VoyForums

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2 ]

Griff's Movie Review Message Board

"The best movie message board I've ever seen - and that's no lie!" - Barry Norman

All right, Barry didn't really say that. I’ll let you in on a secret: I made that one up myself. But hey - if you love movies,
if you love arguing about movies, and - most importantly - if you love boring the crap out of everyone by banging on
endlessly about movies until all your friends have moved house without telling you, then you've come to the right place!

Thanks to my genius in setting up this forum, you can post a review of any movie, past, present or (if you have a time
machine) future, and reply to the reviews already knocking about. In other words, if you’re a sad spanner who thinks
movies are more vital to your continued existence than oxygen (like the rest of us here) then you’ll feel right at home!

Not bored yet? Then check out the archives - you soon will be!

  • The Gospel According to Luke (skywalker) -- jedi knight, 05:31:10 05/15/02 Wed
    get your star wars astrology scope now horoscope for star wars fans web sites and services for entertainment only
    sorry no charge card orders send birth information, payment
    offer OVER 98% HAVE RETURN FOR MORE http://www.angelfire.com/az2/starwars/index.html 35 dollars each get the whole service by june 2002 this service will end johnny lee post office box 575 corning ar 72422 no charge cards sorry checks can take up to 5 to 10 weeks to clear star wars horoscopes 35 dollars each or all 12 for the price of ten if you order before next two weeks are up
    each horoscope 35 dollars comes with 6 month forecast for each month you get to know high and low cycle days
    and more even biographcial information and still more
    http://www.angelfire.com/az2/starwars/yoda.says.html
    so hurry after may 20th due to demands price is 45 dollars each


    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

  • Beware of the Rich - he bores, and snores, and drones and moans... like my new Blob lyrics there? I'm gonna do a Shaft review a bit later but I'm going to bed for a couple of hours now, cos I'm all poorly. -- Griff, 12:44:40 06/30/01 Sat

    THE BLOB


    Spoilers!

    Like the updates of The Fly and The Thing, this remake of the likeable 50s movie is probably best remembered for the more gruesome effects, the more graphic make-up and a more cynical edge than was present in the original. Underneath all that, and the predictable upping of the sex and bad language quotient, this Blob isn’t really all that far removed from its predecessor – it’s still kind of hokey, quite fun in a dullish sort of way and firmly entrenched in the paranoid monster-attacks-small-town mindset that ran throughout 50s SF.

    Like the original, this begins with an old man discovering a meteor in the woods. A purple goo attaches itself to his hand and, before long, has become an enormous gelatinous mass that threatens to engulf the whole town. One of the most striking differences in the story is in its attitude to authority; whereas the teenagers and cops in the first one were best buds, here the anti-hero Brian (Kevin Dillon) is much more distrustful of them. Rather than the blob being an unknown goop from outer space, it turns out to be man-made, a biological weapon dreamt up by the double-crossing government agency who turn up in the town and claim to be there to help. It’s far less wide-eyed than the Steve McQueen model.

    What’s probably the most successful aspect of the movie is the blob attacks themselves, which look fantastic. In the pre-CG era of the late 80s, it’s all done with rubber and goo and prosthetic effects, and not surprisingly it all looks a hundred times better than before. Of course blobby effects in themselves do not a movie make, so scripters Chuck Russell and Frank Darabont spring numerous surprises on us by being completely heartless with their victims. The movie pulls a Psycho on us early in the movie when Paul (Donovan Leitch), a character who’s been set up as the nominal hero, is blobbed to death in a doctor’s office.

    Also, there’s a sweetly hesitant romance building between the town’s sheriff and the owner of the local diner, which comes to an abrupt halt when she sees his melted head blobbing past a phone booth just before the booth is crushed by the blob, swallowing her up. There really is no way of knowing which characters are going to survive, so the movie at least keeps you on the edge of your seat that way in the absence of any real suspense elsewhere. People you thought would stay the distance get blobbed and it’s quite shocking at times. But the main sticking point here is the pacing, which stops and starts all over the place; after each blob attack it all goes quiet and Paul and Meg (Shawnee Smith) prowl about for a while until the next one, and it becomes disappointingly tedious.

    Top moments are probably one poor guy getting sucked head first down a plughole and Paul screaming while inside the blob, plus there are some funny lines (“Kevin, don’t eat with your face!”) and a cracking piss-take of slasher films when some kids sneak in to a horror movie (“It’s not hockey season!”). It’s a very hit and miss affair, dull in places, exciting in others. It never really makes the most of the story and ends up pretty much on a par with the original film. Still, let’s be thankful for small mercies: if this was made now it would probably be mangled by Devlin and Emmerich, full of ropey CG effects and feature a Will Smith cover of the Burt Bacharach theme song.



    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

    Replies:

  • So what's the rating for Geri's new jugs then Grigg? I give em *** where they used to be *****. Scary's **** are the best Spice Girl jugs now. I say the best 007 films are: Dr. No, Goldfinger, You Only Live Twice, Live and Let Die and all of Timothy Dalton's brief output. -- Rich, 21:42:01 06/28/01 Thu
    KILLING STREAK 2: PURSUIT (1995)

    "Toy guns kill people."
    "No. People kill people."

    Kubrick, Welles, Fellini and Kurosawa... even if they got together and each did a poo in the same toilet it still wouldn't be a big a pile of crap as this.

    In fairness, Pursuit is an improvement over the original, which was abysmal. This one's only downright fuckin' atrocious. But you don't get many action thrillers with a score by Leonard Cohen so it at least earns points for originality.

    Some of the most graphic, convincing fight scenes ever laid to celluloid... are in another film. Even Sebastian Coe's training video doesn't have this much running in it, while character motivation is about as logical and well thought out as a bad dose of the shits.

    The variety of locations and increased pace make this one worthwhile, though you do wonder why the makers don't just fly over to America and get their tongues straight down the back of Tarantino's trousers.

    Pretentious closing titles tell us that "everyone has the killing streak". Yeah, I'm sure they do... but if they did then I bet they'd take it back for a refund.



    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

    Replies:

  • I'm trying to get out of my SFX-buying addiction, unless I really want to read something in it. After all, there's only so many articles you can read about Buffy The Fucking Vampire Slayer, isn't there? Apparently even Joss Whedon's mum read the last SFX and went "not that shit again! How many more times!" -- Rich, 23:27:34 06/27/01 Wed
    I've only seen the film version of Quatermass and the Pit, but I'd love to see the TV ones. Apparently (God, he's gonna mention Who again - watch out!) Season Seven of Who ripped it off hook, line... etc.

    Oh - what am I talking about? I saw the John Mills 70s revival one when I was younger. That wasn't very popular, was it? Anyway, one from the archives...


    CONTINUING THE WISDOM OF GOLDEN WEB AWARD-WINNING RICH ON THE SEAN CONNERY SEASON:


    GOLDFINGER (1964)

    The Degeneration of Bond

    Goldfinger, the third in the Bond series, should, in many ways, be considered the worst of the three. There is the contrived storyline, that has Connery playing an entirely reactive role throughout. The megalomanic villain that goes to the trouble to explain his plan in detail to associates he's about to kill. The increased reliance on gadgets (though for once, Q introduces a gadget Bond doesn't get to use in the movie - the ejector seat*), the silly names for girls (Pussy Galore, anyone?) the grandoise set-pieces and the unrealistic wisecracking. Perhaps most importantly, Bond reveals he's not a fan of the Beatles. Whereas prior outings had given us a niave Bond, here we get a smug incarnation that finds constant amusement despite his own ineptitude throughout. Possibly the only thing he succeeds in is in turning Pussy to his side. However, despite - or perhaps, because of - these elements, Goldfinger succeeds. Noticeably pacier than the earlier vehicles, boredom never sets in amidst all the incredulity. The pinnacle of the 60's Bonds and one of the best-worst movies ever.






    * Okay, when I wrote this fucker I'd gone to the bog when the ejector seat bit came on. I should have guessed they'd used it... or at least checked my facts. So much for Mr.Research! And while this review is rough around the edges (whadda ya mean, "what's new"?) it's at least better researched than the guy before me that went "I think this was the second Bond film". I mean, for fuck's sake!!

    I hope this bastard loads, Voy seems to not accept my stuff when I come on late at night... it wouldn't let me send a Mr.T. update last night... he was the only one who picked both people up for nomination this week... Bobby Zee again proves unpopular, while everyone's getting sick of Bernie Clifton's ostrich. Will Jim Jimmer win the prize?


    [     Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

    Replies:

  • Hey Rich, I got your parcel today, nice one!! Definite highlights were your sketches - I haven't laughed so hard in ages! My stomach actually hurt after watching the Movie Focus one, it was so bloody funny! Top stuff. I've watched half of Shaft but I fell asleep through it, and when I woke up I did this Curse of Frankenstein review, so it's shite cos I'm still half asleep. I did another review this morning, so to say thanks for the top goodies, here's a Frankenstein double! -- Griff, 17:17:29 06/27/01 Wed

    THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN


    Watching The Curse of Frankenstein is like being told the plot of the book by someone who read it years ago and can’t quite remember what happens. It sticks faithfully to Mary Shelley’s story for one word of the title, kicks off with a few scenes that run parallel to the book but have completely different settings, rambles on for more than half the film before the monster puts in an appearance and then derails itself completely by changing everything. It’s all just a little off, and it’s oddly distracting.

    For instance, whereas Victor in the book (here played by Peter Cushing) is inspired to bring life to dead flesh by his teacher, his tutor in the movie, Paul, is an equal partner in his experiments before deciding it’s morally wrong. Where Victor spills his story to a ship’s captain in the book, here it’s to a priest in a prison cell. The creature’s resurrection happens accidentally here while Victor’s trying to convince Paul (Robert Urquhart) to help him. The creature escapes the house and encounters the blind man, but is soon shot and killed, and later brought back to life a second time.

    All these little changes distance the movie from the book scene by scene, before it goes off in its own direction and misses the point entirely. The tragedy of the creature destroying Victor’s family has been completely chopped out, replaced with... nothing, so the heart of the story is gone. The movie takes another wrong step by having Victor kill a professor in order to use his brain, then have the creature kill a blackmailing maid – by making Victor a murderer, any sympathy for the consequences of his experiment disappears. In fact, he deserves everything he gets; he’s conniving, devious and mean. The monster looks – well, there’s no other word for it – shite, but sure is horrific; just look at that pudding bowl haircut! He’s even more two-dimensional than in James Whale’s film and never engenders sympathy, hatred or fear because he hardly does anything.

    With the smaller changes giving way to these bigger changes, Shelley’s cautionary tale becomes a rather melodramatic load of old nothing that fails to make the story mean something. By using the bare bones of Shelley’s book – obsessed scientist creates a man that eventually destroys him – without taking its moral centre, the movie just becomes a shallow ramble through the Frankenstein cliches. Even taken on its own merits it’s seriously average; this is a blandly written, rambling film that’s interesting really only for being the first ever horror movie from Hammer. Directed by Terence Fisher, starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, its place in horror history is secure but that doesn’t make it any good.




    I WAS A TEENAGE FRANKENSTEIN


    I Was a Teenage Frankenstein is one of those annoying movies that doesn’t seem to realise the potential in its own material. A kind of sister movie to the dull I Was a Teenage Werewolf, made the same year, this is rubbishy fun with Whit Bissell, master of the badly-written scientific proclamation, as a distant relative of the original Frankenstein who decides to resurrect his ancestor’s experiments – so the movie should really be called I Was a Teenage Frankenstein’s Monster.

    Setting up a lab in his basement, Bissell’s Frankenstein sets about collecting various teenage body parts in an attempt to make a creature that will blend into a crowd rather than stomp about the village throwing little girls into lakes. The pacing is pretty slow-going in places, the acting isn’t going to cause any jaws to drop and it’s a pretty obvious retread of the famous story that doesn’t really offer up any monumental surprises – unless you really are taken aback when the creature turns on his creator and breaks out of the house – but the silly dialogue is where this really hits the spot.

    How can you not like a film that includes such gems as: “After I’ve grafted on your new face, life for you will really begin!” and “Hands and legs are back on his body, I’ve kept my promise,” and “Only a few parts - normal preparation for an experiment that will determine the fate of the world!”? The tongue-in-cheek, hokey delivery is where the movie scores best and it’s full of stuff like that. How about the scene where Frankenstein is explaining his project to his colleague and right outside, at that exact moment, a car full of teenagers crashes, giving him the body he needs? Or the one where he explains that burning or burying the body parts risks exposing his plans and reveals his method of disposal – a crocodile in the basement!

    What’s frustrating is that the two most successful elements of the film – the humour and the rather downplayed horror of Frankenstein keeping his creature locked in the basement, making him sleep in a morgue drawer – aren’t put to the use they might be. The screenplay doesn’t crank either of them up to the level where the movie really breaks out and so instead it becomes a flatly directed B-movie cash-in flick with an uncertain tone. It’s fun but not enough fun, daft but not daft enough, promising but not satisfying. It’s better than Werewolf though.



    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

    Replies:

  • A terrible review from the IMDB's Jim Griffin, who couldn't seem to make it flow. Let's hope his next effort sees a return to form and reignites this brightest of stars from the IMDB... -- IMDB's Jim Griffin, 00:38:09 06/27/01 Wed
    Singin’ in the Rain (1951) ***

    If you closed your eyes and threw a potato into a crowded street, you’d be guaranteed to hit someone who loves this movie. Everyone loves this movie. Just looking at the other reviews here, it’s hard to find anyone who thinks it’s anything less than a masterpiece. I guess I’ll just have to be Billy No-Mates, because I found it to be significantly less than that.

    Whether you’ve seen it or not, you’ve at least heard of it and been made aware of its reputation, but as is so often the case, its reputation overstates its virtues. But while it may have been a fair distance from the five-star masterpiece I was expecting, it was still a good, and sometimes great, movie.

    The first thing that struck me was Gene Kelly’s smile. Cheesier than a statue of Celine Dion carved in Gorgonzola, it simply refused to leave his face. He seemed incapable of frowning, and typified the mood of the movie. Its relentless cheer and optimism was infectious, and it is easy to understand why so many people describe it as a feelgood film. No one could be miserable watching this.

    There is an unavoidable quaintness in the film. Set in the 1920s, as silent movies gave way to talkies, it both celebrates and gently mocks a legendary era in Hollywood history. But the movie itself is now part of another legendary era in Hollywood history, and this double-nostalgia works only in its favour and adds to its immense charm.

    The cast is excellent without exception. Gene Kelly is great, and Donald O’Connor is just hilarious. He seems to be having the greatest time in the world making this movie and making ‘em laugh. His face-pulling scene is undoubtedly one of the funniest moments the film has to offer. Jean Hagan is perfect as Lina Lamont, and gives us a truly original character. The scene where her terrible voice is revealed was lessened somewhat by having seen a similar joke in The Man with Two Brains, but this deserves the laughs having got there thirty years earlier. Her stupidity is at its funniest when she insists she and Kelly are an item because she was told so by the gossip columns, and she is blessed with perhaps the funniest line of the film: “Why, I make more money than... than... than Calvin Coolidge, put together!”

    It may be stating the obvious, but the dancing was just mesmerising. Kelly and O’Connor move as if on ice, and their energy is just stunning. To see real talent like theirs, and then switch to the jerky, simplified arm-waving that appears in every video on MTV, emphasises their genius. The songs, however, were something of a disappointment. With the exception of the title track and Make ‘Em Laugh, they are nothing special. There were times when they felt forced into the story rather awkwardly, with Good Morning being the most irritating example.

    I can understand why so many people love this film, but I have no love for it myself. It was fun, and there were a load of great moments, but it didn’t come close to being a masterpiece. I know I’m in the minority. For most people, it’s a flawless classic. Like most of Cher, it will live forever, and that’s fair enough. There is a long list of classic movies which have all disappointed me, and this was by no means the worst offender. I just wish I could have liked it more.


    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

    Replies:

  • Hey Grigg, scroll down to see my razor-sharp wit at work as I respond to a spammer. Meanwhile, read my fan mail: -- Rich, 18:34:16 06/26/01 Tue

    Great to see a review from an Englishman who has a better feel for the Bond character (naturally so). Most Americans here are so blasted by the new age civil rights movement and the school of what's happening now that they've lost track of Bond's character altogether. They spend so much time trying to be "politically correct" and non-offensive that those overtones dominate the thought and Bond is buried. Other than brief moments in Goldeneye, I've been very disappointed with Brosnan as Bond as he's just way too effeminate in the role for me. This is coupled with scripts that waste time playing him off against the female heroine in frustrating moments of gender wars as if trying to make up for the past male dominated attitude of the Bond movies. I get so caught up in this forced sea of socialization that it becomes near impossible to concentrate on the plot or the action. It also makes the relationships shallow and weak as so much time is spent on either mutual self-respect or trying to figure each other out. It would be nice if the writers would let the audience assume that women can be smart, strong and hold good jobs without ramming it down our throats. As far as Bond goes, it seems as if he's stuck between being a creep or somebody who changes diapers. Bad news. I also like your comments on past Bonds, especially Dalton, who was jibed big time. It became popular to sweep Dalton under the rug for some reason when he was Bond and most "fans" here treat it like he wasn't even Bond at all (a la Lazenby). I must admit that I was part of it for awhile as I had grown up watching Roger Moore and it was such a rapid departure. Upon watching TLDL and LTK many more times, I reversed my opinion and I consider Dalton's characterization to be the second best by far. In fact, Connery and Dalton are the only two guys that I enjoy as Bond as Moore was also too effeminate for me. I agree that the Brosnan era is overblown. I did like Goldeneye in spots and I did like the TWINE. I do think that the trouble is Bond's character. Everyone is so caught up in making him "politically correct" that he just looks goofy. The overly aggressive characterizations of the heroines have also been frustrating at times. Hopefully, future scripts will provide better balance between a feminine ideal and Bond as Bond. Take care, dude.

    Jeff
    Jacksonville, FL
    USA


    Ah, suck my cock, Jeff! If I wanted to know what you thought, I'd ask ya! There's only one reviewer in the world whose opinion I'm interested in and that's my own! Yeah, cos I always talk sense and everyone else talks shite, you fawning gibbon!

    Anyway, Grigg, post your review on A Clockwork Orange so I can see your subtle reading of its texts.

    And as for Tosh in the Big Brother house, he told viewers to vote for him (spending their hard-earning money in the process) as he was going to bring fun and spice into the house... and what's he done? Sat around moaning and reading his fucking books all day!! If I was one of the people that voted for him (I think I voted for Shatasha) then I'd sue him under the Trades Descriptions Act. The bloody liar! Just like Tory Blair, full of promise, then when he gets elected he does jack shit!

    And attention Star Cops fans - if you go to the Award-Winning STAR COPS site then you can see the new review under story seven.... AOL isn't letting me upload one of the pics though, but never mind (It's Anna getting maced, btw, which should explain the caption).

    Bollocks to ya!


    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

    Replies:

  • MAKE REAL MONEY GAURANTEED! NOT A SCAM!! -- KENNY, 06:43:35 06/26/01 Tue
    MAKE REAL MONEY!! GUARANTEED!!

    The message below is from somebody else that I copied and sent out. Although I haven’t made $42,000 yet, I have made money! This is not a scam; It does work!

    Turn $6.00 into $42,000, WITH HARDLY ANY WORK.... read
    this to find out how!!!!
    READING THIS COULD CHANGE YOUR LIFE!!!! I found this on
    a bulletin
    board and decided to try it. A little while back, I was
    browsing through
    newsgroups, just like you are now, and came across an
    article similar to this
    that said you could make thousands of cash within weeks
    with only an initial
    investment of $6.00!! So I thought, "Yeah right, this must
    be a scam", but like
    most of us, I was curious, so I kept reading.
    Before you get
    skeptical, just take a few minutes to fishish reading
    this.
    WITH THIS PLAN, YOU REALLY CAN MAKE TONS OF TOTALLY LEGAL,
    FAST
    AND EASY CASH MONEY!! IT WORKS!!! BUT YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW IT
    CAREFULLY
    FOR IT TO WORK CORRECTLY AND IN YOUR FAVOR!!!! WITH ALL
    THE MONEY
    YOU ARE GONNA MAKE, YOU WILL SOON GET EVERTHING YOU'VE
    ALWAYS DREAMED OF!!!!
    Here's how it works. All you do is send $1.00
    to each
    of the 6 names and address stated in the article. You
    then place your own name and address in the bottom of the list at
    #6, and
    post the article in at least 200 newsgroups. (There are
    thousands.) No catch, that was it. So after thinking it
    over, and
    talking to a few people first, I thought about trying it. I
    figured, what have I got to lose except 6 stamps and
    $6.00,
    right? Like most of us I was a little skeptical and a little
    worried about the legal aspects of it all. So I checked it
    out
    with the U.S. Post Office (1-800-725-2161) and they
    confirmed
    that it is indeed legal! Then I invested the measly $6.00.
    Well,
    GUESS WHAT!!... Within 7 days, I started getting money
    in the
    mail! I was shocked! I figured it would end soon, but the
    money
    just kept coming in. In my first week, I made about
    $25.00. By
    the end of the second week I had made a total of over
    $1,000!
    In the third week I had over $10,000 and it's still
    growing.
    This is now my fourth week and I have made a total of
    just over
    $42,000.00, and it's still coming in rapidly. It's certainly
    worth $6.00, and 6 stamps. By the way, I have spent more
    than that
    on the lottery in the last month!! Let me tell you how this
    works and
    most
    importantly, why it works....also, make sure you print a copy
    of this
    article NOW, so you can get the information off of it as you
    need it.
    STEP 1: Get 6 separate pieces of paper and write the
    following
    on each piece of paper, "PLEASE PUT ME ON YOUR
    MAILING LIST."
    Also, be sure to include your name and address. Now,
    get 6 U.S. $1.00 bills and place ONE inside EACH of the 6
    pieces
    of paper so the bill will not be seen through the envelope,
    to
    prevent thievery. Next, place one paper in each of the 6
    envelopes and seal them. You should now have 6 sealed
    envelopes,
    each with a piece of paper stating the above phrase,
    your name
    and address, and a $1.00 bill. Send the envelopes to the 6 addresses below.
    What you are doing is creating a
    service by this. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY LEGAL!
    Mail the 6 envelopes to the following addresses:

    #1) Kenny Carter
    1 Royalwood Crt. #29
    Stoney Creek, ONT
    L8E 4Y2
    Canada

    #2) Liz Allred
    3307 E. 3600 N.
    Kimberly, ID 83341

    #3) Alex Molloy
    105 Diapian Bay
    Alameda, CA
    94502

    #4) CINDY MCCLANAHAN
    7656 SOMERSET LN.
    MANASSAS, VA. 20111

    #5) Justin Carney
    2802 Noble Fir Ct.
    Woodbridge, VA 22192

    #6) Aibohp Nav
    5532 Lean Ave #102
    San Jose, CA 95123


    STEP 2: Now take the #1 name off the list that you see
    above,
    move the other names up (6 becomes 5, 5 becomes 4,
    etc...) and
    add YOUR Name as number 6 on the list. STEP 3:
    Change anything
    you need to, but try to keep this article as close to
    original
    as possible. If you do not live in the U.S. or there is a
    foreign address, you
    must put an
    international stamp on your envelopes. Now, post your
    amended article to at least 200
    newsgroups. (I think there are close to 24,000 groups in all.)
    All you
    need is 200, but remember, the more you post, the more
    money you
    make!
    -----DIRECTIONS FOR HOW TO POST TO ON NEWSGROUP BULLETINS-----
    STEP 1: You do not need to re-type this entire letter to
    do your
    own posting. Simply put your cursor at the beginning of
    this
    letter and drag your cursor to the bottom of this letter.
    Then
    select 'copy' from the edit menu. This will copy the
    entire
    letter into the computers temporary memory.
    STEP 2: Open a blank 'notepad' or word processor file and place
    your cursor at the
    top of the blank page. From the 'edit' menu select
    'paste'. This
    will paste a copy of the letter into notepad so that you
    can add
    your name to the list.
    STEP 3: Save your new notepad file as a *.txt file. If you
    want
    to do your postings in different sittings, you'll always
    have
    this file to go back to.
    STEP 4: Use your internet provider and search engines to
    find
    various newsgroups (on-line forums, message boards,
    chat sites,
    discussions).
    STEP 6: Visit these message boards and post this article
    as a
    new message by highlighting the text of this letter and
    selecting paste from the edit menu. Fill in the Subject,
    and this
    will be the header that everyone sees as they scroll
    through the
    list of postings in a particular group. Then click the post
    message
    button. You're done with your first one!
    Congratulations...THAT'S IT! All you have to do is jump
    to
    different newsgroups and post away. After you get the
    hang of
    it, it will only take about 30 seconds for each posting!!
    **REMEMBER, THE MORE NEWSGROUPS YOU POST IN,
    THE MORE
    MONEY
    YOU WILL MAKE!!---BUT YOU HAVE TO POST A MINIMUM
    OF 200**
    That's it!
    You will begin receiving money from around the world
    within days!
    You may eventually want to rent a P.O. Box due to the
    large
    amount of mail you will receive. If you wish to stay
    anonymous,
    you can invent a name to use, as long as the postal service
    will
    deliver it. **JUST MAKE SURE ALL THE ADDRESSES ARE
    CORRECT**
    ----Now the WHY part----
    Out of 200 postings, say I receive only 5
    replies
    (a very low example). So then I made $5.00 with my
    name at #6 on
    the letter. Now, each of the 5 persons who just sent me
    $1.00
    make the MINIMUM 200 postings, each with my name at
    #5, and only
    5 persons respond to each of the original 5, that is
    another
    $25.00. Then those 25 each make 200 MINIMUM
    posts with my
    name at #4, and only 5 replies to each, and I will bring in an
    additional $125.00! Now, those 125 persons turn around
    and post
    the MINIMUM 200 with my name at #3 and only receive
    5 replies
    each, and I will make an additional $625.00! OK, now here is
    the fun
    part. Each of those 625 persons post a MINIMUM 200
    letters with
    my name at #2, and they each only receive 5 replies,
    that just
    made me $3,125.00!!! Those 3,125 persons will all deliver
    this
    message to 200 newsgroups with my name at #1, and if
    still 5
    persons per 200 newsgroups react, I will receive an amazing
    $15,625,00! With
    an original investment of only $6.00! AMAZING! When
    your name is
    no longer on the list, you just take the latest posting in
    the
    newsgroups, and send out another $6.00 to names on
    the list,
    putting your name at number 6 again. Then start posting
    again. That's it!
    Do you realize that thousands of honest people just like you
    all
    over the world are joining the internet and
    reading
    these articles everyday? So
    can you
    afford $6.00 and see if it really works?? I think so...
    People
    have said, "what if the plan is played out and no one
    sends you
    the money? So what! What are the chances of that
    happening when
    there are tons of new honest users who are
    joining the internet and newsgroups everyday. So, are
    willing to
    give it a try? Estimates are about 20,000 to 50,000 new
    bulletin board users
    every day, with thousands of those joining the internet
    itself.
    Remember, please play FAIRLY! This ensures a huge
    circle of
    wealth that grows with the internet audience!!!
    Everyone
    benefits!!! Remember to send the six envelopes to the
    above
    addresses, in order to create the legal service. At first I
    was
    to scared to try this, but once I researched it, I found that it
    is totally
    legal. When you send the six envelopes out, you create a service,
    a legal
    service. The Internet audience is expanding all the time.
    The
    audience is like an equity stock on the stock market,
    continuously going up.
    If you still think this is a fraud, take a few minutes to check it
    out,
    then you'll start raking in the cash!!!!!!
    A famous quote from millionaire Master P: Make a dollar out of 15 cents.


    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

    Replies:

  • What really bugs me... -- Rich, 23:33:03 06/25/01 Mon
    ... and I won't get into a rant, it's not worth that, but Battlestar Gallactica isn't even real science fiction. Real science fiction is imaginative and inspired, a thoughtful, often metaphoric medium that has something to say. Cackastar Shitelactica is just a MOR Western that latches on the SF trappings in true bandwagon style. There's not a single thought or iota of originality in its whole body, it's like a parasite and I HATE IT!!!!! The only decent thing about it is when Dirk Benedict double-takes at the Cylon in the credits to The A-Team. Speaking of which, there's a brief Big Grigger update at the bottom of this one as Mr.T. is finding fitting in the house quite hard. In the meantime here's a brief review with no concluding sentence...


    SHAFT (1971)

    "Shut yo mout’!"

    With its exemplary direction and low-key, almost arthouse leanings, Shaft is a much better film than you probably remember.

    Richard Roundtree might not be the world’s greatest actor, but he is the embodiment of cool, ably backed up by some witty lines. ("What do I look like, some kind of klutz?" asks a police chief. "Don’t ask and I won’t tell you" quips Shaft). The Blaxploitation handle is a tad disingenuous, (though did people really once say things like "Yeah baby, right on" ??) and it more than transcends such a patronising motif.

    The plot itself turns out to be sufficiently involved, if not complex, with Roundtree’s gumshoe caught between the police, local gangsters, Black Panthers and the Mafia. Antonio Fargas does his pimp informer schtick some four years before Starsky and Hutch, while there’s a genuine rapport between Roundtree and Charles Cioffi.

    Isaac Hayes’s songs are so good they go without saying; from the cartoonish theme to the sublime Soulsville. The sex scenes are admittedly kitsch, but the rest of the production belies its 70s origins. Sound quality and dubbing are frequently shaky, though never enough to detract.


    Even Mr.T. can't act like himself in the Big Grigger house. I gotta keep my cool so I can win the prizemoney and buy myself some more gold jewellry. But I'm gettin' really sick of the chumps in here, and if I was honest then there's a couple o' suckas that I'd tell to cut the jibber-jabber!


    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

    Replies:

  • Hey shithole! -- Griff, 18:05:09 06/25/01 Mon

    I just got this message on the IMDb:

    "I wanted to tell you that I've just sat up until 3:45 reading through several of your reviews; very entertaining and insightful. I would love to know what you do for a living since it appears you actually studied film in higher education. I too have studied film and intend to direct eventually - when I've raised $80 million! Always seeking to further my knowledge of film, it is really refreshing to read the views of someone who is obviously knowledgeable; you have given me a warning nudge that I must never become complacent about my 'expertise' in film. Some of your comments really struck me as indicative of a superbly subtle sensitivity to texts. I have been trying to cultivate this for years but reading your reviews has shown me once again that I have much to learn.
    My tastes seem to be very much in accord with yours and I love that you love The Rocketeer; it *is* a much underappreciated film and I too thought the flying was an improvement on that in Superman (not to malign a superb technical achievement in its own right).
    There are many things I'd love to discuss with you e.g. I think that Eraserhead is worthy as a 'nightmare filmed', an idea which has intrigued me: thoroughly disturbing, I wouldn't want to watch it again, but undeniably memorable (I can't think of any justification for making a film that merely disturbs, and I have not heard Lynch speak about it, but I cannot deny it as effective). Obviously any further correspondance is entirely up to you and I'll take no offense if I don't hear from you; I just felt compelled to compliment you and thank you for making me stay up far later than I ought to have done!

    Regards,

    John"

    Is that first paragraph the sarkiest piss take ever or what? I checked the bottom to see if your name was on there but no, this guy either really does think I'm worth learning from (titter) or is having me on. Even I wouldn't say I've got a "superbly subtle sensitivity to texts" so surely this guy is having a larf? Poo!

    Yeah, I do like V, got a problem with that, bunghole? The first mini-series is the best (***1/2), The Final Battle rambled on a bit. I've never seen the series, it's supposed to be shit, innit? It's out on disc later this year, hurrah! I did realise you were being sarky about Battleshite Galarsetica btw - with my superby subtle sensitivity to texts I could hardly miss it, could I? I'm gonna mail this guy back and see what he says.

    Do you like The Simpsons, chief? What about Mission: Impossible? I was gonna put my favoutite episode in with that stuff I sent but I didn't have the space.


    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

    Replies:

  • Odds Bodkins! Have a look at my brand-new lyrics to the theme song, Master Grigg! Gadzooks! And please spirit away my previous attempt(s) to post this message, Master Grigg. After all, I am merely a medieval sprite and this is my first time on this device you call the Internet. -- Timothy Claypole, 23:12:44 06/23/01 Sat
    If your mansion house needs bullshit just call, RentaGrigg, We've got twats and dicks and Richard Branson, at RentaGrigg, Hear the Phantom of the Opera, talk a load of fucking crap, Remember what you see is never a review but ..... RentaGrigg! At your party be a smarty then hire RentaGrigg, If you want a fright climb the arsehole heights, with RentaGrigg, You can let our spirits move you, and for fun play talk some shit, Because we aim to shock, and quite a bit, that's RentaGrigg. Let me say the most terrific simple ghost, not scientific, Maybe supernatural bullshitters of the day. Heavy footsteps in your attic means a bullshit telepathic, Is descending just to talk a load of crap ..... Yaaay! We are extraordinary fellas here at RentaGrigg, To be another Richard Branson come to RRRRRentaGrigg. For a new review we've excuses, Not forgetting 'I'll do it next week', A load of bullshit quipped from deep inside a crypt, Ring RentaGrigg, A load of bullshit quipped from deep inside a crypt, Ring RentaGrigg! Haa haaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaaaa haaaaaaaa Haa haaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaaaa haaaaaaaa


    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

    Replies:

  • How about we call it "The Creaky Bores Site"? haw haw haw!! Anyway, fuck off and have a look at what I've just wasted £12.99 on... -- Rich, 21:12:49 06/23/01 Sat
    RENTAGHOST (1976-1984)

    The most inspired children’s series of all time?

    Rentaghost has a terrible reputation in some circles, largely due to the awful later series with new unfunny characters and a silly pantomime horse.

    After being introduced in a Christmas special, it’s widely forgotten that the first four series involved a trio of male ghosts, a leaning towards verbal rather than forced slapstick humour and actual plots.

    Not only is the premise – three ghosts putting themselves up for hire – truly inspired, but also macabre for children’s television. Fred Mumford (Anthony Jackson) pretending to still be alive as his dead body was never found; Hubert Davenport (Michael Darbyshire) ruing not changing his will so he got his own money; and Timothy Claypole (Michael Staniforth) whose superb theme song had to be toned down to omit references to The Exorcist. The ghosts even have pitch-white faces to indicate the lack of blood in their bodies. Hubert looks older than his mother does, as he died aged 47, while she passed away at the age of 25. It’s this almost morbid black humour that makes Rentaghost possibly unique in children’s programming.

    Most importantly, while the later series were often puerile, the early ones show every sign of being written by an adult. The first episode has Mumford thinking about gambling and being mistaken as a sexual pervert, while a later story sees a gag about bras. The fifth episode, with its militant union ghosts, even succeeds in political satire, albeit of a very limited nature.

    Although clearly a product of the late 70s, this is offset by two of the ghosts coming from a previous time – the Victorian and Medieval ages – and grumpy landlord Harold Meaker (Edward Brayshaw) is so conservative that he defies any fashion trends. In fact, while Mumford has the most colossal pair of flares you’ve ever seen, his lingo causes some unexpected humour. The third episode has Claypole and Hubert believing he once dated a bird of the feathered variety. Very rare to hear a bestiality gag on kid’s telly.

    The budget is low (One story has an airport "strike committee" made up of just four people) but the jumps in film and cheap special effects only add to the charm. The three ghosts are a great team (though it’s notable how often Darbyshire fluffs a line in this pre-retake age), while the stereotyped "crossed lines" misunderstandings of the sitcom format are done with such deliciously cheesy aplomb they’re great. In particular a scene where Mr.Meaker relates to the Mumfords all the different wards their (unbeknownst to them, hospital entertainer) son has visited – culminating in the maternity ward – is pure genius. While Staniforth is always over the top, but infectiously so.

    It’s no longer laugh-out-loud funny (it perhaps cries out for an audience track) but it has a kind of low-key integrity for the usually patronising medium of children’s television. In fact, I remember being quite scared of some elements, particular Claypole’s maniacal laugh and some ghost squatters. In all, an original and imaginative series – just a shame that from 1979 onwards it all went down the drain...



    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

  • . -- Griff, 23:56:52 06/22/01 Fri
    THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957)

    This creaky old bore is about as interesting as a Vietnam veteran with sipphilis. Proof again that only Robert Zemeckis can master the art of direction. One star.



    Those fuckin' bastards kicked me out! I can't believe Derek turning on me after all our work together in Playschool, and that Mr.T's a bastard. Shazza the Zygon was great, we had some lovely rows, but I want that fucking bitch Grigg Grigger out, he's got a devious plan and he's a right moody bastard. Jim Jimmer or Bobby Zee deserve to win the Big Grigger prize.


    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

    Replies:

  • Here's another review for you to ignore! It's crap cos I couldn't remember much about the damn thing, it was so forgettable. -- Griff, 16:50:58 06/21/01 Thu

    THE INVISIBLE MAN’S REVENGE


    We’re four movies into the Invisible Man cycle and it’s pretty clear that inspiration has, like the eponymous character, faded into nothingness. This is a long way from the quality of the first film, which had real magic and an almost tangible atmosphere; there are a few familiar effects here and an unwise attempt to reprise the comedy element of the original, to no avail. Perfectly watchable in an I’m-bored-but-it-could-be-worse kind of way, it’s a disappointingly bland effort.

    After a pre-invisibility segment, a repeat of the bandages and glasses routine and the obligatory peel-off, it soon becomes clear that this is a rather desperate film with nothing to add; it’s nothing more than a thin B-movie with invisibility as a gimmick, with none of the artistry of James Whale’s film. The story is completely underdeveloped apart from the convoluted revenge plot – criminal Rob Griffin (Jon Hall) was left for dead in the jungle by his supposed friends Jasper (Lester Matthews) and his wife (Gale Songard) some years earlier. They agreed to split some diamonds and now he’s back for his share – and he wants their daughter too. Stumbling upon a doctor experimenting with invisibility, Griffin sees a way to exact his revenge.

    Okay, so it doesn’t exactly sound like the twistiest plot ever, but the writers get it across in the most leaden and long-winded way possible and clog the movie up with it. With so much standing around and talking from the main characters, actors slightly less lacklustre than this lot would have been nice, but there ya go. Rob’s new pal Herbert (Leon Errol) trundles through a lot of unfunny antics, like the pointless darts game in which an invisible Rob aims for the bullseye every time; the spectators are amazed more at Herbert’s accuracy than the fact that the darts are moving at about three metres an hour, wobbling as they go. There are a few boggle-eyed cockneys scattered about as well, but they’re no match for Una O’Connor and E.E. Clive.

    I don’t know if all the sequels are this lame because I haven’t seen ‘em, but this one is a right duffer. I was really curious to see this just to see what one of the other Invisible Man films is like, and sadly it falls victim to Universal’s policy of dragging a series on long past its natural life in order to scrape a few more bucks into their bulging coffers. On the bright side, there are some decent invisibility effects, like when Rob dunks his head into a fish tank or covers his face in flour. But this really has nothing to do with the first film any more; the villains shares a name with Claude Rains’s character, and that’s about it. What’s the point of that?



    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

  • As awarded to Star Cops.Com and my Who site. I reckon they dish 'em out to any old fucker though... apply for one, Grigg! And FOUR reviews?? Blummin' 'eck, are you ill or something?
     -- Rich, 18:58:42 06/20/01 Wed

    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

    Replies:
  • I just saw the original Gaslight (**) - not sure if I was inspired enough to do a full review though. For now, here we go with a double bill! Watch out for spoilers. -- Griff, 15:03:21 06/20/01 Wed

    FRIDAY THE 13TH


    Like most rip-offs of top films, as with the endless succession of Die Hard and Jaws clones, Friday the 13th borrows the framework of Halloween but just doesn’t have the soul, the little touches, the style that made its inspiration so brilliant. The first of the cash-ins out of the gate, this can at least claim to have set the conventions of the slasher film in stone and adds a couple of its own to the endless list of genre clichés but whereas Halloween was more than just an exploitation pic thanks to its great direction and memorable score, Friday is nothing more than a slim plot on which to hang a series of gruesome deaths.

    The first in a franchise that has inexplicably dragged on for eight more films and a TV series, this is the best of the lot, which isn’t saying a lot considering the quality of the sequels. The only surprise here, back at the start of the never-ending series, is that the killer is not Jason – instead it’s his mother, and oddly enough a middle-aged woman in a chunky sweater proves not to be the scariest slasher ever, although she is strangely eerie at times. At least she’s not a Michael Myers impersonator in a hockey mask, so there is at least a smidgeon of originality here, but let’s not get too excited because there’s eighty-odd minutes to get through before that revelation.

    So, we have a bunch of horny teenagers up at Camp Crystal Lake, getting the place ready for its reopening after all those horrible things that happened many years ago... unfortunately for them a killer stalks the camp, slicing up the teens as they go about their business. Interesting only for an early appearance by Kevin Bacon, the cast is there for no other purpose than to take off their clothes and get horribly murdered. Cue scene after scene of the teens being killed during/after sex or wandering out into the woods alone in the middle of the night. One character even ventures out into the pouring rain wearing nothing but a nightie!

    Sadly there’s nothing to maintain interest between the admittedly well-realised deaths (good make-up from Tom Savini) because the whole film revolves around them - when the guys and gals aren’t getting skewered with a variety of sharp implements there’s nothing much going on; the plot saunters off with its hands in its pockets and sits in the corner till it’s needed again for the next bloody murder. It’s all padding and consequently there’s no suspense to be found. Director Sean Cunningham swipes John Carpenter’s lingering POV shots but his direction is so muddled that he can’t decide, and we can’t tell, which are the POVs and which are the shaky camera shots.

    By the time we get to the finale things have really gone stale, and to make things worse it’s so repetitive it makes the previous hour or so look varied. The remaining girl, Alice, whacks the killer on the head and runs for it, the killer catches up with her and gets whacked on the head, Alice runs for it... apparently the script read, “Repeat until audience is ready to swallow cyanide capsule”. Throw in a shock ending nicked from Carrie and that’s pretty much the whole thing. What it does have going for it is a few nods to the horror genre, like the mad old crank who tries to warn the kids off, the hostile locals and Harry Manfredini’s score, which seems inspired to some degree by Bernard Herrmann. The series is all downhill from this point on...



    FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 2


    The term ‘more of the same’ could have been coined for this lazybones sequel which, if you study it very closely, differs from the original film in one subtle way: the inclusion of the words ‘Part 2’ in the title. Apart from that it’s business as usual for the first of many, many sequels in which numerous teenage camp counsellors are murdered in various ways including a spear through the back, a slashed throat, a machete in the head and that old favourite, the gory stabbing. Yes, it’s class all the way with this one.

    Like the first film, this has the counsellors getting their camp ready for opening after a period of closure following the earlier bloody events. In a daring departure from the original setting, this takes place in a different camp on the same lake! I hope not too many fans of the original were alienated by such a severe change of direction. After an interminable and rather distasteful prologue in which Alice (Adrienne King), the one survivor of the first movie, is slowly stalked and then stabbed in the head, it’s exactly the same formula as before. Only the killer has changed; it’s now Jason, back from his watery grave with a sack over his head like a maniacal Elephant Man.

    We get more nudity, more tame sex scenes, more peering through windows, more spying from behind bushes, more teenage pranks. The new writer’s credit deserves a chuckle because the dialogue is completely irrelevant as it exists only as a vehicle to get us from one murder to another, to appeal to the bloodthirsty fans of the series. Boring and idiotic, there are numerous scenes with Jason remaining completely unseen as he hides behind two branches ten feet away from someone, and quite a few where he somehow knows where characters are going and gets there ahead of them. There’s even the same ‘shock’ ending as before and the crazy old coot popping up again to warn the kids that they’re doomed – but his character isn’t wasted, no sir; he gets garrotted from behind a tree. No sense in letting a good body go to waste!

    As for what little there is on the plus side: there’s a sexually active disabled guy, not a character you see too often in movies and so a commendable inclusion, even if he is two-dimensional Jason fodder like everyone else. Harry Manfredini’s ‘ch-ch-ch puh-puh-puh’ theme music continues to give the movie what little eerie atmosphere it has (which is very little). And there’s a scene near the end nicked from Psycho - it could be a homage but since this movie is completely bereft of original ideas it’s more likely a blatant steal. What more is there to say, really? If you’ve seen the first one then you’ve seen this.



    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

    Replies:

  • My God! I'm actually posting a review before I said I would! How often do you get chance to do that? Just image such a thing! -- Griff, 21:39:34 06/19/01 Tue

    CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON


    One of the lesser entries in the Universal horror canon - because it’s even more rubbish than the rest of ‘em - Creature from the Black Lagoon may have spawned the inevitable sequels but can’t stretch its thin premise out far enough to fill a seventy minute film, so God knows what the others are like. It has one idea: an amphibious creature swims about in a lagoon. A black lagoon. From then on the writers were clearly stuck for something to happen, because nothing does, and it takes its sweet time about it.

    This extremely repetitious and tedious film is replete with the kind of pseudo-scientific babble that had to be crammed into ‘50s SF under penalty of death, in this case absolutely tons of the stuff that threatens to engulf the actors before they set off in search of the hideous gill-man. After an intense and lengthy search for this unseen monster from the dawn of time, which consists of them paddling down a river for about five minutes, the movie hits the repeat button on the editing machine every ten minutes as the creature rises from the depths to attack someone on the boat.

    The creature itself doesn’t look too bad, although he’s a bit of an ungainly swimmer for an animal supposedly at home in the water. Hardly the terrifying monstrosity all the characters seem to see, he’s a bit gormless looking facially and it looks like every last second of underwater footage shot was actually used in the film, but design-wise it’s pretty cool. Lots of time is spent/wasted showing us the gill-man flailing about in the lagoon, with plenty of straggly weeds getting in the way and possibly the dirtiest water this side of the toilet in Trainspotting.

    The music is the usual overbearing dirge, with an over-enthusiastic composer crapping his pants every time the gill-man makes an appearance and apparently waving his baton around like he’s having an epileptic fit. The shocker music overdoses on ear-splitting “Deeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!” blasts each and every time a webbed hand rises out of the water, which gets pretty boring. Throw in a pert female scientist, the usual argument about whether the creature should be killed or preserved for scientific purposes, the kind of dialogue Whit Bissell is never far away from and a plot that’s kind of a water-logged version of King Kong, and you have a pretty typical genre movie of the period, only without the unintentional laughs.



    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

    Replies:

  • Are you sure it didn't say "you are an arse soul" Grigg? -- Rich, 18:50:23 06/19/01 Tue
    Whoops, bit of an in-joke there! I bet that'll go right over the heads of your 10,000 board visitors, won't it? And up yer cack hole!! So I put "image" instead of imagine (I hadn't spell-checked the fucker, alright, just like I haven't with the following), but what was wrong with the other sentence? I thought it was okay. And yes, I did forget to reply to your others. You're right on Rambo III, though seeing a "here's a list of films I'm going to review" - I mean, do you blame me for being cynical? And I'm not going to respond to nuthin' (which means I am going to respond to something, yeah, yeah, double negative, up yours!) unless you comment on my Grigg's Gob theme song and all-new Universal Horror snaps. I spent fucking ages colouring my face with a permanent marker and that's the fucking thanks I get!

    And as for you, IMDb's Jim Jimmer - review a film I've seen! Now up yours, the pair of you!!!

    Here's a review of a film I saw last night, meaning I post a review within - gasp!!!! - twenty-four hours!!! Shock! Horror!


    CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON (1954)

    "We've just begun to learn about the water and its secrets."

    For a creature feature this movie is fairly unexploitative. In fact, it goes nearly twenty-five minutes before we even get to see the creature's face. A more thoughtful offering than usual, its aquatic missing link musings may win the hotly-contested "most clumsy use of exposition in a Universal horror" but are still commendable.

    However, as is the problem with most of the studio's later output, there is little beyond the initial premise to keep things moving. Once it's established that there's a half-human monster at the bottom of the lagoon there's nothing to do except sit it out and wait for the creature to get killed.

    The laborious pace isn't helped with interminable tracts of nicely directed yet ultimately dull underwater sequences. The breaks between attacks are there to build suspense, though merely contribute boredom. While it shows commendable ambition for the studio, having 18 minutes of the film's brief runtime underwater means that 16% of it goes without dialogue, surely too great an amount. Research reminds us that the movie was released in 3D, explaining this stance somewhat. Yet this is not an issue when you're watching a non-3D video release, highlighting the shortcomings of the script.

    But the biggest problem is the creature itself. Frankly, it looks ridiculous. Underwater, helmed by (Fuck it, forgot to look it up), it's passable, but on land under Jack Arnold's direction it's just a silly old man in a rubber suit. Okay, this is rather a shallow judgement, but then this is rather a shallow film. And what about those webbed fingers? How does he have a Tommy Tank? The incidental music is even more repetitive than the plot, and where are the creature's family? As a mammal he'd have to have parents or offspring, wouldn't he? As this one never had a sequel then we never got to find this out, nor why he should have a soft spot for Julia Adams. (Mind you, she did have big jugs).

    If this was made as a tongue-in-cheek parody it would be understandable, but the whole thing is performed so seriously - almost pompously - that it's impossible even to laugh with it. Did people really find this sort of thing scary fifty years ago?

    Creature From The Black Lagoon. No moral. No meaning. No point.



    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

    Replies:

  • Apparently Bela Lugosi turned down the role of the creature in the original film because he had hardly any dialogue. So he must have needed the cash to do this one... -- Griff, 07:29:38 06/19/01 Tue

    FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN


    Never a studio to let a good horror franchise go to waste, Universal tightens the old purse strings and gets two sequels for the price of one with Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, the first of their legendary genre team-ups and hopefully not the best. A tedious clash between a movie that wasn’t that interesting in the first place (The Wolf Man) and an overrated series continuing its downward slide (Frankenstein), the only thing really to be said in its favour is that we’re still a couple of movies away from Abbott and Costello.

    The movie opens with a couple of grave robbers digging up... a dead horse, which they proceed to flog for the next hour or so. With a mercifully short running time and a couple of good bits along the way this passes by painlessly enough but offers absolutely nothing we haven’t seen before. The emphasis is on Lon Chaney’s Wolf Man, who suddenly isn’t dead after all! That’s lucky! He’s in search of Frankenstein’s notes on life and death in order to find a way to kill himself once and for all and be rid of his curse. Along the way he bumps into the creature – now played by a miscast Bela Lugosi – and the expected chaos ensues.

    Writer Curt Siodmak includes all the now wearisome conventions of both series – not a minute has passed before that poem so tiresomely repeated in The Wolf Man (“Even a man who is pure of heart...” Zzzzzz...) is wheeled out again with a couple of references to wolfbane. From the Frankenstein side of the family we get broken down castles, grave robbers and the village mob springing into action when a local girl is killed. Yawn!! - as the angry crowd of villagers storm the Frankenstein castle carrying torches! Sleep!! - as the Wolf Man struggles with his guilt! Snore!! - as the story supposedly comes to an end but will actually grind on until the characters have run out of every last smidgeon of steam!

    This is a lightweight romp, never scary, pretty dull. With a plot that goes nowhere you don’t expect it to – or goes nowhere, full stop – and the unmistakable sound of ker-chinging as dollar signs spring up in the eyes of greedy Universal honchos, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man can either be seen as a missed opportunity (if you like the original films) or more of the same stuffy, boring cobblers (if you don’t). There’s a funny bit when the mayor tells the mob how stupid they are and that they need to have a plan rather than descend into the usual mindless rioting. Siodmak seems to be having a sly dig here, and it hints that the whole thing might have been better if it were a bit more subversive and played for laughs.



    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

  • Post a review yer c***! -- Rich, 19:44:20 06/18/01 Mon
    Frankentwat

    The Wank Man

    Frankentwat Meets The Wank Man


    FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN (1943)

    The first Universal team-up movie (is it? I was guessing -Mr.Research) allows Lon Chaney Jr's wooden Wolf Man chance to meet Bela Lugosi's frankly rubbish monster.

    It's impossible to image such a format being passed forward today. Not only would copyright laws from major studios have to be negotiated, but it would take years to get the project completed. The fact that this could be screened within two years of the original Wolf Man (**) is a testament to Universal's in-house cast of characters, but also a damnation of their conveyor-belt approach to filmmaking.

    Yet despite the blatant money-making nature of its origins, Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man is a lot better than you might expect. I suppose it comes down to who was bringing what to the party. Frankenstein's Monster had passed his peak (this being his fifth movie), while the Wolf Man was a hot new property. From the Wolf Man's point of view this is a step up from his debut feature, with more plot and improved direction.

    The plot itself is a bit of a contrived mess, even throwing in a song and dance number. Taken entirely from Chaney's perspective, it allows him to walk through the regurjitated remains of the Frankenstein mythos, often recreating its imagery. His rather morbid motivation is to uncover Dr. Frankenstein's work in order to enable him to die.

    Ultimately the film has nothing to say, so its "monsters have a brief fight then get blown up" resolution falls short. Lugosi's mute parody has such a perfunctory role in the proceedings it's like he's in a different picture.

    Enjoyable fluff to be sure, but completely lacking in anything approaching artistry.

    **1/2 really, but I don't do half stars like a girl. Nearly average, but not quite.


    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

    Replies:

  • Hi there, Jimfans! The IMDB's Jim Griffin has returned to give you all a special sneak preview of his latest review before he goes on his promotional tour of Asia, signing copies of his autobiography... -- IMDB's Jim Griffin, 00:53:18 06/19/01 Tue
    The American President (1995) ***

    There are two love stories in this film. The first is between Michael Douglas and Annette Benning; the second is between Aaron Sorkin and the Presidency.

    The seeds of The West Wing were planted here, but with them came its faults. What irritates me about the show irritates me about the film; its misplaced and insincere cynicism. It tries to be too cool for school in its depiction of politicians; they care more about their careers than the truth, they are self-serving and manipulative, they are cynical and driven by appearance not policy, and they have no interest in right and wrong, only Right and Left. But this cynicism stops at the doors of the Oval Office, and is replaced by misty-eyed patriotism.

    Michael Douglas’s President is somehow separated from the other politicians and their sniping, presumably reaching the White House through simple honesty and integrity. Like that’s ever happened. The weeping violins and Rob Reiner’s sweeping camera combine to tell us that this man is one of the greats. What it really tells us is that the cynicism in the movie is only kids’ stuff.

    There is scene after scene about how the President is just another guy, and Douglas must have taken all of ten minutes to learn his lines as most of them are variations on “Call me Andy.” But, again, Sorkin clearly doesn’t believe his own writing. This isn’t Andy, this is the President of the United States! Hail to the chief...

    As in The West Wing, there is a clear formula to the dialogue. How to sound like a White House aide: walk fast down a corridor, weaving in and out of the open plan offices, speaking without taking breath, while quoting statistics and percentages, with some half-assed cynical attitude. That gets stale by the end of the first reel.

    Released in 1995, it could have been made as a birthday present for Bill Clinton. The President has a girlfriend and doesn’t want to make any public statements about their relationship, which is a convenient set-up for the message that a President’s personal life doesn’t matter as long as he’s a good leader. So men like Kennedy and Clinton screwed around on their wives, and even doddery old Eisenhower was rumoured to be getting some, but what difference does that make? Sure, they lied to their wives and children, but let’s not take that as any indication of their morality.

    The love story between Douglas and Benning is mostly interesting, and the cast is mostly impressive. If you can see beyond the preaching, the movie passes the time well enough. Personally, I couldn’t, so it didn’t.


    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

  • Scroll down after this f***** as I've posted two reviews tonight!! -- Rich, 20:15:32 06/18/01 Mon
    Beware of Grigg’s Gob. It talks – some shite – and then you might – want to start a fight – for all the shite – that comes – right out of his silly gob – so beware of Grigg’s Gob!

    THE BLOB (1958)

    "Beware of the blob."

    It creeps. And leaps. And glides. And even, you know, slides. Across the floor. Or so the jazzy theme tune by Burt Bacharach and Mack David would have us believe.

    When I was younger this film had gained a notorious reputation as a horrific shocker, largely by people who were confusing it with the pretty good '88 remake (**1/2). The original actually turns out to be a rather mild and campy B-Movie. Or is the whole thing a send-up of B-Movies? With its studio recreations of exteriors, dated Technicolor and ropy dubbing, it comes across as a television adaptation.

    It’s quite interesting watching this one side-by-side with the 80s version as both are products of eras that retrospectively lack good taste. Some of the acting here is hokey, but not more so than the mullet-bedecked efforts in Chuck Russell’s take. The special effects are dated (especially the cartoon blob on the diner) yet in their own way no more dated than the Dream Quest Image sequences.

    Differences between the two aren’t actually that many, the Kevin Dillon movie being a fairly faithful upgrade. Perhaps this is most notable with the Scooby-Dooish notion of teenagers saving the day, a hot concept in 50s America, a dumb one in 1988. Though the major difference is that this Steve(n) McQueen picture wouldn’t have the nerve to present an anti-authoritarian stance. Here the police are loveable guardians, on first-name terms with "the kids". The remake saw the blob reimagined as a man-made biological weapon. Here there’s no such subtext; the creature is merely a murderous parasite from outer space. If there’s any commentary to be gleaned, it’s seeing all-Americans hiding in a cellar from a growing red menace.

    The Blob is a curiously middle-aged and exploitative attempt to ensnare a newborn audience. This was the decade where Rock ‘n’ Roll emerged, the term teenager was invented, and youth was about to find its voice. To this end The Blob finds it target not just by being a movie, but a veritable pop-culture phenomenon. (What bollocks I was talking there!!)


    Up yours!!


    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

    Replies:

  • I'm having a row!! -- Rich, 00:21:37 06/16/01 Sat
    I got an Instant Message marked "mutttley0 has sent you an instant message. Do you accept?"

    So I clicked yes, and the following ensued: (I was playing Devil's Advocate a little)...

    mutttley0: hi
    RCalla6725: Hi
    mutttley0: i read your review of the breakfast club on the imdb
    RCalla6725: Oh?
    mutttley0: yeah i just wanted to tell you to keep your day job
    RCalla6725: Have we spoke about this before?
    mutttley0: um no i just read it last night
    RCalla6725: Oh right, someone else contacted me about it. So I presume you've written your own reviews as you're obviously an authority on what makes a good review.
    mutttley0: uhhhh sure whatever
    mutttley0: i just think you sound like an opinionated arse who is a full time wanker
    RCalla6725: Is that it? Great put-downs, mate. You've got me crying here. Oh, swearing now.
    RCalla6725: Actually, you're right
    mutttley0: you're just an english arrogant asshole i see i am correct mate
    RCalla6725: I am an opinionated arse and a full-time wanker: you, meanwhile, are a fatuous prick with shit for brains. And a dumb Yank at that.
    mutttley0: wow i'm impressed you english piece of shit
    mutttley0: learn how to write a review moron
    RCalla6725: Show me - what was wrong with my review?
    RCalla6725: I bet your command of the English language is so wonderful you could show me how to construct a great review
    mutttley0: probably
    mutttley0: is that all you do, write poor reviews about movies you know nothing about?
    RCalla6725: So why was it a poor review? Because I gave an opinion you didn't agree with. It was subjective view - deal with it, you stupid cunt.
    mutttley0: oooh someone is intelligent, "stupid cunt" is a phrase which obviously shows your level of brilliance
    mutttley0: i'm just saying you're an english moron who wanks all day and you're probably a 35 year old living with mum and dad
    RCalla6725: So you're so great (wrong, btw) that you spend your evenings mailing people like me? If I'm so sad then what does that make you?
    RCalla6725: What's your problem, anyway? So you didn't like my review? Who cares? Go fuck yourself!
    mutttley0: actually dick lick, it's day time and i haven't mailed anything to you idiot
    mutttley0: i'm saying you're a fucking moron
    mutttley0: do people call you dick or do you just act like one all the time?
    RCalla6725: So why are you more intelligent than I am, Noel Coward?
    mutttley0: what asshole?
    RCalla6725: Shall I explain it in two-syllable words, you intellectual giant?
    mutttley0: yes because i didnt get that last IM you shitface
    RCalla6725: Noel Coward was a renouned wit. I was calling you that ironically (Do you understand irony over there?) to indicate that you have all the charm, wit and humour of an anal pollip.
    mutttley0: you're a cock sucking idiot who has feeble opinions which you can't back up, do you understand that over there?
    mutttley0: probably spend the rest of your time in gay disco bars sucking men
    RCalla6725: So talk about them if you've got something to say rather than just going in for puerile name-calling. Intriguing how you bring up the gay motive, as well - have you got something to hide?

    Did you think my review was badly constructed? Did you think I didn't present my argument fully?

    Or are you just an immature little prick who didn't agree with my opinion and so is crying like a little girl?
    mutttley0: you're just an arrogant wanker who has nothing better to do and your idea of a good movie is probably something with show tunes
    mutttley0: i have nothing to hide, as i am heterosexual unlike yourself
    RCalla6725: So how does that answer my question?
    mutttley0: i've wasted enough time, i've said what i needed to say
    RCalla6725: Why this hostility towards homosexuals? God, you really think that's a blistering put-down, don't you?
    RCalla6725: Oh, now who's arrogant?
    RCalla6725: "I've said my piece and that's that"
    mutttley0: not a put down, just a fact
    mutttley0: you imbecile, i didnt' say i've said my piece
    RCalla6725: Well here's mine: you're a 14-year-old virgin with a 2 inch penis
    mutttley0: you moron
    mutttley0: i really dont need any descriptions of you, i dont care
    RCalla6725: Okay, I give up. You're right, I am a moron. I really can't hope to compete with a high intellect like yours. You're too quick for me, lightning boy
    RCalla6725: Well if you don't care then why are you IMing me?
    mutttley0: thats what i thought you 1 inch cheese dick who wanks it to his mothers picture
    RCalla6725: Oh, I owe your mum a $5 for last time btw. She was rubbish.
    mutttley0: wow that was good
    RCalla6725: Your Dad was better - you're right, I am gay - I give it your dad in the mouth most nights so I must be.
    mutttley0: just becuz you're a 30 year old virgin with a tiny penis who lives at home doesn't mean you can insult me
    RCalla6725: I must say you are tedious
    mutttley0: hmmm well alright
    RCalla6725: Go on, fuck off now, you're boring me, you acne-faced virgin
    mutttley0: have a nice life, i hope you get aids and die
    mutttley0: i'm clearly not a virgin
    mutttley0: your mother wasn't that good
    RCalla6725: Me too - I'll catch it off your mother [Returned Message: mutttley0 is no longer signed on. I guess the little prick couldn't take some Richy abuse. Arsehole.]


    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

    Replies:

  • Scroll down arsewipe, there's a new post below this one! But for now, here's an un-spellchecked, probably completely shite review... -- Griff, 16:52:15 06/17/01 Sun

    RAMBO III


    “Who do you think this man is, God?”, asks the bad guy in Rambo III. “God would have mercy,” comes the reply. “He won’t.” He sure won’t, not for his enemies or the saddle-sore audiences lumbered with another gung-ho adventure for our indestructible hero. After defeating the Russian army in the last movie, Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) is found in a monastery and pressed back into service in order to rescue his old C.O. and love interest Colonel Trautman (Richard Crenna), who’s been captured in Afghanistan by Stallone’s favourite villains, the Russians.

    So, this time it’s even more personal, not to mention even more plotless and lacking in credibility than before. Wading into the Russian troops practically single-handed, Rambo proceeds to gun everybody down, blow up helicopters, knock down planes with his fists, shoot laser beams from his eyes and tear up huge segments of the ground with his bare hands like The Incredible Hulk. It’s all the Russians can do to stare boggle-eyed as he cuts a swathe through their forces, stopping only to buddy up with a group of Afghan rebels and join in a charming game where they ride around on horses swinging a dead sheep about.

    It’s all pretty much the same formula as before: enough testosterone to keep a sex-change clinic in business for years, all the muscular guys sweating away together as they indulge in plenty of homo-erotic military banter, and an emphasis on the film-makers’ delusion that explosions are interesting in and of themselves. The final onslaught jettisons any last shred of believability (that one tiny, tiny shred that clung on in there) and tediously grinds on to the noisy conclusion. Women don’t even cause a blip on the Rambo radar – this is the boys’ show all the way, with big guns, big tanks, big fireballs, big everything.

    As Stallone’s one-dimensional character works his way through an entire arsenal, ending up with a bow and arrows (I was waiting for him to get out the pea shooter and catty), I was yawning away. The sun really had set on this kind of invincible-hero-kills-everyone action flick by 1988; with the saviour of the genre that was Die Hard mere months away when Rambo III opened, the character had worn out his welcome and seems pretty quaint now. This is another humourless, over-earnest, militaristic shoot-em-up that sneezes vaguely in the direction of the real-life conflict and has a caption dedicating the movie to the “gallant people of Afghanistan” or some such twaddle, as if this film has anything to do with a real war.



    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

  • Griff's holiday -- Griff, 15:45:57 06/17/01 Sun

    Well, it's nearly over, folks. A wonderful two weeks off is about to come to an end and I've watched all the films I'm gonna before I go back to work tomorrow. But, I hear you ask, what exactly have you watched during your fortnight off, Grigg? Well, lucky for you I have this list of what I've seen, with star ratings and a little ® if a review is forthcoming. I know I haven't done many this break but I've been more interested in watching 'em really, especially with, y'know, Sky and all. So here we go!

    1. The Invisible Man’s Revenge (1944) ** ®
    2. The Raven (1935) *** ®
    3. Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1942) ** ®
    4. 20 Dates (1999) ****
    5. Kissed (1997) **
    6. Without Love (1945) **
    7. Urban Legend (1998) *1/2
    8. Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954) ** ®
    9. Life in Danger (1959) **
    10. Dogma (1999) **1/2
    11. Buffalo ’66 (1997) **
    12. Dead Man’s Curve (1997) ***
    13. Brighton Rock (1947) **
    14. Serena (1962) ***
    15. Libeled Lady (1936) **1/2
    16. The Mod Squad (1999) **
    17. The Bad News Bears (1976) ***
    18. The Wrong Man (1957) ***
    19. My Giant (1998) ***
    20. The Blob (1958) **1/2
    21. Le Diner de Cons (1998) ***1/2
    22. It Came from Outer Space (1953) **
    23. Psycho III (1986) *** ®
    24. Dracula (1931) **
    25. Teen Wolf Too (1987) *
    26. Teen Wolf (1985) ***** ®
    27. The Bank Shot (1974) **
    28. Good Burger (1997) * ®
    29. Friday the 13th (1980) ** ®
    30. Bride of Chucky (1998) *** ®
    31. Tom Thumb (1958) ***1/2
    32. San Quentin (1946) **1/2
    33. Allan Quartermain and the Lost City of Gold (1986) *
    34. Universal Soldier (1992) * ®
    35. Rambo III (1988) ** ®
    36. The Safecracker (1958) ***
    37. Universal Soldier II: Brothers in Arms (1998) * ®
    38. Wing Commander (1999) **
    39. Not of This World (1991) **
    40. I Was a Teenage Frankenstein (1957) ** ®
    41. The Haunted Palace (1963) ***
    42. Here Comes the Son (1996) ***1/2
    43. Psycho (1960) ***** ®
    44. Universal Soldier III: Unfinished Business (1998) * ®
    45. Psycho II (1983) **1/2 ®
    46. The Killers (1946) **1/2
    47. The Long Good Friday (1980) **1/2
    48. The Big Sleep (1946) ***
    49. Marty (1954) ***1/2
    50. Gargantua (1998) **
    51. Attack of the 50 Foot Woman (1958) ***
    52. A Clockwork Orange (1971) ** ®
    53. The War of the Worlds (1953) **1/2


    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

    Replies:

  • Okay gotta be quick as I'm going out for once tonight... going to the theatre with people from work. So here's a quick review that I haven't spell-checked. Hope it doesn't bang on (btw, give me the password for your Jacko board Jim Jimmer and I'll post my animation) -- Rich, 18:35:09 06/15/01 Fri
    DR. NO (1962)

    "Our asylums are full of people who think they're Napoleon ... or God."

    Before Timothy Dalton came along and tried to reinvent the character, this was the closest the series got to its source text. Goldfinger might be a good movie, but this is the better film.

    This is a pared-down Bond in an espionage thriller. There's no set-pieces, no silly Q gadgets and no forced humour. While Connery plays the role with an edgy vitality, the wit comes from the character, rather than a smug old man applying send-up codings to the part.

    The early characterisation of Bond is also refreshingly inexperienced, often getting jumped and not seeing it coming. Even in Goldfinger he only manages to save the day by "turning" Honor Blackman.

    One question - why is Puss Fella called Puss Fella? Some acne problem we're not privy to? The Jamaican backdrop might be recreated in shorthand - those Calypso-loving folks just can't stop drinking rum - but works all the same.

    Often cited as the most successful Bond film, some sources claiming it made back its (I can't be arsed to look it up, I think it made 22 million on less than a million budget). In terms of production it still stands up, with only the odd filmed backdrop in driving scenes able to raise a wry yet pleasurable smile. It's even fun seeing the charmingly crude title sequence, which seems either a 60s psychedelic version of Connect 4 or a budget-strapped Pearl and Dean. And as for Jack Lord's Felix Leiter, are those the gayest sunglasses you've ever seen or what?

    There's some cracking exposition, none better than Bond being asked if he knows what toppling is. "A little... it's throwing the gyroscopic controls of a guided missle off-balance with a ... a radio beam, or something, isn't it?"

    What really makes it gel is how low-key it all is. Dr. No (Joseph Wiseman, his "half Chinese" make-up now anachronistic in this post-PC age) has a beautiful aquarium, but no man-eating sharks. Attempts to kill Bond only involve tarantulas, not laser weaponry or scuba divers. Note too how the tarantula makes him break into a sweat. He even confesses to Honey (Ursula Andress) that he's scared. This is Bond as a detective, not action hero.

    The direction is also nice, if not exemplary, though it must be observed that there is a sparsity of incidental music. It all seems so fresh and exciting, a vibrant start to the series before the rot of formula had begun to set in.

    The second half is the weakest, the pace slackening on the island, the spectre (no pun intended) of Austin Powers making the scenes in Dr. No's headquarters now impossible to take seriously. The average 119m duration of the franchise might give room to build up character, but there's an argument to be had that Bond would be better suited to a 90m endeavour.

    Yet there's also a greater sense of purpose with the Connery films, having, as they do, the backbone of SPECTRE uniting them in theme. It's a concept that has a satisfactory introduction, if not, arguably, a satisfactory resolution.



    Yes I did use my calculator to work out the average Bond duration. Ain't I a sad bastard? Anyway, fuck off now, I've got to get ready to go out...


    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

    Replies:

  • Grigg, you're simply the best... better than all the rest! xxxx Thank GOD you didn't put any piss-taking on the parcel, though, as the postie left it with my elderly Catholic neighbours. Phew! What can I say, great buddy? It's a bastard cos I've got to go out quite a bit this weekend... normally I would have stayed in and pulled my plonker over all those great vids and tapes!!! Cheers buddy, what can I say? In this post I'll give you my thriller stars and an update for you to ignore on the explosive events in tonight's Big Grigger. But first, a review... -- Rich, 23:08:50 06/14/01 Thu
    KILLING STREAK/KILLING STREAK 2: PURSUIT (1994)

    "I think I'll have a quarter pounder with cheese."


    These two films really are the dog's bollocks. By that I don't mean that they're any good, more that they resemble a pair of spunk-filled sacs hanging unceremoniously beneath the shit-bedecked arsehole of a rabid Pitbull.

    Black and white lensing on the prologue, coupled with sonorous music reminds one of Scorcese. If Scorcese was a talentless cock-sucker with a penchant for chimp buggery.

    Hanover Pictures co-produced this one, a company whom I suspect is missing a "G" from its name, given that this tawdry grab-bag of horse excrement seems to be the produce of a half-pissed, vomit-stricken fuckwit. Amazingly, four writers are credited with the screenplay... presumably they all stood over a typewriter and each did a Tommy Tank. Acting reaches the high calibre of an anal pollip, while the editing seems to have been done by Stevie Wonder during an epileptic fit. The fight scenes meanwhile have the hard-hitting elegance of a wet fart that's accidentally followed through.

    Grigg Grigger's trademark - a man crying "we can work something out" like a girl as he fights for his life - again rears its head, while the red lensing is probably less artistic statement, more the PMT-bedecked Grigg accidentally leaving his jam rags on the film.

    The movie ends as it began, a repeat of scenes in true Tarantino-aping fashion. Reservoir Dogs? Portishead Arse-Bandits more like.

    and that's fucking generous!


    Actually, I'm just taking the piss as you well know, and I haven't had time to watch the sequel yet. Did you get permission to film in those public places, Grigg? I noticed some old biddy look to the camera when she got off the bus... didn't it freak everyone out? I loved those ariel shots in the shopping precinct as well, that was really good. I enjoyed it, mate. What a top bloke you are, sending me all those lovely tapes!!! :)


    Okay, only the ones I've seen...


    1. Psycho (***** from memory)
    2. Jaws ****
    3. The Exorcist **
    4. North by Northwest ****
    5. The Silence of the Lambs ****
    6. Alien ****
    7. The Birds ***** (yeah, yeah, I know!)
    10. Raiders of the Lost Ark *** (My God, Grigg talked sense for once!)
    11. The Godfather *****
    12. King Kong ('33) (*** from memory, maybe ** like you)
    15. Deliverance ***1/2
    18. Vertigo **
    20. HIgh Noon *****
    21. A Clockwork Orange (Some c*** has this still to watch - *****)
    22. Taxi Driver (haven't you seen this one Grigg? *****)
    25. Titanic ***
    26. The Maltese Falcon *****
    27. Star Wars ***
    30. The Deer Hunter ***** (objective score)
    31. Close Encounters of the Third Kind *** (why so low, Grigg?)
    33. The Fugitive ***
    34. The Night of the Hunter (This is your film - Night of the C**ter Grigg says: "Are you trying to say that I've never...")
    35. Jurassic Park **
    37. Casablanca **** (Casablance only a ***? I know it's overrated, but come on, piss chain...)
    39. Die Hard ****
    40. 2001: A Space Odyssey *****
    42. The Terminator ****
    43. The Wizard of Oz ***
    44. E.T. The Extra-terrestrial ****
    46. Carrie **
    47. Invasion of the Body Snatchers ('56) ****
    49. Ben-Hur *****
    51. Raging Bull *****
    52. Rocky ****
    53. Pulp Fiction *****
    56. Frankenstein ('31) ***
    59. Planet of the Apes *****
    60. The Sixth Sense **** (objective score)
    63. What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? ('62) ****
    66. The Matrix ****
    68. Halloween ***
    69. The Wild Bunch ***1/2
    71. Goldfinger ***1/2
    72. Platoon ***
    74. Blade Runner *****
    77. Terminator 2: Judgment Day **
    79. The Magnificent Seven ***
    81. The Omen ****
    82. The Day the Earth Stood Still ***
    84. Poltergeist **
    85. Dracula ('31) ***
    88. 12 Angry Men *****
    91. Braveheart ***
    93. Night of the Living Dead ('68) ****
    95. Full Metal Jacket ***1/2
    97. Safety Last (is this the fucking Harold Lloyd film? Probably a ****, I love Harold Lloyd me)
    99. Speed ** (You can talk sense when you try, Grigg).
    100. The Adventures of Robin Hood ****

    Sorry if I banged on there. Anyway...


    A rare mid-week update on the Big Grigger house tonight, as the unveiling of a kiddie's paddling pool in the Big Grigger compound, as well as some free lemonade shandies, leads to an explosive row between four of the residents. It's left to Derek Griffiths to try and calm things down...



    'Grigg, everyone's entitled to an opinion, but it's never your place to speak out against Marching Against Time. Now just shut yer f*****g mouth or I'll shut it for you! I said shut it! Just shut it! F****** shut it, will you?' 'Booo hooooooo! Now look what you've done, Ron, you've made me cry like the big girl that I am! I f***** hate you! Why are men such bastards?' 'No offense, Mr.T., but your gold chains have intimidated me, what with me being a gay one and all. I love to kiss pictures of Michael Jackson and I wish you would leave.' 'You expect me to leave, fool? I ain't gettin' on no plane! Shut yer jibber-jabber, or you is going down, chump!' 'Fidddleaaaabsskeeeeeeepbaeeeeeeeep!'

    You know, Grigg, your parcel has put me in such a good mood I'll drop my plans for a week-long sulk and I'll post my Dr.No/Three Colours Red reviews over the weekend... hope that wasn't banging on. Cheers mate!!!


    PS. Up yours! :)


    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

    Replies:

  • Big long post! -- Griff, 18:40:55 06/14/01 Thu
    The American Film Institute has done a list of the 100 greatest thrillers - weird list, it includes stuff like 12 Angry Men! But I thought I'd post it for fun, complete with star ratings:

    1. Psycho (I bought this on disc this week and I'm watching it in the morning - so review tomorrow!)
    2. Jaws *****
    3. The Exorcist **1/2
    4. North by Northwest ***1/2
    5. The Silence of the Lambs ****
    6. Alien **1/2
    7. The Birds ****
    8. The French Connection
    9. Rosemary's Baby **
    10. Raiders of the Lost Ark ***
    11. The Godfather ***
    12. King Kong ('33) **
    13. Bonnie and Clyde ***1/2
    14. Rear Window ('54) **1/2
    15. Deliverance **1/2
    16. Chinatown **
    17. The Machurian Candidate
    18. Vertigo ***1/2
    19. The Great Escape ****
    20. HIgh Noon **1/2
    21. A Clockwork Orange
    22. Taxi Driver
    23. Lawrence of Arabia
    24. Double Indemnity
    25. Titanic ****
    26. The Maltese Falcon
    27. Star Wars ****
    28. Fatal Attraction **
    29. The Shining **
    30. The Deer Hunter
    31. Close Encounters of the Third Kind *
    32. Strangers on a Train **1/2
    33. The Fugitive ***
    34. The Night of the Hunter **
    35. Jurassic Park **1/2
    36. Bullitt ***1/2
    37. Casablanca ***
    38. Notorious
    39. Die Hard *****
    40. 2001: A Space Odyssey **
    41. Dirty Harry ****
    42. The Terminator ****
    43. The Wizard of Oz **1/2
    44. E.T. The Extra-terrestrial ***
    45. Saving Private Ryan **1/2
    46. Carrie **
    47. Invasion of the Body Snatchers ('56) ***1/2
    48. Dial M for Murder ****
    49. Ben-Hur
    50. Marathon Man
    51. Raging Bull
    52. Rocky ***
    53. Pulp Fiction ****
    54. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
    55. Wait Until Dark ****
    56. Frankenstein ('31) *1/2
    57. All the President's Men
    58. The Bridge on the River Kwai **
    59. Planet of the Apes ****
    60. The Sixth Sense **1/2
    61. Cape Fear ('62) **1/2
    62. Spartacus **
    63. What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? ('62) **
    64. Touch of Evil
    65. The Dirty Dozen
    66. The Matrix ***1/2
    67. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre ***1/2
    68. Halloween ***1/2
    69. The Wild Bunch
    70. Dog Day Afternoon ***
    71. Goldfinger ***
    72. Platoon
    73. Laura **
    74. Blade Runner **
    75. The Third Man **
    76. Thelma and Louise **
    77. Terminator 2: Judgment Day ****
    78. Gaslight ('44)
    79. The Magnificent Seven
    80. Rebecca
    81. The Omen
    82. The Day the Earth Stood Still ***
    83. The Phantom of the Opera ('25)
    84. Poltergeist **1/2
    85. Dracula ('31) **
    86. The Picture of Dorian Gray **1/2
    87. The Thing from Another World **
    88. 12 Angry Men *****
    89. The Guns of Navarone
    90. The Poseidon Adventure ****
    91. Braveheart **1/2
    92. Body Heat
    93. Night of the Living Dead ('68) ***
    94. The China Syndrome
    95. Full Metal Jacket ****
    96. Blue Velvet *
    97. Safety Last ***1/2
    98. Blood Simple
    99. Speed **
    100. The Adventures of Robin Hood

    Go on Rich, give us yer stars!!


    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

  • Ello, Grigg. Oh, you'd posted that review ages ago, eh? I dunno, I keep missing stuff, must get my contacts renewed, -- Rich, 20:37:09 06/12/01 Tue
    Anyway, good to see you picked up on my discrete hint there. I'll pay you for the tapes & postage good buddy! Thanks for offering. ;)


    Okay, I need: Season Three - Episode 13 - Terminal

    Season Four - Episode 1 - Rescue
    Season Four - Episode 6 - Headhunter
    Season Four - Episode 7 - Assassin
    Season Four - Episode 12 - Warlord
    Season Four - Episode 13 - Blake


    Cheers good buddy, xxx. Bear in mind if you do this you'll be helping a new Anorak's Guide onto the web. It's for a good cause!!! (Though I'll still have to get season two from somewhere, dunno where yet).


    Okay - Tuesday Movie Previews!

    Kiss The Girls (yessssssss! I can watch that then whore the sequel - Along Came A Piece of Shit to the IMDb); Crocodile Dundee II; The Sound of Fear (I don't wanna watch that at all, I just wanted to point out the nonsensical title - what next, the laugh at one of Grigg's jokes? The wisdom of Grigg's review? How can fear have a f****** sound? Unless it's the sound of shitting yourself); Attack of the 50 Foot Woman; Suture (It shocked me shitless when Grigg gave that one ***1/2); Close Encounters; The Couch Trip (Shite!) Calamity Cack; Mercury Rising; From Russia With Love (***) and Carry On England which I'm dying to see to see if it's as shite as they say.

    And oh, yeah ... there's also some films on SKY. Up yours, piss mule!


    [ Post a Reply to this Message ][Edit]

    Replies:


    [ VoyUser Login ] Not required to post.
    Post a new public message:
     * Notice: Posting problems? [ Click here ]
     * HTML allowed in marked fields.
    * Message subject (required):

    * Name (required):

      Expression (Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)

      E-mail address (optional):

    * Type your message here:

    Choose Message Icon: [ View Emoticons ]

    Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

    Forum timezone: GMT+0
    VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
    Before posting please read our privacy policy.
    VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
    Copyright © 1998-2008 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.