| Author | Message | ||
     Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.26.155.181 |
Finally caught this last night: the real deal again. Builds to a genuinely nasty conclusion. Loved it. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
Yep - I loved it, too. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 220.138.162.218 |
I was a bit disappointed by this one - I thought it was just a rehash of the first film. It had nothing to add, I felt, and was less exciting, less original, and less scary. I'm really tired of the shaky-cam thing now, too. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.26.155.181 |
I felt early on as if the horror was a little repetitive and screechy, with attack after attack of zombies. But then it got interesting when the focus shifted to the kids, and late on, it had some genuinely mind-fucking ideas, like the images only seen in the dark. For some reason, the interview with the infected young guy was the most frightening bit. His unmanly terror before infection lent his coarseness after it some power. Relentless stuff. The directors understand what Ramsey - in his less aggressive way - understands: horror works best when it is accumulative and stylistically consistent (eg, three of four ideas given repeated treatment), rather than as isolated 'shock' set-pieces (a million stylistically incompatible ideas) stitched together (as evidenced in, say, Insidious). | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.26.155.181 |
Huw, I'd hardly call either film original. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.26.155.181 |
(In fact, the more I think about Insidious, the more I believe it's a complete mess, with no coherent style at all.) | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.158.78.71 |
We saw it on its original cinema release and I'm with Huw - I thought it was a pale imitation of part one and I may give part 3 a miss altogether. (Oh who am I kidding?  ) | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.26.155.181 |
Look, Lordie, I'm not being funny, but who knows more about films round here - me or the rest of you? I rest my case. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
I think both the REC films are exceptional - and, above all, scary. I adore them. Are they original? Nope. But they do exactly what it says on the tin. Also, it's terrific to see that kind of film with a supernatural angle rather than blaming it all on a biological virus. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
Also, if you view both of these as one copntinuous film, it's great. The second one isn't a rehash at all; it's a continuation. | ||
| Matthew Fryer (Matthew_fryer) Username: Matthew_fryer Registered: 08-2009 Posted From: 90.195.182.194 |
Yes. Nothing original, but gleefully scary. The immediate continuation of a sequel kinda gives film makers permission to deliver more of the same without it just being a rehash. Which in REC's case, is more than alright by me. I plan to watch them both again. In a row this time. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.26.155.181 |
Yeah, I saw the films as one big three-hour terror show. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 61.216.202.109 |
I'll have to watch them both again, together this time. Who am I to argue with GF's cinematic knowledge?  | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.26.155.181 |
At last, a bit of well-earned respect. You people are minnows to my great big Moby Dick.  | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 81.153.251.119 |
I'm plankton. | ||
| John Forth (John) Username: John Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 82.24.1.217 |
I found both REC films pretty average up until about the last 15 or 20 minutes of each, at which point they became genuinely odd and interesting. Then ended. Until that point, it just felt like a lot of slavering extras running at the camera. | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.158.78.71 |
I thought [Rec2] committed the crime that so many sequels do - it explained elements of part 1 and as a result made that film less terrifying. I agree it's a continuation, but [Rec] really didn't need one and I think it diminishes its effect. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 2.24.18.244 |
[Rec] was so gracefully and intelligently terrifying that I avoided [Rec2] in case it diluted the memory. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.26.155.181 |
John Forth: Rec1 in particular is tremendously choreographed. The set-pieces interlock superbly. Like some hellish ballet. | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.158.78.71 |
For some, ballet is hell I'm up much too early this morning. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 81.153.251.119 |
There's a wonderful ballet theme in Allyson's story: 'The Black Swan of Odessa' - just published. | ||
| John Forth (John) Username: John Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 82.24.1.217 |
Gary F: It's been a while since I've seen it, but I don't recall getting much of a sense of that at all. Although by their nature, hand-held horror films like this need rely a lot their choreography just from scene to scene, lest they descend into absolute confusion. >For some, ballet is hell< Amen to that. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.26.155.181 |
I like ballet music, but struggle to watch the dancing. | ||
| Kate (Kathleen) Username: Kathleen Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 81.158.78.71 |
Most blokes seem to hate ballet.  | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.158.78.71 |
I felt the same until Kate took me to see Manon by Jules Massinet which I have to admit I thoroughly enjoyed. I suppose it shoudln't be surprising that a fairly dark & grim ballet would appeal. Apparently there's one by Sibelius that's a bit of a cracker in that dept as well that I've been advised to watch out for | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.132.93.170 |
Maybe ballet is psychically a 'woman's thing'? | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 81.153.251.119 |
Rite of Spring? | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.158.78.71 |
I was never a big fan of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, but that might be because we had to study it in school (!). The Sibelius one that's been recommended to me is The Swan of Tuonela | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.184.137.136 |
I love Rite of Spring, but have only once been to see ballet, and couldn't get over how much thumping and banging was produced by the dancers - they usually don't mike the stage up for films and TV so that came as a bit of a shock, although if I'd thought a little about it beforehand I would have realised! | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 81.153.251.119 |
The Swan of Tuonela is a wonderful piece of music, I think, but I didn't know it was also a ballet. It's one of Sibelius' Legends of Lemminkainen (sp.?) |