Good Vampire Films: The Hunger

Right-o then. It’s Friday so it’s vampire day and this week’s offering is Tony Scott’s 1983 debut: The Hunger. This is a strange film, in all honesty, but nevertheless it’s an interesting film and one well worth a look. Not to mention that it is the best-looking Tony Scott film that I’ve seen. No one in their right mind is ever going to say that a film with Catherine Deneuve as a lesbian vampire is a bad one, or at least I’m not going to, but I do kind of wonder if it is actually a good one.

Before I get into the more sticky content of this film, I’ve got to say that I think Tony Scott gets a lot of flack. The only film of his, that I’ve seen, that I out and out hate is that shitpile Domino, but I can find a bit of love for almost everything else he’s made- particularly The Last Boy Scout. The Hunger is a remarkably assured debut with great promise- regardless of what the overall verdict on it is.

The Hunger is hard to describe because it’s basically 2 films cobbled together. The first one is the story of Miriam and John a pair of ancient vampires. Miriam is eternal, but each of her lovers stays young up to a certain point when they start aging suddenly and irreversibly. Catherine Deneuve and David Bowie play the couple, and the focus of this section is really on Bowie. Out of the blue, he suddenly starts aging. Ordinarily he’d be done, but this time there is a sliver of hope in the form of Dr. Sarah (Susan Sarandon) who may be able to save him. She can’t of course, and he ends up aging far too fast and being stuffed in a box in the attic for all eternity.

So it appears that as well as dementia and incontinence, old age also holds claustrophobia and incarceration as hazards. Anyhoo, on with the story: Sarah goes investigating and comes into contact with Miriam, who evilly seduces her and trades blood. One thing leads to another and the film ends with a frankly confusing zombie vampire fight and Susan Sarandon looking out over London while Miriam gibbers in a box in the other room. She’s now queen vampire.

The thing is, the problem with this film is that the first half, the Bowie section, is far, far better than all the guff with Sarandon. This may arguably be Bowie’s finest hour on screen. He’s confused, frightened and desperate as he starts aging and allows some real pathos into the role. It’s not a bad effort at all. Denueve maintains a constant level of icy sexuality, which is apt, and Sarandon is alright really, but Bowie outshines his far more illustrious co-stars. If the whole film had been about John and Miriam, then I honestly believe it would have been better.

However, that’s not to say the second section is completely worthless. Because to suggest such a thing about a film with a lesbian scene as hot as this one would be folly. Folly, I tell you!

This is probably the only real stroke of genius in Tony Scott’s entire career. The scene itself is brilliantly staged and deeply erotic (looking a hell of a lot like soft porn if I’m honest), but where Tony distinguishes himself is in the choice of cut. He puts the end of the scene at a natural point, and then literally the next shot is of a cut open rare steak. It’s clever, funny, and absolutely fitting for the material.

Then there’s the climax of the film itself. Reading up about it, I discovered that this was actually jammed in at the studio’s behest who were under the strange delusion that they could milk a sequel out of this. Quite how they ever thought that was going to happen will remain one of the coke addled mysteries of the early 80’s. Anyhow, precisely because of this creative decision The Hunger carries on past the natural closing point of the narrative. This is a shame.

I could waffle on and on about themes in this film, because it has been interpreted as an AIDS allegory, amongst other things, but it’s pretty pointless to do. This is a high end Vampire film that’s interesting from a variety of standpoints but is notably most memorable for a lesbian scene. That’s it. This is a flashy and superficial film, and you can attach any number of interpretations to it, but at the end of the day it’s a film with a great lesbian scene. And that’s it, the rest is utterly superfluous.

So, overall would I recommend it. Perhaps. It’s not boring, and it looks nice but I have my doubts about it. It’s an interesting debut, and Bowie’s greatest performance, but it’s not earth shattering. I do feel, however, that perhaps it would have been better served by being 2 films- an extended version of the Bowie half, and then the Sarandon half as a sequel. It’s a curate’s egg of a film- good in parts.

Oh, and watch out for the Willem Defoe cameo. I give it 2 Changs

Next up is a vampire film without a hint of lesbianism. I haven’t decided which one yet.

Until next time,


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

About Jarv

Workshy cynic, given to posting reams of nonsense on the internet and watching films that have inexplicably got a piss poor reputation.

116 responses to “Good Vampire Films: The Hunger”

  1. Lb says :

    No! I tell YOU it’s FOLLY!!!
    Because it is.

    Spot on review.

  2. just pillow talk says :

    Never saw this, but the lesbian scene seems to be required viewing. I suppose I could subject myself to some hot chick on chick action…in the interests of cinema of course.

    • Jarv says :

      Mrs Jarv was seriously unimpressed. She’d been really enjoying it up until Bowie got stuffed in the attic. The lesbianage produced an almighty huff, and I had to feign ignorance that I knew it was in there.

  3. Hawaiian Organ Donor says :

    I love how the count censors the bare breasts but the chick with the swords stuffed into her tits is free for all to see.

    Tony Scott is underrated as hell. Man on Fire, The Last Boy Scout, Enemy of the State, Bad Romance, Crimson Tide, Pelham 123. That’s a solid resume.

    • Jarv says :

      Man on Fire Enemy of the State are crap, True Romance and LBS are epic, Crimson tide is alright.

      The only one I’ve loathed good and proper is Domino,

      And the count covers boobs because we’re fucking family friendly, and in today’s world stabbing is fine but nipples out of the question.

    • just pillow talk says :

      I’ve never seen Man on Fire, but I do really like The Last Boy Scout. True Romance is pretty damn good too.

      All the rest are okay. If they turn up on tv, I ususally watch some of it.

    • Droid says :

      Crimson Tide is awesome. True Romance, Last Boy Scout and Man on Fire are great. Pelham wasn’t very good. Enemy was okay. The like the pure cheese of Top Gun and Days of Thunder. The Fan sucked. Spy Game bored me. Beverly Hills Cop 2 was shit. Domino I’ve totally forgotten. Deja Vu was average at best, but with a terrific car chase scene. I haven’t seen Revenge and I haven’t seen The Hunger.

      And that’s Tony Scott for me.

    • Continentalop says :

      Tony Scott doesn’t really do it for me (cue Danny rant). I wouldn’t say he is a horrible director (a little loud at times) but that his choice of material really bores me. Of course, I really gave up on him after Enemy of the State so who knows, maybe he and the quality of his subject matter improved. Going in order of his films:

      Hunger: Decent. works well for lesbian-loving teens (and adults) but still kind of a slow movie.

      Top Gun: Hated it.

      Beverly Hills Cop II: Did nothing for me.

      Days of Thunder: Sucks IMO

      Revenge: Have to see again because I remember it to be very boring. Wonder if it improves on second viewing.

      Last Boy Scout: Crap

      True Romance: One of his better movies, but I still think it is incredibly overrated.

      Crimson Tide: OK.

      The Fan: Sucks

      Enemy of the State: Sucks

      Spy Game: Never saw it

      Man on Fire: Never saw it

      Domino: Saw enough of it to say it sucks

      Deja Vue: Never saw it

      The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3: Can’t imagine that is any good.

      I will say Unstoppable does sound interesting so I might go see that if the trailer and reviews are decent. Otherwise I am still done with Tony Scott.

      • Jarv says :

        Hunger looks the best of them.

      • Continentalop says :

        I agree with you Jarv that the Bowie first half is the best half. In fact, I wish this was two movies: a movie about Bowie as an immortal vampire who starts to age; and a 120 minute ode to sapphic vampirism for young boys who are just learning about such wonderful things.

      • Jarv says :

        See- I honestly think it would be infinitely better as two distinct movies, simply because the first half (especially the end of it when he murders the little girl) is so much better than the second half.

        But the second half has lesbianism.

        Decisions, decisions.

      • Tom_Bando says :

        Hunger-never saw it.

        Tog Gun-it’s okay. (I like the Kenny Loggins tunes too. Yes I know)

        Days of Thunder-AKA Top Car. Zzzzzzzzzzz. Too formulaic.

        Revenge-never got thru more than 10 minutes. Dull.

        Last Boy Scout-I kinda like it. Nothing more.

        True Romance-never saw it.

        Crimson Tide-I like it. Hackman rocks.

        The Fan-Blah.

        Enemy of the State–I like this one. Really like that supporting cast etc. Pretty cool.

        Spy Game-pretty okay. Closeups of Redford reminded me of the craters of the moon, but still-it’s not bad.

        Man on Fire-only saw some of this on TV. Maybe a rental?

        Domino-Abomino. Didn’t see much beyond what Conti Pops did.

        Deja Vu–Didn’t see it.

        Taking of Pelham–there is only ONE Taking, and that has Walter Matthau and is hated by Almadans. I refuse to see the remake.

        So that’s my take on Tony.

      • Tom_Bando says :

        Oh yeah DUH-the one I left out:

        Beverly Hills Kop Too: I liked it. Haven’t seen either it or the first one in ages. But it’s enjoyable.

  4. Hawaiian Organ Donor says :

    Oh hell.

    Either everyone is shitting on Man On Fire or they haven’t seen it. That ain’t right. No wonder I drink so much.

    • Jarv says :

      Nah- at the moment Droid and you are thumb up. I’m thumb down and Pillows and Conti haven’t seen it.

      So it’s me in the minority.


    People don’t embrace Man On Fire’s greatness? Hahahaha.

    It is a near perfect film. The best of Tony’s career, the best of Denzel’s career, and one of the best of the decade.

    • koutchboom says :

      Scot films just don’t stick with me for whatever reason. I mean I saw this not to long ago, enjoyed it but couldn’t begin to tell you the plot.


        Thats more how Deja Vu is to me…

        I liked it but I forgot what it was about quickly.

        If it weren’t for Domino, Tony would’ve been another Michael Mann….a guy that’s never made a bad film.

      • koutchboom says :

        You know I didn’t mind Domino, yeah it was stupid and the editing style was annoying. But if thats the lowest point of your career? Thats pretty fucking good. Like I can always watch a Tony Scot film, though I think Enemy of the State may be my favorite.


        Thats true…I think its the real blemish on the tip of his dick but yeah– I don’t even know if it is bad necessarily. I should watch it again…I only saw it in the theater and came out all fucking pissed off.

        That Tom Waits trip-out scene annoyed the fuck out of me, and its the one scene every douchebag on the internet jerks off too cause avclub told them Waits-worship is a must.

      • koutchboom says :

        I blame the fact that it was written by the Donnie Darko fucker. Scot probably heard that this dude was the next QT and hope for magic to strike twice. If anything Domino is closest to True Romance then any of his other movies.


        thats true…a lot of its failures can probably be pinned on that asshole….


    Actually little Man On Fire love here doesn’t surprise me. It doesn’t fit the mold of what people latch onto. Its not some ‘iconic’ director, its not schlocky bullshit thats all hip to be into now, its not award-baiting, and its not trying to be hardcore…..its that middle-ground of just a good looking mainstream studio film that brings the drama and the gun-play.

    • Continentalop says :

      Actually little Man On Fire love here doesn’t surprise me. It doesn’t fit the mold of what people latch onto. Its not some ‘iconic’ director, its not schlocky bullshit thats all hip to be into now, its not award-baiting, and its not trying to be hardcore

      So you’re saying we all are idiots and are just sheep because we just don’t “get” and love Man On Fire. Is that it?


        For someone who bitches about other people putting words in your mouth– you did it an awful lot yourself.

        When did I use the word ‘IDIOT’ or ‘SHEEP’? Thats not my lingo and thats not my point. There is no fucking herd for Man On Fire….there are like 12 people that like it.

        I was saying it doesn’t fall into any of the categories of the films that are usually stroked off to around here. And its true, it doesnt.


        And you haven’t seen it…

        there is no ‘getting’. its a really simple story.

        It will probably be your favorite movie of all time.

      • Continentalop says :

        C’mon Danny, that doesn’t a wee bit condescending what you just wrote? That might not have been your intent, but you got to admit that when you say “It’s not some iconic director, its not schlocky bullshit thats all hip to be into now…” that does sound like you are saying people just like a movie not because they think it is good but because they think other people think it is good and are going with the herd mentality.

        Maybe not your intent, but that is what is reads like to me (and yes, I could be reading into things).

      • koutchboom says :

        I do think Man On Fire is one of the 10 required dvds all military members must own.

      • Continentalop says :

        Actually Man on Fire is the one film by Scott I want to see. I do like Revenge stories, and the line I’ve seen in the trailers that there is “No such thing as courage, just practice” sounds like a great truism. And Brian Helgeland is a writer who when he is on I really like (especially with some of his crime thillers).

        But I will say I have been burned by Scott in the past. I think he chooses a lot of bad scripts (of course that is probably all he is getting offered – he isn’t the “name” like his brother) but if Helgeland wrote a good script, I have no doubt Tony Scott could deliver a good movie. He is very much a journeyman director, and that means a level of craftsmanship and competence I can expect.

      • koutchboom says :

        Is there another movie he did besides LA Con that you like?

      • Continentalop says :

        Yeah. 976-Evil.

      • koutchboom says :

        Sweet a Robert Englund joint. Is it worth seeing?


        Its really not how I saw it….but now that you mention it– yeah, to an extent it is true. I don’t think of it as herd mentality, I think of it more as loyalty to a particular brand or filmmaker or whatever. And yes, I think this applies to your Scorsese thing and to my Mann/Scott thing……..I can’t just go to a Mann film and watch it 1000% objectively like I’ve never seen anything he’s done before. Of course I have the baggage of past works and how that applies here, how it fits into their body of work…trademark shit, themes, all that…..

        And sure this can skew the film to the viewer if they’ve liked all else the director has done thus far. I think most people have their little niches they carve out and they seek out shit that falls under that in some way and will generally enjoy that shit more and give it the benefit of the doubt. You seriously deny this? Like if you came in here and said some coming-of-age romantic comedy was the best film of the year, I’d be shocked. People get pretty set in the brands that attract them…..and I don’t think ‘Man’ falls under any of those brands really loved around here……

        Again, I have never once insinuated anyone is stupid for not thinking the way I do or liking the shit I do. Though it seems like you’re always trying to peg that on me.


        Actually scratch that….I point people out as being fucking stupid all the time with other shit (politics or environment, etc) , just not in regards to ‘film preference’.

      • Continentalop says :

        I apologize Danny. We are unfortunately are dealing with the written comment post here. And when you are dealing with only written words without any sort of verbal or visual cures (especially when we are just writing stuff and putting it out there as quick post) things are frustratingly easy to misconstrue and misinterpret. Still, it isn’t fair of me to assume you are trying to insinuate something without further evidence or a chance for you to expand.

        So I am sorry I to jumped to conclusions. From now on if I will remind myself that I am probably misreading something or at least ask you to explain in further detail.



        I accept your ‘peace-offering’

        and raise you one…

      • Continentalop says :

        Note to self: never get in a game of Photo link Poker with Danny or Mike. You have no chance of winning.

    • Jarv says :

      Get fucked. When the hell have I ever liked anything because it’s cool to like it? I’m the motherfucker that maintains that Black Snake Moan is good for fuck’s sake.

      Even the schlocky shit that I rate is stuff that no other bastard has any interest in. I’m not slobbering on some kind of ironic 70’s thing. If I like it, I like it- and that’s all I care about. I couldn’t give a toss about Iconic directors or whatever. Just entertain me or make me think. That’s all I ask.

      Man on Fire did neither.


    HOD…up above you called True Romance ‘BAD ROMANCE’ — glad to see the GAGA is strong in you my old friend.

  8. Hawaiian Organ Donor says :

    I’m telling you, dude. I can’t get that song out of my head. Been stuck in there all week.

    Danny isn’t saying you’re idiots. He’s saying you’re misguided. You need to walk the sacred path of Chang and cleanse yourself in his waters. Then, and only then, will you see the greatness that is Man on Fire.

  9. Hawaiian Organ Donor says :

    In all seriousness Conti, Man On Fire is a great movie because the script is very strong. Helgeland, Denzel, Walken, Rourke, Giannini…..Scott had some great stuff to work with.

    I caught the 1987 version with Pesci and Scott Glenn on HBO a couple weeks ago and it is dire.

  10. Stuntcock Mike says :

    Okay, my 2 cents.

    Hunger: 2.5 out of 5

    Top Gun: It shows how Bayified everything has become when I look at TG now and go, “This is a decent movie. 3.5 out of 5

    Beverly Hills Cop II: Fuck yes! 5 out of 5

    Days of Thunder: Top Gun with Hicks. 2.5 out of 5

    Revenge: My favorite Tony Scott film. COSTNERED AND MIGUEL FERRERED!

    Last Boy Scout: 2nd favorite Scott film..

    True Romance: Great at the time(like Pulp Fiction) but kind of embarrassing dialog in these modern times.

    Crimson Tide: 2 out of 5

    The Fan: Sucks

    Enemy of the State: 2.5 out of 5

    Spy Game: Blech.

    Man on Fire: 3rd favorite Scott and one of my favorite overall films.

    Domino: Holy fuck it’s bad.

    Deja Vue: Never saw it

    The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3: 2.5 out of 5(Travolta’s wackiness makes it good.)

    • koutchboom says :

      I like The Fan. Probably the best De Niro performance. If not the last good one he gave.

    • Hawaiian Organ Donor says :

      Well played Mike. I like the way you think.

      Now what say we spend the rest of the day rattling off Last Boy Scout quotes.

      “Shit, we’re bein’ beat up by the inventor of Scrabble.”

      • Stuntcock Mike says :

        “I seemed to have dropped my cigarette…may I have another?

        And oh yeah…you touch me again….I’ll kill ya.”

      • Hawaiian Organ Donor says :

        Joe Hallenbeck: Oh, if it isn’t Shelly Marcone himself.
        Sheldon ‘Shelly’ Marcone: Careful, son. Just my friends call me Shelly.
        Joe Hallenbeck: You got friends? When did this happen?


    Oh yeah…The Fan– thats true that thing does fucking suck. But Wesley is sorta fun….forgot about that.

    And yeah– Anthony Quinn– evil motherfucker. In Revenge he’s like Ricardo Montalban with real balls, instead of plastic ones.

  12. Continentalop says :

    Koutch, re: 976-Evil.

    It actually isn’t that good but it has some really good moments and a kind of ballsiness that a lot of horror movies didn’t have at that time. I won’t give anything, but there is a death scene that actual does make you feel real bad, unlike most horror movies.

    As for Helgeland’s other movies – well besides LA Con I can really only say I really liked one of his movies all they way through – Mystic River. But I can find a bunch of movie which I found either entertaining (Blood Works is the last old fashion entertaining Clint movie) or have great parts in an otherwise flawed film (I don’t like The Postman, but there are a couple of really good scenes, and the head villain is a well rounded out character who can imagine has a little Hitler in him). So I can see stuff in Helgeland that I like and can imagine him pulling it together to put out at least one good action/thriller script.

    A Knight’s Tale blew though. I don’t know what he was thinking.

    • koutchboom says :

      I didn’t like Mystic River. I don’t remember why because I don’t really remember the movie at all. But fuck that movie! Thats the reason Shutter Island got fucking made.


      I like ‘The Order’ a lot….its in that category of shit thats so random and bizarre its fun.

      Robo-Pope cutting his wrists and bleeding to death into bowls? Interrogating priests as they dangle from nooses and choke to death in that weird sewer hide-out place….the whole sin-eater bad guy plot…that movie is weird as fuck, it either has me laughing or feeling like shit….back and forth the whole time.

    • Continentalop says :

      I liked Mystic River. I know a lot of people here think Eastwood is overrated, but I think it is from Mystic River on that he finally “got” being a director (except for a couple of his earlier films). He pretty much is as good as his script and for Mystic River he had something to work off of. Sure it is melodramatic at times, but that is because Eastwood works in melodrama. He’s got old movie sensibilities.

      And I also liked Shutter Island, which I know you hated. And I know I am labeled a Scorsese apologist, but really it is only his last two films that I have liked in long time. I was disappointed in the Aviator, Gangs of New York (which should have been his opus), Kundun, Bringing Out the Dead, and even Casino when it first came out. I think there is something to watch or see in all of them, but they were all disappointments in my eyes (Casino has improved with a second viewing). In fact, I think The Departed was his best movie since GoodFellas (and that sound you just heard was Jarv doing a spit take).

      His documentaries have been pretty mint though.

      • koutchboom says :

        Yeah but had Mystic River never been made that fucks books would not be seen as some hot commodity and Scorsese could’ve wasted 3 years of his life doing something worth while not utterly midicore on every level horror movie.

      • Continentalop says :

        I don’t see it as a horror movie. It is a psychological thriller/drama, in the mode of Spellbound. Sure it has a gothic setting, but I don’t think it really is horror movie.

      • Droid says :

        Shutter Island isn’t a horror. And it was just a bit average for me. Many things to like, but I found the story totally predictable, so I didn’t really get involved. I just sat there looking at the Scorsese bag of tricks.

      • koutchboom says :

        OK if Shutter Island isn’t horror, then what section of the video store would you put it under? Action? Fantasy? Romance? Drama? Children? Its horror.


        I’ve yet to see a doc from your man Marty. But I do enjoy hearing him speak of films….

      • Continentalop says :

        I think it is above average, but not great by any stretch of the imagination. Still, I found that Scorsese elevated it a little bit and made it about something (how we delude ourselves and the necessity of delusion) instead of just a movie about a twist.

        Of course, at the same time, the thing does suffer from Big Budget Pretentious Movie Syndrome. It would have been nice if they didn’t look at the film as being so “important” and had a lot more fun with it. The subject matter was rife for that.

      • Continentalop says :

        Danny, see A Personal Journey With Martin Scorsese Through American Film. As you’ve mentioned before you know he really loves movies and it comes through in this doc and it is contagious.

        The best thing about it is he basically argues what we have always said here and at Twitch and AIBN – that loving a film is based on a personal, emotional connection. I mean here is a man who talks about The Tall T and Silverlode with as much passion as he does The Searchers or The Naked Spur when talking about Westerns.


        Silver-Load? Sounds familiar.

        Is that the one with Kathy Bates and The Horse?

      • Droid says :

        I’d say it would end up in the thriller section of a video store. If they still existed.

      • koutchboom says :

        Same difference. I was being lazy with the classification.

      • Droid says :

        The official website calls it a “spine-chilling thriller”.

      • Tom_Bando says :

        Conti Pops-re: Marty and Clint.

        I never saw Mystic River, something about Sean Penn’s Oscar Bait(TM) over-acting in the scenes I DID see just put me off. Maybe I’m wrong-? what’s good about it?

        Bloodwork I actually have and kinda like, it’s nothing original but it’s worthy as a time-killer w/ familiar faces thing. Clint is Clint, you know.

        Space Cowboys was 10 years ago(!!) but quite enjoyable, too. (C’mon-you know You like watching Garner, Tommy Lee, Clint and Sutherland, too).

        Pale Rider also has it’s moments, Axe-handles, Jaws getting it in the Gnads and John Russell. Quality time right there.


        *Casino-starts out REALLY well. I like that first half, the way he lays out the casino universe, the familiar faces (Frank Vincent, Pesci, Don Rickles), and the one scene from it that I will replay is the L.Q. Jones/Deniro Office visit (…a spot further down the trough’.) But it loses its way in the second half, shows Way too much of Sharon Stone and DeNiro screaming at each other, and I wind up wanting More of L.Q. Jones and less Goombah. But that’s me.

        *Gangs of Noo Yoike. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. I have it and it’s NEVER worked for me. Neeson has a 4 minute cameo while Day Lewis is channelling Travis Bickle. No thanks. The riots are well handled but….go figger it’s a misfire.

        *Aviator–I enjoyed it. Saw it the one time. My brother is a pilot and had some real problems w/ all the obvious CGI flying sequences, one of those cases where he just knew too much about the field to buy it. But for us luddites–not bad. Might not hold up that well on a re-visit, but whatever. I liked.

        *Scorsese shoulda done League of Extraordinary Gents, I think he’s the kinda guy who would make that material work. But will we ever get that? the War of the Worlds take off? noooooooooooooo.

      • Droid says :

        Hey Bando, this ones for you…

        Chow Yun Hulk > Gerard Deparhulk

      • Tom_Bando says :

        And back at ya Aussie AreToo:

        Verdun Hulk>Nanking Hulk. Just because.

    • Stuntcock Mike says :

      Well, Man on Fire is my 2nd favorite Helgeland, LA Con being the first. Payback 3rd.

  13. Hawaiian Organ Donor says :

    Jimmy Dix: What, you don’t believe in love?
    Joe Hallenbeck: Yeah, I believe in love; I also believe in cancer.
    Jimmy Dix: What, they’re both diseases?
    Joe Hallenbeck: Yeah, something like that.

  14. Stuntcock Mike says :

    One thing I really like about Mr.Scott is the way he films somebody getting the beatings.

    Alabama in TR. Costner in Revenge, etc…..

    You almost feel the punch.

  15. Stuntcock Mike says :

    Man, I just think Beverly Hills Cop 2 is just superior to the first in every way.

    Rosewood = Win.

  16. Bartleby says :

    Scott is totally a mixed bag, and most of the consensus here seems to be pointed that way. Almost everyone I know has the same feeling towards Hunger, that it’s about half a good movie, maybe 2/3rds.

    I actually think my fave Scott movie might be Man on Fire, although I think it’s down to what HOD said. The script is pretty spare and yet effective, and it’s got some good actors there to flush it out.

    I know Im gonna catch it for this, but for me the weakest thing about MOF was Scott’s crazy, addled, urine saturated camera work. I know that’s his thing, but man, there were times it worked and times I wanted to run from the theater and douse my head in kerosene.

    I do agree though with you Mike, about that being effective for seeing people getting beat down. It’s like they tied the camera to someone’s fist. You feel every smash.

    • Stuntcock Mike says :

      Danny told me about what happens to the girl in the MoF novel. That would’ve maybe bumped it up in my books.

      • Bartleby says :

        Yea, but I can see why they went this way for the film. At some level Man on Fire, despite it’s grimness, is still working at a popcorn level. I think that might have really undone the film to a point it wouldn’t have recovered from.

      • Stuntcock Mike says :

        For sure Bartleby. It would’ve made it devoid of hope and while I would’ve actually preferred to see it that way, I understand the lack of appeal for most.



  18. Bartleby says :

    finally got the new site up…for the most part. Should have it fiing on all cylinders by tonight.

    Jarv, your review is up. I’ll add the right star file when I get home, and I’ll try to add a pic Bio or something for ya.


    Yeah, I really love the Man on Fire book…..but other than the most basic plot, it really is entirely its own thing. There is shit that hits hard…like the huge chunk of the book where he goes to Malta after Pinta’s body is found. There he sorta wanders around trying to figure out what to do, decides on revenge, begins training, and falls in love with a local girl. He knows he is probably going to his death…but she has hope he will return. Its a fantastic chunk of the book that would make for some really powerful hard hitting shit on camera. Its just such a different dynamic because he is not trying to find the girl or save her…she’s already gone. So this is strictly a mission of death and destruction. The last action set-piece in the book gets a bit too Commandoish and weird…he swoops into the main bad guys Scarface-esque villa on a fucking parachute all tactical and shit and fucks up a bunch of guard dogs. I dunno…maybe it could be cool if handled right. But I’m totally open to a real adaptation of the book cause its so fucking different.


    Thinkin of ordering a pair of these socks….they MIGHT be a little too fucking geeky for me though, what do you think?

  21. koutchboom says :

    Hey Conti I saw some of that ESPN at lunch and I guess the dude who is Mr. T in the A-Team has a bout this weekend. Is he any good?

    Also can we expect a buddy shot of Mr. T and that dude? Why don’t they do more shit like that? Like I want a shot of all the Batman’s standing together like at a preimere for the new one (including Conroy).

    • Continentalop says :

      Quinton “Rampage” Jackson. Yeah he fights Rashad Evans this weekend. He is pretty good (although his best days might be behind him – we’ll see). He is Pride FC former Middle Weight Champion and former UFC Light Heavyweight Champ. And he is pretty damn strong:

  22. ThereWolf says :

    I like The Hunger. I know what you’re driving at about it being a game of two halves. Bowie’s ageing sequence is exceptional and I think the best part of the film. But, Jesus, that Sarandon on Denueve action…

    Tony Scott is definitely a mixed bag kinda guy. True Romance is great, Man On Fire is top, Crimson Tide is magnificent. The rest I can take or leave – though I do have a soft spot for Revenge.

    • Jarv says :

      I do quite like this film- but really I can’t get over that it feels like 2 films knocked together.

      • ThereWolf says :

        It never struck me like that – but I haven’t seen the film in ages, I’ll have to check it out again. Only got it on VHS, taped off the telly years back…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: