davidacting

Of course Stephen King is brilliant. His earlier work more so (at least for me), but I still love whatever he does. This rendition was a complete disappointment. You can clearly see all the elements of a great story was there, but the director just kept over-lighting every scene and turning the story into a cheap rendition of an otherwise haunted ghost story. Why did he do it (the director). I don't think there was any excuse for the cheap effects, when you could have simply had one of the characters come back as a ghost like they did in The Shining. Much more effective. The scenery was gorgeous and shot to make it look bland and boring. I am thinking that Mick Garris really didn't care about the story at all and just cranked out the show for television. We all know television has limited budgets and limited time frames (we get it), but there really is no excuse for this kind of filmmaking.

Stay with this film, it is incredible. Great acting, cinematography, direction. The lead actress isn't great, but the actress who plays Erzebet Bathory is phenomenal. Bizaar sets, and strange milieu really add to this film's strange portrayal of vampires and how they deal with the living. I really loved this film. Of course, today, everything happens at the speed of light. Back in 1970, they took their time with building the film and really letting it sink in before hitting you with the shocks. This one has plenty of shocking moments and some really great inventive scenes that add to the history of the vampire film. Unfortunately, today we now have 'Twilight', a disgusting parody of the genre that hopefully audiences will someday say, 'What the hell were we thinking?'.

~~"The story is ludicrous." Of course she was referring to the porn film playing in 'The Big Lebowski'. Hell, if you are English, you are SIMPLY not aloud to be a terrible actor. Not even in a movie like this one. The lead has an expression throughout the film that is so blank, one can only think of a piece of paper. Poor kid. Maybe the director was telling them on the set to 'do nothing', or 'play it down'. Either way, he comes off emotionless. No one has any training in this film, evidenced by the way they garble most of the dialog. BUT, all being said - I watched this with a girlfriend - at least tried to... we could only get through 45 minutes...for gay men I am sure the faces were pleasing to look at. I am hoping someone out there liked it. I still have to say bravo for Netflix putting this on streaming. I experienced something normally I wouldn't have watched, and it is always good to see all sides of the equation. Still, don't watch for plot, execution, acting, mise-en-scene, or really anything I guess, unless you are gay and you like a certain type of guy (I guess), that looks a certain way. There has to be better gay movies out there. I'll let my girlfriend decide (ha ha ha)..BUT at least they did it. They shot it, edited it, and completed it. For that, I give the team who made this film some credit.

I saw this film in a private screening of 30 industry professionals. Producers came out and said, they understood if we didn't like it, no problem. I guess they have been laboring over the film for a couple years. Do not expect your typical horror film from this one. A few people looked a little stunned after the film. Since I had never read the story -- I guess it is required reading in high school and college - - how the hell did I miss that? ... probably from being a total deadbeat in high school... I went into the film unaware. It is a period film, which is pretty cool, and set before 1900 or something. . . I can say one thing about the film... I never guessed the ending. You actually have no idea was is going to happen in the end. This is a breath of fresh air, when it seems like everything nowadays is just a remake or some stupid idea that has never been fleshed out correctly. Because the story is famous, I am sure more people will hate it because it doesn't adhere to the story exactly. I don't know much about the original story, but what they did with the the film was pretty unique. it has a dream-like. I think this is what movies are supposed to capture. Good job Mr. director.

If a man had directed Orlando, would Orlando have been cast as a man instead of a woman? If a man had directed Orlando, would the Bronski Beat singer ended the film? Hollywood hates women. It's a man's world. Even now, Kathryn Bigelow is probably one of the few female directors. If a man had directed Orlando, shot for shot, the director of the Orlando we know today would have been hailed the next Stanley Kubrick. Rather, for twenty years, this masterpiece has lingered, without adequate recognition. Hopefully someday it will get the recognition it deserves. Unfortunately, like Derek Jarman, you will have to hunt out the film. I guess that is the curse of any great piece of art.

In a word--great. How can you follow up to the original? It's almost impossible. But the director actually does it. You actually care about the various characters and you don't question a ludicrous premise--a giant shark attacks the same exact community--this is GREAT directing. You don't question it. You believe it. The second film is harder than the first film to pull off. The director did a great job at changing the tone of the film, which is much more pop culture and bright, when it would have been very easy to imitate the darker more serious tones of the first film. In some strange way, Jaws 2 is really the father of the summer blockbuster, where Jaws was an artistic anomaly. Jaws 2 was a machined confection, perfectly engineered towards a big summer audience.

I think Oliver Stone is immensely talented, but this movie seemed like he was asleep. The first film was executed so brilliantly. Of course, Michael Douglas is brilliant. There is no question about this. Shia is as well. But the directing literally destroys this film. You basically don't know what is going on in the first thirty minutes of the film. Frank Langella is struggling to retain some sort of a company that he has created, but you are not sure exactly which company or what his involvement is. What was great about the original was even a layman (a totally dummy about Wall Street, and who knows nothing about stocks - like myself!) could still follow the story. How easy was it to just follow Shia's story from the beginning. Stay with the damn character and then you have the audience. It is okay to introduce Frank Langella and the other characters, but they have to be through Shia's perspective. Otherwise, you're dead! Basic screen writing in my opinion. And why keep Michael Douglas off the screen and finally introduce him at minute 30-40. Hell, he is your special effect. Use him! Oh well. Good try. At least Oliver Stone had top notch actors. Try to shoot this as an independent with no names and you would be laughed out of Hollywood.

I liked the horror elements in the beginning a lot more than the trans-dimensional elements in the end, but still really interesting. Acting was good, but the execution (especially with the special effects) was great. Loved the location. You have to think with this short, especially since the main character seems to be. . . well, I don't want to give it away. I also like the choice of actors. The director captured the mood very well, which reminded me of The Changeling with George C. Scott. This short was very well crafted. Maybe the director (if he's done others) can put a compilation of his short films together. Jane Campion did this (director of The Piano) and it was a great rental.