Amusing, and definitely worth seeing more than once. Bruce Campbell as Elvis is unequivocally worth the price of admission. Cool story, and something to think about. Although a couple bits struck me as odd, it didn't detract significantly from the film. Go see it if you can (showtimes at http://www.bubbahotep.com ), and if you can't, it should be coming to DVD at some point. 

You might have to go to an arthouse to see it, but it's excellent. Don't worry about the french. 

becuase there are only about 3 lines of dialogue in the whole movie, and they're dubbed into english (if you watch in the US at least.) 

I just watched this, and I leave with this final impression: it was alright. Perhaps because I've seen several Freddy/Jason films I knew what to expect and wasn't really thrilled. There were some amusing moments between Freddy & Jason, and parts of their fights were cool. But it was pretty much a rehash with a bit of spice added in the mix. Though what else is there to expect? 

Club Dread
By SuperTroopers ppl. (Broken Lizard) coming out this friday, should be very funny indeed. 

You have to be wasted to truly appreciate it. Just an advisement if you plan to see the one coming out Friday. 

Caught this late last night, and liked it a great deal. Ron Howard has essentially done a 70s style Western, but with state-of-the-whatever digital grading. And Tommy Lee Jones and Cate Blanchett are both wonderful -- dunno whyen they're not. I can see why it didn't hit big at the theaters, though -- as I mentioned, its an old-skool flick, and a bit slow to boil by today's standards. But once it does get going to a gallop, it's worth the wait. 

worth watching?

I havent seen the original so just looking for opinions on how it stands on its own. 

I'm not going to elaborate. 

Yea late viewing but I watched it last night, had some funny moments mostly do to Jack Black but other than that it was ok.

Then Jason X was on, and I get like half an hour into the movie now realising how sucky it already is... so I didn't watch it. 

due*, christ we need an edit button UP IN HERE! AND SEARCH! 

... 26 minute French flick upon which 12 Monkeys is based. Anyone seen it? Is it worth hassling my local v-rental guy about? 

The Missing was great, I loved it. An interesting mix of social/political and supernatural, Tommy Lee Jones played the crazy irresponsible lone wolf very well.

As for the new Texas Chainsaw, I have to admit I've never seen any of the originals, but I liked this version. Likely this is very much like the old ones, in that it was very gruesome and very sick, not shying away from portraying any potential form of suffering. Really nasty and oppressive, but well-done for what it was supposed to be I thought. 

Love it.

Good solid plot, great visual style (B+W 'pictures' shown one by one with pacing to reflect moments of suspense and such), the 'background noise' of the audio is well used... just a great film. And it's got guys with those cool old style industrial goggles... :o

I'd say yes, try and get a copy of it. I have a 300mb .avi of it... you know, worse comes to worse, I could try and get it to you. 

 

...turns out I don't need to hassle my v-rental guy at all, they already have it on video. 

And it's got guys with those cool old style industrial goggles... :o

I'll buy that for a dollar. Sold to the man with the industrial imagery fetish. Off to vstore I go... 

SNATCH <--- ROZPIERDALA \m/ 

I can't believe noone's posted about this in here. I would have earlier, had I seen the thread pop back up again, but figured it had finally died off...

Anyways, the film is not that long, or at least doesn't seem like it, mainly because the experience of some of the scenes detract from your observance of time (at least that was my take, mebbe others would have the opposite view). Yes, it is gory, and violent, and no, it's far from the standard Holiday Bio-Pic of Everyone's Favorite Saviour -- which, of course, is the first thing I dug about it. After all the passion spoken of in the case of Christ's is indeed the farthest thing possible from Don Juan DeMarco.

If I had a verdict on it, I would oddly enough recall the words of William Friedkin when he spoke of the appeal (or not) of his film The Exorcist -- that it only gives the viewer what they bring to it. If the person in question is a Christian, and if the presence or archetype of Jesus has any sort of impact upon them, they will be moved by this film (I know I was, having had a Baptist upbringing -- I was most moved by the shots of Christ's hands when he struggled with what he had been dealt with -- a nice touch, and effective). It is rather well done overall, with gorgeous cinematography, wonderful acting (James Caviesel gives a dramatic performance without overdoing it -- which a lot of fake Jesuses do -- and in Aramaic, no less!), but on the minus side, ol' Mel does milk the 'THIS is in SLOW-MOTION because it is IMPORTANT' shots, and the score does get a bit melodramatic in places, which always detracts from the viewing experience for me. But again, overall I found it to be a solid production, and an experience to have, at least once. No, I won't be getting this one on DVD. 

I rarely have the patience to watch movies in theaters these days. I'm sure I'll see it on DVD given my brother is likely to get it.

This movie is like a Rorshash test definitely. I remember seeing Friedkin saying those remarks, and elaborating that a Christian viewing the Exorcist would likely see that the Priest prevailed upon the demon, and a materialist would see the exact opposite in the same event.

However, there are those who have slandered Mel gravely. Frank Rich and Abe Foxman come to mind and I will never respect the opinion of either man again given the intemperence and intolerence they displayed. 

since you are the resident horror buff, would you recommend the new texas chainsaw massacre to someone who hasnt seen the first one? 

To be honest, I haven't seen the new one yet -- I am gonna rent and watch mebbe next week. I've been told by some people at work who saw it at the theater that it is horrible, not even remotely scary and really dumb =D That on it's own could be a reason to avoid it, but silly me, I'm still curious ;)

But to actually answer your question, it might be a better idea not to have seen the original, I'd bet. I have, and it's a lot of fun -- nothing really like what came later with the slasher flicks of the 80s, but some effectively creepy moments and a bit of gallows humor here and there. Films in the 70s had a more 'experimental' feel to them, and tended to wind at their own pace, but the original TCM still rolls along really well, and has plenty of shocks and creeps along the way. I would bet the new version would have none of this, and might miss those little touches Tobe Hooper delivered in the first movie.

Bottom Line: Rent both, but I'd watch the original last -- you may appreciate it more. 

I meant, to do the title and the name opposite, jeez. 

Yeah, one of my fave things about The Exorcist -- and something you really don't seen in films nowadays -- is that the ending of the film is left ambiguous -- there is a resolution, but no "spin" to put it in one side of the court or another. Unfortunately, most films that simply show a story instead of leading the audience by the nose to tell them a story are Eastern and Western audiences apparently don't care to think much when they go to the movies anymore. 

the opening scene to the Exorcist? For me, it not so much sets the tone for the movie, but is an odd sort of moment in itself. The man stands toe to toe, face to face on an equal playing field with the abomination, and it at least appears that his mind is being consumed. It goes back to the old Philip K Dick question, how do you distinguish between an intense religious experience and a psychotic episode.