Films

By the way, I'm pretty hooked on the Bourne trilogy. I've watched all three films a few times now. Classy, pacey, almost breathless stuff.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Not at all, Katharine.

I have most of those films and plenty more like them. I watched Casablanca only last week. It's a fantastic film.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Bogart isn't too far behind Cary Grant in my list of all time favourite actors.

The African Queen arrived in the post this morning. I know what I'll be watching while hubby is tearing his hair out watching Portsmouth v Sunderland. :)
 
That's good. 'Cos when you get to be really old, and put away in Sunny Pines Home of Rest for the Gentleman Gambler, you'll be watching it five times a day!
 
In the Loop is very overrated (although good cameos by tont Soprano and the bloke who plays the british cabinet minister) and falls well short of the best of the Thick of it

Idea that has run its course frankly and felt a bit tired.
 
DO: you'll be running a book on how many times it'll be shown in a week, I've no doubt! And probably have found at least one old codger with whom to compare ratings of 'I Love Lucy' and 'The Good Life' and their ilk!
 
I watched Westworld last night. Yul Brynner, another favourite of mine, is superbly chilling in it. Loved it.
 
Somers Town. As a fan of Shane Meadows... I can declare that it is rubbish.

Just watched Romanzo Criminale again though, excellent, even better for a second viewing.
 
Borrowed Redhead II's (sister's) DVD of Mirrors starring Kiefer Sutherland. The basic idea is very good and it would have been great left as a psychological horror film, but spoilt for me by all the over-the-top effects, which made the final third of the film just too silly for words. Must admit the twist at the end was good, though.

It would definitely have been better to leave the worst effects to the audience's imaginiation as the film begins with good atmosphere and builds to quite high tension rapidly, but then deteriorates into silliness.

I don't know why so many producers think that all the gore and gruesome scenes (eyeballs and facial tissues exposed etc) are more spine-chilling than the suggestion of something awful. Just hearing the bone crack, tissues tearing and gargling of someone having their face ripped off, or seeing the victim's hand clawing at an invisible assailant would be more effective, surely?

Hitchcock understood this and several scenes from his films are still more menacing for being partially seen or hinted at by the actors' surroundings.

Disappointing.
 
I agree - Hitchcock's 'Psycho' was the reason I sat in our bath (no shower 'back then') for 18 months, with my backside very uncomfortably over the plughole! The bathroom door opened onto the back of the bath, and I wanted a small fighting chance against Norman Bates!

"The Blair Witch Project" was a very nice exposition of the 'less is more' approach. All those cries in the distance, not knowing which way was which (they obviously hadn't read up on their fairy stories about leaving a trail behind them), strange noises off - guaranteed to stop the kiddywinks wanting to camp out in the woods for years, I reckon!
 
Seen a few films lately:

No Country For Old Men - takes a while to get into but definitely worth seeing. Ending could do with watching a few times though!

Defiance - I was told it wasn't brilliant, but I found it a fantastic film (one of the best I've seen in a while). Some of the Craig monologues were over the top but overall a really good film I thought.

American Psycho - Absolute shite. I just could never get into it at all.
 
Looking forward to seeing Public Enemies next week. Michael Mann could shoot paint drying and I'd go see it.
 
Back
Top