Search
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation - Season 16
TV Season
Immortality is the two-hour series finale of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation aired on September 27,...
Sunburn: A Novel
Book
"Lippman is a natural storyteller at the height of her powers." - Lee Child, #1 New York Times...
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation - Season 9
6.0
Rate It
TV Season
As the team grieve for their fallen colleague ("For Warrick"), Grissom makes a life changing...
Another Earth (2011)
8.7
Rate It
Movie
A young woman named Rhoda Williams seeks out the man whose life she shattered in a car accident...
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Naked Lunch (1991) in Movies
Sep 28, 2019
Exterminate all rational thought.
The closing line from Roger Ebert's TV review of Naked Lunch was "I love what he did, but I hate it!"
Director David Cronenberg has always been known as someone who pushes the envelope of film storytelling to its limit. This is not more on display in maybe any of his films more than it is in Naked Lunch.
In 1952 New York, pest exterminator Bill Lee has an problem in his life. His wife, Joan, has begun using and is now addicted to his "bug powder" he uses in his job. She shoots it into her veins for her narcotics addiction. She is so full of the intoxicant she can even breath on cockroaches to kill them . Bill is arrested for his involvement and begins to trip himself.
His high continues as he now believes he is a secret agent who has been told he must murder his wife. He returns home and actually accidentally does so in a case of ironic accomplishment.
His trip takes him to North Africa where he meets a slew of bizarre and unsavory characters in his attempt to complete his ongoing "mission". He writes a series of articles using a typewriter which continually morphs into a giant cockroach. He finds another man who lets him borrow his typewriter in which his living typewriter is maimed and killed by Bill's device. Another man Bill meets may actually be a giant killer centipede in disguise!
If this doesn't make a lot of sense, I don't think it is really supposed to. Cronenberg's film, according to the writer/director himself, is an amalgam of not only the source material novel by William S. Burroughs, but also other works by the author and even some aspects of Burroughs' own life including the wife shooting incident.
Pretty much right from the start you know you are in for something very unusual when Lee starts having a conversation with his bug typewriter 15 minutes into the film. Then add another conversation with a giant "mugwump" sitting at a bar, a bug that bizarrely speaks in a voice from his bulbous anus and the fore mentioned giant centipede, you have a film in which you never are fully aware of what is real or what has become a drug-filled fantasy.
Cronenberg's fascination with the "body horror" style of film goes way back to some of his earlier films including The Brood and Scanners as well as They Fly remake. All his skill at creating one of a kind images are on full display here and you can't take your eyes off the screen as a result.
The entire cast really inhabit their roles including Peter Weller (who turned down Robocop 3 for this role) as Lee. His monotone, stoic delivery and minimalist physicality is perfect for this role. Throw in supporting performances by Ian Holm, Judy Davis and even Roy Scheider and you have found a perfect ensemble for this strange acid trip of a film.
The jazz soundtrack is also legendary including saxophone maestro Ornette Coleman off a score from Howard Shore. The improvisation and inconsistent melodies are a partnership with the unusual story taking place and form a symbiosis with the film.
You definitely leave the film wondering what you have just watched; however, sometimes that s a good thing. The director makes you think about what you have watched and decide for yourself the important elements what what is actually true.
I wish more films were like this!
Director David Cronenberg has always been known as someone who pushes the envelope of film storytelling to its limit. This is not more on display in maybe any of his films more than it is in Naked Lunch.
In 1952 New York, pest exterminator Bill Lee has an problem in his life. His wife, Joan, has begun using and is now addicted to his "bug powder" he uses in his job. She shoots it into her veins for her narcotics addiction. She is so full of the intoxicant she can even breath on cockroaches to kill them . Bill is arrested for his involvement and begins to trip himself.
His high continues as he now believes he is a secret agent who has been told he must murder his wife. He returns home and actually accidentally does so in a case of ironic accomplishment.
His trip takes him to North Africa where he meets a slew of bizarre and unsavory characters in his attempt to complete his ongoing "mission". He writes a series of articles using a typewriter which continually morphs into a giant cockroach. He finds another man who lets him borrow his typewriter in which his living typewriter is maimed and killed by Bill's device. Another man Bill meets may actually be a giant killer centipede in disguise!
If this doesn't make a lot of sense, I don't think it is really supposed to. Cronenberg's film, according to the writer/director himself, is an amalgam of not only the source material novel by William S. Burroughs, but also other works by the author and even some aspects of Burroughs' own life including the wife shooting incident.
Pretty much right from the start you know you are in for something very unusual when Lee starts having a conversation with his bug typewriter 15 minutes into the film. Then add another conversation with a giant "mugwump" sitting at a bar, a bug that bizarrely speaks in a voice from his bulbous anus and the fore mentioned giant centipede, you have a film in which you never are fully aware of what is real or what has become a drug-filled fantasy.
Cronenberg's fascination with the "body horror" style of film goes way back to some of his earlier films including The Brood and Scanners as well as They Fly remake. All his skill at creating one of a kind images are on full display here and you can't take your eyes off the screen as a result.
The entire cast really inhabit their roles including Peter Weller (who turned down Robocop 3 for this role) as Lee. His monotone, stoic delivery and minimalist physicality is perfect for this role. Throw in supporting performances by Ian Holm, Judy Davis and even Roy Scheider and you have found a perfect ensemble for this strange acid trip of a film.
The jazz soundtrack is also legendary including saxophone maestro Ornette Coleman off a score from Howard Shore. The improvisation and inconsistent melodies are a partnership with the unusual story taking place and form a symbiosis with the film.
You definitely leave the film wondering what you have just watched; however, sometimes that s a good thing. The director makes you think about what you have watched and decide for yourself the important elements what what is actually true.
I wish more films were like this!
Steve Fearon (84 KP) rated Halloween (1978) in Movies
Sep 5, 2018 (Updated Sep 5, 2018)
John Carpenter's Slasher still stands tallest
Contains spoilers, click to show
That theme song starts.
You feel it somewhere deep inside, that feeling that something special is going to happen.
Halloween is THE Slasher, with a silent antagonist, an over-the-top performance from Donald Pleasance, the introduction of Jamie Lee Curtis, and the establishment of John Carpenter as one of the foremost purveyors of horror.
Patiently paced, with little time given to explanation of exposition, we are taken on the slow build up of tension as we go from the legendary intro sequence, to a breakout at the asylum, through to the stalking of teenagers by the man in the William Shatner mask.
Lots of shots of Myers just watching, waiting, judging, which could be interpreted as boring on paper, but it is just the right side of unnerving, and it is this constant threat which means the viewer is constantly scanning the edges of the screen, looking for our antagonist.
It contrasts beautifully with the naivety and innocence of his victims, who are just trying to enjoy Halloween as most teenagers are wont to do.
Yes this film is relatively tame compared to the films that have come after, but few can touch the pure sinister feel and atmosphere that Carpenter creates, and it is a simply iconic entry in cinema history.
Watch it for what it is, a genre changing horror film, that changed all that followed it.
No Myers, No Friday 13th, No Scream, No Nightmare On Elm Street.
Its that important.
You feel it somewhere deep inside, that feeling that something special is going to happen.
Halloween is THE Slasher, with a silent antagonist, an over-the-top performance from Donald Pleasance, the introduction of Jamie Lee Curtis, and the establishment of John Carpenter as one of the foremost purveyors of horror.
Patiently paced, with little time given to explanation of exposition, we are taken on the slow build up of tension as we go from the legendary intro sequence, to a breakout at the asylum, through to the stalking of teenagers by the man in the William Shatner mask.
Lots of shots of Myers just watching, waiting, judging, which could be interpreted as boring on paper, but it is just the right side of unnerving, and it is this constant threat which means the viewer is constantly scanning the edges of the screen, looking for our antagonist.
It contrasts beautifully with the naivety and innocence of his victims, who are just trying to enjoy Halloween as most teenagers are wont to do.
Yes this film is relatively tame compared to the films that have come after, but few can touch the pure sinister feel and atmosphere that Carpenter creates, and it is a simply iconic entry in cinema history.
Watch it for what it is, a genre changing horror film, that changed all that followed it.
No Myers, No Friday 13th, No Scream, No Nightmare On Elm Street.
Its that important.
Basic Instincts: Love, Lust and Violence in the Art of Joseph Highmore
Book
Published to coincide with the exhibition at the Foundling Museum in London, this fascinating book...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Halloween (1978) in Movies
Sep 29, 2020
What is there to say about Halloween that hasn't already been said? Not quite the first slasher, but arguably the film to throw this particular sub genre and all its tropes into the spotlight, and it's pretty much the perfect horror.
Halloween is iconic in several ways. A big part of that is it's characters. Laurie Strode is considered by many to be the quintessential scream queen/final girl and that is completely down to Jamie Lee Curtis. Her character is down to earth and relatable, realistic but shows resolve by the time the credits role. This has resulted in her return many times throughout the franchise and is still beloved now.
Donald Pleasance as Dr Loomis is another main stay of the franchise. His character arc is more tempestuous than Laurie's and as a result is less impactful overall, but is an important part nonetheless, especially in the original.
But what would Halloween be if it wasn't for Michael Myers, and indisputable behemoth of horror. His first outing is easily his best, with just enough back story to intrigue, and a quiet determination in the way he mercilessly and calmly stalks his victims. His souless, white mask (a mask infamously modelled after William Shatner) and dark jumpsuit is a simple yet effective aesthetic.
Some of the shots in Halloween are genuinely chilling - they got me when I was a kid, and they still get me now. One shot that always sticks in my head is when Laurie clocks Michael a little way down the street staring at her from behind a bush in broad daylight. The whole film is creepy, something that has seldom been imitated in the huge number of Slashers that followed in its wake.
This is all topped off by the instantly recognisable music score, composed by director John Carpenter (the talented bastard). I'm an unashamed Carpenter fan, and my love for his work started right here, as it did for many others.
Halloween is a film that is rightly still talked about today. It will never fade away, and it's simply down to how good it is, even all these years later. It's a must see piece of cinema, and it stands shoulder to shoulder with The Thing as my personal favourite horror of all time.
Halloween is iconic in several ways. A big part of that is it's characters. Laurie Strode is considered by many to be the quintessential scream queen/final girl and that is completely down to Jamie Lee Curtis. Her character is down to earth and relatable, realistic but shows resolve by the time the credits role. This has resulted in her return many times throughout the franchise and is still beloved now.
Donald Pleasance as Dr Loomis is another main stay of the franchise. His character arc is more tempestuous than Laurie's and as a result is less impactful overall, but is an important part nonetheless, especially in the original.
But what would Halloween be if it wasn't for Michael Myers, and indisputable behemoth of horror. His first outing is easily his best, with just enough back story to intrigue, and a quiet determination in the way he mercilessly and calmly stalks his victims. His souless, white mask (a mask infamously modelled after William Shatner) and dark jumpsuit is a simple yet effective aesthetic.
Some of the shots in Halloween are genuinely chilling - they got me when I was a kid, and they still get me now. One shot that always sticks in my head is when Laurie clocks Michael a little way down the street staring at her from behind a bush in broad daylight. The whole film is creepy, something that has seldom been imitated in the huge number of Slashers that followed in its wake.
This is all topped off by the instantly recognisable music score, composed by director John Carpenter (the talented bastard). I'm an unashamed Carpenter fan, and my love for his work started right here, as it did for many others.
Halloween is a film that is rightly still talked about today. It will never fade away, and it's simply down to how good it is, even all these years later. It's a must see piece of cinema, and it stands shoulder to shoulder with The Thing as my personal favourite horror of all time.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated The Incredible Hulk (2008) in Movies
May 9, 2019
"As far as I'm concerned, that man's whole body is property of the U.S. army."
I will defend this gem until the day I die.
The Incredible Hulk is without a doubt one of the most underrated, underappreciated film's that I have ever seen. There it is. I'm just putting it out there. Don't worry, I have my reasons that I'll get into but if you don't like this film, if you hate this film even, I encourage you to read this review. I encourage this because I hope to open your eyes to how beautiful and tragic The Incredible Hulk is.
For one, let's take it back to May 1962 when Stan Lee and Jack Kirby introduced to us, in his very own debut issue, the Hulk himself. According to interviews, Lee spoke of how this film truly captured the essence of the character and the comics. In those comics, General Thunderbolt Ross, along with the military, was always chasing Dr. Banner ever since the accident. This is portrayed brilliantly here by Louis Leterrier. I'm not a huge fan of his work but I got to give credit where credit's due.
I don't even know where to start for positives because there's so many. For one, Edward Norton is brilliant (yes brilliant) as Bruce Banner. His performance is so emotionally subdued, filled with great sadness and longing. They even show him suffering from PTSD, which has never been touched on with this character on film. Really great stuff on Norton's part. We also get to finally see Bruce Banner be a scientist. We've seen it in the future films sure, but not to this extent. Bruce is working with scraps, using solely his wits, in a third world country . . . just like in the comics.
The story of Hulk is really a tragic love story. I got serious King Kong vibes from the similar dynamic here and it's beautiful. The chemistry between Banner and Elizabeth Ross is great. It's so believable; two people put in an impossible situation and making it work. That's love.
Hulk's character is so well realized here. He suffers from PTSD like I said, but the actual monster himself is perfect. They even throw in a bit of a horror vibe for the first Hulk-out scene. Oh yeah, there's numerous Hulk-out scenes!!! There's so many great omages to the comics as well and I loved every bit of it.
Lastly, looking at it from a technical side it's great. The cinematography is extremely well done and a total feast for the eyes. The pacing is great and goes by like the snap of Thanos himself. The editing is top-notch. The soundtrack by Craig Armstrong is one of my favorites of all time and is so iconic and beautiful. Finally, there's a serious tone. FINALLY. There are some well incorporated jokes but unlike some other Marvel films, it's not overbearing.
As for negatives, they are almost none to nonexistent. Really just nitpicks. The taxi scene is a bit unrealistic and silly. It's the only scene of humor that felt a bit forced and silly, yet I can easily ignore it. But since this is an analysis, I had to mention it. Also, unlike Ruffalo's Hulk, Norton's Hulk doesn't look very similar to Norton himself. Again, purely a nitpick.
Overall, I absolutely love The Incredible Hulk
The Incredible Hulk is without a doubt one of the most underrated, underappreciated film's that I have ever seen. There it is. I'm just putting it out there. Don't worry, I have my reasons that I'll get into but if you don't like this film, if you hate this film even, I encourage you to read this review. I encourage this because I hope to open your eyes to how beautiful and tragic The Incredible Hulk is.
For one, let's take it back to May 1962 when Stan Lee and Jack Kirby introduced to us, in his very own debut issue, the Hulk himself. According to interviews, Lee spoke of how this film truly captured the essence of the character and the comics. In those comics, General Thunderbolt Ross, along with the military, was always chasing Dr. Banner ever since the accident. This is portrayed brilliantly here by Louis Leterrier. I'm not a huge fan of his work but I got to give credit where credit's due.
I don't even know where to start for positives because there's so many. For one, Edward Norton is brilliant (yes brilliant) as Bruce Banner. His performance is so emotionally subdued, filled with great sadness and longing. They even show him suffering from PTSD, which has never been touched on with this character on film. Really great stuff on Norton's part. We also get to finally see Bruce Banner be a scientist. We've seen it in the future films sure, but not to this extent. Bruce is working with scraps, using solely his wits, in a third world country . . . just like in the comics.
The story of Hulk is really a tragic love story. I got serious King Kong vibes from the similar dynamic here and it's beautiful. The chemistry between Banner and Elizabeth Ross is great. It's so believable; two people put in an impossible situation and making it work. That's love.
Hulk's character is so well realized here. He suffers from PTSD like I said, but the actual monster himself is perfect. They even throw in a bit of a horror vibe for the first Hulk-out scene. Oh yeah, there's numerous Hulk-out scenes!!! There's so many great omages to the comics as well and I loved every bit of it.
Lastly, looking at it from a technical side it's great. The cinematography is extremely well done and a total feast for the eyes. The pacing is great and goes by like the snap of Thanos himself. The editing is top-notch. The soundtrack by Craig Armstrong is one of my favorites of all time and is so iconic and beautiful. Finally, there's a serious tone. FINALLY. There are some well incorporated jokes but unlike some other Marvel films, it's not overbearing.
As for negatives, they are almost none to nonexistent. Really just nitpicks. The taxi scene is a bit unrealistic and silly. It's the only scene of humor that felt a bit forced and silly, yet I can easily ignore it. But since this is an analysis, I had to mention it. Also, unlike Ruffalo's Hulk, Norton's Hulk doesn't look very similar to Norton himself. Again, purely a nitpick.
Overall, I absolutely love The Incredible Hulk
Angelicalynnn (21 KP) Jul 6, 2018
iamsara (130 KP) Jul 19, 2018