currently on at the 'pictures':

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

PIRANHA 3-D:


I missed the 1978 original from Joe Dante, but I gave this new update a go. Bsically, what we get here is an endless parade of suntanned, bikini-ed babes and male 'schoolsports' types who look the part but can't act for toffee. Great in-joke at the beginning as Richard Dreyfuss [out of the first 1975 JAWS ] meets his maker in a spot-on cameo.

However, this film relies far too much on exploitative shots of topless babettes, with additional nudity chucked in 'for good measure'. I definately don't find the nude female form offensive -------, but when it's used as a substitute for decent storytelling and plotting, like in this film, it's a bad sign.


A fair bit of gore in this as well, as the CGI- pirahhas half-devour unfortunate teens. If the 1975 JAWS wowed 'em in the aisles with a quick underwater shot of a severed head, here we see a dismembered male member being digested by the razortoothed fishes.....nobody in the audience batted an eyelid, which shows just how far standards of entertainment have dropped since JAWS.



To be fair, this film is likely aimed at teens.and not older fuddy-duddies like me, and if this film is tasteless, some underwater shots are impeccably filmed. Also, anyone who sees the large lobbycard exhibiting a gratuitous shot of a shapely female derriere can't say they weren't warned.


[2/5, but some folks will love this].

[alanultron5]

I caught "CLOVERFIELD" on Channel 30 the other day (its back on at 9pm tonight!) I couldn't make too much sense of it! Did the `monster` come from outer space-or where? Why didn't missiles, shells etc do any damage at all? Seems to be a mix of "Blair Witch" "Godzilla" and "Starship Troopers" to me!

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

I saw it at the pictures, Alan: I quite liked it, and I think there was deliberately no explanation for the monster's existance.


Today I saw:

DINNER for SCHMUCKS, : a very quirky comedy about executives who welcome eccentrics/geniuses to a yearly dinner to make a fool of them. Some genuine laughs in here, but the comedy is laboured in parts. I enjoyed the shots with the very elaborate mini-mouse diaoramas. The sort of film I only want to see once.

[3/5].

[alanultron5]

The last time I visited a Cinema was to watch something called "TITANNIC" which I believe did fairly well!

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

I'm a at-least-150-times-a-year man, but I don't watch telly , remember.

[philcom55]

The last time I visited a Cinema was to watch something called "TITANNIC" which I believe did fairly well!

...In that case you might enjoy its recent sequel 'Inception' which begins with a rather soggy Leonardo DiCaprio staggering out of the sea onto a remote island. Bet you didn't realize the whole thing was a drug-induced fantasy!

- Phil Rushton

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

yes....that film was perplexing, Phil.


BURIED *****


This intense psychological drama must surely be a 'first': the entire running-time is shot from the perspective of a victim who wakes up to find he is buried alive within a sealed crate: and it's a testimony to the skill of the scriptwriter and RYAN REYNOLD'S tortured performance that this film never fails to draw the viewer into the understandable limitations of it's stifling premise.

The central----and only------character in this movie has limited illumination and access to a mobile-phone [how and why does he have a cellphone?: well, it's all part of the plot, dear reader!] : the only other face seen within the crate/coffin is over a grainy-screen video-phonecall, and even this scene is bleak.

I'm trying not to give too much away with the story, but I will say that this film had me gripped from the start to finish, with Reynold's characters' only contact with the outside world being the disembodied voices on his cellphone.....and even there, the battery is running low! If you experience claustrophobia in any form, this film will affect you, I guarantee.


[5 out of 5] MUST SEE

[colcool007]

Been at the pictures quite a bit over the last couple of weeks so I have now seen:

Let Me In and

Harry Potter 7 and a half

Of the two, Let Me In has to be the scarier of the two. With the return of Hammer as a movie brand and with great acting from the two principals, Kodi Smit-McPhee (aka Boy in The Road) as the bullied kid in High School and Chloe Moretz (aka Hit-Girl from Kick-Ass) as the vampire, this is a film worth watching. Set in 1983, Owen befriends the girl that moves in next door as he is intrigued by the fact she walks barefoot in the snow. The rest you can find out for yourself. If you don't see it at the cinema and enjoy a proper horror movie that doesn't need buckets of blood to chill, then get it when it comes out on DVD.

HP 7 1/2 has all the usual bits that we have come to expect from this franchise. A tad slow-moving, it does have a few humorous moments to lighten the bum-numbing 2 hrs 20 mins that you spend watching it. You find that you spend a fair bit of time looking out for the cameos. Great for aficionados, but so-so for the rest of us. Hopefully part 2 is a bit more slick and moves faster than a speeding glacier...

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

I saw Let ME In, col, and it is worth a look.


sci-fi epic SKYLINE is also worth a gander if fantasy is your fancy: malevolent aliens descend upon populated cities of Earth, and unleash terrifying hovering jet-creatures, who terrorize humans still hiding in high-rise skyscapers [most of the film is shot at this level]. Some gigantic aliens are thrown in for good measure, and the ending is downbeat and untypical of films of this sort.


[4/5].

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

I know I haven't added any entries on here for a few weeks: this ain't coz it's been a poor crop of films recently, quite the reverse.....I just dunno where to start, there's been a lot of good stuff lately.

But I will start with:
BRIGHTON ROCK


Some of you may know the original 1947 film version of the Graham Greene novelette, which depicted stark underworld gangland murder amidst the backdrop of Brighton tourist town [it wasn't a city until recently] . The first film starred Dickie Attenborough aged 23, though he looked nearer 50 in the role of 'Pinkie'!

This new update is pretty faithful to the old film at least, and it's best qualities are in the seedy depiction of delapidated seaside-town rooms, as occupied by the underworld characters. Fantastic creative use of lighting [interiors/exteriors] throughout, if this is your forte......the drab, peeling walls are counterpointed with scenes of utter opulence and luxury, as enjoyed by the leader of one of the opposing gangs [played by Andy Serkis].

Quite a lot of brutal knifings etc, and the timeframe is updated from the 30s novel/late 40s film to 1964 Brighton, where the infamous Mods/Rockers battles are introduced to fine effect. The time as depicted in this film seems a bit further back than '64 though, with no Beatles/other contemporary music references although there are plenty of old-time musical interludes introduced to evocative relief.


A lot of the locations of 'Brighton' were filmed just down the road in Eastbourne apparantly, which has seedier architecture,brilliantly exploited in this film. Plenty of vintage 60s cars etc for aficiandos of this classy period.


If you like British film now and again, this is worth a look. It's took a bit of a slating however, critically. But I enjoyed it, for what that's worth.....also features Helen Mirren as a street-sussed vixen.

[4/5]

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

another remake just seen today:
THE MECHANIC

The original 1972 flick was a vehicle for macho-man Charles Bronson as a methodical, efficient hit-man, and this update stars Jason Stratham [that bald guy in the TRANSPORTER films] so you know you can expect much teeth-clenching, macho-posturing and general 'badass ' strutting as the bodies collapse in a bloody heap.

Actually, the body-count is fairly low for a film of this sort, and the brutality and sadism are doled out sparingly, if effectively. Stratham's character loves the finery in life, with a plush pad he has funded from the bounty payments of his hitman assignments. Along the way, he meets mafiaesque crimelords who he disposes without mercy, before meeting up with a like-minded soul, whom he takes under his wing.

The twists come thick and fast in this entertaining thriller, with the usual quickly-edited token romp for Stratham to enjoy with a buxom wench.



4/5

[colcool007]

Seen a few more over the last month or so. So here's my take on them.

Tangled The 50th Disney movie, but for once it is so much more than the usual fare. It looks as if Disney have taken a leaf out of the Dreamworks' book and multi-layered this movie and removed the bucket of saccharine. The script is aimed at adults, but can still be appreciated by the small ones. And the artwork is up there with the best of Disney's animation. I laughed out loud so much that the audience around me appreciated/mused wryly that you may grow old, but you can be forever young. 5/5

The King's Speech. The story of how George VI overcame his dehabilitating stutter to lead the nation through the war. This is the sort of period drama that British cinema excels at. And it can be seen by the attention to detail in the sets and the cinematography. The only sour notes were the potrayal of Wallis Simpson and Edward VIII as if he was caught by some sort of Svengali-like muse and Firth as a swearing Royal Prince. I know that the Royals are as fallible as anyone, but those two parts of the movie jarred with me. An excellent example of British drama. 4/5

True Grit. After our diet of westerns in the comics, I thoroughly enjoyed the 1969 version with John Wayne, but the only word that best describes this 2010 version is meandering. Beautifully set, again attention to detail was top-notch, but the film could have easily been cut more tightly. It only comes in at 1 hr 40 min, but it felt so much longer. Best actors for me were Hailee Steinfeld and Matt Damon in that order. Best scene of the movie is the charge of Rooster against the Pepper gang. 3/5

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

Many thanks for your thoughts on these releases, Col, and I tend to agree with your overall consensus. I liked the young teenage girl actress in True Grit, but I've almost forgot the rest of the film, a scant two months later........

Today I seen:
Arthur: Russel Brand resigned from Radio 2, yet his career seems to be soaring compared to his co-conspirator in mirth, Jonathan Ross......Brand has secured his first headlining feature, hogging the limelight in this glossy, 40-million bucks comedy-farce/heartstring-puller.

I missed the original 1981 Dudley Moore vehicle for this, and have never seen it, ever. Shockingly, 3 decades have passed since then and this version looked terrible in the coming attraction ads. This starts off pretty good, and got my full attention. Brand stars as an almost-Bilionairre wastrel, content to get boozy on champers and 'get to know' women better, if you get my drift......he is supervised by Helen Mirren's sarky benefactor character, who peps up the proceedings. After about 30 minute running-time, though, the whole concept falls apart like damp cardboard boxes and never fully recovers.



The mostly-teen audience who saw this with me seemed to like it [there were hearty guffaws all the way throughout, mostly from female Brand fans, who lapped up his every quip, ] but Brand's efforts at Hollywood comedy seemed forced, and embarassing during the many-lowpoints.


A bit of a bore: routine at best. Typical Hollywood, if you know what I mean.




[2/5]. [Looks nice---expertly shot, but it's not nearly enough to sustain the interest].

[Lew Stringer]

I was pleasantly surprised today to read that Thor comes to UK cinemas on Monday! I thought it was being released in May. Definitely one I'll find time to watch.

[Digifiend]

It's not even out in America yet.