What general film/series have you just seen.. marks out of 5

[Markgway]

Appaloosa **½

Not bad western; Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen make a good team.

[saltysam]

Unknown 2/5 plodding Liam Neeson thriller never really takes off,an underwhelming effort by all concerned.

[Keung]

K-9 5/5

Yes, that may be a high rating but I absolutely love this film. Nowadays, films are all geared up to have amazing special effects, an all star cast or just be another sequel riding on the success of previous films. This came out in the era where films were there to entertain, and it does just that.

[bradavon]

Belushi was great in the much underrated Red Heat (one of Arnie's best). They don't make films like they did in the 80s. They were kept simple, before like you say, special effects got in the way.

They did make sequels to K9.

[Keung]

But K-9 itsself wasn't a sequel.

[Markgway]

Haven't seen K-9 since I was a kid. Came out in 1989 same year as Turner in Hooch. Hollywood always prodces these things in pairs.

Dead Silence **½

Decent stab at an old-fashioned scare horror from the makers of Saw. Mostly eschews the contemporary obsession with explicit gore and is the better for it.

[gasteropod]

Rise of the Planet of the Apes - 3.5/5

[bradavon]

Turner in Hooch is better.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes - 3.5/5

Care to say any more? I'm seeing it Wednesday. Planets of the Apes (1968) is excellent, Conquest (Part 4) is very good. Parts 2 and 3 are okay. Parts 5 and 6 (Burton remake) are rubbish.

[Shingster]

Turner in Hooch is better.

Didn't think you were into those kind of films brad!!

[gasteropod]

Care to say any more? I'm seeing it Wednesday. Planets of the Apes (1968) is excellent, Conquest (Part 4) is very good. Parts 2 and 3 are okay. Parts 5 and 6 (Burton remake) are rubbish.

Well I wasn't bothered about going to see it, think I've only seen some of Tim Burton's film, but it was good, no surprises to be had really, it went fast and my dad was like 'I didn't want it to end!'.

[Markgway]

Turner in Hooch is better.

Didn't think you were into those kind of films brad!!

[bradavon]

@ Mark: I don't why you're laughing. I'm quoting you ha ha.

@ Gas: If you've only got the Burton remake to compare it to. You're not comparing POTA with POTA. The original is a hell of a lot better, if a little dated. Thanks btw.

[Markgway]

@ Mark: I don't why you're laughing. I'm quoting you ha ha.

I just noticed that!

I think I must've seen the XXX version.

[Markgway]

Walled In **

Original and strange horror... but not satisfying on the whole.

The kind of film you'll probably get annoyed at for wasting your time.

[grim_tales]

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956): 4/5

I wouldnt say this is Hitch's best but I still really enjoyed it An exciting film with many trademarks - spies/agents, intrigue, red herrings, good use of locations, and there's also an excellent score by Hermann, the way the music is used to build tension in the Albert Hall scene is brilliant.
Jimmy Stewart is very good in this and Doris Day was surprisingly good too. As with "Rear Window" the film uses hit songs of the day on the soundtrack (or rather, in this case, Que Sera Sera was written for the movie and then became a hit I believe).

[Keung]

Wild Hogs 2.5/5
Quite entertaining in the beginning, but towards the end I was a little bored.

Sex Drive 3.5/5
Better than I expected. I heard the unrated/extended cut has a bit more nudity, male and female, that's a bit distracting so I'm glad I went with the theatrical version.

[Markgway]

I heard the unrated/extended cut has a bit more nudity, male and female, that's a bit distracting so I'm glad I went with the theatrical version.

The extended, unrated version is a bit of a joke on the filmmakers' part, making fun of extended, unrated versions of teen comedies on DVD. Your only supposed to watch it for a laugh after you've seen the theatrical cut.

Hulk **

Marvel comics adaptation had potential, but is ruined by overlength and terrible, cartoony CGI that's at odds with self-serious approach to the drama.

[Markgway]

Day of the Dead (2007) **½

B-movie zombie-horror remake could have been a lot worse.
Steve Miner is a competant hack and doesn't go overboard with the gore.

Glorious 39 **½

Gripping pre-war thriller; a smart, slow burner that satisfies most of the way...
but is badly let down by a weak final half hour (and needless modern wraparound).
Shame.

[luckystars]

Hulk **

Marvel comics adaptation had potential, but is ruined by overlength and terrible, cartoony CGI that's at odds with self-serious approach to the drama.

Hulk wasn't ruined by the CGI, it's the simple fact that Ang Lee is totally overrated to the point of absurdity.

[thelostdragon]

Hulk **

Marvel comics adaptation had potential, but is ruined by overlength and terrible, cartoony CGI that's at odds with self-serious approach to the drama.

Have you watched 'The Incredible Hulk' with Edward Norton? I liked this one way better.

[Markgway]

Hulk wasn't ruined by the CGI, it's the simple fact that Ang Lee is totally overrated to the point of absurdity.

Yes, it was, and even if he's overrated, that has nothing to do with my opinion on the film.

Have you watched 'The Incredible Hulk' with Edward Norton? I liked this one way better.

I saw it at Xmas. I recall enjoying it more. I probably posted a comment back then about it.

[Shingster]

Hulk **

Marvel comics adaptation had potential, but is ruined by overlength and terrible, cartoony CGI that's at odds with self-serious approach to the drama.

Hulk wasn't ruined by the CGI, it's the simple fact that Ang Lee is totally overrated to the point of absurdity.

I don't think Ang Lee is overrated, but I do think HULK was overrated because it was an Ang Lee film though, mostly because there was a perception within mainstream film criticism that because he broke through the "genre restrictions" of Martial Arts film with CTHD (hence the reason so many clueless critics dubbed it "martial arthouse" like there hadn't been over a hundred martial arts films like that produced decades before) that of course he was doing the same with the comic book film with HULK. Utter poppycock on both counts.

[thelostdragon]

...with CTHD (hence the reason so many clueless critics dubbed it "martial arthouse" like there hadn't been over a hundred martial arts films like that produced decades before)

Could you name one? Don't get me wrong, but production value on CTHD was very high. There might be lots of wuxia films that were made before CTHD, which I also really enjoy watching, but CTHD set the bar higher. Films like OUATIC, 'Iron Monkey', 'Green Snake', 'Swordsman' etc. are similar to CTHD. And even though I love these films and they hold a special place in my heart and I watch them more often than CTHD, I have to admit that production value on CTHD was really high which made it unique at its time.

[bradavon]

The production values in OUATIC were high in places (I'm specifically thinking of the opening sequence) although overall like Iron Monkey CTHD's were higher. Also these films are largely there for the martial arts and the rest of the film is made around them. Whereas CTHD the martial arts came after the story. This is more true in Iron Monkey than OUATIC.

Lastly the acting was of a higher calibre in CTHD. This is why I largely think it's ridiculous when people say "they were making them a decade earlier", they weren't. Not to the same calibre. I imagine there could be films with as high production values/acting though, so will stop there.

Have you watched 'The Incredible Hulk' with Edward Norton? I liked this one way better.

I liked this much more too, mostly because it was a straight A superhero film. Ang Lee is a fantastic director but he was such a bad choice for Hulk.

[gasteropod]

The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967) - 3.5/5