Film/Video Discussion Thread - The Bear and Badger

Kow

I haven't read that.

WorKid

Heh. Seriously though The Green Mile, 11.22.63 and Revival are great, and the Mr Mercedes trilogy is a cracking read.

MattyJ

Raiziel wrote:

Was the book any good?

It is a good book. The story of Danny now being older and battling his own issues with addiction, sins of the Father, being haunted by what happened at the hotel is all great. There is another plot line which isn't so great but overall it's a good book and worth a read. If you've read the shining that is. If you've only seen the film it won't make as much sense.

Raiziel

So there will have to be some fairly radical changes in the adaptation, then, as it’s a sequel to Kubrick’s film.

davyK

Hereditary. Enjoyable. Watched it with wifey who likes a fright. Doesn't overdo jumpy and is better for it. More creepy than scary which I prefer. Some splendid atmospheric lighting and camerawork. One or two silly bits toward the end spoil it very slightly. Enjoyed the story.

Dark Soldier

WorKid wrote:

Heh. Seriously though The Green Mile, 11.22.63 and Revival are great, and the Mr Mercedes trilogy is a cracking read.

I felt the third part of the Mr Mercedes trilogy was very, very shit. Like really bad. The first part was great though.

I'm in the camp that he hasn't written any good horror for about 30 years.

[Deleted User]

Gotta be honest it doesn't sound good.
I can get on board for a film adaptation of the sequel to the book but not a sequel to the film based on the book. If that makes sense.

I like both the book and film of The Shining, in fact I think it is one of the best adaptations of a book as Kubrick used the core of the book to create a film rather than butchering a book to make it fit.
He understood the difference between the two media.

I don't think anyone but Kubrick could make a sequel to his own movies and even then he wouldnt, he said everything there was to say in that one screening.

g.man

Yup. I doubt very much anyone who watched Kubrick's version of The Shining left the theatre wondering what happened next...

g.man

Case in point, The Excorcist 2: The Heretic. What a lot of old shite that was.

Gremill

Raiziel wrote:

Was the book any good?

Book was decent - pretty standard King.

WorKid

Dark Soldier wrote:

WorKid wrote:

Heh. Seriously though The Green Mile, 11.22.63 and Revival are great, and the Mr Mercedes trilogy is a cracking read.

I felt the third part of the Mr Mercedes trilogy was very, very shit. Like really bad. The first part was great though.

I'm in the camp that he hasn't written any good horror for about 30 years.

Yeah I agree, it was pretty weak. First was excellent as you say.

three1ne

Heritage opening 30 minutes was great and then it took a nose dive. Hype killed this fucking film.

A lot of plot points weren't 100% clear to me. I'm sure it all ties into the mythology of

Spoiler:

yet it seemed more like it was a case of chucking a load of random ideas together.

That said, it was nice to watch a horror that was actually directed, with good cinematography and extremely well acted.

ShabbyMcCrabby

mistercrayon wrote:

I don’t doubt there is a readable subtext and some of it is has a interesting play on the ideas of sanctuaries and sources of threat. And some of the acting is exceptional. But

Spoiler:

With the kid dying I just don’t think the film does, or realistically can do, anything that really can hit on that emotional level. Like that is a really important and devastating thing that happens to that family.

I don’t see, e.g. how a body in an attic can really compare- even if it’s more spooky it’s not traumatic really- and the same is true for every thing suprnatural afterwards. (The table scene is fantastically played).

I sort of get that a lot of umbrella stuff is explainable but it’s not clear for example why the soul in the book jumps around to the dad and the death means fire or why toni Collette can move around the ceiling or naked people are in the house or why the boy’s face is reflected as smiley. I can see how some of these things can fit the text they literally insert into the movie to explain stuff but it feels entirely clumsy and a bit all over the place.

Take the dads death: he’s murdered by Toni Colette because he needs to be dead (maybe?) fine - why does Toni Collette go through such a palaver to get him to that point- up the stairs, dead body, tell him to burn the book oh fuck it I’ll just throw the book, a man is on fire for the trailer - felt like a lot of set piecery for the sake of set piecery.

It’s not done in a way like the wicker man where you get the sense the destiny exists in a naturalistic way and plays out in an odd but internally consistent way

Spoiler:

davyK

g.man wrote:

Case in point, The Excorcist 2: The Heretic. What a lot of old shite that was.

That one was so bad it was actually funny. Worth a watch when in the mood for watching a really crap film. Richard Burton is along for the ride. The build up was probably hype-tastic at the time.

Raiziel

Rewatched that a couple of months ago. It’s bad all right.

[Deleted User]

Looks like Travolta's Gotti biopic is a turd.
0% on Rotten Tomatoes and describe as "the worst mob-movie ever made".

Now I have to see it.

Wookienopants

Liveinadive wrote:

Looks like Travolta's Gotti biopic is a turd.
0% on Rotten Tomatoes and describe as "the worst mob-movie ever made".

Now I have to see it.

I was just reading about that. I had no idea it was even a thing, I’ll have to stream it at some point out of morbid curiosity

Matt_82

Hereditary. I liked it but much like everyone else, I think it went awry at the end. Left a bit of a sour taste in the mouth which was a shame. If the last third had been of the quality of the first, we'd have a sensation.

The wee lassie looked like Piers Morgan, which was a bit of an issue.

Verecocha

regmcfly wrote:

No it can't because it's already made $150 million without being released in the usa.

Fucking misery

Orrrr, maybe, just mayyyyybe a lot of people wanted it, and a lot of those people enjoyed it?

ShabbyMcCrabby

Apparently the boys who did Starry Eyes are doing a Pet Sematary remake thats started shooting. Another unnecessary remake but the fact it's them means I have some interest

Wookienopants

Might go see a movie tonight.
Torn between the fun popcorn fest that is Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom (I know some of you didn’t like it, I really enjoyed the last one and have it on good Authority I’m likely to enjoy this one) or Hereditary.
I know which one will be the better film but the question is if I’m able to take a late night screening of the latter and still sleep later

ShabbyMcCrabby

Hereditary is quite slow and moody so if you just want to shut your brain off I'd go JP. Haven't seen it myself yet though as it's not out here until Thursday

GurtTractor

Just watched Cronenberg's The Fly.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucckkk

[Deleted User]

Haha. I watched it not so long ago.
Seriously fucked up, both in terms of visuals and how Goldblum's personality is taken over by the primal urges of the fly.

It definitely falls into that category of a B movie that transcends the typical.

GurtTractor

It's really very traumatic.

Blocks100

So is the sequel. But not in a good way.

mistercrayon

Oceans 8 is about 2hr of Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett dressed as badass cool godesses. It’s pretty good at what it wants to do.

Skerret

I saw Hereditary and love love loved it and was ever so impressed with the technical aspects but also, like all the best horror films, the meaningful themes that underpinned the creeping madness.

ShabbyMcCrabby wrote:

mistercrayon wrote:

I don’t doubt there is a readable subtext and some of it is has a interesting play on the ideas of sanctuaries and sources of threat. And some of the acting is exceptional. But

Spoiler:

With the kid dying I just don’t think the film does, or realistically can do, anything that really can hit on that emotional level. Like that is a really important and devastating thing that happens to that family.

I don’t see, e.g. how a body in an attic can really compare- even if it’s more spooky it’s not traumatic really- and the same is true for every thing suprnatural afterwards. (The table scene is fantastically played).

I sort of get that a lot of umbrella stuff is explainable but it’s not clear for example why the soul in the book jumps around to the dad and the death means fire or why toni Collette can move around the ceiling or naked people are in the house or why the boy’s face is reflected as smiley. I can see how some of these things can fit the text they literally insert into the movie to explain stuff but it feels entirely clumsy and a bit all over the place.

Take the dads death: he’s murdered by Toni Colette because he needs to be dead (maybe?) fine - why does Toni Collette go through such a palaver to get him to that point- up the stairs, dead body, tell him to burn the book oh fuck it I’ll just throw the book, a man is on fire for the trailer - felt like a lot of set piecery for the sake of set piecery.

It’s not done in a way like the wicker man where you get the sense the destiny exists in a naturalistic way and plays out in an odd but internally consistent way

Spoiler:

I don't think I can explain it all but I don't think a film necessarily has to keep 'one upping' itself in terms of emotional stakes. The fact that you don't really know where the film is going for the most part works with all that happens. You kind of think it's going to be a ghost thing after the vision of the mother and then you think the daughter dying ties into that.

I think it handles the turn quite well into a film about summoning a demon. A mischief demon, as that book says, which to me explains all the more wacky stuff (crawling on roof) and I think the son's visions are part of the demon taking over his body (or him having a psychotic break) and her crawling on the roof being the demon in her body temporarily.

I'm pretty sure Toni thought burning the book would kill her which is why she couldn't do it herself and wanted her husband to do it. But when he wouldn't she was pushed to the edge and was essentially killing herself but, jokes on you, it killed the father. This might be to remove the last male in the family to allow the demon to take the son as well. The naked people were, I thought, just the worshippers for the cult being there to conduct the ritual. I feel like most of the final parts (cutting off heads, all bodies in the house) were steps in the ritual and didn't need to be explicitly explained. I sort of felt the final shot of him being crowned was originally planned without voice over from the lady explaining he was now the demon but that maybe test audiences didn't follow or something. A few of the demon bits felt that way in terms of exposition dialogue.

I was happy to let "a demon did it" explain most of the last part but I could see how that might have been too far for some.

Spoiler:

mistercrayon

Skerret wrote:

I saw Hereditary and love love loved it and was ever so impressed with the technical aspects but also, like all the best horror films, the meaningful themes that underpinned the creeping madness.

ShabbyMcCrabby wrote:

mistercrayon wrote:

I don’t doubt there is a readable subtext and some of it is has a interesting play on the ideas of sanctuaries and sources of threat. And some of the acting is exceptional. But

Spoiler:

With the kid dying I just don’t think the film does, or realistically can do, anything that really can hit on that emotional level. Like that is a really important and devastating thing that happens to that family.

I don’t see, e.g. how a body in an attic can really compare- even if it’s more spooky it’s not traumatic really- and the same is true for every thing suprnatural afterwards. (The table scene is fantastically played).

I sort of get that a lot of umbrella stuff is explainable but it’s not clear for example why the soul in the book jumps around to the dad and the death means fire or why toni Collette can move around the ceiling or naked people are in the house or why the boy’s face is reflected as smiley. I can see how some of these things can fit the text they literally insert into the movie to explain stuff but it feels entirely clumsy and a bit all over the place.

Take the dads death: he’s murdered by Toni Colette because he needs to be dead (maybe?) fine - why does Toni Collette go through such a palaver to get him to that point- up the stairs, dead body, tell him to burn the book oh fuck it I’ll just throw the book, a man is on fire for the trailer - felt like a lot of set piecery for the sake of set piecery.

It’s not done in a way like the wicker man where you get the sense the destiny exists in a naturalistic way and plays out in an odd but internally consistent way

Spoiler:

I don't think I can explain it all but I don't think a film necessarily has to keep 'one upping' itself in terms of emotional stakes. The fact that you don't really know where the film is going for the most part works with all that happens. You kind of think it's going to be a ghost thing after the vision of the mother and then you think the daughter dying ties into that.

I think it handles the turn quite well into a film about summoning a demon. A mischief demon, as that book says, which to me explains all the more wacky stuff (crawling on roof) and I think the son's visions are part of the demon taking over his body (or him having a psychotic break) and her crawling on the roof being the demon in her body temporarily.

I'm pretty sure Toni thought burning the book would kill her which is why she couldn't do it herself and wanted her husband to do it. But when he wouldn't she was pushed to the edge and was essentially killing herself but, jokes on you, it killed the father. This might be to remove the last male in the family to allow the demon to take the son as well. The naked people were, I thought, just the worshippers for the cult being there to conduct the ritual. I feel like most of the final parts (cutting off heads, all bodies in the house) were steps in the ritual and didn't need to be explicitly explained. I sort of felt the final shot of him being crowned was originally planned without voice over from the lady explaining he was now the demon but that maybe test audiences didn't follow or something. A few of the demon bits felt that way in terms of exposition dialogue.

I was happy to let "a demon did it" explain most of the last part but I could see how that might have been too far for some.

Spoiler:

It was mentioned in the onscreen book that the host had to be suitably vulnerable to ensure a smooth transition by Mr P; crispy dad was the penultimate nail in the coffin. Essentially, the plan went perfectly. On rewatches and with further analysis I suspect there's little to nothing done poorly in this and everything had a careful hand guiding the design, very impressed indeed

Spoiler:

mistercrayon

So cineworld unlimited secret show was a nice surprise today: the incredibles 2!

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories