Indeed. I hadn’t seen it in years and it was recently on sale on iTunes for $5.00 so I made the purchase.one of my favorites ?
Indeed. I hadn’t seen it in years and it was recently on sale on iTunes for $5.00 so I made the purchase.
I think the storyline should have gone deeper between Carol and Melvin.
I watched this recently on Prime and thought it was well done, although felt like it stalled in a couple of places.Radioactive - Sept 2019
Have this movie on my radar - just need to find out where to buy it - so far not available on iTunes or Amazon
"Radioactive is a 2019 British biographical drama film directed by Marjane Satrapi and starring Rosamund Pike as Marie Curie. The film is based on the 2010 graphic novel by Lauren Redniss."
"The film premiered as the Closing Night Gala at the 2019 Toronto International Film Festival. It was released digitally in the United Kingdom on 15 June 2020 by StudioCanal. "
View attachment 948707
I watched this recently on Prime and thought it was well done, although felt like it stalled in a couple of places.
In Time (2011)
I agree that CGI can be much less scary. My best example is the The Haunting (1963)- A movie about paranormal investigators investigating a haunted house, all of the tension was based on atmosphere, music, some practical visual and sound effects. The 1999 remake full of CGI can’t compete, however the The Haunting of Hill House (2018 Neflix) holds up quit well with minimal effects, and I’m looking forward to the next season.IT: Chapter 2 [2019]
View attachment 949021
So I saw this in theaters on its release weekend back in September 2019. The first one was excellent (You’ll know what I’m talking about with the shot scenery and acting from the ‘Losers club’). I’m a huge fan of Stephen kings version with Tim curry from the 1990 version.
I’ve given my thoughts on IT Chapter one in this thread already, and I kind of already touched on IT Chapter 2 to another member. My biggest gripe watching chapter 2 again is one thing and one thing only, the CGI is absolutely horrible. They used to way much of it, and I think they did that to boost the rating achieve the ‘rated R’ with more violence and gore. The Problem is, the CGI actually makes the movie actually less scary than what it really is. If you watch Stephen Kings version in 1990, that movie relied on Tim curry creating more fear with his voice with His demonic tone going from a happy clown to sinister.
Where Chapter 2 really excelled, was showing the backstory for each character of how they battled the clown when they were in their younger state and as in their adulthood.
Aside from that, I really was expecting more from Chapter 2, and the ratings definitely were nowhere near the first one. But then again, goes to show you the first version generally is just never on the same level as the original release.
But the acting was excellent, [Jessica Chastain was really good], and the original teenage cast returning actually had more scenes than I thought they would. (Seriously, the teenage version of the Losers club in IT Chapter 1 is some of the best acting I’ve ever watched on
film with teenagers of that age, just really talented all-around.)
A very brutal film. Not seen it in a good while and don’t think it would have aged well. I recall some disturbing scenes.SCUM (1979)
View attachment 949201
Make no bones about it SCUM is a brutal depiction of life in a British juvenile offenders institution in the late 70's. From what I've read all too accurate, if not a little toned down. SCUM is a good film, however be warned as profanity, violence, racial hatred and abuse are common themes throughout.
SCUM is very much based on the banned 1977 BBC "play for today" of the same name, with the same character's and many of the same actors. Both are powerful & disturbing watches that you wont likely repeat in any hurry...
Q-6