What Films Have You Seen Recently?

[keirarts]

apocalypse z.jpg


This one needs a pic of the sleeve for context. So, it appears to be trading off World war z, an anaemic and flawed and screwed-by-studio-tampering zombie movie that while mainly disappointing to anyone familiar with the source material was actually sort of fun in its own bland middle of the road sort of way. So, even if its a publicity stunt to market the film., pulling an asylum and trading off the back of a film that severely tanked critically and commercially might not be the best of starts. Ad into the mix a producers credit for Uwe Boll (who also appears as the US president) and confidence in the product slides even further, but then a quid at a charity shop is still a good incentive for the curious so here we are....

Basically the government have created a zombie virus and released it over some small Ukrainian town (cause eastern Europe is still cheap to shoot films in) pretty much everyone is turned into a zombie, though the production values show up here as its rarely more than a half dozen at best swanning about in any given shot. Naturally they don't want word of this to get around so they send in an 8 man team of mercs to plant a nuke... and that's it really. Basically its a bunch of actors in military garb running about shooting zombies for 90 minutes. Nothing clever and nothing original.

That said, I direct you back to world war Z at this point. A film with a huge budget that is basically a similar thing. Only instead of generic rent a grunt soldiers its Brad Pitt, and we get a bit more variety in locations and more zombies on screen. Perversely world war z probably cost a thousand times more than this and the trade off being lots less gore.

As bad as Apocalypse Z is (and its pretty bad in a low rent sort of way) the film is at least cheap and cheerful and you get more of a sense of fun, rather than the clinical attempt to please everyone that results in no one being pleased that its bigger budget cousin offers.

Essentially this cheapie offers more gore, more stupidity and a bigger sense of idiotic fun that WWZ, and it didn't waste so much cash doing it.
See it cheap, then pick it up.

[J Harker]

I went to see Interstellar last night. I'm not sure what to think, visually it's an incredible epic science fiction film. The first two and a bit hours are brilliant gripping stuff and the final fifteen mins provide a satisfying emotional payoff. But there's a bit towards the end...i don't want to spoil it for anyone but i felt it seriously let the whole film down.

[keirarts]

I do think people should forget seeing interstellar and give nightcrawler a go.

[JoshuaKaitlyn]

Bare Behind Bars (1980) What the deuce! That was...different!

[Make Them Die Slowly]

Originally Posted by keirarts

I do think people should forget seeing interstellar and give nightcrawler a go.

That's my plan, I have no interest in Intersteller at all unless they make a porn knock off called: In to Stella.

[bizarre_eye@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by fuzzymctiger

Now the question. I have a little project in mind due to the sheer number of slashers I've seen. I've only got a few of the classics left, and once I'm done, I'd like to rank and review all of them I've seen. However due to the ambiguity of the definition of the genre, I'd like to make a thread for the ranking and reviews, so I can also discuss what counts and what doesn't. What subthread would i make this in?

Thanks in advance.

Sounds interesting, fuzzy!

The US Horror sub-forum would probably be your best bet where slashers are concerned, although you could always create a review thread in the Members' Reviews sub-section.

[troggi]

The most recent viewings in troggi's cave have been the boxed set of "Penny Dreadful" and may I state, here and now, that I want to see more!

Okay, there are issues with it but, on the whole, it's a very satisfying watch. There could have been a hell of a lot more gore and sheer horror in it but would that have made it any better? I'm not so sure that it would have done anything more than push the production expenses up. There were always hints at more going on than we see in actuality and the cliffhanger ending makes the watcher (me, at least) itch for more.

I'm glad that I watched the series over 4 nights as a sort of mini series of feature length episodes than 8 seperate episodes because I think I would have lost so much of the sense of urgency that there is in the series.

15/10 for a good series of victorian drama with guts!

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

The Mutations (1974)

A low budget British re-imagining of Tod Brownings 1932 classic Freaks. However being a sleazy seventies Brit flick it also throws in Donald Pleseance as a mad scientist and Tom Baker as his deformed henchman, who abducts college students as human guinea pigs to use in cross breeding experiments with plants.

The first hour if i'm honest is a bit of a drag up until the "parade of freaks" at the carnival. There's lots of exposition about carnivorous plants in the form of crazy Donald's college lectures. However the last third is a deranged nut job of a film, concentrating on Pleasence's experiments and their slightly gross looking outcomes. The mutated human / plants are well designed and are only seen in quick flashes as they attack their latest victim. This definitely helps, as our imagination works far better than lingering shots of dodgy rubber Doctor Who reject designs and certainly gives them more impact and shock value particularly in the stalking sequences.

The dvd i watched is from cheapie label Desert Island Classics with the US title The Freakmaker, and is a straight port of the film with two sound mixes and two commentaries (Only accessible via your dvd remote audio options as there is no menu screen) from the long out of print disc from Subversive cinema. The 25 minute doc is missing.

For fans of seventies British horror this is a definite pick up.

[PaulD]

Originally Posted by Make Them Die Slowly

That's my plan, I have no interest in Intersteller at all unless they make a porn knock off called: In to Stella.

Directed by Christopher Nailin'

[Frankie Teardrop]

DARK TOURIST - An isolated security guard goes sightseeing around murder hotspots and finds he empathises more with a (deceased) local serial killer than the lonely waitress he befriends. I was well impressed with 'Dark Tourist', a grim thriller which really does take its viewer on a pretty unpleasant ride. In fact, it's almost unremittingly bleak in tone - there's absolutely no light at the end of the tunnel ahead, no redemptive moments (apart from maybe one in disguise), and this, coupled with the film's seriousness and insistence on making its unlikeable protagonist so inescapable (we wallow in his presence in virtually every frame), is quite laudable at a time when even supposedly hard edged stuff comes slightly sugar coated. Maybe it's not as cruel or depressing as something like 'I Stand Alone', but I was reminded of the latter, a little - perhaps the fact that 'Dark Tourist' still has one foot in genre and associated stylisation makes it a little more digestible. It probably has more in common with the ashen faced likes of 'Snowtown', if only in terms of emotional impact. I was surprised to find that 'Dark Tourist' seemingly comes from a journeyman director whose resume includes 'The Bill' and 'Casualty'. Something this harrowing usually demands personal investment and artistic vision... maybe it's the one he was always trying to make. Or maybe not. A lot hinges on the lead's performance, which is intense and superb and is backed up by a generally creditable cast which surprisingly includes one of my faves, Melanie Griffith. Whatever, 'Dark Tourist' is a bracing glimpse into a cold, cold world and is certainly recommended viewing, but not if you're up for something light. Thanks to MTDS and his review for switching me on to it.