND DREAMSCAPES: FROM THE STORIES OF STEPHEN KING (2006) Disc 3
This disc features the final two episodes of this series. "Autopsy Room Four" is about a man who is declared dead of a heart attack and brought in for an autopsy, but who is actually paralyzed from a snake bite. He can see, hear and feel, but can't move or communicate, which makes for some decent comedic moments.
The second episode is "You Know They Got a Hell of a Band", about a couple on a road trip who take a detour into a town called Rock and Roll Heaven. It's a quaint town inhabited by what appear to be deceased former rock icons. Elvis, Buddy Holly, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Ronnie Van Zandt, Roy Orbison, etc. They're all here, and they put on the ultimate all-star concert every night. Problem is, if you're not a member of the "band", you're expected to stay in town and be part of "the audience". Forever.
Both episodes were actually pretty good and worth a viewing. The ending of "...Hell of a Band" is just okay and the bickering between the couple did get a little tiresome, but it was a lot of fun once they realized where they were, and who these other people were.
Overall score: 7/10
PET SEMATARY (1989)
The Creed family have left the big city and are newly moved in to a house in the countryside, thanks to Louis Creed's new job. Unfortunately, there is a busy road directly in front of their home, where semi-trailers roar by day and night. Thanks to that road and those trucks, their pet cat, Church, meets an early demise. The Creed's elderly neighbor Jud, shows the father an ancient Indian burial ground hidden in the woods behind the house. Creed buries the cat, and soon Church comes back from the dead, but he's not quite right.
The Creeds later endure an even bigger tragedy when their three-year old son Gage is run over in the road. Against his better judgment, and warnings by Jud, the heartbroken Creed once again treks to the burial ground, this time carrying the body of his son. Will Gage come back normal or will there be something wrong with him?
The lesson learned here, and one of the all-time great movie taglines, is "Sometimes dead is better."
One of King's scariest books is given the movie treatment with mostly good results. Fred Gwynne (Herman Munster on "The Munsters") as Jud, is easily the best actor in the film. Mr. and Mrs. Creed (Dale Midkiff & Denise Crosby) on the other hand, are just okay.
The pet cemetery and the Indian burial ground look pretty much as King described in the book which is a plus as there are some good atmospheric scenes here and the whole film has a sense of foreboding about it. The flashback scenes with Rachel Creed's spinal meningitis-afflicted sister are also creepily effective and the stuff with Gage after his "rebirth" are pretty intense. A big part missing however is Louis Creed's descent into madness because in the book you get to read his inner thoughts, the movie doesn't have that luxury. That seems to be a major component missing from most King adaptations though that really can't be helped.
If you're a parent of small children however, the most horrific scene has to be little Gage getting hit by that truck. Having a four-year old of my own, I can't even begin to fathom how a parent would get over something like that. It's done as tastefully as can be expected in the film, nothing too graphic or gory, but it's still a pretty emotionally charged scene.
7/10
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Nov 1, 2009 9:16:52 GMT -5
In my home it's become an annual tradition to watch the Steve Martin/John Candy comedy classic, PLANES, TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES around Thanksgiving, when the movie takes place. So, in honor of that movie, and the many forms of transportation used within it, I've decided that the genre/category for November is...
PLANES, TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES
Any film that features one, or any combination of the three vehicles, as an important point in the plot, is acceptable.
For instance, if the flick mostly take place on or around trains or airplanes, or even a train station or airport, you're good to go. Or if it features lots of car action (car chases or car racing) you're also good.
I will also allow subways to fall under the category of trains, helicopters/choppers under airplanes, and trucks, motorcycles and any other similar street vehicle, under automobiles. Military vehicles that fall under any of the above descriptions are fine, however, no space vehicles, ie: shuttles, rockets, etc. Let's keep it somewhat down to earth.
Note: Just seeing cars, planes or trains in the background of the movie is not enough. They have to be an integral part of the action. A character or characters riding one of them just to get from A to B in one scene is not really what I'm going for. There's a difference between characters going to a car race in one scene of a film, and the movie being about car racing and the drivers.
Try to mix it up and see a little of everything, not just car movies for instance. There have been plenty of flicks that feature different vehicles as important plot points so this shouldn't be too tough.
As usual, all movies have to have been theatrical releases. No made for tv or made for cable movies, ie: HBO, Sci-Fi Channel, etc., are not eligible. No television mini-series either.
I'll announce the next genre or category on December 1st .
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Nov 2, 2009 9:43:15 GMT -5
MONEY TRAIN (1995)
Foster brothers John (Wesley Snipes) and Charlie (Woody Harrelson) work as transit cops, but find themselves on the wrong side of the law when Charlie, whose life is seemingly taking every wrong turn imaginable, decides to rob the "money train," a train carrying the New York Subway's weekly revenue. Will John try to talk him out of it or will he support his brother and help him carry out the crime?
Snipes and Harrelson team up again after the success of WHITE MEN CAN'T JUMP, and while this movie's not nearly as good as the previous one, the two actors definitely have a good chemistry and are fun to watch on screen together.
Jennifer Lopez plays a new cop on the team who generates some friction between the brothers and adds some nice "eye candy" to the movie, and Robert Blake plays their overbearing boss.
There is a subplot about a pyromaniac (Chris Cooper) attacking subway employees, but it doesn't really go anywhere. There are a few good action and fight scenes along the way, and the finale is pretty action-packed. Though the ending is a little unsatisfying.
5/10
TURBULENCE (1997)
In the tradition of AIRPORT, a crisis occurs on a commercial flight and someone with no flying experience must land the plane.
Ray Liotta plays Ryan Weaver, a convicted serial killer who is being extradited to Los Angeles on a Christmas Eve flight. Also on board are four U.S. Marshals, Stubbs (Brendan Gleeson), a second convict who is also being escorted, a few civilian passengers, and the flight crew.
Eventually, Stubbs overpowers and kills the Marshals, but in the melee, Stubbs and both pilots are killed. Which leaves Weaver on the loose. It's up to perky flight attendant Teri Halloran (Lauren Holly) to lock herself in the cockpit, contact the control tower and attempt to land the plane with the help of another pilot who has been patched through. Even though she leaves the cockpit several times, Weaver can't seem to overpower her.
Lots of action and Liotta is in total over the top psycho mode. Very charming one moment and then cackling like a loon the next. Silly movie, but also kind of fun if you don't take it too seriously. Like DIE HARD with a lobotomy.
5.5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Nov 2, 2009 11:05:22 GMT -5
In the movie, there is a show called "Running Man" and people do try to kill him, but those are about the only similarities. You can read the entire plot of the book here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Running_ManWhoa, that's a hell of a change. I can see where you're coming from, but that kind of thing doesn't really mean anything to me, one because I haven't read it, but also because I believe in what the movie itself has to offer, not how close it is to the original source material (if there is one) so I'm more than happy with my own thoughts about the film. |
|
You really said that?
Oh my. I saw this when it was first in theaters, so I was about 21. Big Stephen King and Schwarzenegger fan back then so I was looking forward to the movie. As soon as I saw the previews though, I thought, "Uh oh. This doesn't look at all like the book." I was right. The book was really good, but I thought the movie was an abortion. It's Stephen King's "The Running Man" in name alone. Terrible.