• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by jaragon

  1. 20 hours ago, TopBilled said:

    Do you think they were trying to suggest he had become gay because he had been victimized by a pedophile? 

    Not at all

    • Thanks 1

  2. I just saw "It Chapter Two" which I did not like as much as the first movie for various reasons.

    The film opens with a very disturbing attack on a gay couple which is thematically linked  to Pennywise the evil monster which takes the shape of a clown. Pennywise can be read as a pedophile serial killer.  He kills both boys and girls but seems to have a predilection for boys.  The heroes of the film are the Looser Club- who confronted the monster in the first movie. In this version of the novel one of the adult member of the club turns out to be gay.  This is not the in the Stephen King novel.  The characters gay reveal is shown in a flash back but is never really brought up again until the end.  He never has any romantic moments on screen- he is one of those gay non gay characters. And I really found the gay bashing scene too disturbingly real


  3. 4 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

    My health has taken a downturn as of late, so I was unable to go to the theater as I intended to see it. Hopefully I'll see it on video/streaming. However, a family member went to see it. She had enjoyed the first one as much as I did, but she was very disappointed with the sequel. I think she said it suffered from "CGI overkill".

    I just finished watching In the Tall Grass, the new Netflix original, based on the novella by Stephen King & Joe Hill. The film was scripted and directed by Vincenzo Natali (CubeSplice). A brother and sister on a cross-country trip stop next to an overgrown field somewhere in rural Kansas. They hear a young boy calling for help from the field, so they trek into the tall grass to find him. Of course, they get lost, too, and soon learn that there's something sinister and supernatural going on. 

    The film looks good, and uses sound design to its advantage. However, the characters are thin, and it gets a bit too clever for its own good in the film's second half. I don't want to get into specifics to avoid spoilers, but the movie takes a few turns, and becomes something more than expected, and then ultimately less. Still, I thought it was worth a watch for genre fans, and if you have Netflix, why not?  (6/10)


    I hope you feel better and the movie can wait for cable. Yes the CGI creatures were a bit too cartoony to be scary and the ripped off the spider monster from Carpenter's " The Thing"

    • Thanks 1

  4. On 10/3/2019 at 7:51 AM, cinemaspeak59 said:

    It Chapter Two (2019) The omniscient, seemingly omnipotent clown from hell is back in the second installment based on the Stephen King novel.  The setting is 27 years later, 2016, which finds strange, eerily familiar happenings in Derry; this prompts Mike (Isaiah Mustafa), who has never left, to gather the Losers Club back for one last hurrah.  They have gone their separate ways, are successful if not necessarily happy.  Bill (James McAvoy) is a famous novelist.  Ben (Jay Ryan) is a prosperous architect. Richie (Bill Hader) is a standup comic whose insecurities and secrets are etched into his weathered skin. And poor Beverly (Jessica Chastain) can’t escape abusive relationships; this time it’s her brute of a husband.  Pennywise, the master manipulator and prankster that it is, inhabits their heads, causing hazy memories and mind-blowing hallucinations.

    Mike has devoted his life to studying the history of Derry and thinks there’s a way to destroy Pennywise for good, which involves an ancient Indian ritual.  Will it work?  There are plenty of flashbacks to 1989, which connects the characters to the persons they are now. They’ve retained their sense of humor even in impending death.  Derry hasn’t changed much in 27 years.  Racism and homophobia are immune to social progress. What also hasn’t changed is the love the Losers Club have for each other.   It Chapter Two mixes jump scares with quiet, dread-filled scenes. And kudos to Bill Skarsgård for making Pennywise one of the great monsters in the horror genre. Andy Muschietti is back directing, a wise choice. The close to 3-hour running time doesn’t drag.  There’s no sequel jinx here. Grade A-

    I did not like it as much as you did- yes the cast both old and new is excellent- but I did not find the movie as scary as the first one. 

    • Like 1

  5. I just saw "Apocalypse Now Redux" the extended director's cut of Coppolas' Viet Nam war epic.  And I think this is a case in which more is not better- specially the French plantation scene which stops the flow of the action.  This is still an impressive adchivement- with some unforgettable sequences and images. Now I'm curious about "Apocalypse Now Final Cut"

    • Like 3

  6. "The Horrible Dr Hichcock" (1962) beautiful Cinthia (Barbara Steel) marries Dr Hichcock (Robert Flemyng) whose previous wife died under mysterious circumstances or is she still alive and haunting their mansion? .   Atmospheric direction by Riccardo Freda this handsome period horror looks like a Corman-Poe picture- one can easily imagine Vincent Price in the lead.  I saw this in a gorgeous color print on Amazon prime. I posted the Italian trailer which looks better than the ridiculous American trailer which treats the movie as camp

    • Like 3

  7. "The Deadly Spawn" (1983) low budget creature feature about an alien monster terrorizing a New Jersey family.  The monsters fx are excellent and still gory fun.  The script and acting are just ok.  The hero is a monster loving kid whose room will be familiar to all of you who were fans of classic horror and sci fi. I saw it on a good DVD- which has some fun behind the scene extras. You can also see it on you tube


    • Like 2

  8. On 3/3/2019 at 9:20 PM, LiamCasey said:

    Night of the Werewolf (aka El retorno del Hombre Lobo) (1981)

    w/ Paul Naschy, Julia Saly, Silvia Aguilar, Azucena Hernández, Beatriz Elorrieta, Pilar Alcón and Narciso Ibáñez Menta. And written and directed by Paul Naschy.

    But no Luis Ciges! 😮

    At long last, we get to El Hombre Lobo!

    In 16th Century Hungary (although from a historical point-of-view, that opening text should have indicated the 17th Century), the werewolf Waldemar Daninsky (Paul Naschy) is in thrall to Countess Elizabeth Báthory (Julia Saly) and, when she is sentenced to be entombed for the rest of her life, he is relieved to be "executed" (a term that one should always use loosely in supernatural movies) along with the rest of her cohort.

    Flash foward 370 years and (in the usual coincidence that is also common to supernatural movies) Daninsky is resurrected accidentally by a pair of grave robbers while Báthory is resurrected purposely by an evil student of the occult (Silvia Aguilar). With Báthory coming back as a real rather than a figurative vampire. Who quickly turns the evil student, one of her compatriots (Pilar Alcón) and Daninsky's assistant (Beatriz Elorrieta) into fellow vampires. Which sets us up for the eventual conflict between the werewolf (along with his lover (Azucena Hernández)) and the vampire women. Aided by the fact that whatever had him under her power in the past doesn't appear to exist in the present.

    Now, there is little that is new in this movie. Especially since this is, for the most part, a remake of an earlier El Hombre Lobo movie: The Werewolf Versus the Vampire Woman (1971).

    There is wolfsbane. And there is a walking stick with a silver head (but not a wolf's head). And there is the sign of the werewolf (although in this case it is a pentagon rather than a pentagram). All out of The Wolf Man (1941). And the werewolf being resurrected was obviously inspired by Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943). And a werewolf under the power of a vampire is right out of The Return of the Vampire (1943). And the concept that a werewolf can only be killed by one who loves him is right out of The House of Frankenstein (1944).

    And this is not the first movie that features Countess Elizabeth Báthory (Ingrid Pitt's Countess Dracula (1970) is the one that most easily comes to mind). And her resurrection was obviously inspired by Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966). Although, in this case, the person hanging upside down was female and, this being a Naschy movie, wears a lot less clothing.

    However, although none of the pieces are new, the jigsaw puzzle is put together fairly well. And, since all of the El Hombre Lobo movies are fairly independent of each other, this one would be a worthwhile introduction to that series of films.

    Although a good movie, however, it came out at the wrong time. Although technically a contemporary movie, once the women arrive in search of Báthory, this movie is pure old school gothic at that point. And even Hammer had stopped making old school gothic movies for many a year. And 1981 itself was a year made for true contemporary werewolf movies: The Howling, Wolfen, An American Werewolf in London. So, although this was not Paul Naschy's last movie, it definitely marked the end of an era.

    Random comments:

    1.) This is the fifth and last of five movies in The Paul Naschy Collection Blu-Ray set. Of the movies on that set, I would rate this one third below both Blue Eyes of the Broken Doll (1974) and Horror Rises from the Tomb (1973) but above both Human Beasts (1980) and Vengeance of the Zombies (1973).

    2.) A literal translation of the Spanish title for this one is "The Return of the Wolf Man". Which is, technically, a valid title since the werewolf is resurrected in this one. But probably has that sequel feel that whomever released this one was trying to avoid.

    3.) The original U.S. title for this one was The Craving. Now that one leaves a lot to be desired.

    4.) Paul Naschy wears a beard in this movie. I think he looks better that way.

    5.) Julia Saly, Silvia Aguilar and Azucena Hernández were all in Human Beasts.

    6.) The first werewolf movie mystery: If you are a werewolf who doesn't want to kill anyone. And you have an assistant that you can trust. And full moons are not exactly random events. Why aren't you arranging to have yourself locked up for the night?

    7.) The second werewolf movie mystery: Why is the full moon already so high in the sky before the werewolf turns?

    8.) The third werewolf movie mystery: Why do people who are ready, willing and able to kill a werewolf allow the werewolf to get so close before they do so?

    9.) And, finally, I have The Paul Naschy Collection II Blu-Ray set on order. So you all may have to suffer through me doing this five more times! Although, at my rate, that will take another ten months! 😀

    Really enjoy your reviews and they make me want to watch the movies

    • Like 1

  9. 55 minutes ago, Jlewis said:

    Don't get everybody started on SEVEN BRIDES FOR SEVEN BROTHERS. What? All seven?

    I must admit that I can not take my eyes off of Vanessa Redgrave from start to finish. The fact that she and Franco Nero were also getting it on off camera certainly adds to all of it. It is interesting to note that her Guinevere is repulsed by Nero's Lancelot until he revives Anthony Rogers' Sir Dinadan in a scene that, despite being an emotional plea to save his life, is quite passionate in its own way.

    Franco Nero was a hot man- and looking at that number again those Camelot guys are an attractive bunch- I'm surprised Josh Logan did not manage to have at least a couple take off their tunics ; )

  10. On 8/29/2019 at 8:09 AM, cinemaspeak59 said:

    Persona (1966) is one of the most studied and challenging films in history, inviting analysis from historians, critics and psychiatrists.  I saw Persona several years ago, before revisiting it last week.  I find it not dramatically different from other Ingmar Bergman films.  The internal dialogue, frank discussions on sex, confusion about one’s place in the universe, brutally harsh judgements of the artist – these were present before Persona, and after.  When asked the film, Bergman said he trusted audiences to form their own conclusions.  An answer I found refreshing.  I don’t think Bergman, who also wrote the screenplay, was out to create a puzzle that must be “solved”.  There’s no gamesmanship.

    I admire the film’s aesthetic, the impeccable chemistry between Liv Ullmann and Bibi Andersson, and its humanity. There’s warmth and comfort in the writing. I go back to the bedroom confessional: Liv Ullmann’s Elisabet, the actress who mysteriously stopped speaking, sitting on the bed; Andersson’s Alma, the nurse charged with Elisabet’s care, at the other end of the room.  Alma vividly recalls a sexual experience on the beach, with a couple of voyeurs, salaciously detailing everything, subverting the image Elisabet may have had of her, as a prude.  In that scene, the patient, Elisabet, transforms to therapist, and Alma becomes the patient.  A rich irony.  Persona is a women’s’ picture in the best sense of the term.    

    One of the essential works of cinema

    • Like 1

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:


Having problems?

Contact Us