I like that this started right off, without hesitation....when he calls the hotline and the guy is right there, and says point blank "it's been decided..."
Do I have this correct? Music by George Clinton? If so, wow...doesn't sound like George Clinton. Ok, I checked with a music friend and he said it is a different George Clinton...George K. Clinton I think. The soundtrack was pretty fun, some Primus among others.
I've heard a lot about this movie over time, well mostly that it is one to watch. So I finally decide to try it out. And I was not disappointed. The main bad guy, aka Trickster, was awesome. I realize it was mostly hair and makeup. So I looked him up a bit on IMDB (c) and he really hasn't done much - a lot of TV and shorts. Too bad. If I was creating a movie and needed a creepy guy I might give this guy a ring. His name was T. Ryder Smith. For the record he's not nearly as strange or good as the crazy guy they got to play in the movie Shadow. Nuot Arquint kicks T. Ryder's ass. Do yourself a favor and do a google (c) search for Nuot. CRAZY!
Ok, back to Brainscan. A boy (Edward Furlong) is so into everything horror that it basically bores him. He then hears from his best friend that there is a new thing out there called Brainscan, which you have to order on-line (actually I guess it's over the phone, did they have the internet in the 80's??). So he gets the first disk and boooooom, Trickster enters his life and his bedroom. What happens then is basically Edward goes into a bunch of seemingly real horror scenarios, all within his own neighborhood, while he's "within" this game. He thinks he's sleeping, but then when the murders become real and his town is rampant with reporters and cops, he starts to question what has happened and wants Trickster and this game to get out of his life. A good love story is also built in.
10 January 2013
Blue Sunshine #182 (B-)
Great line..."Do you remember Rodan?" "The artist?" "ha, no, the monster"... I had to push pause after this and listen to a Rodan album, so that prompted about a 40 minute delay. Luckily I refrained from watching the movie Rodan on instant stream (yes, it's available folks!).
So, I watched 28 minutes thus far and I'm totally confused. I had to start again. I was confused why the guy went nuts at the party...and I also can't tell these 70's actors apart. Is the guy that comes into the kitchen and overhears his wife and another guy making fun of his hair loss the same guy that is singing in the next scene at the party? And are any or all of these guys the senator? Perhaps my 2nd viewing of the first 28 minutes will help me. Ugh. (no, they are all different)
Let me get this straight, so everyone in this town essentially went to Stanford?
Oh and, everyone is losing their hair....??
Ok, I watched all but the last 25 minutes if this movie (it's a game called 'fun movie watching with Q-Slice'...in which you do it in as many fragmented stages as possible and win!!!!!) and was totally engaged and loving it, AND I even understood all of the pending questions above (minus the random Stanford happenstance, like, how would they all just be living near each other?)...but then, the movie left instant stream and I couldn't view the end. So, I needed to rent it! Blue Sunshine became a real challenge all of a sudden!!! Meanwhile.....the movie arrived in the mail and I finished it (starting from the beginning of coarse). It was quirky and odd...fun and exciting. I am happy I watched the beginning three times though because I would have been really confused if not.
The basic plot is people in this town are starting to go crazy, and lose their hair. They are committing murder when they "go crazy" and really not acting like themselves. There is a link back to their college days, to an acid they all took at Stanford called Blue Sunshine. Apparently there is a delayed degenerative and psychogenetic effect if you took Blue Sunshine years prior. How the main guy, who's acting like a detective the entire movie, randomly picks up on this is beyond me. But, it was still good to watch. Most of the reviews on Netflix (c) are negative though - and lots of "waste of my time" talk. Lots of 3 stars. Not very many 4 and 5. Oh well. I liked it. It's only about 90 minutes long, from 1978....I do recommend to those who branch from the mainstream.
So, I watched 28 minutes thus far and I'm totally confused. I had to start again. I was confused why the guy went nuts at the party...and I also can't tell these 70's actors apart. Is the guy that comes into the kitchen and overhears his wife and another guy making fun of his hair loss the same guy that is singing in the next scene at the party? And are any or all of these guys the senator? Perhaps my 2nd viewing of the first 28 minutes will help me. Ugh. (no, they are all different)
Let me get this straight, so everyone in this town essentially went to Stanford?
Oh and, everyone is losing their hair....??
Ok, I watched all but the last 25 minutes if this movie (it's a game called 'fun movie watching with Q-Slice'...in which you do it in as many fragmented stages as possible and win!!!!!) and was totally engaged and loving it, AND I even understood all of the pending questions above (minus the random Stanford happenstance, like, how would they all just be living near each other?)...but then, the movie left instant stream and I couldn't view the end. So, I needed to rent it! Blue Sunshine became a real challenge all of a sudden!!! Meanwhile.....the movie arrived in the mail and I finished it (starting from the beginning of coarse). It was quirky and odd...fun and exciting. I am happy I watched the beginning three times though because I would have been really confused if not.
The basic plot is people in this town are starting to go crazy, and lose their hair. They are committing murder when they "go crazy" and really not acting like themselves. There is a link back to their college days, to an acid they all took at Stanford called Blue Sunshine. Apparently there is a delayed degenerative and psychogenetic effect if you took Blue Sunshine years prior. How the main guy, who's acting like a detective the entire movie, randomly picks up on this is beyond me. But, it was still good to watch. Most of the reviews on Netflix (c) are negative though - and lots of "waste of my time" talk. Lots of 3 stars. Not very many 4 and 5. Oh well. I liked it. It's only about 90 minutes long, from 1978....I do recommend to those who branch from the mainstream.
Argo #181 (B+)
Argo fuck yourself!
Despite knowing the plot - almost in it's entirety prior to arriving at the theatre...due to the promos/trailers - this was a well put together and well played out movie. Good acting, well except for one person. But I sort of blame Mr. Affleck for this, since he was the bearded director. What I'm referencing here was that I saw that Rory Cochrane was in the movie and I got excited. We all know him as Lucas from Empire Records, or as Ron Slater from Dazed and confused....or perhaps most notably as Brad from Right At Your Door. Anyway, the reason I'm mad at Mr. Affleck is because Rory said 3 FULL SENTENCES THE ENTIRE MOVIE! I admit, he's not the greatest actor, but he's good enough that he could have talked more than 3 times! I know for a fact that this was based on real events, but what happened during those real events couldn't have been known, not cleanly anyway. So Rory could have been more...that's what I'm saying.
But, it was a good action movie. Fun to watch and exciting all at the same time. Even with the whole idea already in my head. Which is sort of odd. I'd recommend it...thanks!
ARGO FUCK YOURSELF...
Despite knowing the plot - almost in it's entirety prior to arriving at the theatre...due to the promos/trailers - this was a well put together and well played out movie. Good acting, well except for one person. But I sort of blame Mr. Affleck for this, since he was the bearded director. What I'm referencing here was that I saw that Rory Cochrane was in the movie and I got excited. We all know him as Lucas from Empire Records, or as Ron Slater from Dazed and confused....or perhaps most notably as Brad from Right At Your Door. Anyway, the reason I'm mad at Mr. Affleck is because Rory said 3 FULL SENTENCES THE ENTIRE MOVIE! I admit, he's not the greatest actor, but he's good enough that he could have talked more than 3 times! I know for a fact that this was based on real events, but what happened during those real events couldn't have been known, not cleanly anyway. So Rory could have been more...that's what I'm saying.
But, it was a good action movie. Fun to watch and exciting all at the same time. Even with the whole idea already in my head. Which is sort of odd. I'd recommend it...thanks!
ARGO FUCK YOURSELF...
Kill List #180 (A)
I heard this was a good one...and I'm exited to push play. Let's see what happens, and see if I give it a high rating...
Woah! Poor librarian. Holy cow. What an intense scene!
This flick starts, probably for about 40 minutes or a bit less, showing the life of a small family (a mom, dad, and small child) and their friends. It depicts normal life for them, draws you in a bit...they aren't perfect, but also are semi-normal. Or so it seems. After a dinner party the dad (main character) flips out a bit, with some yelling and screaming...then leaves the party to go and chill out in the garage. His buddy comes out to join him, and at this point everyone has pretty much calmed down. And then the dude grabs a bunch of huge weaponry out of a box in his garage and they both start checking out the guns and scopes and such. At this point I realized they were more than they seemed and my very very very smart brain, recalled that the movie was titled 'Kill List' and hence, I pieced together that they were hit men of sorts. Anyway, after this epiphany (happy epiphany by the way), the movie turned to the two lads leaving their loved ones behind and going off to do a series of "jobs". The above referenced librarian was one of the jobs. They totally messed up his day/life. Wow, craziness. One review used the words, "disturbingly realistic" to describe this one. I agree.
Then, the plot turns once again and there is a mix of the Wickerman spun in. Totally unexpected ending for me. That made the movie an A though, I will tell you that. If you know the kind of movies I like and recommend (thriller-wise) then you should also try this out. The very very end is a bit not good though so...just know that. But once you see it please notify me so we can talk about it. Thanks. Lastly, I wish they talked a bit clearer. Hard to understand at parts due to their thick dialog. Rock on.
Woah! Poor librarian. Holy cow. What an intense scene!
This flick starts, probably for about 40 minutes or a bit less, showing the life of a small family (a mom, dad, and small child) and their friends. It depicts normal life for them, draws you in a bit...they aren't perfect, but also are semi-normal. Or so it seems. After a dinner party the dad (main character) flips out a bit, with some yelling and screaming...then leaves the party to go and chill out in the garage. His buddy comes out to join him, and at this point everyone has pretty much calmed down. And then the dude grabs a bunch of huge weaponry out of a box in his garage and they both start checking out the guns and scopes and such. At this point I realized they were more than they seemed and my very very very smart brain, recalled that the movie was titled 'Kill List' and hence, I pieced together that they were hit men of sorts. Anyway, after this epiphany (happy epiphany by the way), the movie turned to the two lads leaving their loved ones behind and going off to do a series of "jobs". The above referenced librarian was one of the jobs. They totally messed up his day/life. Wow, craziness. One review used the words, "disturbingly realistic" to describe this one. I agree.
Then, the plot turns once again and there is a mix of the Wickerman spun in. Totally unexpected ending for me. That made the movie an A though, I will tell you that. If you know the kind of movies I like and recommend (thriller-wise) then you should also try this out. The very very end is a bit not good though so...just know that. But once you see it please notify me so we can talk about it. Thanks. Lastly, I wish they talked a bit clearer. Hard to understand at parts due to their thick dialog. Rock on.
Django Unchained #179 (B)
I can't help but wonder how this movie is doing among the masses? It was really good acting - that is minus the cameo by Quentin. About Quentin and his acting, it's so apparent that there is an actor on the screen who isn't "really an actor" and who basically sucks. I'm not sure why he insists on being on screen. I guess I would do the same so I can understand, but perhaps I would not have myself talk if I wasn't any good. Be on screen like Peter Jackson is on screen in most of his movies, in the background (minus Bad Taste, one of the best movies in the world). Anyway, Quentin did ensure that he goes out in style - in the form of an over the top explosion death. The theatre (and myself) laughed at that.
The main bounty hunter reminded me of an older Jason Schwartzman. Apparently he was one of the main characters in Inglorious Basterds, but I can't recall exactly. I'm sure if I put it on I would recall very quickly. Anyway, he did a good job. His name is Christopher Waltz. Re: Leonardo, he does swell too...Samuel L. also. It's really good acting, all of it. Jamie Foxx was superb. I just read something where Leo describes his character as rotting from the inside. That's funny.
Along with the acting being grand all around was the story - which was also good. And there was a lot of Quentin's famous blood and guts and explosions. But I guess there was something that just bothered me, hence my question at the top about wondering how this flick did among the masses. What bothered me was the language used. That's why I'm a tiny bit down on this movie. I think I heard that there is some criticism on the movie about this - and that was my qualm as well. It made me uncomfortable. I left the theatre saying to myself that I honestly don't know that I'd want to see the movie again, specifically because of the non-stop language used. I know it was about a time period in history where slavery was the norm...but every sentence and phrase (it felt like) had unnecessary language used to describe the slaves. Maybe unnecessary is the wrong word, just over the top. Too much. For me anyway.
Still, hell of a movie. So I have to give it a B. Pretty typical Tarantino, with the normal quirks and filming. Including one of his famous 'spin-around-the-characters-with-the-camera-while-they-converse' scenes. I just looked on RottenTomatoes.com (c) and they show that the critics give it an 89% and the viewers a 94%.
The main bounty hunter reminded me of an older Jason Schwartzman. Apparently he was one of the main characters in Inglorious Basterds, but I can't recall exactly. I'm sure if I put it on I would recall very quickly. Anyway, he did a good job. His name is Christopher Waltz. Re: Leonardo, he does swell too...Samuel L. also. It's really good acting, all of it. Jamie Foxx was superb. I just read something where Leo describes his character as rotting from the inside. That's funny.
Along with the acting being grand all around was the story - which was also good. And there was a lot of Quentin's famous blood and guts and explosions. But I guess there was something that just bothered me, hence my question at the top about wondering how this flick did among the masses. What bothered me was the language used. That's why I'm a tiny bit down on this movie. I think I heard that there is some criticism on the movie about this - and that was my qualm as well. It made me uncomfortable. I left the theatre saying to myself that I honestly don't know that I'd want to see the movie again, specifically because of the non-stop language used. I know it was about a time period in history where slavery was the norm...but every sentence and phrase (it felt like) had unnecessary language used to describe the slaves. Maybe unnecessary is the wrong word, just over the top. Too much. For me anyway.
Still, hell of a movie. So I have to give it a B. Pretty typical Tarantino, with the normal quirks and filming. Including one of his famous 'spin-around-the-characters-with-the-camera-while-they-converse' scenes. I just looked on RottenTomatoes.com (c) and they show that the critics give it an 89% and the viewers a 94%.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)