LateReg
-
Posts
106 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by LateReg
-
-
1 hour ago, Bishop54 said:
61% RT score now, yup I'll be waiting for this to hit a torrent site.
Maybe we are getting spoiled by all the acclaimed horror movies over the past few years, but 61% isn't bad, especially when every review is directly comparing this sequel to the original. High standards to live up to. Plus, while the original received great reviews, its also probably the most divisive horror movie ever made, so in a way these mixed reviews are expected. But even most of the negative reviews admit the film is scary. I can't wait to see it in the best possible quality. (For what it's worth...I bet something like the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre would have scored closer to a 50% had RT been around back then. A low score for a scary horror movie isn't the end of the world, though it is disappointing, especially given the hype leading up to this film's release.)
-
1
-
-
Ugh. Three mediocre to poor reviews right off the bat for Blair Witch from The Guardian, Variety and Hollywood Reporter. Either they're going overboard with the comparisons to the first film, or they really think this one doesn't cut it in general. Disappointing start given all the hype.
-
If the rumor is true that the budget went up to 110, then I assume it was in an effort to make everything look as authentic and non-artificial as possible. So we'll see. One way or another, I think it looks vivid.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Joel M said:
The trailer is kind of horrible. It's looks so "clean" and flat it feels like people playing dress up in today rather than really being set in the prohibition era. Argo had all those ridiculous wigs and facial hair but the movie looked like "real" 70s, the spell wasn't broken.
I'll be dissapointed if it turns out to be a new Gangster Squad.
I read somewhere though that he insisted on using real sets rather than CGI to make sure everything looked authentic. Maybe everything will when you watch it from its opening frames?
-
Just now, filmlover said:
The Equalizer got a 57 on there in the end. This will likely end there too.
That's what I would think, too. I would think there's gonna be enough people who get into this thing/let themselves have fun with it.
-
It's a 50 on metacritic out of the first 6 reviews.
-
I've been curious about 31. I saw it. It's good if you're into Rob Zombie, which I am. But what I'm interested in is how it did last week Thursday at its Fathom Events screening. I haven't been able to find any information.
-
I like the poster a lot. From a marketing perspective it lets the general public know the stars of the film. And I actually like the way she looks. Expressionless, austere. Same as Pratt, just about. It fits the genre perfectly.
-
1
-
-
Will the Fathom Events showing of Rob Zombie's 31 show up on these Thursday numbers? I'm curious as to what it did last night.
-
23 minutes ago, Kevin Bacon said:
While I don't care what a couple of jamokes on YouTube and message boards have to say when the actual reviews are glowing, I do think this will probably be Wingard and Barrett's lowest rated film since A Horrible Way to Die. Not because I think it won't be as good as their prior output, but because this is their first straight horror film that isn't doused with satire and dark humor. It's a lot easier to get a 90%+ RT rating with a self-aware genre picture than it is a serious horror film, unless it's something that transcends the genre like The Babadook or It Follows. This could be the consensus best horror movie of the year and still end up with a decent portion of mixed reviews.
I do think it'll be much better than Evil Dead though. That movie was brilliantly directed, but had a pretty thoroughly mediocre script that shouldn't be the case with a Barrett-penned movie.
I did read on letterboxd that this film does have some humor and even some dialogue about the state of horror movies today. So I think the satire may be there.
-
I've been seeing a lot of mediocre praise for this movie over the past week that has me worried. YouTube reviews that only give it a C grade, a bunch in letterboxd giving it the same equivalent star rating, someone on this board who said the movie was merely decent. I hope that comic con hype is true and these are just random people who didn't get what they expected out of the movie. It's Wingard and Barrett after all, I'd be very disappointed if this was actually mediocre after such strong buzz.
-
Not sure if posted, but the first so-so but still really good review came from Indiewire, a B. Sorry for the lack of link.
-
I loved both versions of Margaret. The short one hit me with a jolt, the longer one let me luxuriate in the mess longer. The mess being the absolute point. I think at this point it's well on its way to being considered a masterpiece.
-
1 hour ago, Blankments said:
Got the trailer for this at Hell or High Water. JGL's voice is just... yeah...
Spot-on?
-
2 hours ago, ThatOneMechanic said:
Let's be honest: Would more people be interested in a sequel to Ouija this Halloween, or a sequel to The Ring?
Definitely The Ring, of course...
But the Ouija 2 trailer looks good to me, and that was even before I found out it was directed by Mike Flanagan. We could be in for an unexpected treat with Ouija 2, which I'm personally looking forward to much more than Rings.
-
2
-
-
On 6/21/2016 at 10:42 AM, Free State of Tele said:
17. Until the End of the World (1991)
written by: Peter Carey, Wim Wenders, Michael Almereyda (original idea by Wenders and Solveig Dommartin)
directed by: Wim Wenders
starring: William Hurt, Sam Neill, Solveig Dommartin, Max von Sydow, Jeanne Moreau
Synopsis:
In the “near future”, Claire's life is forever changed after she survives a car crash. She rescues Sam, a fugitive on the run, who claims his father invented a device which records dreams. Claire and Sam continue to elude the law, traveling around the world. Writer Eugene follows them and writes their story.
A science-fiction story that’s more about people and their relationships than concepts. Like many famous older SF movies, it’s set in the “near future” that’s now our past: in this case, the story unfolds in 1999, as world civilization is potentially threatened by an Indian nuclear satellite that might crash. But that’s mainly just a backdrop against the adventures of Claire and Sam. This movie falls into the classic road trip genre, but what’s interesting is the gentle quirkiness and humanity that Wenders manages to find in every scene. As Claire and Sam wander from Europe into Russia and Asia and ultimately Australia, their trip becomes more and more about the concept of memories, and dreams, and how technology can help (or hinder) what makes us fundamentally human.
There’s a legendary 5-hour cut — not an assembly cut, not an early draft, a completed cut that’s the full version of Wenders’ vision. Up until now, the only version is the theatrical edition, which runs about 2.5 hours. You can feel the trims occasionally, there are subplots introduced that don’t contribute a great deal to the story, and occasionally the pace and tone seems like they change abruptly. The good news is that the long cut actually has a chance of a release (on video or streaming, at least) — it played at a few select museum venues last year. So, watch this version now, and get ready to (hopefully) watch the full version at some future date.
Technically, the production was complicated and financing took a long time to come together. Wenders originally wanted to shoot it on 70mm, but that wasn't feasible. They ended up shooting in 15 cities, in 7 countries, across 4 continents. The movie's also notable for being the first film to shoot some clips with digital video. (They weren't able to get approval to shoot in China, so Wenders sent his actress Solveig Dommartin into the country with just a prosumer video camera).
The soundtrack, btw, is absolutely fantastic: a collection of great songs by alt-rock bands from the early 90s: Peter Gabriel, Talking Heads, Lou Reed, REM, Depeche Mode, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, U2, etc etc etc.
Hi! I signed up just to comment on this wonderful list. I can't wait to print it out and add everything I haven't seen to my watch list. (I've seen roughly 50%!)
Specifically, I wanted to respond to Until the End of the World. I have seen the longer cut of this film a couple times...it has been available on Region 2 DVD for quite a while, though it may now be out of print. The only drawback is that it doesn't have subtitles for the few instances of foreign dialogue. It is divided into three parts and spread across three discs. If I remember correctly it is divided into three parts because that is how it was shown on television at some point....or perhaps I'm making that up since each part functions as a self-contained episode with its own credits. But, yes, this longer five-hour version has existed on DVD for over ten years now, and it is quite a film.
-
7
-
BLAIR WITCH | Sequel to THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT | 9/16/16 | The Blair Witch returns as The Blair "Blair Witch" Witch
in Box Office Discussion
Posted
Well....The Babadook is in my opinion easily the scariest, tensest film since Martyrs. As artful in its own way as It Follows and The Witch. The three complete a holy trinity of horror in the past few years. So a lot of the time I do think even normal critics are spot-on when it comes to horror. That said, Martyrs is hardly a critics' darling, but seems to divide both horror lovers as well as critics. So it works both ways, and I do generally agree with you. I really think critics are being too harsh on this one as they are constantly comparing it to the game-changing original rather than just going along for the scary ride. Can't wait to see what you think.