Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I've been eyeing this one up in the local film store and now I think I will check it out.

See folks, that's how Grogflog works. Tony and I recommend films to eachother and you get to pick up the crumbs watch us piss in eachother's pockets.

"I've got this theory that big money should steer away from horror."

Fuckin' A dude. The best horror films should always struggle to be made. Whether its Torneur/Newton, Wise, Romero, Argento, Carpenter, Hooper or whatever, one of the main reasons their films work is transgression not so much of taboos but of the money and marketing people in order to put a real nightmare on screen.

I'm hard pressed to think of a seriously big budget and "serious" horror movie that actually really disturbed me. Maybe 'The Shining'. Nothing else really comes to mind.

OK, coming up for Grogflog, "Near Dark" and "The Devil's Rejects". Neither are straightforward horror movies but they are certainly both very effective and subversive, dark and dangerous, flicks made on tight budgets with few expectations beyond just really entertaining their audiences. Anyway both beat the bloody shit out of anything ostensibly spooky involving $50 million+ and/or Nicole Kidman.

And while I think of it - 'Alien vs Predator' is a good well-made and entertaining action film and a nice prequel to the core Alien tetratology and well worth checking out once it's in the weekly rental section. But" Alien vs Predator: Requiem" is a load of total facehugger droppings. A thoughtless, cursory and cliche-ridden plot, cinematography so "artistically" moody you can't see most of the bloody action and actors less expressive than the aliens.

"Cloverfield ' is quite good though. Not great but definitely worth a squiz. Some tasty acting, camerawork and slyly clever use of special effects.

I have to disagree about Cloverfield. The premise has promise, but the characters are ultimately extremely unlikeable, so much that I was going for the monster by halfway through the movie. That kind of thing has worked for me before (Friday the 13th et al), but not here.

It starts quite well, ends quite well, but you can have everything in between. Kind of like how my team St. Kilda plays to be honest.

That's a relief then, Ads. Based on Nabs' semi-recco I was tempted to buy Cloverfield in JB this arvo, but baulked at the $30 price tag. I'll wait for the Foxtel or Blockbuster version.

Had intended to include something about Alien v Predator and Alien v Predator: Requiem in my initial post seeing the first was an icy movie like The Thing and 30 Days, but forgot about it at the last minute.

Second Nabs' recco there. AVP is an excellent, tight bit of gear, which which plays beautifully on the infamy of the Geigermonsters; easily one of the best ever movie villains. AVR:R is slop.

Anyway both beat the bloody shit out of anything ostensibly spooky involving $50 million+ and/or Nicole Kidman.

I dunno, the previews for Australia give me the creeps.

Cloverfield was surprisingly enjoyable. I didn't care about the characters, but I didn't care that I didn't care about the characters. I didn't get motion sickness either, although I tried my best. My main quibble was with the bug creatures that dropped off the main monster - sure, some kind of smaller monster was necessary to keep the characters in danger, but I'm just so over insectoid aliens. Pick on a different taxonomic category, Hollywood!

Thanks for the tip, Tony. I'll be checking that movie out. If you rate Near Dark highly (it's a great film. Katherine Bigelow is underrated) in the pantheon of vampire flicks, as I do, then your recommendation can be trusted. Even if you are classified NBI on footy.

NBI: No Bloody Idea ;)

I saw this a couple of weeks back and didn't mind it either. Nice to see the cast of Neighbours/Summer Bay still getting work as well. They could have spent an extra five minutes in the final fight scene/resolution to come up with something a little bit more dramatic, I thought, but other than that I was quite happy to pay the rental fee.

I'm with Adsy. Cloverfield could have been great (the J.J. Abrams tag got me in) but the characters are so repulsive you want them to die horribly, which luckily most of them do.

The copy I got was filmed in cinema which compounded the erratic camera work (moments were ruined by people getting up and walking across screen to go to the toilet etc), a double hand held feature film.

The opening 20 minutes or more as we get to know the characters drags on way too long. Great concept, poorly executed.

I'd love to know the official AGB verdict on "There will be blood". My mind is still boggling that this (words escape me)...thing... won rave reviews and 2 Oscars.

I should add that none of the characters in 30 Days are particularly memorable; as FM alludes to, they have a soapy feel. There were even some moments where I thought the film may have been made for TV. Although (unlike Cloverfield, apparently) you don't start barracking for the vampires.

Haven't seen There Will Be Blood.

I saw There Will Be Blood at the cinema, had fairly high expectations (much the same as Cloverfield actually) but with this one I was quite surprised. Its a bit of a slow burner in parts, but everything comes together well. Its weird too, not in a haha way either. Except you don't really know what to think after the final scene.

I think I remember reading afterwards that there is a lot of symbolism in the flick, although I'd have to watch it again to catch it I reckon. Apparently Bush family and oil kind of links, but its probably for one more learned than I.

P.S - As for Cloverfield Pat, theres no way I would have followed that bloke if I was the guy holding the camera haha. Stupid wankers...

A colleague and I had a viewing of "There Will be Blood" (TWBB) over two nights, in share accommodation on the perimeter of nowhere. The medium of choice was a 17" Acer laptop, and pleasantries included consuming much James Squire Golden Ale (he) and Sinha Stout - on special - (me) with copious quantities of KFC and Nandos to boot.

As a prelude we watched "Run, Fatboy, Run" (1st night), and "Balls of Fire" (2nd night).

TWBB has an impressive brooding quality to it. The cinematography is a widescreen capture of the vast American stillness of
the barren mid west, panning ever left and right to encapsulate the gamut of the desolation before us. It has the look, feel, and entrancing quality of a classic. There is a fecund quietness that ominously pervades every scene. The timespan is vast as is the silent yearning of all the characters. This movie is portentous in every thing it does.

But, nothing, nothing, ever happens. To repeat, of happenings there is nothing. It is a long, waaaay too long glorious ode to an ominpresent nothing. Daniel Day Lewis puts in his best performance ever of doing absolutely, categorically, NOTHING!

It is like "Deliverance" with the hillbilly duelling banjo scene, the rape scene, the death of Lewis, Jon Voight's climb of redemption and returning resurrection all removed. Instead Ned Beatty's character gets lost on an orienteering adventure whilst practicing for the Duke of Edinburgh's Prize, and every one gets a poignant case of Poison Ivy whilst traipsing after him.

It's like The Deer Hunter with no Russian Roulette scene in Viet Cong captivity, no Christopher Walken return to face his demons and dying futiley trapped in a nihilistic nightmare. Just enless great performances at the Steel Mill, back at the local pub, short meaningful conversations over dinner and then the curtains close as the Steel Mill siren sounds a droning caterwaul.

The denoument isn't so much a rivetting exclamation to a volcanoe like build up as an insane reaction to very little provocation. It makes no sense which I am sure is the cause of so much pondering by the cinemagoer and critic camped at the coffee shop trying to convince himeslf that his time was well spent, that there is a deep symbolic meaning to the scenes of the last 2 and a half hours. I'm sorry to say - you have just wasted your time.

Far better instead to spend your time more productively and more thought provokingly by watching, say, "Balls of Fire."

Postscript: The next morning I found myself trapped in a gastric explosion, rendering myself unable to decamp for the days work. I blame this entirely on Not the Nandos, Not the beer, Not the KFC but entirely on TWBB. The movie is gut wrenching, though not in the cinematically conventional use of the word.

So it wasn't coruscating or searing then?

I'm sure there was a deeply sloping corrugated tin roof on the oilers shack, which is as close to searing and coruscating this movie comes.

I have to admit, TWBB is pretty much "Made for Oscar" fare, so Scary Movie 4 it ain't. But I guess the main point that the movie tried to make was there is no such thing as a good or a bad guy. Everyone has their faults in the movie, even if their intentions are good in parts.

If you liked Daniel Day Lewis in Gangs, he plays pretty much the same character here, but probably the quieter, more brooding brother. I reckon its worth a look, even for the simple fact that you can say you saw it and it was as garbage as Kats katching.

The comments to this entry are closed.