It's just a bit much to watch a whole full-length Svankmejer movie. His short films are generally better, I think, and easily available on youtube.

Here's one of my favourites, Punch and Judy.



Imagine watching this on kids television or something in the 60s :p:

Watched this again for the second time.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA300_.jpg

I agree, Svankmejer was not made to create full length films, he excels at the short film level.

that one is actually one of my fave horror movies and one of the few that really crept me out

i think it was meant to be "flat" to reflect the flatness of emotions of the main character, he's probably suffering from anhedonia

yeah, that makes sense as well.

Too each their own and all that, but I think it is a great movie. Rooker is actually a great actor, and that performance is one of his best.

Eddie and the Cruisers

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...deadposter.jpg

Return of the Living Dead (1985)

I've always liked zombie movies, but for whatever reason this movie always eluded me. Mostly for a lack of trying on my part, I always assumed it was some updated version of Romero's movies and therefore wanted no part in it (I still haven't seen Zack Synder's 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead). While this movie wasn't perfect, it did do things a lot differently that really made it standout without the need of gimmicks like "what if the zombies were strippers" or "hey! Nazi zombies are popular, lets make a movie about them!" I even liked how the film had fun with the punk culture while not overtly making fun of it.\

LOL. I feel like somebody spiked my drink.

http://www.fushionmag.com/wp-content...r-12162011.jpg

ok....so i went into this film completely blind except for a friend telling me that the film is a verbatim telling of the book.....i'm really torn on this one....let me first say that the cast was exceptional....all of them played their rolls very well.....i'm not sure if it has to do with my age and the obvious demographics for this film but it seemed to me that the most interesting parts of the plot were completely ignored.....

the film starts off almost feeling like it's going to be set in depression era Appalachia but quickly the viewer realizes that this is in fact a district....12 to be exact of lower/working class people who do all the work for an advanced society of over the top rich people who construct a tv game where they force these kids to kill each other for their enjoyment

so my problem....i found what little we were told of the back ground of this post-apocalyptic world to be very interesting....there was a war, the separation of classes, the hunger games themselves...all of this i felt really deserved some looking into....but nothing at all was really explained.....rather the film concentrated on the game.....which in all honesty was full of every stupid cliche there is......there was one scene that was sooooo built up....i mean like 40 seconds build up and ended in by far the biggest let down of the entire film.....the end was abrupt and predictable and the film making looked more like a network made for tv movie than a blockbuster film

i feel that had they spent more time on this society itself and its origins i really would have enjoyed this movie and would have probably ran out to get the books and read them.....but the game itself was fucking stupid....i only cared about one character and already knew she would win.....overall this was a bad mixture of Orwell/Huxley, Battle Royale, The Truman Show, and Twilight (stop with the stupid love triangle bullshit!!!!!)

still i'm curious enough to watch the next film

in end this is not worth your money....download it or wait for netflix as it would probably look better on tv anyways

Thanks for this, bob. I was skeptical about seeing the film for the bolded reason. Thanks again for the only light on the film not coming from my 12 year old sister.