Return of the Living SB Movie Experiment: Pontypool

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

After far too long, I am finally back! And with me, I brought...

Lawrence of Arabia

Requested by bob


What can I say about this film that hasn't been said already? It's one of the all-times classics of cinema, it cemented Peter O'Toole's legacy forever.

Well, for starters, I can say that it is a gorgeous movie. It's a very long movie (and as is often the case with these, various cuts exist. For reference, the version I saw lasted about 3 and a half hours) and frankly, it would probably be only half as long if it weren't for the many, many elongated shots of scenery. But of course, the movie would lose a lot of its identity without them and with the music complementing it, these scenes are an artistic treat.

Now here's something that probably hasn't been said a lot about this film: this may not be a good thing. Now don't get me wrong, I wouldn't shorten them or cut them for anything in the World and I can't fault a movie for being long and having long, slow scenes (Hell, I saw the full version of The Good the Bad an the Ugly and I still felt I could go for more afterwards) but I feel that if you don't care about the artistic aspect of a movie and just want a story, you might get bored as there are long stretches with very little dialogue and to be honest little being accomplished, which are there pretty much just to take in the scenery and the atmosphere of the land. If you do like that a movie takes its time to bask in its environment, then you will love it.

Of course, the major draw of the movie is Lawrence himself, from his idealistic highs to his frankly very dark lows. The interaction with the Arabic people is very interesting as well as his dilemma as to who he wants to stay loyal to. With that said, I do have to wonder to what extent I liked the character because he actually was interesting and to what extent it was because I just liked to watch O'Toole's performance as the cocky and rebellious officer.


Next time, we will return to a very specific sub-genre that takes me back to the very beginnings of this thread, the musical mockumentary, with Hard Core Logo[/quote]

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Hard Core Logo

Requested by @supersweetbotch


This is my third Canadian music mockumentary. What a bizarrely specific niche I've found myself. Well, mostly thanks to SuperSweet. This one follows the eponymous fictional band Hard Core Logo, a band that made it big in the 80's and is now (well, the "now" of the movie, which is 1996) going on a reunion tour which is also a charity tour for another punk musician who was shot and had to have his legs amputated.

Much like Fubar, it mostly relies on the interaction between the various characters, and of course especially the band members as they go back and forth between butting heads and sticking together. It's a good choice as I really liked the characters who all have very distinct personalities and all have their moments even though the film mostly focuses on Joe Dick (played by real-life punk frontman Hugh Dillon who from what I understand was basically playing himself here) and Bill Talent, who seem to represent polar opposites of what happens when wild musicians grow older, Joe still being pretty much the same as when he was twenty-something and wanting nothing more than sex, drugs and rock n' roll punk and Bill wanting to grow up and find more stability in his life by joining a bigger, more professional band.

The flip side of the character interaction being so good is that the plot, what little of it there is, wasn't particularly interesting to me. And frankly I'm not sure it's supposed to be because it seems to mostly be an excuse to bring the character moments, which thankfully are plentiful.

Another thing I didn't much care for was the random pseudo-philosophical interruptions by the narrator/director. There aren't a lot of them fortunately but every time they came up, I found them pretentious, irrelevant, overly long and generally annoying. In fact, the tone of the film can be a little weird as most of the time it does feel very real and very much like you're watching an actual band, yet sometimes it feels like the director forgot that this is supposed to be a barely edited documentary and we get distractingly posh-looking shots not too mention bizarrely artsy moments, as well as some moments you wouldn't think you'd show (or even get) in a documentary. I don't even think it's necessarily a bad thing as it does look pretty cool and add to the general strange atmosphere but it's something to keep in mind before you watch the movie so you don't go in expecting a super realistic film through the whole thing.

Oh and the music was really good. I don't know who made it but it does sound like good punk and I can definitely buy that these guys were big.


We'll be staying in Canada for a little while longer as the next movie is The Rocket: The legend of Rocket Richard, a biopic on the titular Canadian hockey player. I am now convinced that Canada is made up entirely of hockey players and fake musicians.

[Deleted]

That's My Boy

[bob]

Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No!

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Maurice Richard

Requested by armbar


This movie was far more interesting than I expected, which the sign of a good biopic. I've said it before, I know very little about hockey so seeing a biopic about a man who I had never heard of until now didn't seem like the most exciting thing to do but indeed, it was very interesting. And it wasn't off to a good start either as Maurice Richard, played by Roy Dupuis (by the way, am I the only one who thinks the guy looks like a near-successful attempt at cloning Bruce Campbell? Seriously, dude looks like a cross between Bruce Campbell and the default male character from Fallout 4. In fact, it made me chuckle when another character asked him "You want to attack Campbell?!") came off as rather bland and unsympathetic early on as he hardly said anything and showed little emotion towards anything.

However, he does improve through the movie and he gets more involved with the events surrounding him, so did I with his story. Interestingly though, during the first act of the movie, I did feel interested in his story, but more because of the other characters and how they reacted to him than for Richard himself. And it's no fault of the actor because as the movie progresses and he gets to actually act, he is excellent and very charismatic.

There's also a strong team of the status of French-Canadian players at the time, as apparently they weren't very respected to say the least. Goes to show how ridiculous prejudice can get when people from different parts of the same country can be shits to one-another for not speaking the same language. This theme only really gets into gear in the third part of the movie. In fact, in general, the movie can be divided into three thirds: the ascension to success (in which his wife is given as much if not more importance than him), the big league and the more political, personally involved part of his career.

What made this film particularly interesting to me was the old-timey feel of it. Now of course, I do like me some vintage visuals, but it's mostly for the little differences. It feels a bit weird to see a hockey match where a goal isn't followed by an over-the-top fanfare and where the goalies don't wear elaborate masks.

But yeah, I was actually very pleasantly surprised by how much the film makes you care about this story even if you're not a hockey fan, especially when it gets to the part where he teams up with a journalist to expose and criticize the more questionable aspects of the NHL, between safety concerns, corruption and French-English tensions.

Now of course, as with many of these films, I have to wonder how accurate it is (especially since the credits do include the classic "events were altered for dramatic effect" mention) and how much of the credit they give Richard is warranted and how much is embellished but at the end of the day, I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's a very good biopic in that it makes you care about the person it focuses on even if you had no idea who he was 30 minutes prior.


Next time, we have another film based on real events, but this one infinitely darker as it tackles the light topic of how the extermination of an entire people was decided; it's Conspiracy.

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Conspiracy

Requested by Mochi Lone Wolf


It's one of these films where I'm not sure how to tackle it. I mean, it's a film portraying the Wannsee Conference, where the "final solution", a.k.a. the biggest genocide committed in human history, was decided. Actually that's not entirely accurate; it was clearly already decided by that point, it was basically just a meeting meant to tell members of the government HOW to set it in motion.

The film is very well directed and acted, starring a bunch of British actors you know from other things, although paradoxically mostly stuff made years after this (there's a bit of Doctor Who, a bit of Game of Thrones, a bit of Harry Potter, a bit of Pirates of the Caribbean and even a bit of Avengers/Avengers Assemble).

Obviously, this isn't a feel-good movie. I mean, you obviously know what's going to happen before you even watch the movie and not only is it tragic, it's something that actually happened, the darkest moment in our history as a species. In fact, I feel this might drive people away from it as everyone is aware of the Wannsee conference and since this movie shows just the conference, in almost real time (the real conference lasted between an hour and 90 minutes, all the time the Nazis needed to decide the fate of millions) but I feel this actually adds to the movie. As I alluded to earlier, while the conference was depicted to the guests as a discussion on how to "solve the Jewish problem" (you have no idea how wrong just typing this feels), everything was already decided and it actually puts you in the same situation as these officials who are being consulted in name only and are really only there to agree and be told what to do, with their authority constantly ignored and bypassed.

That's a thing this film does very well: reminding you of the realities of dictatorship and that even high-ranking officials didn't have as much power as they liked to think they did. Now of course, it's not trying to make you feel sorry for them as they are still Nazis and still agreed to and took part in the holocaust, but it does show that they weren't cackling villains (well, for the most part, more on that later) and they were capable of emotion and high intelligence, which in my opinion only makes it all the more horrifying. I do believe it's important to remind people that the Nazis weren't inhuman monsters who are now dead and gone forever. They were very much human and followed a logic, meaning they could come back at any time and it is our duty as humans to remember the past and make sure it doesn't happen again.

In general, I think it does a great job of reminding the audience not to diminish World War 2 to a simple "heroes vs villains" story. From the start, Reinhard Heydrich (the man who organized the conference) and the officials point out that other countries aren't exactly super welcoming towards Jewish people, making expulsion impossible (a fact that partially motivated the instigation of the final solution). They make a point of stating that "even America" doesn't want German Jews to emigrate to their country, a line which seems to be said more for the audience than for the characters (especially since this is a British-American movie). And of course, it shows that even among the Nazis, even among high-ranking officials, not everyone agreed to the extermination of Jewish people but they were still expected to follow the line or face drastic repercussions.

This, unfortunately, leads me to a big problem I have with this movie (and one that frequently comes up with historical movies) is that while it does try to be as realistic as possible and to humanize the Nazis to show that history isn't as simple as it is often made out to be, I can't help but feel that some characters were maybe a bit too vilified, with some of them belittling servants, as if we didn't know that the Nazis are bad guys, while some characters are kept a bit too clean. I am mostly thinking about Friedrich Kritzinger. Now, I know he said at the Nuremberg trial that he was ashamed of the atrocities committed by the Third Reich and he did try to leave the Nazi government after the conference (but he was forced to stay) so it makes sense that he'd be more reserved than everyone else but I don't know... it really feels like the film is trying to turn him into some kind of anti-hero (or would it be anti-villain?). At the end of the day, he still approved the operation and took part in it, so I can't help but feel the movie may be a bit too nice to him.

In general, it does feel like some liberties were taken with the known facts, with some elements seemingly being the result of speculation (there is even a scene where the scribe is told not to take notes, showing that this part of the movie is not backed by evidence). Now to be fair, we don't know 100% of what happened there so if you're going to make a movie showing the Wannsee Conference, you're gonna have to fill in the gaps, but you do have to keep in mind that you're watching an interpretation of the conference, not a documentary or a re-enactment.

And then, there were the more head-scratching artistic licenses, like the characterization of Gerhard Klopfer, who is portrayed by Ian McNeice of all people despite him looking nothing like Klopfer (Klopfer looks like pretty much exactly what you think when you imagine a Nazi officer, McNeice plays Churchill on Doctor Who. Not that he really looks like Churchill either, but he's still much closer to him than Klopfer) and because McNeice is obese, of course they had a running gag of him eating as much as he could. It was really out of place for such a movie and honestly, it was kind of uncomfortable to have this kind of Seltzerberg-level humour in such a dark movie. It really hurts the film's otherwise very tense and very realistic atmosphere.

Because indeed, the film's strongest asset is that it takes a very realistic approach to the portrayal of this event, with the Nazis convinced that they're the good guys and doing Humanity a service but exterminating the Jews. They even have a sense of pride for what they're doing, with Heydrich talking about the efficiency of extermination camps like he's announcing that he's discovered a cure for cancer (which, in the Nazis' mind, they did).


Man, it's been a lot of dark movies lately. Suicide, depression, violence, delusions, bigotry and f'n nazism. I need something to cheer me up a little and I'm gonna get it because the next movie is a Disney film that mixes cartoon with live-action and isn't Mary Poppins, it's Bedknobs and Broomsticks.

[bob]

come back SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman

[Deleted]

Adventureland

[cageking666]

The Visit

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Bedknobs and Broomsticks

Requested by J is Justice


Dammit has it been this long already?! Oh well. This was a lovely little film, although I was lead to believe the animated portion was much more prominent, similar to Mary Poppins, whereas in this case, it is only a small portion of the film, with the vast majority being live-action. Also, I wasn't expecting it to have Nazis in common with the last film I reviewed.

Either way, it's a charming movie about an apprentice witch seeking a powerful spell to help Great Britain fight against the Nazi threat, and to use it, she needs to find the words necessary to conjure it in a book called "The Spells of Astaroth". Ah, the 70's, when you could put demonic references in a children's movie without having moral guardians getting outraged and seizing the media in an effort to have it banned. Oh, silly my, it's AstOroth, completely different.

But yeah, it's a fun film to watch. Not Disney's best, I must say, especially since the songs aren't as memorable as in other films (although "Portobello Road" was great) but still very enjoyable, especially due to the characters being so dang likeable. It seems to me that whereas most Disney films are aiming to entertain the whole family, this one was more strongly geared towards children specifically and I'm sure they'd love it. It also shows some impressive special effects for the time, especially during the animated segment, which mixed cartoons with live-action masterfully, and during the final battle.


Well, that little trip back in childhood didn't last long as next time, we'll be talking about my fifth Kubrick movie for this thread and it's one of his most infamous ones, Eyes Wide Shut.

Also, if I may indulge in a little bit of self-promotion, I'm also doing a Let's Play of the French version of Final Fantasy VIII, where I not only go through the game, give tips and give my impressions on the game and its story, but I also compare the translation choices and changes between the French and the English versions whenever possible so if that sounds interesting to you, you find it there: officialfan.proboards.com/thread/536741/play-french-version-final-fantasy

And finally, holy crap, I can't believe the view count! Usually this thread gets about 150 tops in between reviews even during the longer breaks (which is already amazing for a little thing I do on a forum) but this time it got almost 600 since the last review! Did someone link to the thread on another site? Either, it's truly amazing. I never would have thought this thread could be this popular and I couldn't be happier that it is. Thank you everyone for sticking around and showing so much interest!

[Red Impact]

Robot and Frank

[Deleted]

Torque

[bob]

Hopscotch (1980)

[cageking666]

The Last Song, starring Miley Cyrus

[bob]

No Holds Barred

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Eyes Wide Shut

Requested by bob


Eyes Wide Shut is a movie I've actually been wanting to see for ages because, well, I really like Kubrick, and this is a very divisive work, with some calling it genius and others calling bullshit, claiming it's just hollow artsy crap with no substance behind it.

And frankly, with all that in mind, I'm rather disappointed that I don't really have a strong reaction either way. I'm getting the impression that Kubrick was so convinced the concept for his film was brilliant (and to be fair, it is) that he didn't even remember to have an actual story to go with it and didn't really think it through.

Okay, for starters, this film is loooooooooong. And yeah, there are longer films, this one is just over two and a half hours but man do you feel it. Almost every scene draaaags on and on and doesn't need to be this long. And look, I get that it's Kubrick, he likes to linger on scenes and give it some artistry. And normally, that's actually what I like about his movies, going the extra miles to make his films not only meaningful, but gorgeous to look at. The problem is that while 2001: A Space Odyssey or A Clockwork Orange have beautiful scenes that you don't mind getting lost in because they set the atmosphere and help create this surreal mood typical of Kubrick, Eyes Wide Shut is a shockingly conventional movie, both in its story and its visuals. The only part where it actually felt like a Kubrick film was the orgy.

I hate to say it but a lot of it feels like padding and frankly, Kubrick does not need to pad his movies out; they're long enough as it is. There are subplots that seem to go nowhere, like the weird creepy Eastern European costume shop guy who feels like he should be in a Borat movie rather than a Kubrick movie, or the prostitute Bill, the main character, almost cheats on his wife with (and what was the deal with Bill feeling up her roommate later?). Really you could shave off an hour of this film and lose nothing of worth. In fact, the film would probably gain a lot from the more sustained pacing.

As for the story, it's actually very short and simplistic (which further makes me believe that this film did NOT need to be as long as it is as it could have perfectly well be wrapped up in an hour and a half). Dr William Harford, played by Tom Cruise, has some rather naive and traditional ideas of sex (men can't keep it in their pants, women only care about it if there's a commitment) but after an argument with his wife Alice, played by Nicole Kidman, in which she tells him about fantasizing about other men, his conceptions get shaken and things take a turn for the worse when one evening, a pianist friend of his pikes his curiosity when he tells Bill he has a regular gig, but the location is always different, he always plays blindfolded and he needs to provide a password to be admitted inside.

Despite his friend's advice, Bill sneaks into the place to find out what happens there, and he discovers that it's some kind of weird black mass/orgy. Unsurprisingly, he gets caught. He is lucky enough that member of the group accepts to be punished in his place but he is told to forget about what he saw or he and his family will face the consequences. Naturally, he tries to investigate anyway.

I think the movie is supposed to be an examination of modern sexual behaviour and how social attitudes towards sex has changed over the years but it doesn't really go anywhere with it. It takes a whole bloody hour for Bill to get to the orgy and the main plot to get into gears and almost everything before that is just... things happening and people talking about sex. It doesn't accomplish anything other than establish that women do indeed fantasize and sometimes have sex just for pleasure, which I don't think is going to be a shock to anyone watching the movie.

And although the second half of the movie is a bit better and we get some genuinely creepy moments as people linked to Bill mysteriously disappear or die, still not much happens and again, it takes forever to do anything and the slow pace really does not serve this movie well. And what really infuriated me about this film is that it never answered one simple question: WHY?!

Seriously, is there ANY reason for the orgy cult to want to silence Bill?! What, are they afraid that he'll go to the press and say "Hey guys! There's a group of people having orgies!"? Wow, they sure would be in trouble if that came out because... actually they wouldn't be in trouble. They're doing nothing illegal, Bill doesn't know anyone's identity since they all wear masks and cloaks so it's not like anyone would fear for their reputation, the constant change of location and password would make it near impossible to locate them and that's assuming anyone would believe and care enough about Bill's story of "people having consensual sex in unconventional ways" to look into it.

Seriously, this group is being far less discreet and risking being discovered a lot more by doing this shit than if they'd just let him go or, you know, not let him entered since dialogue suggests that they immediately found him suspicious. It really seems like a ridiculous overreaction to something that would have had no consequences for them. They're making themselves far more conspicuous by trying to silence Bill than they would be if they'd done nothing.

I guess it's supposed to be ambiguous if they actually did try to kill or at least intimidate people as one character explains they just put on a show to scare Bill and the people disappearing or dying was just a coincidence, but then that same character also admits they beat up Bill's friend for accidentally leaking the password (by the way, if he'd done the non-stupid thing and not written it down in large letters on a piece of paper right in front of Bill, we would have had no movie) so I guess that confirms they are at least willing to use violence to protect their secret that does not need to be kept secret. And then, to make the whole thing even more pointless, the film ends with Bill and Alice just deciding not to worry about it. And no, I'm not considering that spoiling the ending because that would require an ending for me to spoil.

I feel like Kubrick really did have a point he wanted to make with this film but he got so excited by the prospect of filming "edgy" material that he forgot to actually make his point. And with the plot holes and general nonsense, it kind of feels like an exploitation movie that was somehow made by a very artistic director. And while some Italian B-movie directors from the 70's and 80's could pull this off, Kubrick feels like he lost his train of thought somewhere along the way. I can really only recommend this movie to hardcore fans of Kubrick, and even then they should brace themselves for disappointment because, as I mentioned earlier, it doesn't feel like a Kubrick movie.


After complaining that this movie was way too slow, the next one should hopefully pick up the pace as it is about break-dancing, it's Breakin'



And if you want to read something else I'm doing, why not check my Let's Play of the French version of Final Fantasy VIII?

[Mozenrath]

That's largely how I remember the film. It's probably his weakest film that I've seen, and I say that as someone that isn't really that enamored with Clockwork Orange, for instance.

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Breakin'

Requested by Drillbit Taylor


This move is just... fascinating. It might as well be called 80's: The Movie. The film is plastered with pastel colours, everyone looks like an arcade video game character, the pants are either ridiculously baggy or ridiculously tight, there's a scene where 3 out of 4 characters have a mullet, the music is insane and catchy as hell and Jean-Claude Van Damme is randomly in the background wearing a wrestling singlet. No seriously, pre-fame JCVD is an extra in an early scene just hanging out in a wrestling singlet. And that's not the only pre-fame cameo in this film either as Ice-T is showing up as a rapper (I know, I know, really had to stretch his acting chops on that one) and you'd better believe there are montages. And yes, "are", cause there's more than one.

The plot is pure 80's as well. You've got a pair of street toughs making friends with a cute and proper uptown girl and team up to win a big competition and stick it to a slimy bad guy who of course cannot win fairly and makes the competition personal. The only thing missing is them doing it to save their meeting spot from being demolished by a greedy real-estate agency but don't worry, that's apparently the plot of the sequel. And why yes, there IS a scene where the guys crash a garden party in their street clothes and everyone goes "oh my! How unorthodox!" but then they make friends with two posh older ladies.

And in all seriousness, the movie is a lot of fun. Sure it's cheesy and dated as Hell but that's part of the appeal and it does pretty much exactly what it sets up to do: showcase some awesome break-dancing. The plot, while not bad or anything, was clearly not the main concern as every single scene seems to be an excuse to end in dancing. And if they couldn't think of an excuse to have dancing, f*** it, let's have some anyway. Seriously, I don't think the film ever spends more than two minutes without a dance scene.

And that's not a bad thing because the dancing is amazing as is the music. I don't think break-dancing was very mainstream back then so I get the feeling that this movie was made with the intention of showing people what it's all about and in my opinion, it very much succeeds at doing that. You can never be bored while watching this movie. There's a genuine enthusiasm in this film that's really communicative making you want to see more and really draws you in. So if you love the 80's aesthetic and/or want to see some impressive dance moves, this is the movie for you.


This review's through but wait 'til part 2, 'cause next time it's Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo!



And if you want to read something else I'm doing, why not check my Let's Play of the French version of Final Fantasy VIII?

[El Pollo Guerrera]

I had absolutely zero interest in seeing "Breakin'" and "Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo"... until I saw the Canon Films documentary.

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo

Requested by @ricrocket


So, first things first, this is the movie that actually has the infamous subtitle "Electric Boogaloo", so right away you know you're on for something special. And indeed it is because, well, it's very much like the first movie, an overdose of 80's.

As I mentioned in the previous review, the story is that Ozone has setup a community centre where young people can learn and practice various arts but an eeeeeevil company wants to convince the town to tear it down, arguing that it does not comply with safety regulations, and sell the property to them so they can build a shopping mall there instead. Our heroes are given a one month time limit to raise 200 000 dollars to renovate it or it will be torn down. So of course, they decide to organize a show (which looks like it'd cost way more than 200 000 dollars, by the way) to raise the money for it.

While the movie is not as frantic as the original (or maybe I just got used to it after the original shock?) and focuses a little bit more on the plot, it still has some very impressive scenes, especially one where Turbo is dancing all over a room. That's not a euphemism, by the way. He starts on the ground, then climbs the wall, then the ceiling, dancing all the while. And no, it's not explained why Turbo can break the laws of physics; it's apparently just a thing with him as the original also had a scene where he levitated a broom, the reason for it being presumably "why the f*** not?".

It also has some insane moments, such as a spontaneous dance scene at a hospital (which seems to be kind of a dick move to the people in crutches or walkers they dance right in front of) where everybody including nurses and currently operating surgeons join them and a group of sexy nurses join the number. There's also a guy who flatlines but is resurrected by the power of breakdance.

There are also a few subplots added that really weren't all that necessary in the grand scheme of things, like Turbo falling in love with an horribly dubbed Latina girl and some rather pointless feuds with Ozone versus a rival gang and Kelly versus some girl who is jealous of her because Ozone likes Kelly, despite him making it clear that he's not interested in the other girl anyway. Also that last one just doesn't get resolved.

Overall it's still a fun watch and much like the first movie, you never get bored and really want to keep watching just because the dancing is good and the film, cheesy as it is, has some genuinely good atmosphere and happiness to it.

And now, for your viewing pleasure, an actual screenshot from the film that I feel needs no context:




Now that we've broken everything there is to break and electrified all boogaloos, it's time to move on. Next time, we'll be taking a look at a movie where Wolverine and Batman battle to prove they're the best magician in The Prestige.



And if you want to read something else I'm doing, why not check my Let's Play of the French version of Final Fantasy VIII, where I just finished CD 2 and am about to begin the third?