Bo-rilla Grodd wrote:lmao Manos figures?!?! I hope you are talking about 'hands of fate' Manos. If so, just imagine the nightmare of trying to stand the Torgo figure.

I recently got to 3 movies that Ive been really waiting to see: Razorback, Gatorbait, and 3 on a meathook. Solid exploitation trash. Im excited.

Of course the Hands of Fate! Just make an appropriate stand with the Torgo figure and it might be fine. I'm surprised Amok Time hasn't gotten on this.

And awesome trash list! Let me know how they are. I'm especially curious about Gator Bait, I've been wanting to see that.

So far, Ive only watched Gatorbait 1-2. 1 was cool. Not a typical rape/revenge flick, and a little slow at times, but fun. 2 was a little less good. But not unbearable.

Saw Rumble in the Bronx recently. Haven't seen that movie in forever. Forgot how much I liked it. Also watched some Mr. Moto movies that were on Silverscreen.

Rumble In The Bronx is crazy awesome. I love how it just keeps getting nuttier until they've got a hovercraft tearing around the street. Yeesh, even when Jackie Chan's old movies were insanely goofy, they were still fun to watch.

I finally got around to watching World War Z. Man, what a disappointment. I don't know what I expected from a PG-13 zombie flick, but Walking Dead gets away with a lot in the basic cable primetime slot. This one was full of CGI zombies, poorly edited, and just...I was bored, honestly, save for the scene with Pitt and his family trying to escape from the high-rise. It's great that Pitt was so committed to the project, but it's just not a good movie. I mean, there isn't even an ending, and the movie violates the laws of physics worse than the Fast films.

Really, really disappointed. The book, and those who've read it can probably back me up, is phenomenal. The movie, though, is a Title-Only product. They might as well have called it Brad Pitt Versus The Zombies or something. I'm amazed that it wasn't a complete train wreck, considering all the behind-the-scenes stuff. But I'm appalled that people just keep saying "Well, it could've been worse..." like that means the movie is good. It's not. It doesn't even have an ending!

World War Z, yeah, I saw it back when it came out at the theatres. I hadn't read Max Brooks' novel going into the film (although I intended to). The movie was so-so to me, about what I expected although the CGI zombie piles were quite silly. Actually, there were quite a few moments when people chuckled in the theatre, not at actual jokes, but at lame or silly things which really doesn't do much for suspending reality. The highlight of the film for me was Segen, an Israeli soldier who was portrayed by an actress I hadn't seen before, Daniella Kertesz. I couldn't help rooting for her survival throughout the film (like I said, I hadn't read the book) and it was the only thing that kept me glued to the screen.

Dude, I felt the exact same way about Segen. I've never seen the actress before either, but she was actually pretty good - considering that Pitt seemed to be half-awake and confused through the whole movie, I was really impressed with her. She's got an awesomely expressive face, and she came across as all kinds of sexy-tough. If she pops up in more movies, I won't complain one bit. It was nice seeing Peter Capaldi - the new Doctor Who - as well, but he didn't have a whole lot to do.

And the zombie piles were stupid as hell. Really, they look cool until you stop to think about them for five seconds. I get that Forster and the screenwriters thought the zombies should attack like ants, but considering that insects, you know, have hard exoskeletons that enable them to doggy-pile on that level, whereas humans don't? Seriously, how the bottom of that pile wasn't a meat infested pit of cracked limbs and squashed bodies is beyond me.

Honestly, I told a guy tonight that I didn't think it was that good, and he goes "Have you heard all the problems they had getting that movie made? C'mon, it's pretty good, considering..." The hell? How does "Well, it's not as bad as it could have been" make something a good movie? Did I miss something?

Hah! We're totally in a fanboyish culture where you're supposed to empathize with the filmmakers. Caleb, I don't know if you feel this way, but I've found that writing my own fiction has made me much less sympathetic towards bad writing. So much of it's caused by laziness, apathy, lack of revision, or just plain bad taste. I don't suffer it in myself, and I'm not gonna deal with it in something I'm spending my time and money on.

Here's an example of filmmakers I'm willing to cut some slack - at a horror convention a few weeks ago, I saw a premiere of a movie called Raptor Ranch, which is totally Sci-Fi channel ready. Fun, stupid movie with some entertaining performances. It also had Lorenzo Lamas in it...for about 10 minutes or so, minutes in which he doesn't interact with any other cast members. He just investigates stuff. I was curious about this, so I looked on the IMDB and found that the film's been in production since 2009! It seems pretty obvious to me that they needed a name actor to get distribution for the film, and got Lorenzo Lamas to be an FBI agent for 10 minutes to do it. I can sympathize with that like you wouldn't believe. That's a classic B-movie compromise.

But a huge blockbuster starring one of the biggest actors in the world, based off a bestselling book, and with a huge marketing campaign behind it? With that kind of money and talent at the ready, I expect quality. The more you have to work with, the better your film needs to be. I'm sorry, but when you're working at that level, you don't deserve shrugs of acceptance for your mistakes.

I completely agree on all counts.

Writing my own scripts has made me a lot more critical of the movies I watch. I'm not sure why, but when I watch a lazily-plotted movie, it really bothers me now. Prometheus is a perfect example. It's so obvious that none of the writers agreed on what was going on in that movie, and the climax - where a life-creating being goes ballistic nuts for no reason and Noomi Rapace tries to outrace a falling ship without realizing that she'll avoid being smashed if she just runs to the side - is mind-numbingly stupid. If you're not going to put a little thought into your movie, and just write a bunch of money shots for the trailer in a lame attempt to bait audiences into the theater? Well, that's crappy writing. Action scenes should serve the plot, not the other way around.

I get that some movies are supposed to be stupid, expensive fun (the Fast series), but with the amount of money they clearly dumped into World War Z? In the end, it's just a crappy Brad Pitt movie that has zombies running around in the background until the last ten minutes. Dawn of the Dead 04 is ten times as entertaining, makes a load more sense, and cost less than a quarter of what World War Z did (counting inflation). For the price, Z should have been mind-blowing. Reinvented the zombie genre. But it didn't, unless you count employing a blind editor. If you're going to spend the money, why not make sure that your production starts off with a decent script?

I know, I know. Expectations. But when you're given all the reshoot money in the world to make a zombie epic, and we wind up with a Brad Pitt stinker? C'mon.

FINALLY caught The Abominable Doctor Phibes on TCM. FINALLY! I've been trying to track this movie down (I refuse to watch movies on Youtube) for the longest time, and I can never find it. The one time a theater around me had it as part of a horror-festival, I had to work at the exact time it started. I was looking forward to this one quite a bit and wasn't disappointed. At all. Okay, I wanted more of skull-headed Phibes, but that's nitpicking. Vincent Price was, as he always is, awesome, and I love how deranged the whole thing was. That frog-mask...yuck.

God, now I have to track the thing down on video. Anyone know if the sequel is worth watching? I know Price made some stinkers in his time, and it's not as well-regarded. I sort of feel like the mere presence of Vincent Price warrants watching the film, but I don't want to tarnish my opinion of the original (Hello, Insidious 2).

Oh, and I know the backlash has started, but on a technical level, Gravity is probably the most impressive thing you'll ever waste $14 on at the Imax. My wife dragged me to see it, and while I didn't care for the story (knowing as much about NASA contingency plans as I do) as much as I should have, there's no denying that it's probably one of the most stunning and entertaining films I've watched this year. Of the 5 films I've seen in Imax (The Dark Knight, Speed Racer, Avatar, Skyfall, and Gravity), it's easily the most impressive by miles.

Just ignore the hipster backlash (it's been hitting Chicago in force - I can't sit in a coffee shop or ride a train without hearing some hipster doofus telling his hipster friends why Gravity is SOOO overrated) and go be entertained. It's not a long movie, it's technically brilliant and wonderfully shot, and it's probably the best use of 3D tech since Avatar.

I haven't seen the second Dr. Phibes, but the character was Vincent's favorite, so I don't think you have to worry about the sequel. And even a bad Vincent movie is still fun just for his involvement. It's probably safe.

Haven't seen Gravity either - it seems like a brilliant technical exercise, and if I cared about that kind of thing, I'd probably be in awe. But it's not my style and the closest IMAX is an hour away.

I'm still not totally out of horror movie mode, even in November. But with the next Hudson Horror Show up in two weeks and that Harryhausen/Godzilla triple feature at the end of the week, there's no way I'm gonna get burned out anytime soon. After HHS 8, I'll probably sink back into some of the Serious, Important Films that TCM was playing last month. Still got a lot of French and Swedish stuff to force my way through while thinking about how I could be watching a Japanese director instead!