VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 12[3] ]


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!



  • Just listening to History now, Jim. -- Rich, 18:58:04 05/21/01 Mon
    Scream: A lot better than I remembered, some anger there. Doesn't he sing "stop F***** with me" at one point? I bet he nicked that saying off Jordan, y'know...
    Factoid: I remember seeing the video premiere for this one after I'd been in hospital to have an absess (sp?) removed from my gum. I'd had some of my jaw removed, and it was growing back and I'd ran out of pain killers. I was trying to watch this bugger in agony.
    Rating: Possibly ****


    They Don't Care About Us: Seriously, though, I do think what makes a good album is when the singer has something to say, which is a problem I had with Dangerous, which, by and large, didn't have anything to offer but a collection of pop songs. This may be harsh, but his alledged kiddie fiddling gave Michael a real edge in his music for me, as here where he resorts to incendary racial anger.
    Factoid: Very maybe an extra star for this one, like it a lot.
    Rating: ****



    Okay, here's the review:


    BRIDGET JONES'S DIARY (2001)

    I was in the fucking cinema and so couldn't take down an appropriate quote. I managed to scribble one on my hand but then washed the bugger off by mistake. OKAY?!!?


    Generally okay-ish romantic comedy that skirts with frightening regularity between likeable wit and soundtrack-flogging luvvie smugdum.

    Despite Zellwegger's Texan origins (Her accent is pretty good, and, despite the bitching she did about it, she looks a lot sexier at ten stone) you can practically taste the phrase "darrrrrrrrling, you were wonderful" all the way through this one. All the prerequisite Richard Curtis (Four Weddings and an Unfunny, Notting Shite) elements are there: the wacky friend with the squeaky voice, the token homosexual (leave it, Grigg, it wasn't me, I like the women!) and the posh friend that says "fuck" a lot. I don't know who it was that decided posh people swearing was funny, but whoever it was they should stop it.

    Chances are the laboured Brit comedy and signposting of gags will wear you down before the end, OTT plot contrivances and self-conscious dialogue stifling the charm of the piece. It's not bad, but the self-satisfied performances and embarrassing escapades make you want to leave the cinema rather than egg Bridget on for all her social faux pas.

    Being in the company of such people for 100 minutes is acceptable, but would you really want to know any of them in real life? Not f****** likely, old bean!


    Okay, couldn't think of much to say when I came to write it. So up yours!!! Won some tickets, y'see, saw The Mummy Returns as well. They were both shite really, but both get:


    [ Edit | View ]

    Replies:


  • Come on, Jim, come back and I'll review History next! -- Rich, 01:32:44 05/21/01 Mon
    Okay, it's half past one in the morning and I'm knackered. I realise that I have to change the stars at the end of this to a black background, and that I need to spell-check the bugger. And you'll probably say I'm talking shite and overpraising Who again. But anyway yer c*** (and all the other 10,000 people on this board if you're interested)... have a look at:

    RICH'S PATRICK TROUGHTON OVERVIEW

    [ Edit | View ]

    Replies:


  • RICH'S NEW MISSION: BRING BACK JIM!!! -- Rich, 12:42:01 05/20/01 Sun
    Yes, Jim Jimmer, veteran of this board, and writer of many funny comments ("He's supposed to be cocky and charming... really he's just a charmless cock." is just one of many gems) has been gone for far too long. So in order to entice him back I'm gonna talk about one of his favourite subjects... Michael Jackson!

    You see, I'm listening to Dangerous as I write, so I thought I'd review the tracks and give the buggers a five-star rating as I go. Along the way I'll also dispense some crucial factoids. Here we go (I've started on side three):

    Black or White: A strong track this one, I like it a lot. Almost a five-starrer, despite edit of the original lyrics. (Apparently the master version goes: "If you're thinking of being my brother it don't matter if you're black or white... it does for me, though, I'm getting out the Ajax and having a bath in it, then cutting my nose off.")
    Factoid: Apparently after filming the video for this one, MacCauley Culkin reportedly had a sore arse. Well, he'd been sitting on those stone cold steps all day, hadn't he? Bound to hurt anyone.
    Rating: ****


    Who Is It: Not too keen on this one, sorry Jim. Bit generic and uninspired. "Who is it?" seems like the sort of thing he might call out when he gets a knock on his door. "Michael, it's the NSPCC - leave it!"
    Factoid: Is this the one he wanted to record as a duet with Madonna? Or was that In The Closet? (Blummin' 'eck, I can't wait to review that one, plenty of material there) Apparently she said it was shit, didn't she?
    Rating: **


    Give In To Me: Come on, I've bought you some sweets and a lollypop... give in to me.
    Factoid: Ain't got bugger all, but I do like this one, though, another strong track I reckon. When he tries to sound "rock" he just comes over as Cliff Richard trying to sound hard, but there's a vulnerability in his voice which is nice, like he's about to blub or something. Yeah, pretty good.
    Rating: ****


    Well, if that don't bring Jim back to the board I don't know what will. More Jacko reviews soon!

    [ Edit | View ]

    Replies:


  • New series! Rich's Idols!! -- Rich, 20:33:34 05/17/01 Thu
    THIS WEEK... Muhammad Ali!!!

    I am the greatest! I'm so great I don't know how great I really am! Oh, and Grigg is a girl!Now, I know what you're thinking: is Rich a fan of that brutal, viscous sport? And of course I'm not! But Muhammad is in a league unto himself...

    For a start, this is a guy that stood for something. Pride and freedom were represnted by a man who was banned from boxing and faced jail for refusing to fight in Vietnam. Not only that, but - not in a gay way - Muhammad's a cool-looking kind of guy, the sort of person you could admire or aspire to be. Okay, that may sound shallow, but who would you rather look like: Ali or Henry Cooper?

    He may be a braggadocio, but he's funny with it, effortlessly making a twat out of that old fart Parkinson, before Parkinson('s disease) made a twat out of him. Even nowadays it's possible to admire the dignity with which Ali faces his condition, though not very nice to see, and a testament to what a terrible sport it is. It's the rhymes and bragging I like, even the (sometimes racist) way he makes up names for his opponents, eg. George Foreman - The Mummy; Sonny Liston - "That Big Ugly Bear" and Joe Frasier, the racist names, which isn't nice, but it's the way he tells 'em, and with colour-blind wit: "The Uncle Tom Negro/The Gorilla".

    But lastly, the boxing. This guy is the man. I don't like punch-ups, not even from deputy Prime Ministers, but I do proudly own a video of the Rumble in the Jungle/Thrilla in Manilla fights. Ali doesn't fight like anyone else - he takes the piss. Scrapping blokes the size of Mike Tyson is a daunting prospect, and who else would dance like an arse, tap them on the head to annoy them, call them silly names and walk around not even bothering to box while they throw their best shots at you? What a cool dude! It's all so stylish... a recent fighter, Lennox Lewis, went around the ring with his gloves held down, using his head to duck the punches and not doing anything but smiling... but got made to look an arse. Ali does all that and more, and still wins. He's the guvnor!

    Top quotes: "The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life."

    (To a waitress telling him "we don't serve negroes in this restaurant") "That's okay, I don't want to eat one."

    [ Edit | View ]

    Replies:


  • Getting your parcel really did cheer me up, Rich, that was top, that was! Shame about the movie... -- Griff, 16:42:21 05/17/01 Thu

    DAY OF THE DEAD


    They stumble lifelessly, hollow-eyed and braindead, their only thought is to find food... but enough about the poor audiences who’ve had to sit through this monumental bore! Ha ha ha ha!!* Dearie me... After Night of the Living Dead, a relatively low-key and creepy movie in which zombies attack a house, and Dawn of the Dead, a ham-fisted and overlong dullard in which they start to take over the world, surely something a bit more apocalyptic than this was in order?

    Well, nope, apparently not. The opening, with its eerily deserted streets and slowly appearing undead crowd, is intriguing enough, but not too long after that (‘bout thirty seconds) it all descends into George Romero’s amateurish, over-baked dialogue, endless monotonous squabbling, occasionally laughable macho insults and clichéd military antagonism. After the shopping mall setting of the previous film, which at least offered a bit of visual interest and some half-assed satire, this one is set in a disused missile silo and pits a bunch of racist, sexist, trigger happy army guys against a few boffins experimenting on the zombies in order to find a cure or a way to stop them. The zombies themselves have virtually nothing to do through the middle hour, and it seems as though Romero couldn’t think of anywhere to take them.

    This is a character-led movie then, and that would be fine if any of the characters were worthy of leading a movie, but they’re not. Dr. Logan, a scientist trying to tame the zombies, is the only one who seems to have a bit of life outside the eternal dirge of the screenplay, thanks to the lively, twitchy performance of Richard Liberty. Otherwise we’re treated to endless swearing, shouting and embarrassingly clunky dialogue like the endless lines about jerking off, which just gets tiring. (The lines, not jerking off.) Here’s my favourite line in the film: “You pus fuck! You fuck! You pus fuck!” This was script-doctored by David Mamet, surely. The actors, especially Joseph Pilato, talk through clenched teeth so often they should have just wired their jaws shut and had done with it.

    Thanks to the masterstroke of making all the central characters nothing but droning ciphers who are less rounded than any one of the undead wobbling around outside the silo, Romero ensures that we don’t give a crap about any of them. Who wins the Most Hackneyed Character Contest? Is it the wise Jamaican with a homely platitude for every occasion? Maybe it’s the drunken Irishman with a twinkle in his eye? Could it be the narrow-minded, hard-ass army captain? Or the misogynist, racist foot soldiers? The idea of an abandoned installation where the zombies can be captured and experimented on is a good one, but it never makes for an interesting film because the characters are so bloody boring.

    For a bit of added nonsense, Romero throws in that sign of a dodgy movie, the completely unnecessary dream sequence. Nothing more than an excuse for some added gore and irritating trickery, the dreams add nothing, have no purpose and are only there because the writing’s so desperate. Funny that Romero should want to add more gore, because this is an extremely violent and bloody film – and that is where it really hits the mark. This might be a dreary, boring load of shite that seems about an hour longer than it really is, but there is no faulting the quality of the make-up and puppet effects. Once again logic goes walkies when the zombies are shown to be powerful enough to tear heads from necks and pull bodies in two with little effort but too weak to knock down a chain link fence, but the yucky attack scenes are superb, no doubt about it.

    The animated corpse with the front of his face missing is probably the highlight, although the zombie who sits up only for his guts to spill out all over the floor runs it a close second. People get torn in half, have chunks chewed out of their throats, get parts of their faces torn off, and so on. I suppose this is a gore masterpiece, really. It doesn’t look like an expensive film but the effects are great. Shame about the surrounding movie. There’s very little sense of the scale of the problem, no tension, nothing much interesting going on at all, really. It’s a load of windy hogwash.



    * I know I totally recycled a gag from my Mummy review there... but I like that one.

    [ Edit | View ]

    Replies:


  • If you're up for submissions to The Anorak Zone then you're more than welcome to my Red Dwarf shite when it's finished in about ten years. Still, I have watched two seasons in two days, so I'm cracking on. Apes is still in the works, I haven't forgotten it, and Quantum's well on the way. I'm just on a Red Dwarf kick right now. -- Griff, 20:52:09 05/16/01 Wed
    [ Edit | View ]

    Replies:
  • Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz................. -- Griff, 20:48:45 05/16/01 Wed
    [ Edit | View ]

  • Cheap shot, pie-eater! And what the fuck are you going on about there? -- Griff, 20:47:17 05/16/01 Wed
    [ Edit | View ]

  • It's... -- Grigg Grigger, 21:10:28 03/11/01 Sun
    THE SECRET DIARY OF GRIGG GRIGGER, AGED 233/4

    By Sue Cows'end

    Monday, 6:00pm: Get up for work nice and early. I love going to work, I get to spend all day dreaming about Bobby Zee. Oh, how I love him.

    7:00pm: Go for a poo on the toilet. While I sit there I compose an ode to Bobby Zee. He truly is the best.

    8:10am: While baking some bread one of the rolls comes out in the shape of the DeLorean. I make a witty anecdote out of this to the girls behind the counter. They all look really interested.

    12:00am: Bit of a sad time for me as it's nearly time to go home and I haven't chatted up many pensioners today. I know when I get back and log on to the internet that Rich will have posted again. Oh, if only I could be as witty and informed as he is! Every time he posts a review he talks so much sense - wherever does he get his wisdom from?

    13:30pm: Cheer myself up by combining kleenex, the bogs and a mental image of Michael J.Fox to glorious effect.

    15:30pm: See Jim for a bit, tell him a new BTTF anecdote. Says he's heard it 6000 times already. He is a wag, and I'm sure he's really interested and he's just putting it on.

    17:30pm: Post some new BTTF anecdotes to the board. They ought to fascinate the millions of visitors it gets.

    18:30pm: A bit of a down spell for me as I realise I can't go on for another fortnight without justifying the board by posting a review. Oh, how I hate writing reviews! Still, I suppose I shall have to...

    19:30pm: My bedtime. I cheer myself up by going to sleep thinking of Christopher Lloyd. Ah, bliss!

    [ Edit | View ]

    Replies:


  • By Grigger's Request -- Rich, 15:46:33 03/11/01 Sun
    Why'd you want to see my Apes reviews for anyway, Grigg? Are you worried you're talking crap and want the views of someone who always talks sense? And yes, I am finally looking forward to the Tim Burton movie after seeing some impressive photos - won't be the same without the Statue of Liberty though, right?


    Conquest is very much the forgotten sequel in the franchise, an overlooked and extremely entry that further defies the "all Apes sequels were worthless" myth that has grown over the years. (This is a completely bloody stupid thing to say as this is my in-preperation review for Conquest - the only one I haven't seen in the last five years. So it could be crap which would make my review pretty silly, right?)

    If all the sequels to Planet of the Apes were so bad then the series wouldn't have lasted as long as it did. Of course, it doesn't help matters that while they were exceptionally entertaining, the original (***** - yes, Jim - *****) is an absolute classic. It's 45-day shoot period was completed between 21st May - 10th August 1967, with just a $5.8 million budget, over a sixth of which went to it's Oscar-winning makeup effects. Premiered on February 8th 1968, it made over $26 million at the American box office alone (not taking into account inflation). (I'll probably scrap that shit, actually, it has "I've seen the behind-the-scenes show" written all over it) Not just an action-adventure with an evolved race of monkeys, it was perfect in every respect, including direction and performance. With its satires and commentary on race, sex, religion, politics, class, war, youth and famine, it was everything that science fiction should be and more, a true classic with an ending that is possibly the greatest in American cinema. Never mind "This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship"; Heston damning everyone to Hell and THAT image (which I won't reveal as a spoiler) is the ultimate conclusion to a thoroughly intelligent sf movie.

    While Heston loved the film and was proud of his involvement, he was wary of sequels and appeared in the inevitable follow-up Beneath the Planet of the Apes (***) only as a favour. Rejected ideas for this sequel included "Planet of the Men" and an ape/human hybrid, finally going into production under the working title "Planet of the Apes Revisited". Ted Post’s directing and Marion Rothman’s editing prove to be less proficient than the first, though the real problem lies in trying to emulate the plot of the original, a flaw that also plagued the final entry. It ups the ante with greater matte effects of ruined structures, though this time the element of surprise is absent. The next two instalments told a different story from another time period, this is more a grandiose continuation. Fittingly, the satire, too, is overstated, with chimp war protestors and remarks on the colour of man’s skin. This concludes with a race of underground mutants who have an atom bomb as a God. Though quite eerie, their ultimate appeal places the film further into the reaches of extreme science fiction and lacks the subtlety of its predecessor. Perversely for a film that purports liberal satire, its sole black character is the only one of the mutants to demonstrate real physical cruelty. Don Pedro Colley tortures and instigates a would-be fight to the death between Taylor (Heston) and Brent (James Franciscus). And I don’t think I’ve ever seen another film where a man’s credit is given as "Negro". Just as the original had lost elements and shaped itself constantly up to its production (including an aged Edward G. Robinson opting out of the role of Dr.Zaius and the revelation that Nova was pregnant), so too did Beneath change constantly during inception. In fact, it was Heston's idea for the apocalyptic finale, in the vain hope it would prevent any more sequels.

    He was wrong, and Escape From The Planet of the Apes (****) redefined the rules so that three of the chimpanzees stole Taylor's spacecraft and travelled back in time to present-day Earth. It’s a little odd that they didn’t choose Brent’s merely slightly-battered one, as the last time we saw Taylor’s spaceship it had malfunctioned, partially exploded and sank to the bottom of the sea. This also presents a goof for the entry. Though Beneath claimed to be set in 3955, malfunctioning ship logs could give any vague read-out. However, this film also gives the 3955 year as the one registering on Taylor’s ship clock, even though we had seen the said clock in close-up during the first film, and it clearly read "3978". Also, for a franchise that couldn’t get the green light until 20th Century Fox were assured convincing ape make-up was achievable, there’s a "real" gorilla that is laughably fake. Though this is just quibbling, Escape is a light-hearted interlude, a very entertaining diversion from the darker parables that surround it. Initially witty and charming, (even though the relative failure of Beneath - grossing just 54% of the original at the box-office - had caused the budget to be shaved to $2.5 million), it ultimately becomes a darker abortion analogy, another political comment for the series.

    The next two films, though achieving in cinemas, both had their budgets trimmed further, produced for significantly less than $2 million each. Battle (**), the shortest of the series, is the least inspired. While the series perhaps needed a fifth segment to round things up, Battle isn’t it. Direction, acting, and especially writing, are average at best. It exists merely to tie up loose ends in the franchise (set after the events of "Conquest", though before the first two movies, in a soon-to-come 2070). The mutants from the second film return, though this time around they haven’t yet mutated enough to have disfigured skin or telepathy. Rather like having Muhammed Ali in a movie and not allowing him to box or say something witty. Limp and trite platitudes like "ape shall never kill ape" are meeted out, while General Aldo (a good performance from Claude Akins) states "We – want – guns. Guns – are – power". Then there’s Austin Stoker as McDonald (who is tellingly only referred to as black by a fellow human), who says of the revolting apes "I guess you might say they just joined the human race". There is a nice twist towards the end of the mutant-ape war, though anyone who’s seen Goldfinger should quickly be able to tell what it is. Generally, the script is poor, and studio sets doubling as exteriors lead this to resemble the spin-off tv series more than the films. It brings nothing new to the franchise, and contains little plot or dramatic tension. And, as the dialogue extracts should indicate, the allegory is far from subtle.

    Running out of steam for the series, the producers instigated a CBS television spin-off, a traditional action-adventure family fare that began on September 13th 1974 and was axed after just fourteen episodes. An NBC cartoon series Return to the Planet of the Apes also ran for a single year in 1975.

    And so we come back to Conquest, a film that nearly lost its family rating due to violence and was a direct parallel of the Watts riots. Lasting for less than 80% of the original’s length, this is a concise picture that consolidates the Apes backstory by illustrating how the apes grew to be the dominant species on the planet. This also creates a paradox – the apes became dominant through the leadership of Cornelius’ and Zira’s son, yet the ape in question would not have been born in this time were it not for Taylor’s ship landing in the future, giving his parents a handy escape capsule into the past.


    Hmmmmmm..... bit of a shitty review that, needs a lot of work... and, of course, for me to actually see the film it's supposed to be about...

    [ Edit | View ]

    Replies:


  • Have you come on the board already, shit stain? Knowing you, ploppy pants, that's the last time you'll be on today so I won't be able to read your reply to my review... -- Rich, 15:24:18 03/11/01 Sun
    Review: re-vu, vt. To view again; to reconsider; to write a critical notice of; to inspect - vi. To write reviews - n. A re-examination; a criticism; a periodical containing criticism; official inspection of troops.
    Reviewer, re-vu-er, n. One who writes reviews.


    Hairy Smelly’s Wankenstein (1994)

    I really can’t understand all the negative criticism directed against this film, as it’s really not all that bad.

    It’s not without fault, of course, and I was less impressed second time around, but it’s still a sufficiently entertaining movie. Despite being nearly two hours long, the pace never drags, though that’s perhaps one of the major flaws. The first half, in particular, has such a rapid pace that scenes are played out in bite-sized chunks, never letting you get a real feel for the characters or mood. The direction is reasonable, though the overblown score, bright colours and dizzying camerawork do little do evoke the eighteenth century setting. Even the desperate move of casting Mozart himself (Tom Hulce) does little to convince that this really is set two hundred years ago.

    Directed by Branagh himself, his almost constant use of circling shots marks him out as a one-trick pony, a gimmick that becomes ever more irritating with its increased regularity. Occasionally the 30s movies are referenced ("It’s alive! It’s alive!" cries Branagh, though with naturalistic/toff delivery as opposed to Universal’s melodramatic/camp coding) though, as the full title should attest, this is a film that uses the novel as it’s source text. (At least I think it does, I ain’t read the f***** yet). That said, the dead boy/girl motif and the blind man are direct lifts from the James Whale pictures.

    Acting-wise, Branagh is fine, while John Cleese is surprisingly good in a straight cameo. De Niro, though, gives arguably his worst performance ever as the creature, causing the pathos to seem somewhat forced. This then, amazingly, means Richard Briers gets the acting honours. The bloke from Ever Decreasing Circles winning an acting bout against Travis Bickle? Surely not!

    There’s some curious homoerotic imagery as a sweaty; shirtless Branagh wrestles with a naked De Niro amongst oil and chains. In fact, you could even argue that this is a subtext as Ken regularly chooses between the monster and his fiancée. Then again, you could also argue his bearded, longhaired appearance is a Christ analogy. You could make up all sorts of theories, but in truth this isn’t a film with a great deal of meaning. As Branagh himself said in an interview "I just wanted to tell a good story."

    A couple of words on the nature of anatomy: wasn’t it fortunate that Helena Bonham-Carter’s neck was the exact same width as Trevyn McDowell’s? And wasn’t it lucky that the creature knew precisely where to grab to find her heart? There are some striking sequences, such as Branagh’s macabre dance with the animated corpse of Elizabeth. But the concluding minutes of pulsing, torn-out hearts and pyrotechnics do extract it rudely from its Renaissance Films origins and into pure Hollywood.

    Still, not a terrible film by any means, and if nothing else than you can have a laugh at the name of the Executive Producer on the end credits – Fred Fuchs. I bet he does, too!


    Hey - how many Griggs does it take to change a lightbulb?
    - Three! One to say he's going to do it, one to bellyache about having to do it, and a third to get round to it, three weeks later. Tee-hee-hiddle-hi-hee!

    [ Edit | View ]

    Replies:


  • Hi there all you millions out there. I recently recieved a mail from someone who only identified himself as "RichFan@Hotmail.Com" asking me loads of questions. So if you don't mind I thought I'd answer them here as a kind of Rich FAQ. -- Rich, 22:32:25 03/09/01 Fri
    (Cue cheap "this is the only FAQ I've had in years" joke):

    RICH FAQ

    Frequently Asked Question All About Rich


    1. You're obviously a man of much wisdom, Rich - where will you be putting your talent next? I heard you might be doing a Red Dwarf guide?

    A: To be honest, Richfan, I found once I started it I suddenly couldn't be arsed to finish. What's coming up next on the schedule is the completion of my Paul McGann review, then one on the Patrick Troughton stuff so I can tell Grigg what he's been missing (Cos he's only seen the ropey Dominators which is *** if I'm feeling in the mood). After that I'm going to exploit the fact that Charlie Higson reads the r & h sites and - sad confession alert! - I'm going to write a Randall and Hopkirk story and put it on my site. This in the hope that Charlie will read it and go "bloody hell, call the publishers, quick!" More likely he'll go "this is shite" though, but worth a go...


    2. What's all this about these "mardies" I keep hearing Grigg going in? Do you have them too?

    A: No, Richfan, I am a mardy-free zone. What you have to remember is that Grigg is a girl and as such is prone to bouts of PMT and irrationality. Recently, for example, he's been prone to ignoring his mates on this board, and thinking having a Tommy is beneath him. On a good day he'll just come on here and ignore half the messages (see below for several unscanned down pieces).


    3. What's this about Grigg talking shite? Every time I read one of his reviews it's absolute bollocks. Does he really believe what he says? And do you talk crap too?

    A: Sadly, no. Or if I do (on just two rare occasions so far) I admit to it. Grigg still labours under the false pretence that Bobby Zee is a decent director. Usually I talk the Gospel as related by Mark.


    4. What about the amount of reviews you post? I seem to read one of yours at least once a week. Surely that's illegal?

    A: No, Richfan. Posting reviews a minimum of one a week is perfectly within the law.


    5. Rich, you're the best. Everything you say is just like the f******* truth written in stone. So, using your mighty wisdom, can you tell me where I can order videos on-line?

    Sure, try BLACKSTAR VIDEO

    [ Edit | View ]

    Replies:


  • Hi there, it's Michael Jackson here. You might have to wait a couple of minutes for my picture to fully download as it's an animation. But I wanted to come on your board and tell you I love you with all my heart. Heal the world, MJ. xxx
    -- MJ, 19:17:07 03/08/01 Thu
    [ Edit | View ]

    Replies:
  • Oh yeah, and I read your new reviews of the first couple of Star Flops episodes - good to see that you've bumped the first one down a star! I see I'm having a good influence on you! Hey, I saw the middle three Apes movies today - one to go and I can do a series review. Then I've only got to do the two TV series and the book and my site will be complete! -- Griff, 18:53:39 03/06/01 Tue
    [ Edit | View ]

    Replies:
  • God, I mean, I hate writing to message boards, you know, it makes me feel so ... so inadequate -- Woody Allen, 21:19:40 03/07/01 Wed
    But I've been told this is, well, it's one of the best movie review boards out there. I don't really agree with review boards, it's so Freudian. You know, I feel like I'm in some bizarre Fellini movie or something. But here's what coming on next week on British Teevee:

    My film: Shadows and Fog (1992).

    Also look out for: Evil Dead 2, Rita, Sue and Bob Too, Rain Man, Jaws 2 and The Grapes of Wrath.


    God, I, I, I mean, I didn't like posting to this board at all, it's like a conversation with my mother or something. I'll have to tell my psychiatrist about it, it's all so anal...

    [ Edit | View ]


  • Savour it while you can - Rich in rare "humble pie" shocker!!!!!! -- Rich, 20:17:37 03/06/01 Tue
    Yes, the man who told you how underrated Barb Wire was, and why Vertigo is "a bit bollocks, really" admits to talking out of his arse! An unpresidented move, the only time in history this has happened before was with Licence to Kill (and he did like Freejack the first time he saw it, but he won't publicly admit to that). Enjoy it, Grigg - hands up, I was f****** wrong!!!


    THE BIRDS (1963)

    "Cover your faces! Cover your eyes!"

    You know, it’s rare that I’m wrong about anything, ever, but after slating The Birds fifteen months ago on the IMDb I have to concede that this was one such instance. It’s perhaps a film that has to be watched more than once to be fully appreciated, a factor which does it few favours with a casual audience.

    Maybe it comes from years of being told the Hitchcock films are suspenseful thrillers. An accurate description, but one that fails to take into account their camp, knowing humour. As a result the twenty and thirty somethings that didn’t get to see them firsthand may be disappointed.

    Tippi Hedren is a little wooden, as were the majority of Hitchcock’s girls, and is caked in soft focus. The initial storyline sees her following Rod Taylor all the way from San Francisco to Bodega Bay. She goes to a lot of trouble just to get into a bloke’s pants, doesn’t she? The eerie mood is actually enhanced by the obvious filmed backdrops Hedren has to drive/sail in front of. It’s not until the twenty-five minute point that Hedren’s head is pecked by a gull.

    The direction in terms of shots is magnificent, and the film’s potency can be directly paralleled with the trailer which Hitchcock himself performed. A five-minute monologue, which tends to go on a bit, then culminates in a genuinely unsettling scene where his caged bird draws blood. It’s the meandering pace of the trailer and the film that makes the eventual shocks all the more disturbing. And making you care about the characters as three-dimensional people (the first attack proper is over fifty minutes in) is a masterstroke.

    Some of the effects to achieve the attacks may now be a little obvious, but in combining them together it works wonders. In fact, the iconography of this film is arguably more imitated than any other Hitchcock movie, including Psycho. Unusually gory for the director, its total absence of incidental music, save for a mosaic of birdcall, is also startling. The clever avoidance of any kind of explanation is the key to its real success, carefully avoiding science fiction territory. When told there’s no reason for the attacks, Taylor replies "it’s happening – isn’t that a reason?"

    Some genius scenes – the light innocence of child song juxtaposed with the massing crows; the unexpected horror of the gouged eyes; a beautiful, silent aerial shot of the garage, gradually filled with squawking gulls – are vital to the film’s worth. The understated conclusion, meanwhile, is probably one of the ten best climaxes cinema has to offer. It gives not even the comfort of an "end" caption, leaving the effects of the film to continue unresolved in the mind of the audience...

    I admit it! For the first time ever, I was WRONG!



    THE CHIMPS (1964)

    "Cover your faces! Cover your arse!"

    Abysmal comedy-horror starring Grigg Grigger of "Grigger and Rich" fame. Truly atrocious plot sees Grigg gamely rogering the entire contents of Dudley Zoo, to ill-advised comic effect. The conclusion – Grigg going in one of his famous mardies, culminating in him buggering a chimp with a Black and Decker drill – saw the film placed on the notorious "video nasties" impoundment list of the mid-eighties.


    [ Edit | View ]

    Replies:


  • Actually I did see that you'd posted two new reviews Mr. Smug, I just hadn't got round to replying to them till now, okay? Now shut yer yap! The jugs in The Turning are disappointing, aren't they? At least you didn't pay 12 quid for it like some stupid wankers! Erm... moving on... not that Gillian's knockers aren't lovely, they are, but like you said, they only pop out for about two seconds. -- Griff, 09:24:40 03/05/01 Mon
    [ Edit | View ]

    Replies:
  • Actually I was talking to Jim about getting a digicam after I posted that and we were saying about getting a little box that grabs pics from video - the quality would be better, too. We've got a scanner already - how else d'you reckon I get all the pics on my sites, dimwit? Thanks for the words of consolation Rich, I feel a bit better this morning. Erm, no I don't, I feel shite. Ah well, I started a new site last night so that'll get me back on my feet. -- Griff, 06:45:30 03/05/01 Mon
    [ Edit | View ]

    Replies:
    Main index ] [ Archives: 12[3] ]

    Forum timezone: GMT+0
    VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
    Before posting please read our privacy policy.
    VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
    Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.