Search
Search results
Baby Daily Activity Tracker tools iCareRoom Free
Medical and Lifestyle
App
No 1 Baby tracker application in South Korea. More worth than just logging. All the loggings for...
Introducing Human Resource Management
Caroline Hook, Andrew Jenkins and Margaret Foot
Book
"A good, reliable and accurate all round book with lots of useful models that are well explained and...
Speech in the Silence: Thelema & Magick
Podcast
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. ~ In this podcast, we focus on the topics of...
Medical Conditions in the Athlete 3rd Edition with Web Study Guide
Katie Walsh Flanagan and Micki Cuppett
Book
Medical Conditions in the Athlete, Third Edition With Web Study Guide, equips health care providers...
Applying the Building Code: Step-by-Step Guidance for Design and Building Professionals
Book
No other resource not even the building code presents the exact code information you need, when you...
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Psycho (1960) in Movies
Jan 6, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Ah Psycho, the granddaddy of slashers and a film that I find somehow modern and dated at the same time.
Psycho is a slow burn, at the beginning even the dialogue is sparse as the film builds up to the confrontations with Norman Bates (argued by most as the first modern slasher) and this is part of what makes it dated (and modern), the lack of action and the main character driving around gives Psycho the feel of something that Tarantino might make but it lacks 'something' . It's hard to explain but, by todays standards, parts of Psycho are a bit bland, not necessarily boring but bland. The best example I can think would be the scenes in the car, Psycho has just one character in the car who is imagining what others are saying about her and lots of silence which are filled with dramatic music, where as something like Pulp Fiction you get two characters who are just talking, the music seems to take you out of the situation because, in a modern film it would just be in the background.
As the film progresses we start to pick up on some of the slasher tropes, Norman is strange, again we can't quite explain why but that is sometimes the same in a modern film, we see him spy, once, on Marion and, in a more modern film this would probably be stretched out a bit more.
The kills aren't actually as graphic as most modern day slashers but this doesn't matter as Hitchcock has a talent for making the viewer see what he wants and not just what is happening.
The character of Norman is quite interesting but a lot of 'fleshing out' is just told to the viewer in exposition near the end, however you can see how Norman/Mother could easily be an inspiration for the Jason/Pamela dynamic in the first 'Friday 13th'
Psycho has a lot to answer for, sighted by many as the first modern 'Slasher' movie it caused an uproar for other reasons, the first time a toilet was seen flushing on screen, the first time a 'Leading Lady' was killed off halfway through the film (still a slight oddity now as we normally have one 'final girl') and the fact that the stolen money is just thrown away when it is no longer needed to push the plot along. It is these firsts that help to make the film feel dated, we are used to more graphic kills, toilets are almost irrelevant and there is normally more nudity/sex in a modern slasher.
Apart from being a little dated Psycho is a pretty good and entertain film which has put some thought into it's story and characters
Psycho is a slow burn, at the beginning even the dialogue is sparse as the film builds up to the confrontations with Norman Bates (argued by most as the first modern slasher) and this is part of what makes it dated (and modern), the lack of action and the main character driving around gives Psycho the feel of something that Tarantino might make but it lacks 'something' . It's hard to explain but, by todays standards, parts of Psycho are a bit bland, not necessarily boring but bland. The best example I can think would be the scenes in the car, Psycho has just one character in the car who is imagining what others are saying about her and lots of silence which are filled with dramatic music, where as something like Pulp Fiction you get two characters who are just talking, the music seems to take you out of the situation because, in a modern film it would just be in the background.
As the film progresses we start to pick up on some of the slasher tropes, Norman is strange, again we can't quite explain why but that is sometimes the same in a modern film, we see him spy, once, on Marion and, in a more modern film this would probably be stretched out a bit more.
The kills aren't actually as graphic as most modern day slashers but this doesn't matter as Hitchcock has a talent for making the viewer see what he wants and not just what is happening.
The character of Norman is quite interesting but a lot of 'fleshing out' is just told to the viewer in exposition near the end, however you can see how Norman/Mother could easily be an inspiration for the Jason/Pamela dynamic in the first 'Friday 13th'
Psycho has a lot to answer for, sighted by many as the first modern 'Slasher' movie it caused an uproar for other reasons, the first time a toilet was seen flushing on screen, the first time a 'Leading Lady' was killed off halfway through the film (still a slight oddity now as we normally have one 'final girl') and the fact that the stolen money is just thrown away when it is no longer needed to push the plot along. It is these firsts that help to make the film feel dated, we are used to more graphic kills, toilets are almost irrelevant and there is normally more nudity/sex in a modern slasher.
Apart from being a little dated Psycho is a pretty good and entertain film which has put some thought into it's story and characters
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Tron Legacy (2010) in Movies
Nov 20, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Ok this was actually good which is a bit surprising as there have been a few sequels to older films released over the past few years and they haven't all be great, not that they haven't necessarily been bad but, depending on how they continuing they have been a bit problematic. Either by using now outdated concepts or trying to to match modern political standards and missing the mark, Ghostbusters I'm looking at you. Tron: Legacy goes down the path of of handing the franchise over to the next generation in a similar manner to Bill and Ted Face the Music and I think Tron does it better.
I'll start by saying that Tron: Legacy is not as original or forward thinking as it's predecessor but that is to be expected. The original had Ideas that were slightly before it's time which i talk about in my review of that film. Tron: Legacy can't re do that originality, partly because its a sequel and so is constrained by the world built in the original but also because a lot of the ideas have been used since, we've had the likes of 'The Matrix' and 'Wreck-it Ralph' and so Tron: Legacy seems to concentrate on being a Tron film and nothing more.
The film keeps close to the original by bringing back quite a few things, we have Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxleitner reprising their roles of Kevin Flynn And Alan Bradley, with Kevin now trapped in the computer world known as the Grid. The light cycles are back as well as few other craft. The effects have been updated but the grid and it's games are still very recognisable and there are a few through back lines and scenes.
Tron: Legacy does feel a bit Matrixy at times, neither of the flynns are Neo but it does draw on the familiar God/Devil tropes that you often see. The costumes are more cyber punk than the original, still using the red/blue lighting but also being more PVC and trench coat in its aesthetic with many characters supporting visors or crash helmets, to the point that Daft Punk actually look like they belong there.
Like a lot of Cyberpunk films there is a night club and this has one of the films stand out characters, Castor, played by Michael Sheen who is doing his best 'Ziggy Stardust' impression.
The strange thing is, this is a good film, with good franchise potential and Disney don't seem to have marketed it well, it's 10 years old (at the time of writing) and isn't mentioned much and it's only due to watching this on Disney+ that I now know about the spin off animated series, Tron: Uprising, which I'm going to have to watch.
I'll start by saying that Tron: Legacy is not as original or forward thinking as it's predecessor but that is to be expected. The original had Ideas that were slightly before it's time which i talk about in my review of that film. Tron: Legacy can't re do that originality, partly because its a sequel and so is constrained by the world built in the original but also because a lot of the ideas have been used since, we've had the likes of 'The Matrix' and 'Wreck-it Ralph' and so Tron: Legacy seems to concentrate on being a Tron film and nothing more.
The film keeps close to the original by bringing back quite a few things, we have Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxleitner reprising their roles of Kevin Flynn And Alan Bradley, with Kevin now trapped in the computer world known as the Grid. The light cycles are back as well as few other craft. The effects have been updated but the grid and it's games are still very recognisable and there are a few through back lines and scenes.
Tron: Legacy does feel a bit Matrixy at times, neither of the flynns are Neo but it does draw on the familiar God/Devil tropes that you often see. The costumes are more cyber punk than the original, still using the red/blue lighting but also being more PVC and trench coat in its aesthetic with many characters supporting visors or crash helmets, to the point that Daft Punk actually look like they belong there.
Like a lot of Cyberpunk films there is a night club and this has one of the films stand out characters, Castor, played by Michael Sheen who is doing his best 'Ziggy Stardust' impression.
The strange thing is, this is a good film, with good franchise potential and Disney don't seem to have marketed it well, it's 10 years old (at the time of writing) and isn't mentioned much and it's only due to watching this on Disney+ that I now know about the spin off animated series, Tron: Uprising, which I'm going to have to watch.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Gate (1987) in Movies
Sep 29, 2019
Gremlins meets Explorers in some good 80's fun!
After a lightning storm, a major tree get uprooted in the suburban back yard of Glen and his sometimes nice big sister, Al. Glen and his best friend Terry proceed to investigate and discover some cool geode stones. At the same time, Glen and Al's parents are going away and leaving the teen and pre-teens home alone (doesn't this always happen in 80's movies).
All seems well enough until the boys split the geode and it spurts out some ancient writing that Glen reads aloud. Al decides to have a party while her parents are away (go figure) where Glen is levitated during a mini seance. Terry discovers during one of his headbanging sessions some of these events coincidentally are said to open a demonic gate where strange creatures can emerge, torment those they find and ravage the Earth.
The three protagonists decide to try and close the "gate" by reading ancient text and Bible verses. This proves successful and small, feisty demons begin to appear and creep into their house. After several run ins, more unusual things start happening within the home, possibly as a precursor for something even bigger on the horizon.
The teens must formulate a plan to dispose of their new house-guests before it is too late!
Funny that Glen is played by a very young Stephen Dorff in his very first role. He reminds me of a young Ethan Hawke in Explorers as his nerd friend Terry reminds me of River Phoenix in the same film.
The movie is cheesy with dated special and optical effects that modern audiences might get annoyed by or find lame and of poor quality. The small demons are more funny than they are scary, but I still enjoyed seeing them on screen. I actually thought it was stop motion animation similar to a Ray Harryhausen film like Clash of the Titans, but they were actually actors in demon costumes and then shot in forced perspective to make them seem smaller.
The movie is only 85 minutes and the plot does take a little while to get going. The first half of the movie is more like every 80's movie you have ever seen with dated hairstyles, clothing and dialogue, but once the demon stuff manifests it becomes more interesting.
Even though PG-13 with some semi scary moments, the movie does seem the style of Gremlins meaning maybe aiming more for a younger audience rather than being excessively disgusting or graphic.
Hopefully you can put aside the elements I mentioned that aren't up to today's standards and enjoy the cute, interesting story this film inhabits. I surely did.
All seems well enough until the boys split the geode and it spurts out some ancient writing that Glen reads aloud. Al decides to have a party while her parents are away (go figure) where Glen is levitated during a mini seance. Terry discovers during one of his headbanging sessions some of these events coincidentally are said to open a demonic gate where strange creatures can emerge, torment those they find and ravage the Earth.
The three protagonists decide to try and close the "gate" by reading ancient text and Bible verses. This proves successful and small, feisty demons begin to appear and creep into their house. After several run ins, more unusual things start happening within the home, possibly as a precursor for something even bigger on the horizon.
The teens must formulate a plan to dispose of their new house-guests before it is too late!
Funny that Glen is played by a very young Stephen Dorff in his very first role. He reminds me of a young Ethan Hawke in Explorers as his nerd friend Terry reminds me of River Phoenix in the same film.
The movie is cheesy with dated special and optical effects that modern audiences might get annoyed by or find lame and of poor quality. The small demons are more funny than they are scary, but I still enjoyed seeing them on screen. I actually thought it was stop motion animation similar to a Ray Harryhausen film like Clash of the Titans, but they were actually actors in demon costumes and then shot in forced perspective to make them seem smaller.
The movie is only 85 minutes and the plot does take a little while to get going. The first half of the movie is more like every 80's movie you have ever seen with dated hairstyles, clothing and dialogue, but once the demon stuff manifests it becomes more interesting.
Even though PG-13 with some semi scary moments, the movie does seem the style of Gremlins meaning maybe aiming more for a younger audience rather than being excessively disgusting or graphic.
Hopefully you can put aside the elements I mentioned that aren't up to today's standards and enjoy the cute, interesting story this film inhabits. I surely did.
BNC Mobile
Finance
App
With the NBC mobile app, your finances are now at the tip of your fingers. Simplify the way you pay...
Final Draft Writer
Productivity and Business
App
The makers of Final Draft – the #1-selling screenwriting software in the world – now bring you...